Friday

Law Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU and His Sidekick Professor Erin Murphy Have Decided to Radically Change The Way America Conducts Its Sex Life by Inventing New Sex Crimes and Hard Time Prison Sentences



"Most people just aren’t very talkative during the delicate tango that precedes sex, and the re-education required to make them more forthcoming would be a very big project. Nor are people unerringly good at decoding sexual signals. If they were, we wouldn’t have romantic comedies. “If there’s no social consensus about what the lines are,” says Nancy Gertner, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and a retired judge, then affirmative consent “has no business being in the criminal law."

                          - New York Times

"They do not intend to make sexual intercourse impossible to construe as an innocent act. But this would be the consequence of their draft. Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated "May I…?" and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations. No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the "yes means yes" standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them."

                         - Washington Examiner

"My primary concern is with the drafting of the substantive crimes... this revised Model Penal Code, at least if the draft continues in its present form, is likely to be famous for its dramatic expansion in the criminalization of sexual activity, including codification in the revised MPC of a number of new sexual crimes that have not previously been recognized by any jurisdiction... This proposal appears based on the view of the Reporters (Schulhofer and Murphy) set forth in the second paragraph of their introductory note that the criminal law "must often be called upon to help shape social norms by communicating effectively the conditions under which commonplace or seemingly innocuous behavior can be unacceptably abusive or dangerous." I believe any attempt to criminalize "common place" or "seemingly innocuous" behavior in order to "shape social norms" needs to be examined carefully by the ALI membership."

                         - Laird Kirkpatrick, Professor of Law, GMU 

At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” and did the kiss the right way, the initiator is still at risk with the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3).

                         ALI Members and Advisers In Opposition to The Model Penal Code

The Masters and Johnson of NYU Law?
So these two people on the left one day got together and decided they should labor to reshape the social norms of America even though America didn't appoint them to do it or even ask them to do it. And if I didn't know these two were distinguished law professors at NYU I might be inclined to suspect a taint of sociopath-like personality coupled with ambitious narcissism and bolstered by a subconscious bitterness towards those who have satisfactory sex lives. But I can't analyze these two. They might well be the new sex crime heroes we will come to worship in the future and erect on pedestals across from the White House to replace that silly sex criminal Andrew Jackson. All I can say now is: what the shlafkeyt devil is wrong with Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer, not to mention his stone-faced Irish sidekick in sex-crime fighting, Professor Erin Murphy? 

Might we say that cold legal wolves have been put in charge of the post-coitus hen house? Well, if human beings with anxiety-free sex lives are the hens, then Professor Stephen J. Schuldofer and Professor Erin Murphy might well be the wolves. But not according to their marketing webpage at NYU that summarizes their activities in a very positive light for all Americans to see:

"Schulhofer is also working with Professor Murphy to revise the sexual assault provisions of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code, written more than 50 years ago, to meet a more modern understanding of sexual behavior and transgression."

A more modern understanding of sexual behavior? So Schulhofer and Murphy are law professors at NYU who BTW just happen to be experts on human sexual behavior? Like a modern day Masters and Johnson? Who are they kidding? It's funny but I can't discover any proof of that claim. And while we're at it, do these NYU law professors have sex at all? And why do I ask? I'm just wondering if they have actually road tested their proposed draconian affirmative-consent laws on themselves in order to test for all the potential points in an act of sex whereby the sex can be transmogrified immediately into an act of transgression punishable by their new laws. In other words, with any act of sex, does not a potential sex crime lay in wait behind every turn?  It does. Let's hear what law professor and human sexual behavior expert Erin Murphy has to say:

“We’re trying to really break apart the different ways in which unwanted sex occurs, and match that with the level of punishment,” Murphy says.

Hmmm, okay. Trying to "break apart" the "different ways" in which "unwanted" sex occurs
Working For An Old Testament God?
and match that with the "level of punishment." Does anyone besides me find this statement by this Erin Murphy law professor person to be more than a little scary? Was she appointed by a God of the Old Testament? When will stoning be a remedy? Sure a lot cheaper than years of incarceration. 


