Unlike the law in most states, which strips parental rights only of convicted rapists, Hawaii is moving to strip parental rights of those accused of rape if court finds the evidence is "clear and convincing."
Hawaii law aims to deprive rapists of parental rights
I like it.
Unlike the law in most states, which strips parental rights only of convicted rapists, Hawaii is moving to strip parental rights of those accused of rape if court finds the evidence is "clear and convincing."
Hawaii law aims to deprive rapists of parental rights
I like it.
That's not a good thing at all.
Wait wut?
Stripping someone of rights without a conviction is a good thing?
Hello bizzaro world.
Unlike the law in most states, which strips parental rights only of convicted rapists, Hawaii is moving to strip parental rights of those accused of rape if court finds the evidence is "clear and convincing."
Hawaii law aims to deprive rapists of parental rights
I like it.
Unlike the law in most states, which strips parental rights only of convicted rapists, Hawaii is moving to strip parental rights of those accused of rape if court finds the evidence is "clear and convincing."
Hawaii law aims to deprive rapists of parental rights
I like it.
Depends on if you became impregnated by rape and can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court but can show clear and convincing evidence. It's a great law.
Unlike the law in most states, which strips parental rights only of convicted rapists, Hawaii is moving to strip parental rights of those accused of rape if court finds the evidence is "clear and convincing."
Hawaii law aims to deprive rapists of parental rights
I like it.
Very hard to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. No so hard to show clear and convincing evidence that you were raped. Good law.
Depends on if you became impregnated by rape and can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court but can show clear and convincing evidence. It's a great law.
I can't come up with a scenario where someone can provide clear and convincing evidence but they wouldn't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
So let's say your girlfriend doesn't want you around your child. All she need do is CLAIM you raped her, and you can't see your kid any more?
And you claim that's a 'good' law?
If something is "clear and convincing," wouldn't that be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not IMO.It's an utterly idiotic law the undermines the foundation of our legal system.
"clear and convincing" evidence is not the same as "claiming". That's a very large distinction. Seriously. I'm worried about the law also, but that doesn't mean you get to lie about it.
One name: Brock Turner
One name: Brock Turner
Show me the difference.
No. OJ was found not guilty but there was clear and convincing evidence that he was guilty as sin....for example.
Not IMO.
Well, here ya go, feminists. Just accuse him of rape and he's completely out of your and your children's lives.
If something is "clear and convincing," wouldn't that be beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's an utterly idiotic law the undermines the foundation of our legal system.
They won't be convicted of crimes. They will just not be allowed to pester the mother and influence the child. Good law.It's sucks that sometimes guilty people get away with crimes.
At the same time, this type of system exists to reduce the amount of innocent people, who get convicted of crimes.
Why? I can sue someone to high heaven and win on a lot less than "Clear and Convincing" evidence. All I need do to ruin someone's life completely is present enough to have the "preponderance of the evidence" on my side.Then, imo, you're opinion is incredibly foolish and shortsighted.
Can you not see how such a thing could be weaponized?
No. "clear and convincing" is a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." What it basically means is that the guy deciding the case has to believe it highly likely that the rape occurred. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard that basically means a reasonable person has to be convinced that they guy is guilty.
Caught in the ACT!
Brock turner was convicted of three felony counts. The problem is the judge gave him a light sentence, not that they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?