In 35 states police can claim consent if they fuck the person they are detaining

[Madner Kami]

Consensual or not, an officer of the law should not be fucking anyone who's in police custody; if for no other reason than it's a potential conflict of interest. You can get your jollies on your own time; while you're on the clock, you are expected to conduct yourself like you have some idea what the word "professionalism" means.

Pretty much this. It's morally repugnant in the least and a clear misuse of authority and should be reflecting on the career of the officer in question, i.e. throw him out of the force, as the officer clearly has a misguided moral compas and shouldn't be standing in for the (moral) authority of the society. But jail-time or treating the officer as a rapist? Just LOL.

I wonder how much of this is the old adage of, "Sex to get out of a situation."

Oh my, are you implying that people could actually use carnal pleasure as a bargaining chip in their own interest?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Well then, I envy you your confidence.
The way I see it, somebody detained by a police officer is no more freely giving their consent to sex than somebody is freely consenting to hand over their wallet to a mugger. Coercion is not consent, and the person slamming you in the back of a paddy wagon is not your friend.

You are literally not forced to consent in such a situation. A mugger forcing you to give your wallet, is a robber. Someone forcing you to have sex with you, is a rapist. If you do not force someone to have sex with you, you are not a rapist.

The mugger is forcing you to do want he wants, because if you don't, he can and will hurt you.
The policeman has the same kind of power over you and can exercise it to force you in the same way.

[CharlesPhipps]

Just noting it was a common cop story that they'd get offered sex to get out of situations.

Taking advantage of it is repugnant but it's a thing which happens with police.

My landlord friend got frequent offers of it as well.

[Robovski]

Being offered sex in lieu of rent was a gross experience I wish I never had the displeasure making.

[AllanO]

So in 15 states a very specific dom/sub fetish is illegal.

Oh no, I guess we'll have to take cases of abuse as they come instead of assuming guilt.

Note in the sense you seem to mean the law "assumes guilt" all the time, ie takes an act that is merely inherently risky, fraught with conflict of interest etc. and treats that risky (or whatever) act as the crime not the risk or thing we are at risk of.

The most relevant example to this sort of situation is statutory rape, especially as teachers and the like can be subject to charges for acts with their students (in some jurisdiction), even if an adult not in authority might be free and clear to have relations with the student. What would happen if did not arbitrarily assume competence to decide about sex occurred at some age or situation. Presumably the prosecutors and police would have to prove rather than assume the incompetence of the alleged victim, but presumably that would mean anyone having sex would be responsible for making an effort to determine that the alleged victim was competent not in the sense of not being unconscious, drugged, under threat of violence or other gross impairment but in the subtler sense of being adult enough to consent. Not assuming would not only make the law difficult to enforce but difficult to obey.

Just to illustrate how pervasive the practice you call assuming guilt is, consider laws against drunk driving. Presumably different human beings have different reactions to the same blood alcohol level. Likewise I would have thought the basis of the law was to discourage impaired driving. So using that number as the proxy for one someone is guilty of impaired driving, just assumes everyone above the limit is impaired (and that everyone below the limit is unimpaired) regardless of the actual effects of the alcohol on that one person's body. The alternative would be a logistical nightmare for the police since they would have to find ways to objectively measure impairment for each person, and it would also be a nightmare for anyone who drinks at all and drives, since they might be super sensitive to alcohol such that a small amount (or a large amount consumed a long time ago) would impair them. Both sides of the legal equation are helped by us using these sorts of proxies that assume that there is a nice neat line between legal and illegal behaviour that may actually be murky.

[Antiboyscout]

So in 15 states a very specific dom/sub fetish is illegal.

Oh no, I guess we'll have to take cases of abuse as they come instead of assuming guilt.

Note in the sense you seem to mean the law "assumes guilt" all the time, ie takes an act that is merely inherently risky, fraught with conflict of interest etc. and treats that risky (or whatever) act as the crime not the risk or thing we are at risk of.

The most relevant example to this sort of situation is statutory rape, especially as teachers and the like can be subject to charges for acts with their students (in some jurisdiction), even if an adult not in authority might be free and clear to have relations with the student. What would happen if did not arbitrarily assume competence to decide about sex occurred at some age or situation. Presumably the prosecutors and police would have to prove rather than assume the incompetence of the alleged victim, but presumably that would mean anyone having sex would be responsible for making an effort to determine that the alleged victim was competent not in the sense of not being unconscious, drugged, under threat of violence or other gross impairment but in the subtler sense of being adult enough to consent. Not assuming would not only make the law difficult to enforce but difficult to obey.