So how to determine what actually constitutes "affirmative consent" in Erin's mind so we won't default to acts of sex "unwanted" in Erin's mind and therefore go straight from Erin's mind to her thoughtful solution of years in a prison cell and all the benefits that accompany that including sex offender registration, ruined life, unemployment, etc. And let's make no mistake. We are talking about locking up potentially tens of thousands of people (most likely 99% men), married or no, who are normally law abiding good people, but who under Professor Schulhofer and Professor Murphy's new sex-crime laws perhaps have made the one life destroying mistake of not obtaining the correct form of "affirmative consent" at some point in the process leading to intercourse--whether or not intercourse was actually achieved.

And if you don't think that is bad enough, hold on to your seat. The life destroying mistake could be made without any intent of intercourse from the onset. What the common folk see as an innocent touch of almost any kind is fraught with jeopardy. Murphy attempts to play this down when she says, "“There is a caricature that consent must be equated to a verbal yes, but of course we know that much sexual intimacy happens without people saying a word, with just gestures and removal of clothing and other welcoming behaviors.”


Which One Is Committing the Sex Crime?
Yes, Erin, we already know that. So why do we need the sword of your new penal code (or should we say, "penile code") hanging over our heads to cajole us into exhibiting the precise same behavior? However, under your new sex crime laws (requiring zero proof on the part of the accuser), we both know that an alleged perp facing a prosecutor in real Kafkaesque court of your new America will have no means of proving he (or she) obtained "affirmative consent" no matter what form it took. He cannot prove "gestures and removal of clothing" ever occurred much less explicitly communicated that sex was permissible. He cannot prove he didn't break your gloriously fair and just penal code. How could he? Of course, you already know that, don't you? You're not stupid, law professor Erin Murphy. In your new America, the court will favor the accuser in such cases no matter how many days or weeks or months later the accusation is made. Out come the cuffs, swing wide the bars of prison. It will all be so easy.

By the way, dear reader, is Professor Erin Murphy saying above that a state of "sexual intimacy" precludes the need for continuous acts of stage-based affirmative consent during the sex act? No, she isn't. There is the catch folks. And btw, is this really all about protecting victims from transgressors or is it about the bestowing the incredible power of no-fault-no-proof-necessary accusation that will flow like a mighty man-slamming torrent? What rapture and bliss. A nation filled with tens if not hundreds of thousands flinging accusations with wild abandon! Accusations of all kinds, under a myriad of circumstances, some of them carefully pondered for weeks or months. Professor Erin's new penal code practically enshrines the "false positive." Imagine a man on his knees begging his date or wife or girlfriend not to turn him in, or make a false accusation that will surely ruin him.

What about blackmail while we're at it? Far fetched? Really? Any more so than the reality of this hateful penal code in the first place? According to sensible opponents in the American Law Institute who disagree strongly with Professor Erin, they present this horror show example that her new penal code would bring about as sure as the sun sets in the west:
"Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint."
By the way, Professor Erin, in this ever changing world of women becoming more sexually aggressive, did you know studies show that even males are now reporting unwanted sexual advances in ever increasing numbers? So, um, sure you want to keep pushing your new penal code? Suppose your sister or one of your friends ended up on the wrong side of prison steel due to your efforts? Your ridiculously inclusive definitions that criminalize “touching” and shifting burdens of proof to the accused will have catastrophic consequences in this country. Another thing, have you ever read studies of sexual intimacy, well here a number of them. Please read and reconsider your punitive whiplashes. We don't need armed men with guns and handcuffs to reshape the social norms on your behalf.

Btw, can you prove, Erin, that you weren't breaking your own proposed code last night? Will your relationship(s) be immune to your new penal code? We both know the answer to that, don't we, dear? Because we all know that sex will suck when a man has to get permission for every move we WANT HIM TO MAKE in order to cancel any ambiguity because he can't read our minds every second.


Now, let's talk about Professor Stephen Schulhofer's book that started all this many years ago:
 
"His proposals for a radically different approach hold the promise of genuine respect and effective protection for the sexual autonomy of both women and men. It is an ambitious yet sensible vision, committed to allowing willing partners to seek consensual relationships, while fully protecting each person’s right to refuse sexual encounters that are not genuinely desired."

