Marital Rape no longer legal in Minnesota

[Kragholm Free States]

Vas, you are very much welcome to leave the United States if you don't like the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

And I ask you the same question: why don't accusers get the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty of making the accusations falsely and maliciously?

You're putting this word "maliciously" in when it's not really relevant. If you make an accusation, of any crime, an investigation is carried out but the person you have accused is considered innocent until there is enough evidence to prove them guilty. That's how a civilised justice system works. It stands to reason that your accusation is therefore considered false until it is proven true by that same evidence.

If it was considered maliciously false until proven true, a verdict of not guilty for the accused would immediately lead to the accuser themselves facing criminal charges. Since that does not happen, we can deduce that nobody is assuming malice on the part of the accuser, but it is logically impossible to treat the accusation as true until proven false while still treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty.

[Ubekibekibekibekistanstan]

It’s odd that I hadn’t heard of this bill sooner.
According to Wikipedia, there is no apparent partisan pattern to the states it lists as retaining a distinction (not yet updated).
Minnesota’s adultery law is also strange in that it only applies to women, despite the fact that it appears to have been partly updated to reflect the legality of same-sex marriage.

[Ifreann]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

[Andsed]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

Okay? Does not mean we should not presume it.

[Ifreann]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

Okay? Does not mean we should not presume it.

It does mean we don't need to tie ourself in knots insisting that people who make accusations that don't lead to a conviction must be guilty of making a false report, but we have to presume them innocent of that, so that means the person accusing them of that is guilty, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[Andsed]

Okay? Does not mean we should not presume it.

It does mean we don't need to tie ourself in knots insisting that people who make accusations that don't lead to a conviction must be guilty of making a false report, but we have to presume them innocent of that, so that means the person accusing them of that is guilty, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Nice strawman you got there. No we are not saying we presume those making accusations as guilty. We are saying we wait until sufficient proof is provided before we assume the accused is guilty.

[Galloism]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

I mean, we probably should as a society though. Probably not beyond a reasonable doubt, as that requires investigative powers the average person does not have, but “clear and convincing evidence” is probably a good standard for the public at large to use in their everyday judgements.

[Galloism]

Okay? Does not mean we should not presume it.

It does mean we don't need to tie ourself in knots insisting that people who make accusations that don't lead to a conviction must be guilty of making a false report, but we have to presume them innocent of that, so that means the person accusing them of that is guilty, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

I don't see the conflict with presuming both persons innocent until proven guilty to some relevant standard.

[Katganistan]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/03/us/minnesota-marital-rape-repeal/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F


How was that legal in the first place? While I am pleased this is gone, it does bring up valid concerns, like a wife falsely accusing her husband because she is mad at him.

It was legal because of anarchronistic ideas of women belonging to their husbands.
And why do you even bring up "abuse because they are mad at husbands" when literally this case is of a woman who had DIGITAL EVIDENCE, recorded on her computer, of her husband drugging and raping her?

I mean seriously?

[Ifreann]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

I mean, we probably should as a society though. Probably not beyond a reasonable doubt, as that requires investigative powers the average person does not have, but “clear and convincing evidence” is probably a good standard for the public at large to use in their everyday judgements.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind when next I'm called upon to convict someone of a crime.

[Katganistan]

All of this marital rape could have been avoided if they had been re-educated in re-education camps.

Stop spamming, please.

It makes me wonder how many other bs laws are hiding in the shadows that nobody knows about.

In Texas it's illegal to own more than five dildos, although that law has been ruled unenforceable.

And how many guns are you restricted to?
Just curious. Given that dildos are, in fact, legal to own; you don't even need a license to use one. Arguably, the guns are far more dangerous if used improperly than the dildos.

It makes me wonder how many other bs laws are hiding in the shadows that nobody knows about.

Far too many, I'm sure. Why, just the other day I was very nearly arrested for handling a salmon suspiciously.

Did you also enter Parliament wearing armor?

Which states? It appears I have some more angry letters to write.

Some of the current ones are mentioned here. Many states have still rules, exemptions or extra hurdles for spouses.

In South Carolina, for example, a spouse has to prove a there was a threat of physical violence made within 30 days of a rape.

Ugh, no. Just don't rape your husband or wife. How difficult is that to understand? even little kids are taught that 'no means no.'

Yes but some people consider all accusations of rape to be maliciously false until proven otherwise. And sometimes even if proven otherwise.

Vas, you are very much welcome to leave the United States if you don't like the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

In a court of law.

