This is actually a really good idea.

Thanks. :)

A taco?

Hm...tacos are a really good, but it's gotta be a sandwich. A big one. :D

LOBSTER TACO SANDWICH!

taco burger!

It already is a law.

yes

the issue is proving coercion, prosecuting rape is hard enough already

Ah, but see, that's the brilliance of making this an assault misdemeanor! Crimes with light sentences always get more convictions than ones with felony charges. :)

it's the nature of the crime, not the classification that causes the difficulty, just look at those 3 lacrosse players who were falsely accused and the internet vilified them until she'd got caught bragging about faking the claims

That's another advantage of the classification. Unless you're a mega-celebrity, noone in the media gives a shit about a misdemeanor. They're not considered news.

I had several friends in high school and college who got hit with misdemeanors, from petty theft to drunken misconduct. Noone in the school ever knew about it.

I wonder: how many first sexual relations are really proposed by both sides?
Let's say, after meeting the girl from a while, the guy proposes her to spend the night together. She hesitates, but after some more days and discussions, she accepts, they both have fun.
Then, the couple breaks apart a bit later and the girl calls the police for sexual coercion, just to have a vengeance...
Warning with such laws! There's the law, the meaning of the law, and the manipulation of the law.

There are obvious cases, of course, where the law must apply, but how many very dubious facts also?

Again, this is the advantage of making it a misdemeanor. They're lesser crimes with lesser consequences, and no felony record. Harassment is considered a misdemeanor, for example.

Hmm, then I call dibs on REVERSE Sexual Coercion! You have to tie me up and molest me or you're a bad person! Yeah...that's the ticket! ^_^

I'll get right on that... <grins and breaks out the silk ropes>

Woo! I mean...oh noes?

So many people just don't understand gradients and nuances. I remember having a political argument a few years ago about Mitt Romney forcibly holding down and cutting a kid's hair when they were in high school. I tried to explain that it was a big deal if he actually committed that assault and then claimed to not remember it (whether he did it is beside the point here.) Others were complaining that I was "trivializing REAL assault" and "promoting a lawsuit culture where you get sued for brushing up against someone." They were too dense to understand, even when it was pointed out, that there are typically a dozen or more degrees of assault in a state, and that pretending that such an attack was being compared to battery with a spiked baseball bat didn't make it so.

So yes, I think I agree. :)

As I said to Onyx below, the gradient is vital because this is a crime that's virtually impossible to verify. There won't be any evidence outside of solo testimony. Making it a misdemeanor not only helps make getting a conviction easier, but it also protects the accused and preserves their life if they're innocent. ^__^

if anything I think psychological coercion should be punished more harshly than physically overpowering someone; the latter will have scars on the victims psyche for sure, but the former can be even more debilitating, once the victim starts questioning why they allowed the perpetrator to assault them, that something must be wrong with them

coercing someone through psychological means is actually more damaging to a persons well being than the physical damage ever could be

also convictions on lesser charges =/= lessening of a crime; the punishment is what lessens the crime (and of course a populous that doesn't adhere to a victim mentality, i.e. not defending themselves in an appropriate manner, like arming themselves with a personal defense firearm, or other non-lethal means), lessening the punishment just makes it an easier crime to bear (especially if a lawyer can somehow get a rape charge reduced to this)

the above is literally a slap on the wrist to an offender, 2.5 years max...should be at least 5, fine? that never stopped anyone from committing a crime...not if they're desperate or just plain don't care (which most people who commit sexual assaults fall into the latter, sometimes the former depending on psychological issues).

it's a good idea in theory, but it falls flat to me once analyzed.

But that's the thing, this is a crime that's extremely difficult to prove. 99% of the time this crime will have zero evidence outside of solo testimony. The justice system is based on hard evidence for good reason. This is why most crimes that are based only on testimony or circumstance are misdemeanors, like harassment cases, who struck first in a brawl, drunken misconduct, and so forth. It acts as a safeguard against destroyed lives due to false convictions, because if the person turns out to be innocent, the impact on their life is relatively minor (also because "sexual coercion" does not carry the hotbutton value of "rape").

When you're writing laws, morality is far less relevant than provable facts. How great is the margin of error? How sure is the evidence? How badly are you hurting someone if you get it wrong? Classifying this as a misdemeanor doesn't make it a "lesser crime", it makes it a less verifiable crime, and that's the key to...well, everything. :)

why on earth would you want to make crimes that are HARDER to prove in court? burden of proof is already on the prosecutor, they have an uphill battle to even make a person guilty in the eyes of the law.

the problem isn't the laws itself, but the way in which they're implemented and interpreted by the flawed humans in the justice system; judges, lawyers, police officers, every one of them brings their own prejudices and opinions into the scenario, they shouldn't but it happens.

trying to legislate that out would just break the system even more than it already is.

also when I said lessen, I meant 'reduce the number of'...if anything something like that law would empower and embolden repeat offenders; so then you'd have to weigh the consequences of that

do we potentially ruin a supposedly innocent persons life...or throw the book at them and perhaps prevent further suffering from more individuals down the road; it's a guessing game, cause we can't truly see into the accused's mind or into the victim's mind to find the truth

it's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of scenario

A very good idea for a law; now if the boneheads who got elected would make it *work*...