Well, one of the two changes here (the not-rape one) is actually quite welcome. The abolition of the “not proven” verdict. UK jurisdictions had that, where the jury (or judge in a bench trial) decided you probably did it, but the prosecution hadn’t produced quite enough evidence to be sure. That’s total bullshit. Either the prosecution proves you did it, or the law should consider you not to have done, “not guilty.” That’s part of what are meant to be protections against the state: even if you actually did do it, the state still has to prove it and if it can’t, the state has to go forward treating you as if you didn’t do it. The courts shouldn’t get to basically say you “probably” did it. The court of public opinion already does that enough, but at least they can’t stick something on your record like a verdict gets stuck on your record. So THAT change is welcome!

The rape thing is retraced though. It’s obvious what this is trying to accomplish, and it’s the same thing that the Title IX hearing system at US colleges is trying to do: weaponize sex-crime accusations as yet another way of attacking and degrading men, both the specific one accused and our sex generally. I’ve actually read an impassioned defense of Title IX that claimed that because it isn’t a criminal proceeding, men don’t need due process rights. The argument claimed that it isn’t like a trial where you might go to jail, the consequences are “limited.” To expulsion and a permanent record plus any related reputations damage, yes, very limited!