Unfortunately, people love to parade these things about in the Court of Public Opinion -- that is, NOT a court of law.

[The Free Joy State]

Some of the current ones are mentioned here. Many states have still rules, exemptions or extra hurdles for spouses.

In South Carolina, for example, a spouse has to prove a there was a threat of physical violence made within 30 days of a rape.

Ugh, no. Just don't rape your husband or wife. How difficult is that to understand? even little kids are taught that 'no means no.'

At this point, I feel compelled to state that stating what bad laws still remain in existence does not equate condoning them.

All rape is equally heinous.

[Galloism]

I mean, we probably should as a society though. Probably not beyond a reasonable doubt, as that requires investigative powers the average person does not have, but “clear and convincing evidence” is probably a good standard for the public at large to use in their everyday judgements.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind when next I'm called upon to convict someone of a crime.

If you’re convicting someone in court, you should use beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you’re being asked to cut off all contact with your brother or sister because <reasons>, presuming those reasons are valid, you should probably use clear and convincing. If you’re being asked to fire an employee for <reasons>, it should probably be about there too.

[Katganistan]

Ugh, no. Just don't rape your husband or wife. How difficult is that to understand? even little kids are taught that 'no means no.'

At this point, I feel compelled to state that stating what bad laws still remain in existence does not equate condoning them.

All rape is equally heinous.

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I believe you condone rape in any form -- I'm disgusted those laws still exist.

[The Free Joy State]

At this point, I feel compelled to state that stating what bad laws still remain in existence does not equate condoning them.

All rape is equally heinous.

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I believe you condone rape in any form -- I'm disgusted those laws still exist.

Just wanted to clear that up. While I guessed you probably had read context, not everyone scanning the thread will, and (as I'm logging off 'til morning soon) I wanted there to be absolutely no confusion on that front.

EDIT: And it is appalling that those laws still exist in this day and age. As a Brit, I can only apologise to the States -- apparently, they're a holdover from English common law (though we have already outlawed it here, but only in the '90s -- and some people are still complaining).

[Internationalist Bastard]

That’s simultaneously great and sad

[Risottia]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

Erm, nope.
Claiming publicly that someone is guilty of a crime without him having being sentenced is quite on the libelous side of it.

[Risottia]

Leftover of the age-old mentality of wife being a kind of property of the husband.
You'd be surprised to see how such mentality is still around. There are even people who claim that their children are their property.

The Bible supports these notions, so of course a lot of people are going to believe that. I lean in favor of this attitude but only partially. Your wife and children aren't property in a literal sense, but they're undeniably linked to you as you are to them.

A relationship between two or more people cannot be a property-proprietor relationship. No human being can be property. Also, the two spouses in a marriage are exactly equal.

[Ifreann]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It applies to the courts. The police don't have to presume innocence, nor do the media, nor does anyone else.

Erm, nope.
Claiming publicly that someone is guilty of a crime without him having being sentenced is quite on the libelous side of it.

Defamation has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

[Risottia]

Erm, nope.
Claiming publicly that someone is guilty of a crime without him having being sentenced is quite on the libelous side of it.

Defamation has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

No, but it has to do with personal reputation, which is protected in some jurisdictions.

[Galloism]

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor do I believe you condone rape in any form -- I'm disgusted those laws still exist.

Just wanted to clear that up. While I guessed you probably had read context, not everyone scanning the thread will, and (as I'm logging off 'til morning soon) I wanted there to be absolutely no confusion on that front.

EDIT: And it is appalling that those laws still exist in this day and age. As a Brit, I can only apologise to the States -- apparently, they're a holdover from English common law (though we have already outlawed it here, but only in the '90s -- and some people are still complaining).

Well, in your neck of the woods it's literally not rape for a woman to rape a man. So...

Yeah, bad laws persist until changed.

[Cekoviu]

This was legal???

[Cekoviu]

Yes but some people consider all accusations of rape to be maliciously false until proven otherwise. And sometimes even if proven otherwise.

Vas, you are very much welcome to leave the United States if you don't like the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

"If you don't like it, leave" is an age-old bullshit argumentation tactic. You have zero credibility if you use it.

[Cekoviu]

Ugh, no. Just don't rape your husband or wife. How difficult is that to understand? even little kids are taught that 'no means no.'

Not actually the case a lot of the time. It's viewed as inconsequential, but forcing children to eat food they don't want etc. shows them that "no" doesn't necessarily mean no.

[Ifreann]

This was legal???

Almost everywhere. Still is in a few states, apparently.