Reamond
|
posted on January 7, 2003 09:37:45 PM new
Rape Can Occur Even After Consent
This is a troubling case. While I don't agree with the alternative view of once consent is given it can not be revoked, the situation is rife for unjust outcomes (no pun intended).
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/030107/991bc0bfa3a232b566cb7942a116d8c9_1.html
|
twinsoft
|
posted on January 7, 2003 11:09:09 PM new
How does the old song go ...
When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way....
Like the girl's going to change her mind halfway through, the guy will pull out and end of story. Riiight.
Chalk one up for the ACLU. LOL!
|
gravid
|
posted on January 8, 2003 03:51:20 AM new
"I need to get home."
Is an objection?
It could be interpreted as - hurry up.
Perhaps the next one will be convicted for - This is not working.
|
zoomin
|
posted on January 8, 2003 05:37:39 AM new
I guess she finished early?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 06:39:51 AM new
What first struck me was that 'he' wasn't able to 'complete' this in under 4-5 minutes? Come on...he's 17. Most young boys would have been 'finished' within seconds of penetration.
But when you read the agruments in the CA SC DOC, you get a little better picture of what happened. [Better, anyway, that what the URL above states, imo.]
I chuckled as I read one of the defendant's arguments:
As defendant argues "By essence of the act of sexual intercourse, a male's primal urge to reproduce is aroused. It is therefore unreasonable for a female and the law to expect a male to cease having sexual intercourse immediately upon her withdrawl of consent.
It is only natural, fair and just that a male be given a reasonable amount of time on which to quell his primal urge....
[I'd have quelled his urge, alright]
The Court Disagreed -
Even if we were to accept defendants "reasonable time" argument, in the present case he was given ample time to withdraw but refused to do so despite Laura's resistance and objections.
So....imo, in this case, the court decision was the correct one.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 8, 2003 06:41 AM ]
|
clarksville
|
posted on January 8, 2003 08:31:06 AM new
I know there is a connection with this thread and the viagra thread.
Edited to add a: 
[ edited by clarksville on Jan 8, 2003 08:33 AM ]
|
Reamond
|
posted on January 8, 2003 11:10:02 AM new
The problem with this outcome is that the evidence standard for rape is extremely reduced.
Any sex partner that says stop while in flagrante delicto, can now easily and successfuly bring a rape case. Remember ladies, this standard applies to you too.
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 8, 2003 11:34:03 AM new
That was also my concern.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:22:35 PM new
Reamond - I'm obviously missing something here - that you're seeing.
What part of "no" or "stop" or "etc" can't a man be expected to understand? If this does happen cannot a man take care of his problem by himself?
We've all read about the 'Date Rape' problems. Guess I'm just not understanding your thought process that a woman can't say 'no' at anytime and have a right for that to be honored/respected.
And I definately need help understanding what you mean by 'ladies, this standard applies to you too'. Maybe I'm getting too old 
|
bunnicula
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:35:24 PM new
Well, if a man and woman are having intercourse--consentual intercourse--and if, right when things were reaching their height so to speak, the man says "I have to leave, let's stop right now"...and the woman doesn't let him go that very instant, than she is "raping" him.
edited to transpose an "e" and "i"
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 8, 2003 12:37 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:37:09 PM new
Yeah right bunni.... like that's going to happen. 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:46:10 PM new
ROFLMHO - Exactly KD
bunni - I want to see proof that has ever happened. [kidding with you]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:49:12 PM new
If bunni's example should ever make historical records by happening, I'd still feel the same way. She could take 'care' of herself, rather than forcing herself upon him. Of course, it might also be interesting to see a woman strong enough to 'force' her male partner to comply, but I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
|
bear1949
|
posted on January 8, 2003 12:58:20 PM new
If she had said "stop or no" I could understand the charges. But saying "I have to go", sure leaves a lot for interpertation. Did she try to push the guy off of her? Still a lot that wasn't told.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:04:20 PM new
Actually Bear, there were two guys involved. You'd have to read the SC decision to get the whole picture....it's 19 pages long.
Basically there were two guys. She let the first one play...while the one that was found guilty of rape was off finding a rubber. [Thank God for that at least]. When she and the first guy were done she started to put her clothes back on. At which time the 2nd guy [the one found guilty] started forcing himself on her. Now, you know how stories like this go. ... her side...his side ...and somewhere in between lies the truth. Anyway...he wouldn't take no for an answer...and the SC agreed with the lower courts decision.
That was a little of my take....doesn't mean I'm seeing it the way it was....that was just my take.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:10:43 PM new
Me too Linda... I'd like to see proof of that too! I just can't picture a guy up on the stand crying because some girl forced him to have sex after he said 'no more'.
|
Reamond
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:11:56 PM new
There have been rape prosecutions of females. If not then the sensational cases of the school teachers having sex with male students could never have been prosecuted.
"No" does mean no, but the desenting judge makes the problems clear; What are the demarcations of the offence when conscent is revoked ? Does it become rape as soon as one party says stop ? Or does it become rape 15 seconds after stop is uttered, or 2 minutes later? What if the revoking party verbally says stop, but his/her "flesh" says something altogether different ? What if the party says stop, then go, then stop, then go...etc..
