通过刑法实现更好的性:代理犯罪、隐蔽过失和ALI性侵犯条款草案中“肯定同意”的其他困难

Kevin R. Cole
{"title":"通过刑法实现更好的性:代理犯罪、隐蔽过失和ALI性侵犯条款草案中“肯定同意”的其他困难","authors":"Kevin R. Cole","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2670419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The American Law Institute’s draft amendments to the Model Penal Code’s sexual assault provisions address the problem of unwanted sex through the use of proxy crimes. The draft forbids sex undertaken in the absence of certain objective indicia of willingness, or in the presence of certain objective indicia of unwillingness, even though the serious harm of sex with an unwilling partner does not always result from those situations. Proxy crimes are sometimes justified, as is the draft’s requirement that an express “no” be respected in the absence of subsequent words or actions by a partner rescinding the “no.” But proxy crimes also carry risks, some of which (in addition to other problems) are displayed by the draft’s requirement that sex occur only in the presence of “positive agreement” by the partner. Like any “affirmative consent” approach, the draft’s “positive agreement” standard must either embrace requirements that many will find objectionable or risk devolving into punishment for simple, tort negligence (or less). Imposing liability on a tort negligence standard would conflict with the Model Penal Code’s general insistence on subjective liability as a predicate to criminal liability. It would also strike many as a regrettably low standard for labelling an actor as a sex offender, and it would risk deterrent losses over time by diluting the stigma associated with the label.","PeriodicalId":83257,"journal":{"name":"The San Diego law review","volume":"53 1","pages":"507"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better Sex Through Criminal Law: Proxy Crimes, Covert Negligence, and Other Difficulties of 'Affirmative Consent' in the ALI's Draft Sexual Assault Provisions\",\"authors\":\"Kevin R. Cole\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2670419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The American Law Institute’s draft amendments to the Model Penal Code’s sexual assault provisions address the problem of unwanted sex through the use of proxy crimes. The draft forbids sex undertaken in the absence of certain objective indicia of willingness, or in the presence of certain objective indicia of unwillingness, even though the serious harm of sex with an unwilling partner does not always result from those situations. Proxy crimes are sometimes justified, as is the draft’s requirement that an express “no” be respected in the absence of subsequent words or actions by a partner rescinding the “no.” But proxy crimes also carry risks, some of which (in addition to other problems) are displayed by the draft’s requirement that sex occur only in the presence of “positive agreement” by the partner. Like any “affirmative consent” approach, the draft’s “positive agreement” standard must either embrace requirements that many will find objectionable or risk devolving into punishment for simple, tort negligence (or less). Imposing liability on a tort negligence standard would conflict with the Model Penal Code’s general insistence on subjective liability as a predicate to criminal liability. It would also strike many as a regrettably low standard for labelling an actor as a sex offender, and it would risk deterrent losses over time by diluting the stigma associated with the label.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83257,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The San Diego law review\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The San Diego law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2670419\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The San Diego law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2670419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

美国法律协会对《示范刑法典》性侵犯条款的修正草案通过使用代理犯罪解决了不想要的性行为问题。草案禁止在没有某些客观意愿的情况下发生性行为,或在有某些客观意愿的情况下发生性行为,即使与不愿意的伴侣发生性行为的严重伤害并不总是由这些情况造成的。代理犯罪有时是合理的,正如草案要求在没有合伙人随后的言语或行动撤销“不”的情况下,尊重明确的“不”。但代理犯罪也有风险,其中一些风险(除了其他问题外)体现在草案中要求性行为只有在伴侣“积极同意”的情况下才会发生。与任何“肯定同意”方法一样,草案的“肯定同意”标准必须要么包含许多人会反感的要求,要么有可能沦为对简单的侵权过失(或更少)的惩罚。将责任强加于侵权过失标准将与《示范刑法典》普遍坚持的主观责任作为刑事责任的前提相冲突。这也会让很多人感到遗憾,因为给演员贴上性犯罪者标签的标准很低,而且随着时间的推移,它可能会稀释与这个标签相关的污名,从而有可能失去威慑力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Better Sex Through Criminal Law: Proxy Crimes, Covert Negligence, and Other Difficulties of 'Affirmative Consent' in the ALI's Draft Sexual Assault Provisions
The American Law Institute’s draft amendments to the Model Penal Code’s sexual assault provisions address the problem of unwanted sex through the use of proxy crimes. The draft forbids sex undertaken in the absence of certain objective indicia of willingness, or in the presence of certain objective indicia of unwillingness, even though the serious harm of sex with an unwilling partner does not always result from those situations. Proxy crimes are sometimes justified, as is the draft’s requirement that an express “no” be respected in the absence of subsequent words or actions by a partner rescinding the “no.” But proxy crimes also carry risks, some of which (in addition to other problems) are displayed by the draft’s requirement that sex occur only in the presence of “positive agreement” by the partner. Like any “affirmative consent” approach, the draft’s “positive agreement” standard must either embrace requirements that many will find objectionable or risk devolving into punishment for simple, tort negligence (or less). Imposing liability on a tort negligence standard would conflict with the Model Penal Code’s general insistence on subjective liability as a predicate to criminal liability. It would also strike many as a regrettably low standard for labelling an actor as a sex offender, and it would risk deterrent losses over time by diluting the stigma associated with the label.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reply to 'How Foot Voting Enhances Political Freedom' Is There Hope for Change? The Evolution of Conceptions of 'Good' Corporate Governance Extending Miranda: Prohibition on Police Lies Regarding the Incriminating Evidence The Vindication of Good Over Evil: “Futile” Self-Defense The Case for Varying Standards of Proof
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1