Yeah, great. Give the prosecutors another tool to oppress whomever they want. Because no prosecutor in Canadian history EVER misused his authority.
Who needs the cow, when hou can get the milk
- Thread starter Angstrom
- Start date
Yeah, great. Give the prosecutors another tool to oppress whomever they want. Because no prosecutor in Canadian history EVER misused his authority.
He'd still need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, how easily could a prosecutor prove fornication beyond a reasonable doubt between two consenting adults in private? Chances are he'd never know of them. fornication would be extremely difficult to prove unless one person accused the other of sexual assault and got a rape kit test or if they were intercepted having sex by police in a sex-trafficking investigation. However, fornication would be at least somewhat easier to prove than sexual assault.
So you Just want to throw another charge at someone because you don't have any evidence to prove the assault if it actually happened but they should be punished anyway because they were accused.....what a great idea.....NOT!
How about this....She accuses him of rape but there is no evidence to prove anything but because she admitted to fornicating she now goes on trial for that and gets jailed while he walks away Scott free. Sounds great for rapists they get to rape and then watch their victim go to jail. UWin/win for the deviant! Unless of course you don't plan on applying your law equally.
If she accuses him of raping her, then unless a prosecutor could prove that she was a willing participant, how would he find her guilt of fornication (which by definition requires free will). of course the accused could counter-accuse the alleged victim of sexually assaulting him. If a prosecutor could prove only that sex occurred but not that either person was a willing participant, then a judge could not find either to be guilty of fornication even if he knows that at least one of them must be.
Now let's say the accused freely admits to being a participant or other proof becomes available to show he was a willing participant and the only question remaining is if the alleged victim was a willing participant. In that case, only one of them would be found guilty of fornication.
Now as for the case of a person making a false accusation, then what was he doing sleeping with someone like that to begin with? Then he deserves a charge of fornication and should be thankful that he'll just pay a fine of maybe one or two thousand dollars for a first offence or more for a repeat offence.
I'm not denying that false accusations occur, but finding a person accused of rape guilty of fornication if insufficient proof exists for a more serious charge could serve as a deterrent to the more serious crime that is harder to prove. Sexual assault and abuse has reached the heights it has precisely because it's too difficult to prove. At least those found guilty of fornication would be guilty of it, so it would not be a wrongful decision on the part of the judge.
Why are you so obsessed with what consenting adults due with each other? I don't think I have read so much idiocy in one thread.
The point is that if it's consenting, it will not get the attention of a prosecutor anyway unless someone accuses the other of sexual assault or if they're intercepted in a sex-trafficking investigation or something, meaning that at least one person is probably not consenting, just that sexual assault is extremely difficult to prove.
So it's really just a big waste of time and money to satisfy some weird need of yours to stop sex between consenting adults or at least give girls that regret the morning after a way to punish their partner and make themselves feel better because of it's sex trafficking it's already illegal and if it's sexual assault it's already illegal. What you want is really to lower the burden of proof in sexual assault cases to punish more people who are found not guilty or not charged because there isn't any actual evidence. You really do have an issue that needs professional help.
Given how difficult sexual assault is to prove, yes, a heavy fine for fornication could serve as an effective deterrent against sexual assault.
Jail time doesn't serve as a detterent for sexual assault you moronic nig-nog! How is a fine and a slap on the hand accomplish that effect?
You really do have a problem. My guess is you're a psycho puritan with recurring rape fantasies and you think your new law will make them stop. Are you Opus Dei by any chance?
Sexual assault is difficult to prove for a good reason. Mostly to prevent the regret cases I mentioned before but also because it's a very serious charge with very harsh consequences.
The possibility of imprisonment for sexual assault certainly deters at least some would-be perpetrators, though granted the difficulty inherent in proving it greatly limits the deterrent effect. A fine for fornication would likewise deter some from sexual assault due to its being at least somewhat easier to prove as long as the alleged witness is willing to work with police to collect the necessary proof or if it was done in a public space and was caught on film for example.
Hmmm... now that I think about it, I suppose fornication laws could affect a porn actor, though a prosecutor would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the video was filmed in his jurisdiction.
That might not be a bad thing though as a way to counter the porn industry in Canada. Now I know some might argue that the simple solution would then be for the porn actor to work in a jurisdiction where fornication is not illegal and then just export it to Canada. It would still be better than nothing though and again, the police would probably not waste too much time on that unless it's brought to their attention if for example there are questions concerning consent.
Maybe.