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:12:24 PM new
KD - He'd be one very special man.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:18:50 PM new
Reamond - ...but here I thought we were speaking to the issue of when a woman has a right to say no....or at what time she can 'stop the proceedings'.
Of course there have been reported crimes of molestation, and I'm sure that if a man was ever tied down [with scarves] and then decided he didn't want to continue the 'game'...that maybe a women forced him to by not releasing him. ETC.....
But what I'm not buying is that a woman doesn't, at any time, have a right to stop the 'proceedings'. But rather that since a man has been pressed 'past the point of return' and therefore a woman must 'take' it. That's my concern.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:18:51 PM new
By special Linda, do you mean gay?
You're right Reamond. There sure are lots of grey areas with rape cases. That's where I would hope a jury would help. Prostitutes have claimed rape and were laughed at. I think of all people, a prostitute would know the difference.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:20:52 PM new
No, KD, just unusual....very unusual...like it would happen so very rarely....
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:23:38 PM new
That's so true Linda!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on January 8, 2003 01:55:10 PM new
Rape does not require force, perhaps that is why we are at a misunderstanding.
Rape is sexual contact/penetration without consent.
There are also certain conditions where consent as a matter of law, can not be given, such as due to young age, mental condition, mental debilitation due to drugs/alcohol.
There are many cases where "consent" seems to be given, no force or intimidation used, and yet a rape has taken place.
Can a normal man or woman have consentual sex with a retarded 25 year old ?
If a woman has sex with a 25 year old retarded man is it rape ? The case will turn on whether the retardation is such that the person is deemed to be unable to give legal consent.
Rape can be a very gray area on the facts alone, but this ruling makes it even more gray as a matter of law.
While I believe that consent can be revoked and it is criminal to procede after revocation, I wouldn't have the act prosecuted as rape. Perhaps some sort of assault/battery.
Rape is usually looked at as something far worse than battery due to the intimacy and personal nature of the crime. However, once consent has been given, the personal and intimacy aspects of the act have been resolved and consented to, that is, the personal revulsion of the act of rape is not present since the act began with consent. For this reason the act of not stopping immediately (and without acts of force or intimidation) should be a lesser offence, such as simple assault and battery.
[ edited by Reamond on Jan 8, 2003 02:03 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 02:44:44 PM new
Rape does not require force, perhaps that is why we are at a misunderstanding.
That's probably the issue, Reamond. I've alway thought that rape meant sex by force.
In this one case though, I still believe her wish to 'discontinue' the act should have been respected. I'm from the old school, where you raise your sons to understand that you don't force yourself on anyone, no matter how far 'down the line' it may have gone. If there's any hint she's not interested, that's where it stops. That sometimes even though you think 'she's saying no, but I know she really means yes', it's time to make sure first.
Why do you think that the CA SC upheld the first courts decision in her favor then? I sure see that as supporting the position that 'it's over when she says it's over'. No?
|
twinsoft
|
posted on January 8, 2003 04:11:32 PM new
This decision flies in the face of nature. Of physics! Consider a car driving down the freeway at 70 mph. The driver says "stop" by slamming his foot on the brake. Does the car stop immediately? No. (It skids along for 100 yards or so. Then it stops.)
What part of "no" or "stop" or "etc" can't a man be expected to understand? If this does happen cannot a man take care of his problem by himself?
That is simply insane. When a woman says "put it in," a contract is established. At that point, the woman has no right to change her mind.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 8, 2003 05:08:31 PM new
Okay...maybe it would help if everyone who's interested could read the testimony and maybe understand why the court decided the way it did. Then again...maybe not.
PDF:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S103427.PDF
DOC:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S103427.DOC
Hope these work...I can't view them from my webtv unit.
|
Reamond
|
posted on January 8, 2003 07:04:51 PM new
The facts in this case or any case can change one's sentiments.
What is special about this case is the rule of law that it establishes.
There will never be a case with exactly the same facts as this case, but there will be many cases that use the rule of law established by it.
The rule here is that consent for sex can be revoked at any time until the act is completed, and continuing after this revocation is rape.
It should not be rape. It should be considered a battery.
This ruling actually trivializes the crime of rape from being a cruel and horrible act to one that is the result of a fickel heart.
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 8, 2003 11:28:58 PM new
> Of course, it might also be interesting to see a woman strong enough to 'force' her male partner to comply, but I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
In domestic abuse cases where the female is the offender, the same tactics are used that men do ~ namely violence and psychological abuse. Just because a woman launches a balled-up fist and cold-cocks a male does not mean that a male is automatically going to fight back. Most men are confused and unsure what to do in these situations. If the woman demanded sex with a guy in a relationship and was always violent and psychologically abusive before, I see no reason why a man couldn't declare that the woman had raped him.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 8, 2003 11:38:12 PM new
No way Borillar! A woman could demand all the sex she wanted but unless the guy was 'interested', nothing would happen.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on January 8, 2003 11:41:32 PM new
Kraft, there is a technique involving a rubber band that will get the woman what she wants even if he isn't "interested"....
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
