|
*The* most significant issue in any jurisdiction's sexual assault laws is this: is consent present due to (1) absence of manifest nonconsent, or (2) affirmative expressions of consent. The former, which is the position of nearly all US states, is called a "no means no" jurisdiction. The latter, which is the position of a small number of states, as well as the prevailing rule in college title IX, is called a "yes means yes jurisdiction."
So, which is the military? The answer is surprisingly difficult to find.
1 Comment
Max Goldberg
4/5/2025 10:59:12
The military is probably best described as an affirmative consent jurisdiction because 10 USC 920(g)(7) defines consent as “a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person,” and specifies that is is to be determined under “the totality of the circumstances” (but see MRE 412). The UCMJ’s version of affirmative consent is significantly less rigorous than other regimes that explicitly require that participants in sexual activity obtain objectively demonstrable consent at every step of a sexual encounter. Leave a Reply. |
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2025 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. Archives
April 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed