German Lawmakers Approve 'No Means No' Rape Law

[Oberon]

Allahwin in 4.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Allow me to voice an unpopular opinion and object to the proliferation of "No means No" criminalization.

I have tried to find exactly what this new German law says, but as yet I cannot find the text so I can read it, if only through the lens of Google Translate.

Anyway, an inevitable consequence of going from "archaic" laws requiring signs of physical coercion to "modern" laws is the abandonment of the requirement of objective evidence to prove the criminality of a person, reducing criminal justice to the pre-19th century state of one person's word against another. Since there will often be no other evidence or even witnesses, and yet these laws have to have bite, the principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt" will be weakened to an dangerous extent. In essence, the woman's accusation would have to be enough, since that will often be the only evidence of criminality available.

While I'm not unaware of the legitimate scenarios these kinds of laws are intended to prevent, it is not worth in my eyes the abandonment of the modern principles of habeas corpus. In essence we are back to the 14th century for certain categories of crimes.

[Skybird]

^ Yes.

The Germna law now puts under penalty if a man is "in a group" from which sexual violence" is directed against a victim. Unfortunately this law doe snto define what "in this group" should mean. Do you have to see the rape with your own eyes, or is it enough to stand in close vicitnty to the event, or is it sufficient that you are simply present on the scene of the crime, beign part of a bigger crowd like in Cologne?

It could happen to you that you get charged while you just pass through a crowd, with a group harassment taking place 30m away.

I see a worrying tendency in Germany to reverse the burden of proof to the innocent/suspect, to make it easier for the government body and its service to do their job". Also, there is practically consensus amongst politicians of all parties that in the near future they want to collect all private savings from private people who cannot gaplessly prove that they own that money legally and in conformity with rules of the law - you are assumed to be guilty as long as you have not proven your innocence. Its just another way of fighting the war against cash money, and of course socialist plunderer ideology.

Assumed not guilty as long as guilt has not been proven had become a fundamental pillar of law and order in the West not for no reason.

I find this all very worrying.

I am also pissed that, like on past football events 2 and 4 years ago, highly dubious and controversial law projects get whipped through parliament in sprinting mode while the public is distracted and the German team prepares to play.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ Yes.

The Germna law now puts under penalty if a man is "in a group" from which sexual violence" is directed against a victim. Unfortunately this law doe snto define what "in this group" should mean. Do you have to see the rape with your own eyes, or is it enough to stand in close vicitnty to the event, or is it sufficient that you are simply present on the scene of the crime, beign part of a bigger crowd like in Cologne?

So, basically a whole group of society, in this case men, should not be blamed for the actions of a minority of that same group?

[Skybird]

^ 1100 charges of rape and sexual harassment filed.

[Jimbuna]

Really people, rape in either form, female or male is a seriously terrible crime. Trust me (or please yourselves) I know from some serious real life involvement/experience.

Anything that lessens the possibility of such a crime should be embraced (no pun intended).

[Catfish]

Of course this is generally a good idea. But some might refer to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_(film)

If a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, and the man denies, and there are no witnesses, who do you believe?

There was a case, where a woman i know personally accused a man harassing her, so she called in the police and we were all asked if we saw anything. We had not, but that of course did not mean it had not happened. But he was losing his job and his friends. Until some years later, she admitted she had made it up because said man was not interested in her, and she wanted "revenge".
Just saying that men being as they are, a helpless and disgraced and maybe weeping woman will always wake the protector's instinct, against the accused. Even if she made it all up.

Evidence matters.

[Jimbuna]

In a situation where there is no evidence of any kind or witnesses to the alleged event then leave it up to the relevant department (in the UK it is the Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if there is any realistic outcome of a successful prosecution as well as the law courts/jury.

That is the situation in the UK anyway.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Evidence matters.

Absolutely, however the case should be taken seriously and investigated and then dismissed for lack of evidence. That's the key differencial between now and the past, where a policeman would oft automatically assume the burden of guilt upon the woman and dismiss the case out of hand. Ironically, it's gone a bit the other way now, because of the machismo of men if a man is raped by a woman he will find himself being asked what the problem was, especially if the woman was attractive in the eyes of the officer. Men are automatically assumed to be willing participants in sexual intercourse.
Still, evidence should be key alongside witness and victim/perpetrator testimony, no doubt about that at all. Rape kits should be something that are made more available so a victim of rape can get evidence gathered in the immediate aftermath of the assault.

Of course, sexual harrassment is a lot harder to prove and gather evidence for, that's a much trickier subject, and in that case I think education and defence might be a better thing to help, but also in the future if things like Google Glass ever catch on then evidence will be a bit easier to gather.

I must admit though, I do find it ironic though about the complaints that people feel that all men are being found guilty until proven innocent because they are the same gender group as the most common perpetrators of rape. Can anyone think of other instances where a wide group of people have been blamed universally and acted against because of the actions of a smaller sub-group within that group?

[Oberon]

There is a bit of balancing needed to be done with modern rape laws, we seem to have swung from police not believing any rape claims to them believing and prosecuting every single one. However, I think there does need to be a reinforcing message in society, primarily to men but also to women because it's not just women who get raped after all, but people need to know that rape is not acceptable, especially in an era when you get sleazy 'pick-up artists' on youtube with thousands of subscribers, drugs that are easy to slip into unattended drinks and the increased sexualisation of...well...everything really.