- "Unwanted Sex - The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law
                          by Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer

Ambitious yet sensible vision... That's funny. Because I always thought I already possessed the right to refuse sexual encounters not desired. Now I realize I couldn't have had that right until granted to me by Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU... But wait a minute, he actually hasn't granted it to me yet, but he wants to. He so wants to grant me the right he believes I don't already have that he'll write and promote to the American Law Institute his own salvo of new sex crime laws that will positively slam into prison for five years or more any male "sex offender" who dared not get my "affirmative consent" before reaching for my hand or even patting me on the shoulder--even if sex wasn't intended.

So will I press charges against this hypothetical John Doe in the sex crime-ridden land of Professor Stephen Schulhofer's new America if I get a chance, or won't I? So many choices, and plenty of time for me to consider it. Maybe John could pay me not to accuse?... No, I'd rather he do some time. Course, if John does pay me that is just further proof of his guilt. I get the money and he still hangs. And if the local prison is too full, we might have to consider a lesser charge. Hell, at least list him on a sex offender registry and make him do a few thousand hours of community service. Perhaps the county mental facility could house him for a year or two. That'll teach the bastard for violating my sexual autonomy by kissing me on the forehead that day after my father died!

Does the above sound absurd? Yes. But unbelievable in the new America refinished by the stripper and polish of Stephen and Erin's new penal code? Not at all. These crusaders of NYU Law are on a mission. They wish to revolutionize the sexual mores of American culture. Maybe they should even have their own televison show: NYU LAW - The Affirmative Consent Unit.

Btw, here is info and a video of our two sex crime fighters speaking thoughtfully about their new penal code without giving specifics as to what "sex crimes," according to their viewpoint, should trigger lengthy prison terms. Naturally, they completely avoid the thorny issues noted above, glossing it all over with summary statements, and with good reason:

www.ali.org/projects/show/sexual-assault-and-related-offenses/

Delineating "Yes" :Stephen Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are revising the Model Penal Code on sexual assault www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/ali-penal-code-sexual-assault

More about Stephen:


    Stephen Schulhofer on Law Enforcement | NYU Law ...

    blogs.law.nyu.edu/.../stephen-schulh...

    New York University School of Law
    Photo of Stephen Schulhofer After 9/11, Stephen Schulhofer, Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, wondered how rules for international electronic surveillance ...

    Stephen Schulhofer at New York University School of Law ...

    www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid...

    RateMyProfessors.com
    Rating and reviews for Professor Stephen Schulhofer from New York UniversitySchool of Law New York, NY United States.

    Stephen J. Schulhofer - Wiki Law School

    www.wikilawschool.net/wiki/Stephen_J._Schulhofer

    Aug 19, 2012 - Stephen J. Schulhofer. S Schulhofer NYU.jpg. Title(s), Robert B. McKay Professor of LawLaw school, New York University School of Law.

    The Challenge of Defining Rape - The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com/.../being-clear-about-rape.html

    The New York Times
    Oct 11, 2014 - Stephen J. Schulhofer, a New York University law professor, said many states still require proof of physical aggression, though a growing ...

    [PDF]Miranda's Practical Effect - Columbia Law School

    www2.law.columbia.edu/.../law.../Schulofer_Articl...

    Columbia Law School
    University Law Review; Stephen J. Schulhofer;. I. Empirical Estimates .... Among ordinary citizens and law enforcement professionals alike, a two-fold perception.

    Interviews - Stephen Schulhofer | The Plea | FRONTLINE ...

    www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/.../schulhofer.html

    PBS
    Jun 17, 2004 - Stephen Schulhofer is a professor of law at New York UniversitySchool of Law. In this interview, he explains why he believes that from every ...
_____________________________________

THE WORLD OF SEX ACCORDING TO SCHULHOFER: 

Section 213.4 of His Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault and Subsequent Discussion of The Real Act of Sex vs. The Schulhofer View of Sex as an Act of Perpetual Aggression

Logic flaws and unrealistic sex scenarios leading to a mistaken view of how the majority of people engage in sex and how they should be punished until they do it correctly.

Healthy Sex is Not an Act of Ceaseless Predation
First of all, in order to help justify his sweeping sex crime code that will apply to a majority of the human population, Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU must use extreme examples that apply to a fraction of a percent of that population. For example, he wishes to establish stages of ongoing "affirmative consent" for every "level" of sex leading potentially to coitus. As an example of the dire need he sees for sexual micromanagement to prevent the serious abuse of "sexual autonomy" he unveils the existence of "frozen fright," a state he alleges to mimic consent. In his own footnote it states, "social science data [indicates] some women become frozen with fear at the onset of sexual attack and thus cannot resist." No study is offered as proof, no statistics provided, no quotes from psychologists of any stripe, but the key word here is "attack." Schulhofer time and time again equates normal sexual play with "attack" or the potential of "attack."

