Groups across Nova Scotia call for 'drunks can consent' judge to be removed

[Tecumsehsbones]

Actually, pregnancy alone would not constitute proof of fornication. She just has to claim to have been sexually assaulted.

Plus we could also write the law so as to allow the judge to wave the fine for those who can't pay it, and prohibit police from spying for the purpose of catching people in the act. Meaning that it either has to be reported or the police happen to come across it by happenstance. With such restrictions in place, it would have to be quite blatant to say the least.

the person would pretty much need to be doing it out in an open park or have his partner report him.

So, you want to criminalize sex outside of marriage. Oh, and by the way, if you want to fine somebody for "rape lite" because you can't prove rape, you'll have to fine the victim, too.

I love people who want to criminalize sex! They're even funnier'n folk that want to criminalize alcohol.

 

[White_Unifier]

So, you want to criminalize sex outside of marriage. Oh, and by the way, if you want to fine somebody for "rape lite" because you can't prove rape, you'll have to fine the victim, too.

I love people who want to criminalize sex! They're even funnier'n folk that want to criminalize alcohol.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt implies proof that the person willingly committed the act. If all we could prove was that a sex act occurred but not whether the accused was a willing participant, then how would we fine him? For example, a woman accuses a man of raping her and he counter-accuses her of having raped him. Though a rape kit might (and I stress might) prove that a sex act occurred, it would rarely indicate whether an accused of fornication would have been a willing participant.

However much easier fornication is to prove than sexual assault, even fornication is not that easy to prove.

So in the end, it would still require a pretty brazen act of fornication for it to be provable in most cases. And if it's that brazen, then there is a greater probability of the person being guilty of something more serious even if it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure some innocents of rape might end up getting fined for fornication, but it would serve as an effective deterrent against actual rapists when they realize that even if rape can't be proved, they could still face a fornication charge.

 

[Danbones]

No it shouldn't

how original
you have started drinking salad dressing looks like to me

don't go too crazy on that stuff, and get your server in trouble dude

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt implies proof that the person willingly committed the act. If all we could prove was that a sex act occurred but not whether the accused was a willing participant, then how would we fine him? For example, a woman accuses a man of raping her and he counter-accuses her of having raped him. Though a rape kit might (and I stress might) prove that a sex act occurred, it would rarely indicate whether an accused of fornication would have been a willing participant.

However much easier fornication is to prove than sexual assault, even fornication is not that easy to prove.


So in the end, it would still require a pretty brazen act of fornication for it to be provable in most cases. And if it's that brazen, then there is a greater probability of the person being guilty of something more serious even if it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure some innocents of rape might end up getting fined for fornication, but it would serve as an effective deterrent against actual rapists when they realize that even if rape can't be proved, they could still face a fornication charge.

So you're OK with punishing the innocent? Sounds good, let 'er buck. I don't live in Canada, so I don't much care if y'all wanna outlaw sex.

How ya been, Machjo?

 

[Danbones]

yes from now on
like the A$$holes on teddy bears, all condoms will be sown on

 

[White_Unifier]

So you're OK with punishing the innocent? Sounds good, let 'er buck. I don't live in Canada, so I don't much care if y'all wanna outlaw sex.

If you look at the stats, Canada has a rape epidemic. So what do we do about it? Lower the burden of proof to the balance of probabilities? I can tell you that I would not appreciate it if a woman could just make up a story and I could be found guilty of rape just because I happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and she sounded convincing.

Keep the present status quo? rapists know how damn hard it is to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt, so that does not serve as much of a deterrent.

If you make fornication a fine-able offense but prohibit police from spying for the purpose and still expect guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then at least I have it in my control to protect myself from a false allegation just by keeping Willie in my pants unless I know I'm in private and that she won't report me.

Even if she does report me, I might be able to get away by accusing her of having raped me in return. The judge might have to drop the case with no proof of who raped whom in some cases. But I can tell you that even if I'm acquitted, I would not want to have to fight such a charge. Just the trial itself and having to prove my innocence of fornication would be enough of a hassle to deter me from raping someone.

So you're OK with punishing the innocent? Sounds good, let 'er buck. I don't live in Canada, so I don't much care if y'all wanna outlaw sex.

How ya been, Machjo?

It's White Unifier now. I don't use that other one anymore.

 

[Cannuck]

...sown...

Hehehehe...

 

[Jinentonix]

The one major problem with all of this that it's not unheard of for drunk female taxi passengers to offer sex in exchange for the cab fare. During the 18 months I drove a taxi I was given that offer 3 times. Not being a complete moron or the kind of guy that will f*ck anything that's nailed down or can't crawl away otherwise, I took the cash instead.