But many US states and many states in Asia do in fact prohibit fornication. In some of these cases, I think the punishment is too harsh, but it does have some advantages in countering sexual assault and abuse.
Now this is interesting:
How should Canada's court system deal with sexual assault cases? - Canada - CBC News
It's estimated that out of every 1,000 sexual assaults, 2 receive a conviction.
So, do we just accept that sexual assault is too difficult to prove? do we lower the burden of proof and so increase the risk of a wrongful conviction? To my mind, neither of these is desirable and a 0.03% conviction rate is deplorable. Again, that's where I think fornication laws could come in. A person found guilty would be guilty, and though the punishment would be lower than for sexual assault, with him merely paying a fine, it would still serve as a deterrent.
Yes, but they ALWAYS take it out on the women. Even those "other places" admit that men are neither in control of their sexual activities or themselves in general. It's always the woman's fault. It has to be the woman's fault.
That can be a problem, but we could create our own system whereby a prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
1. the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim,
2. the alleged victim did not coerce the accused into sex, and
3. the accused was not married to the alleged victim at the time of the act.
Point 2 would be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt and so would provide much protection to the falsely accused. Unlike proving sexual coercion though, the prosecutor would no longer need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused coerced the victim into sex.
To be fair to the accused though, a finding of guilt of fornication should obviously not lead to as harsh a punishment as for sexual coercion. A fine of around 30 grams of gold (so as to resist inflation) that doubles for each repetition of the offence would be appropriate.
If a man should accuse a woman of coercing him into sex - I'm reversing the stereotypical gender roles just to challenge sexist stereotypes - and not have enough proof to have her convicted of sexual assault, he might want to try to at least get her punished for fornication. Even then though, he still would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not coerce her into sex. Also, should the woman counter that she did not coerce him into sex, a prosecutor would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not coerce him into sex if he wants the judge to find him guilty of fornication. In short, proving guilty beyond reasonable doubt would still be very, very difficult to do.
As for the falsely accused of sexual assault who are guilty of fornication, then at least he'd be found guilty of something for which he'd actually be guilty and not just because a judge decided to lower the burden of proof.
When stats show that for every thousand estimated sexual assault in Canada, only 3 lead to a conviction, I don't think tougher laws are 'puritan.' I'd even be willing to accept a law against male fornication only that would exempt women from such an accusation. Given that women sexually abuse men too and far more than many realize, this would be inadequate in my opinion, but even that would be a step forward by at least providing a stronger deterrent against men sexually abusing women. This could even boomerang back to men. Studies do show that perpetrators of sexual aggression have often been victims themselves. With that, we can conclude that stronger deterrence against men sexually abusing women could also lead to fewer women sexually abusing the next generation of men.
You still haven't explained how a low against fornication would cut sexual assults. I think they would increase exponentially. Most likely more sexual assault accusations would result in conviction if they were fact based.
Sexual assault usually involve a man and a woman in a private room with no witnesses and one of them coercing the other into sex. At most, the victim could go to a hospital to get a rape kit test done for DNA and then state their claim to a police investigator. The problem with the rape kit test though is that at most, it proves that sexual intercourse occurred and that at least one of the people involved must have been a willing participant. It cannot in itself prove coercion though. By its very nature, sexual assault is extremely difficult to prove with most of it being a he-said-she-said scenario. By the way, proving a false accusation beyond reasonable doubt is equally difficult.
Fornication might be difficult to prove too, but at least it's somewhat easier to prove and so could lead to more findings of guilt. True the punishment might be lighter, but at least it can still serve as a deterrent. As for the concern that a person falsely accused of sexual assault but who is guilty of fornication be found guilty of fornication, though i could sympathize with him and have no doubt that those cases could come up too, I would counter as follows:
1. Fornication would still need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (which would include proving that he had not been coerced into it), so that would protect anyone who is not even guilty of fornication let alone sexual assault.
2. A person who wants to avoid a false accusation of sexual assault that could lead to a fine for fornication would have the choice to just not fornicate.
Another point to make is that studies show that most victims are assaulted by someone they know. This means that while the victim may want to see some kind of punishment for the accused, he might not want too harsh a punishment. A law against fornication could lead to a prosecutor agreeing to charge the aggressor with only fornication and not sexual assault in exchange for the alleged victim's cooperation should the alleged victim be more interested in just teaching his attacker a lesson than in really destroying the attacker's life. That fornication would be both easier to prove and carry a lighter punishment might also result in more victims reporting the crime.