[lurker]

Even in the Yes Means Yes insanity, some courts are still adhering to the foundations of the American justice system.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/3...A320141031

(Reuters) - The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the burden of proving consent cannot fall on a defendant accused of rape, in a split decision that reversed two earlier rulings and prompted fears that dangerous offenders could avoid conviction.

The court in its 6-3 ruling reversed earlier decisions that forced an alleged rapist to establish a preponderance of evidence that a victim consented to sex. The court said such a burden violated constitutionally protected rights and also wrongly interpreted precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"When a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime charged, the State may not shift the burden of proving that defense onto the defendant," the ruling said.

"Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles," Justice Debra Stephens wrote, adding that doing so raises "a very real possibility of wrongful convictions."

In a dissenting opinion, Washington Supreme Court justices wrote the decision would undo years of progress in rape cases and could allow some sex offenders to go free.

"In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim. Unfortunately, today's decision by the majority reverses that progress," wrote Justice Susan Owens.

In issuing its ruling, the court reversed the conviction of a rape defendant identified as W.R., a minor accused of rape by another minor.

W.R.'s defense maintained the sex was consensual and he appealed his conviction saying his right to due process was violated when he was forced to present the preponderance of evidence that his accuser agreed to the contact.

"This impermissible shift in burden is not merely academic but risks compartmentalizing forcible compulsion and consent, raising a very real possibility of wrongful convictions," the ruling said.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

"In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim. Unfortunately, today's decision by the majority reverses that progress," wrote Justice Susan Owens.

No surprise that the dissenting "justice" looks like this:

Also, note that the Washington state version of affirmative consent bullshit was in force since 1975, that is for 40 years now. However, the general population wasn't indoctrinated enough to actually use it - it took time for the breakdown of society to advance enough in order to allow for scandalous court rulings that violate due process like the one referenced in the post.

Same thing is currently underway in Croatia: we have all the "modern" feminist laws allowing for a man to be put in jail for even existing, but the population is thankfully still a bit "patriarchal" and most of these things are not strictly enforced (the police often gets slammed by mainstream media for it, but they just ignore it). I'd say that we're the equivalent of Washington state in year 2000.

[BortimusPrime]

The Pacific Northwest had a lot of Scandinavian settlers, so I can see us having a stupid rape law while at the same time no one ever gets raped.

[The Lizard of Oz]

The "preponderance of evidence" rule for consent (which was struck down in this excellent decision) is not the same thing as "affirmative consent" (which is an entirely new idea introduced in the recent California "yes means yes" law).

In the "preponderance of evidence" rule, the definition of consent is the same as the usual definition; tacit acquiescence and lack of resistance still count as consent. The rule is about the burden of showing that an act was, in fact, consensual -- in this case, the rule stated that the burden fell on the defendant in rape cases (which seems to me clearly unconstitutional, and the Washington court now agrees).

In the "affirmative consent" law that was passed in California, the very definition of consent is changed: tacit acquiescence or lack of resistance are no longer enough to demonstrate consent, there has to be some "affirmative" (that is, explicit) declaration of consent. So the California law goes even deeper in undermining constitutional principles, not only improperly shifting the burden of proof, but altering the very meaning of what counts as consent, and substituting for it a definition that is absurd, unrealistic, and has never been used at any point in human history.

[Phoenix]

Quote:

"When a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime charged, the State may not shift the burden of proving that defense onto the defendant," the ruling said.

"Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles," Justice Debra Stephens wrote, adding that doing so raises "a very real possibility of wrongful convictions."

You see this right here? This is called 'sanity'. Observe and enjoy.

[Quintus Curtius]

Although this narrowly-decided decision was seen as a victory for due process and the rule of law, the very fact that one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence--the presumption of innocence--could come under such attack should be a bone-chilling reminder of just how radical the leftist agenda really is. This case is a disturbing reminder that the entire tradition of the common law is under severe stress from these people.

The right to the presumption of innocence goes back to medieval England, possibly even farther back than that.

This is no time for celebration. It is a time for sober reflection, a time for maintaining readiness for the next round of the leftist-Marxist attempt to destroy the foundations of the legal system.

Freedoms, once won, are not won for ever. They must be periodically re-fought for, and re-won, by successive generations that perhaps have come to take them for granted.

[Sp5]

(11-01-2014 12:39 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Although this narrowly-decided decision was seen as a victory for due process and the rule of law, the very fact that one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence--the presumption of innocence--could come under such attack should be a bone-chilling reminder of just how radical the leftist agenda really is. This case is a disturbing reminder that the entire tradition of the common law is under severe stress from these people.

The right to the presumption of innocence goes back to medieval England, possibly even farther back than that.

This is no time for celebration. It is a time for sober reflection, a time for maintaining readiness for the next round of the leftist-Marxist attempt to destroy the foundations of the legal system.

Freedoms, once won, are not won for ever. They must be periodically re-fought for, and re-won, by successive generations that perhaps have come to take them for granted.

I'm surprised that burden-shifting rule lasted as long as it did. When Congress put it into the military justice system, it was quickly reversed on constitutional grounds by appointed military judges.

Quintius Curtius is right, but I was wondering if they just have shitty appeals lawyers in Washington.

[turkishcandy]

(11-01-2014 12:39 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Although this narrowly-decided decision was seen as a victory for due process and the rule of law, the very fact that one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence--the presumption of innocence--could come under such attack should be a bone-chilling reminder of just how radical the leftist agenda really is. This case is a disturbing reminder that the entire tradition of the common law is under severe stress from these people.

The right to the presumption of innocence goes back to medieval England, possibly even farther back than that.

This is no time for celebration. It is a time for sober reflection, a time for maintaining readiness for the next round of the leftist-Marxist attempt to destroy the foundations of the legal system.

Freedoms, once won, are not won for ever. They must be periodically re-fought for, and re-won, by successive generations that perhaps have come to take them for granted.

Exactly what I was going to say. It's just sad that the judges have to fight for the ''innocent until proven otherwise'' rule to be applied, and there are ''judges'' dissenting. This is how I see this turn of events: Justice 1 - 100 Feminism.

[Sp5]

Here is the decision in full (pdf):

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/883416.pdf

[lurker]

(11-01-2014 03:34 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 12:39 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Although this narrowly-decided decision was seen as a victory for due process and the rule of law, the very fact that one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence--the presumption of innocence--could come under such attack should be a bone-chilling reminder of just how radical the leftist agenda really is. This case is a disturbing reminder that the entire tradition of the common law is under severe stress from these people.

The right to the presumption of innocence goes back to medieval England, possibly even farther back than that.

This is no time for celebration. It is a time for sober reflection, a time for maintaining readiness for the next round of the leftist-Marxist attempt to destroy the foundations of the legal system.

Freedoms, once won, are not won for ever. They must be periodically re-fought for, and re-won, by successive generations that perhaps have come to take them for granted.

I'm surprised that burden-shifting rule lasted as long as it did. When Congress put it into the military justice system, it was quickly reversed on constitutional grounds by appointed military judges.

Quintius Curtius is right, but I was wondering if they just have shitty appeals lawyers in Washington.

...or no case actually occurred in which it was the prevailing appealable issue.

The affirmative consent law also contains a clause forcing universities to adopt a preponderance standard in disciplinary hearings. The California university system is setting itself up for a nasty due process/Title IX lawsuit from the first guy to kicked out in the same manner that poor kid from Occidental did.

[TigerMandingo]

Dershowitz had a good take on the rape hysteria (Harvard in his case), and I think this quote can apply to the rest of the country as well:

Quote:

Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense."