3 ms·

I agree that it's irrelevant that the guy was so gifted, even if he had been a stupid and awful person he shouldn't be punished for something he didn't do. Wha

I agree that it's irrelevant that the guy was so gifted, even if he had been a stupid and awful person he shouldn't be punished for something he didn't do. What I don't really understand is why he was punished at all. Even according to her account he hasn't committed any crime. I'm not sure you need stats here though, if the presumption of innocence has been abandoned that is a very serious regardless of how many times it has made a difference so far.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Have you actually read her account? Or are you basing your opinion on the excerpts in this story alone? If you have a link to more information I'd be interested to read it.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  Only on these excerpts. It seems a bit too absurd to not quote the actual accusation if there was one but then maybe the other poster is right, maybe at UMass every sexual act is presumed to be rape, consent needs to be proven.
bitwize 9y ago
Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means. In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to establish guilt. Consent is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established (i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.") Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven. If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.
- Meditato 9y ago
  Your analogy fails because you still have to prove that you were punched in the gut. Even if sex occurred (bodily fluids were recovered), rape shouldn't be automatically assumed just because an accusation is made. Just like we can't assume you were punched in the gut just because you can show that your stomach is sore.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence. The key issue is whether consent was there at the time of the sex. There have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  > Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means. Really? What I think it means is that he shouldn't be punished until it's actually been eatablihed that he did something. It seems to me that the process here was different. So what does it actually mean? >Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven. Which is eminently sensible, since it's almost never rape when two people have sex, whereas it's almost always assault when someone punches you on the nose.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Have you actually read her account? Or are you basing your opinion on the excerpts in this story alone? If you have a link to more information I'd be interested to read it.

Grustaf 9y ago
Only on these excerpts. It seems a bit too absurd to not quote the actual accusation if there was one but then maybe the other poster is right, maybe at UMass every sexual act is presumed to be rape, consent needs to be proven.

bitwize 9y ago

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means. In most crimes involving consent, it is only necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant committed the act constituting the crime in order to establish guilt. Consent is an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defense. If I take your car it's theft unless consent can be established (i.e., you loaned me your keys). Similarly if I punch you in the stomach it's assault unless consent can be established (i dunno, you said "hit me in the gut! I want to see how strong my abs are.") Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven. If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. It should be on Bob to prove that the activity was consensual. Anything else vastly increases the risk of sexual assault and reduces the likelihood that offenders will be punished.

Meditato 9y ago
Your analogy fails because you still have to prove that you were punched in the gut. Even if sex occurred (bodily fluids were recovered), rape shouldn't be automatically assumed just because an accusation is made. Just like we can't assume you were punched in the gut just because you can show that your stomach is sore.
gozur88 9y ago
>If Bob has sex with Alice, and Alice later alleges rape, that should be taken as prima facie evidence that a rape occurred. Absolutely not. Everyone has the right to a presumption of innocence. The key issue is whether consent was there at the time of the sex. There have been a string of well publicized cases in which the woman decided she was raped only after the relationship didn't pan out the way she expected.
Grustaf 9y ago
> Presumption of innocence doesn't mean what you think it means. Really? What I think it means is that he shouldn't be punished until it's actually been eatablihed that he did something. It seems to me that the process here was different. So what does it actually mean? >Rape and sexual assault are the only times when consent is assumed and its lack must be proven. Which is eminently sensible, since it's almost never rape when two people have sex, whereas it's almost always assault when someone punches you on the nose.