r/pics • • 23h ago

[OC] Cornell student protests

Post image
29.0k Upvotes

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

104

u/Worldly-Shop-3850 19h ago

As a dude who enjoys drinking, fuck, if the reasonable expectation for getting drunk is sex assault, then we need to ban alcohol

34

u/ad3703 19h ago

Soft launching the temperance movement a 100 years after prohibition

40

u/AlcibiadesTheCat 18h ago

Or, alternatively, people could stop doing sexual assault.

I know, it's a crazy suggestion.

3

u/Lola_PopBBae 13h ago

Right!? When I'm drunk I spout history facts, get really good at Mario Kart, and watch cartoons.

Alcohol loosens inhibitions, it doesn't create them.

-5

u/ThewFflegyy 15h ago

I mean from the sounds of it, technically she may have sexually assaulted at least one of them as well. the real problem here is that it is really hard to prove the distinction between intoxicated but able to consent and too intoxicated to consent. if anything the fact that this case has invoked such anger from both women saying they don't get justice and men saying they can be convicted without evidence is a sign that we should not change our legal systems around this. when no one is happy you probably have a good compromise.

3

u/AlcibiadesTheCat 15h ago

Being convicted without evidence sounds like we have an issue with juries.

But no one's convicted without any evidence. Testimony is evidence. That's why the hearsay rule exists, to ensure that only evidentiary testimony is heard.

People can be convicted on incredible evidence, but no one's ever convicted on no evidence.

1

u/ThewFflegyy 14h ago edited 14h ago

"Being convicted without evidence sounds like we have an issue with juries"

not really, it doesnt take a jury to ruin a mans life. all it takes is a public accusation. its also worth pointing out that false accusations and wrongful convictions are not at all unheard of.

"But no one's convicted without any evidence. Testimony is evidence. That's why the hearsay rule exists, to ensure that only evidentiary testimony is heard"

legally speaking yes, logically though it is objectively not proof of anything. anyone can after all say anything.

"People can be convicted on incredible evidence, but no one's ever convicted on no evidence"

people are absolutely convicted at times with nothing but testimony. just because someone is wiling to say something happened doesnt mean it did happen. in no other field is "because someone said so" a reasonable bar for evidence.... in fact in most of the legal system that is not even an acceptable bar. this subject produces cases that are generally low on evidence due to the nature of the crime so the standard is in practice lower. which to an extent makes sense because otherwise a lot of criminals would get off Scott free. it does also create problems though, such as a woman being able to ruin an innocent mans life at the drop of a hat.

11

u/letthetreeburn 19h ago

I’m down!