• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hawaii Moves to Strip "Rapists" Parental Rights

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

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.
 
Wait wut?

Stripping someone of rights without a conviction is a good thing?
Hello bizzaro world.

Very hard to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. No so hard to show clear and convincing evidence that you were raped. Good 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.

If you don't get a conviction maybe, just maybe, it's because the guy ain't guilty.

Terrible idea. And possibly unconstitutional.
 
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.



Jesus H. Christ.

Stripping away rights WITHOUT a conviction? What other rights will we strip away without PROOF a crime has been committed?
 
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.

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?
 
Very hard to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. No so hard to show clear and convincing evidence that you were raped. Good law.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

One name: Brock Turner
 
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?

"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.
 
If something is "clear and convincing," wouldn't that be beyond a reasonable doubt.


No. OJ was found not guilty but there was clear and convincing evidence that he was guilty as sin....for example.

It's an utterly idiotic law the undermines the foundation of our legal system.
Not IMO.
 
One name: Brock Turner

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.
 
No. OJ was found not guilty but there was clear and convincing evidence that he was guilty as sin....for example.

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.


Then, imo, you're opinion is incredibly foolish and shortsighted.
Can you not see how such a thing could be weaponized?
 
Well, here ya go, feminists. Just accuse him of rape and he's completely out of your and your children's lives.

Still have to convince a judge. "Clear and convincing evidence" is a bit more than a simple accusation, but a little less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a pretty high hurdle.
 
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.

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.

Permanently terminating someone's parental rights is an extreme sanction right up there with throwing someone in jail. It should require the same level of proof.

Want to get a temporary restraining order to keep the guy away - clear and convincing is fine. But for a permanent step? No.
 
Last edited:
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.
They won't be convicted of crimes. They will just not be allowed to pester the mother and influence the child. Good law.



Then, imo, you're opinion is incredibly foolish and shortsighted.
Can you not see how such a thing could be weaponized?
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.

It's a civil matter. Mom who claims she was raped says, "Get raping scumbag out of my life." Civil matter.
 
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.

So it's solely up to the discretion of the judge (maybe jury).
Again, I don't think this is right in any way.
 
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.

They dropped the rape charge due to lack of evidence needed for a conviction.
 
Back
Top Bottom