Just to illustrate how pervasive the practice you call assuming guilt is, consider laws against drunk driving. Presumably different human beings have different reactions to the same blood alcohol level. Likewise I would have thought the basis of the law was to discourage impaired driving. So using that number as the proxy for one someone is guilty of impaired driving, just assumes everyone above the limit is impaired (and that everyone below the limit is unimpaired) regardless of the actual effects of the alcohol on that one person's body. The alternative would be a logistical nightmare for the police since they would have to find ways to objectively measure impairment for each person, and it would also be a nightmare for anyone who drinks at all and drives, since they might be super sensitive to alcohol such that a small amount (or a large amount consumed a long time ago) would impair them. Both sides of the legal equation are helped by us using these sorts of proxies that assume that there is a nice neat line between legal and illegal behaviour that may actually be murky.

Sobriety can also be measured via hand-eye coordination and reaction tests not just with a breathalyzer.

As for statutory, I think the age gap and pre/pubescent has a lot more to do with it. Take it as it comes. Check the relationship dynamic. It it based on manipulation or is it honest?

[Admiral X]

Uh, yeah, with drunk driving, it's not that you are assumed to be guilty, it's just that if you are observed to be driving erratically, this give the police probable cause to pull you over and check. This can mean a field sobriety test, a breathalyzer, or they take you into the station and take blood for a test. That isn't assuming guilt, that is collecting evidence based on probable cause, which is based on actions observed by the police and/or others. That isn't a case of someone making an accusation and then everyone just believing them.

[AllanO]

Sobriety can also be measured via hand-eye coordination and reaction tests not just with a breathalyzer.

It can be decided in that way, but I am pretty sure in many if not most jurisdictions merely having the blood alcohol level makes you impaired (if there is doubt about the accuracy of the breathalyzer you could hold hot for direct blood test), even if you have the working reflexes of a top jet fighter pilot or neurosurgeon at the time you are pulled over you are assumed impaired (or at least can be depending on how the prosecutor feels that day) just because of your blood alcohol level that is the way the law works as far as I know.

As for statutory, I think the age gap and pre/pubescent has a lot more to do with it. Take it as it comes. Check the relationship dynamic. It it based on manipulation or is it honest?

Age and being pre/post-pubescent are correlated but not everyone goes through puberty at the same age, the law is just assuming stuff like that happens and is at play (As mentioned this cuts both ways if you know the age of the person you are allowed that to assume that all the pre/post pubescent manipulation stuff has taken care of itself at least with respect to statutory rape charges), just as the laws Fuzzy Necromancer is suggesting are needed make it illegal for police to have sex with prisoners assume there is a deep power imbalance that negates any apparent consent. The law's assumption is just if X then not Y, if not age of majority then no consent and if detained by the cops then no consent, if blood alcohol level above x parts per million then not fit to drive and so on. You can bring all that other stuff into play about pre and post pubescent manipulation and so on, but the prosecutor can get you just for the age difference of a day if he wants to, the judge may lesson your sentence if you can prove mitigating circumstances (assuming there are no mandatory minimum sentences at play), but again that is him being nice the assumption of the law is still there. Presumably the laws Fuzzy Necromancer suggests would likewise be subject to prosecutorial discretion and pleas of mitigating circumstances, so I fail to see the difference.

That isn't a case of someone making an accusation and then everyone just believing them.

Exactly what Fuzzy Necromancer is saying is if cops admit that they had sex with a person who was in their custody, they have admitted to the elements of a crime. He never said you did not have to prove that sex occurred or that the person was in custody.

Edit: Now in the main story Fuzzy brought up the cops seem to be preparing to deny they actually detained the person in question, so even if the laws Fuzzy is advocating for were brought in force in New York, the prosecutor still has to prove to the judge or jury that the woman was detained, so no assumption in the sense you seem to me. However the story mentions at least one or two if not more cases where police officers have been cleared of all charges despite admitting that there were sex acts on detained (handcuffed etc.) individuals, and such stories seem to have incited Fuzzy's "there should be a law" (in more states than currently) stance.

[Antiboyscout]

Exactly what Fuzzy Necromancer is saying is if cops admit that they had sex with a person who was in their custody, they have admitted to the elements of a crime. He never said you did not have to prove that sex occurred or that the person was in custody.

I suppose I must change my argument to being against victimless crimes.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Rape is not a victimless crime.