He notes "the harm of unwanted sexual imposition" and sees the potential of it everywhere he looks, and during every phase and level of the sex act. He states, "The harm of unwanted sexual imposition greatly exceeds any harm entailed in having to make arguable awkward efforts to clarify the situation..." Unwanted Sexual Imposition (USI). Let's keep in mind that Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU appears to believe that USI is ubiquitous in normal sexual relations between women and men and his remedy is punishment for all. BTW, we're not treated to an explanation of "harm" since specificity might require proof of "harm" in the form of studies or statistics. In truth, there are no studies that show "harm" in his newly invented scenarios of USI, only harm from authentic sexual assault.

Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU next acknowledges that the "sexually aggressive partner" (whoever that may be at any given point in time during the encounter) must cease the sex act (if need be, time and time again) and attempt to ascertain whether or not, for example, a hand in a certain place on his or her partner's body will be acceptable to the partner who presumably, at that moment, might not be displaying the signs of "affirmative consent" (as yet defined) thus leading to Schulhofer's trigger of sudden USI. Going further, he states "a person may consent to one form of sexual intimacy and yet decline others, and engaging in one type of intimacy should not necessarily be treated as permission to engage in others." This is where we wonder whether or not this man has ever engaged in what the rest of us regard as normal sex. Has he?
Schulhofer time and time again equates normal sexual play with "attack" or the potential of "attack." He notes "the harm of unwanted sexual imposition" and sees the potential of it everywhere he looks, and during every phase and level of the sex act.
Going even further (and this is where it gets even more scary), Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU demands that each "new act of intimacy" (which he fails to define) cannot be carried out without threat of his Schulhofer Trigger (immediate or delayed accusation, arrest and prosecution) unless and until "the sexually more aggressive party ensures that each new act is welcome and desired."

Only just before that statement he made clear that verbal assent was not necessary, so how is the "sexually aggressive party" (not defining what he means precisely by this--which makes you wonder what kind of sex Schulhofer has accomplished if he thinks this makes any sense) to obtain and/or verify consent or assent, and in such a manner so as not to pull the Schulhofer Trigger? Schulhofer won't tell us.

My God, Stephen, I forgot
to get consent for that kiss!
Making the assumption of a "sexually aggressive" Partner is one mistake; failure to define "sexually aggressive" is another; failure to precisely define "consent" in the absence of a verbal statement is also a mistake on his part. Then he goes on to add: "a prosecutor's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no affirmative words or conduct by the complainant constituted, in light of the totality of the circumstances, positive agreement to engage in the specific conduct at issue."

This is too abstract. At least list a few examples of the conduct in question. Moving from caressing the breast to the nipple perhaps? Moving the lips from the neck to the shoulder? What are we talking about, Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU?  And what about this "conduct" thing? Does he rule out sexual sounds (moans, groans ahhhs, etc) and spoken words of desire and/or gratification as legal consent? Does he rule out sexual body response as affirmative consent? No. He is just quiet on the subject. He purposely leaves it to the imagination of his so-called aggressor to juggle the potentials and proceed with a risk of a ruined life hanging over his or her head.

Not very fair is it? Actually, on the most basic level, his penal code would potentially make all sex utterly joyless and unsatisfactory. And is that what he really wants? Is that what he and others who support him really want?

Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU could at least give us a long list of behaviors that might be considered as offering the kind of satisfactory affirmative consent that would disallow prosecution and jail time. But he can't. Why? We know why. For every sexual behavior he might list, his own sex-hating law logic could effectively negate them all. All behaviors, in Professor Schulhofer's mind, are attended by a "there might be a circumstance in which" and "this presumed consent does not necessarily signal further consent" and so forth. We can clearly see that there is not a single behavior a human being could make that would signal a definitive act of affirmative and irreversible consent according to Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU.
It's an interesting and dark look into Schulhofer's psyche to discover he views normal sex in such negative and frightening terms. It sounds as if his version, or vision, of sex has involved just the sort of anxiety and borderline terror he guards against with such zealotry in his model penal code.
Schulhofer then adds, "... when a complainant's behavior has been passive--neither expressly inviting nor rebuking the defendant's sexual advances, that behavior cannot be considered sufficient to show affirmative permission." So how precisely does the partner, in order to not invite victimhood and the Schulhofer Trigger of doom, "expressly invite" the other partner to engage in any particular subset of sexual act during the process of the ongoing sexual act? And since the "sexual aggressor" can vary or actually oscillate from A to B and back again, who is doing the inviting at what point and who is seeking permission? In a normal sexual step-by-step build, the roles Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU sees as so distinct are in reality not distinct at all, but in continuous flux.

But what the heck. He'll just leave it to the prosecutors to work out!

Again, what kind of sex did he have or has he experienced that enables these sex crime scenarios? Did he watch violent porn videos? Lifetime Channel? In reality, there does not have to be an "aggressor" much less an "attack" or "abuse." It's an interesting and dark look into Schulhofer's psyche to discover he views normal sex in such negative and frightening terms. It sounds as if his version, or vision, of sex has involved just the sort of anxiety and borderline terror he guards against with such zealotry in his model penal code.

11 comments:

  1. From Reason.Com: The Future of Sex is Terrifying

    Referencing the model penal code drafted by Schulhofer and Murphy:

    "The draft also expressly states that its intention is to equate silence with unwillingness and criminal victimization:

    The argument has been made—and no doubt will be repeated—that equating silence with unwillingness ... "patronizes" or "infantilizes" women, treating them as if they were incapable of expressing their own desires.

    The draft defends this rule by equating it to a doctor obtaining "informed consent" before performing surgery ... but it does not acknowledge any of the differences between the risks of surgery and ordinary human contact. Most importantly, the claimed analogy fails to recognize that medical informed consent is a precaution chosen by the doctor as a safeguard against possible civil damages for malpractice, not as a required behavior to avoid criminal liability.

    The draft also acknowledges that it is not reflecting any existing social norm or consensus about behavior that should be deemed so extreme as to warrant criminal sanction. Instead, it clearly states that its intention is to coerce conformity to its own choice of new norms for behavior."

    Also:

    "We also risk diluting the perceived import or impact of an undesired act. It's like the kid who doesn't heed any advice against doing meth because DARE also told him that marijuana would make him a three-eyed amputee after one joint; that didn't happen, and hence the whole oeuvre of anti-drug messages loses credibility. If we start legally defining everything from a therapist sleeping with a consenting patient to an unwanted kiss or caress as criminal sexual assault, I fear a lot less of the public will be inclined to take any rape claims seriously. And why should they?"

    Also:

    "People who want to solve social problems by reflexively invoking the power of state justice often overlook exactly whom and what systems will be enacting this justice, and how they've historically operated. It's not going to be pretty, or just, to turn virtually everyone into potentially prosecutable sex criminals."

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you live in a bubble with the world view that women really don't like or want sex, then you will react like this person, Katharine Baker, in equating Mackinnon with Schulhofer and Murphy's new sex crimes penal code:

    Schulhofer and Mackinnon victorious

    And I quote:

    "STEPHEN SCHULHOFER"S BOOK, Unwanted Sex, presents a potent blend of good news and bad news for feminists. For those of us who have ever found truth in Catharine MacKinnon's oft-quoted observation that women have a hard time distinguishing between intercourse and rape, n1 the good news is that Steve Schulhofer finds that truth too. He gets it. He understands that the reason that it has often been hard for women to tell the difference between rape and intercourse is because a huge amount of intercourse that is not accompanied by physical force, that is not legal rape, and that may even be accompanied by an "I will" on the woman's part, is nonetheless coerced. "I will" makes it not rape, but it does not necessarily make it okay, and Schulhofer thoroughly and thoughtfully explains why not. The bad news is that, after reading Schulhofer's book, one is left with an overwhelming sense that noted sociobiologist Donald Symons was right when he wrote that "everywhere sex is understood to be something that females have that males want." n2 When one places Symons' maxim in a world in which men have most of everything else, i.e., money, power and status, it is not hard to see why so many women are forced to use sex instrumentally. Women are forced to say "I will" because sex is all they have."

    In other words, all women are perpetual victims and there is no such thing as a healthy woman who wants sex or seeks it out or encourages it for her own reasons. This never fits the equation because you need the persistence of the victim in order to justify the harshness of the penalties in order to reshape social norms based on a Mackinnon-Schulhofer vision of a world of punished men and whining sex-crime-frightened women.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A point I had not thought of noting where Schulhofer and Mackinnon diverge

    "For example, if MacKinnon is correct in thinking that in the current context women cannot be sure about whether and when consent is present and thus when intercourse is or is not distinguishable from rape, it then follows that women victims are not reliable witnesses in criminal rape proceedings. So the matter is not simply (though these are certainly important), as Schulhofer notes, that MacKinnon's views do not credit women with knowing when they chose freely, or hold morally responsible both men and women for their sexual conduct. Taken to its end, MacKinnon's view provides ammunition for defense attorneys wishing to load and fire one of the oldest weapons in the sexist arsenal--the charge that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, women do not really know what they want and are thus not really capable of stating the truth about whether they have freely chosen their own courses of action. It is hard to imagine a more bitter irony for feminism."

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the college level, two courts have recently ruled "affirmative consent" as practiced by certain colleges in California and Tennessee to be violating due process and placing unfair burden on the accused. The Constitution of the United States has thus trumped affirmative consent law.

    Where is the ACLU, btw?

    Here is an excellent summation of the California court decision and here is the court decision itself which clearly demonstrates the Kafkaesque kangaroo strategy the school used to deny rights and punish the accused in a grossly unfair way: DOE vs. BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO.

    Here is more background on the case courtesy of LA Times. The accuser waited four months before making the accusation, btw. Stats clearly show that criminally wronged people report crimes within 24 hours. Why did this person wait four months? The two of them had sex before and after the alleged "digital penetration" without consent.

    This is a pattern with affirmative consent accusations.The accuser stated that her body was receptive, but mentally she wasn't ready. It's all in the court decision above. The accuser and the school decided that somewhere on the spectrum of sexual activity from the night before until later the next afternoon, there occurred a point that was allegedly non-consensual.

    This is the type of situation that Schulhofer and Murphy wish to enact upon the whole of America.



    ReplyDelete
  5. btw, the original complaint filed by the accused: note "heavy petting" between two acts of consensual intercourse: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ucsd-hearing.pdf. This complaint contains more information and details on what happened.

    The accuser did not file her complaint until after the two had an argument over another woman inviting the accused to her sorority, and the investigative school officer found no substance to most of the accuser's allegations. Additionally, it was the school who accused the man of digital penetration. The accuser only said "he tried" to do it. From the complaint:

    "Given Mr. ’s direct denial, the lack of any testimony that digital penetration did occur, and Ms. ’s admission that she continued to have consensual sexual intercourse with Mr. later that same day, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing that Mr. Doe violated UCSD Sexual Conduct Policy by engaging in non-consensual sexual activity..."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:53 AM

    An even more important repudiation of Affirmative Consent from a court in Tennessee. The burden of proof should not be on the accused to prove innocence:

    Student Wrongfully Expelled.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:59 AM

    And this one also, another repudiation of Affirmative Consent rush to judgment and burden of proof shift:

    Judge Stops USC

    ReplyDelete
  8. Harvard Victim6:47 AM

    From 2014: Harvard law profs revolt against affirmative consent tribunals at Harvard creating conditions that stack the deck against the accused: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/14/harvard-law-professors-want-university-new-sexual-harassment-policy-changed/HZ72eaMcLgRgoq4DL9ZBOO/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. The verdict is in! The ALI has thumpingly rejected Schulhofer and Murphy's nightmare penal code!

    https://www.thefire.org/american-law-institute-rejects-affirmative-consent-standard-for-model-penal-code/

    ReplyDelete
  10. The verdict is in! The ALI has thumpingly rejected Schulhofer and Murphy's nightmare penal code!

    https://www.thefire.org/american-law-institute-rejects-affirmative-consent-standard-for-model-penal-code/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now that things are quiet, it makes you wonder what Schulhofer and the rest of the sex negative cultural micromanagers are up to now?

    A piece by my hero Cathy Young, and PJ Schulhofer is mentioned as being his cranky old sex-negative self.

    ReplyDelete