New rape law allows change of mind

[Ned]

Che, I am not sure you understand the counterargument. The question is not whether the man should stop or not. The question is whether this is the kind of "rape" that should be punished by the criminal justice system.

As I said earlier, this kind of rape occurs in a "relationship." The woman's remedies are many in such a situation. The law should be reserved to punish true criminals and not invade private relationships where the private remedies are normally sufficient.

I give you one more example: Your girlfriend "borrows" your car without your consent. Normally, this is a matter that you can handle within the dynamics of your personal relationship. One does not call the police and have the girlfriend arrested for grand theft.

[Az]

what's TMI?

[Japher]

I concur Ned

---

Yet, since the general public cannot seem to be held responsible for their actions:

I would rather they clarify Rape/Sexual Assault a lot more than lumping everything into one catagory, and accusing everyone who has sex a rapist as long as everyone they have ever had sex with gave and continues to give consent for that action.

Q1: Did You Give Consent?
Yes - Go to Q2
No - 1st Degree Rape

Q2: Did You Ever Voice That You Did Not Want To Continue?
Yes - Go to Q3
No - No Charges

Q3: Did He/She Continue?
Yes - Go to Q4
No - No Charges

Q4: Did He/She Prevent You From Stopping?
Yes - 2nd Degree Rape/Sexual Assault
No - Go to Q5

Q5: Did You Continue?
Yes - No Charges
No - Go to Q3

--

Yet, I don't think a 2nd Degree Rape charge is as serious as a 1st degree as it does not and should not lable the accused as a "sexual preditor". That person was put into a predicament where their chances of making the right decision were severely diminished... I think it's something similar to entrapment.

[Japher]

TMI= Too Much Information

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I am not sure you understand the counterargument. The question is not whether the man should stop or not. The question is whether this is the kind of "rape" that should be punished by the criminal justice system.

It's not clear from the case presented that this girl had an ongoing relationship with the guy. It appears that she had just had sex with someone else, was okay having sex with this new guy when she then changed her mind.

I give you one more example: Your girlfriend "borrows" your car without your consent. Normally, this is a matter that you can handle within the dynamics of your personal relationship. One does not call the police and have the girlfriend arrested for grand theft.

Would you argue, however, that you should not have the option to involve the police? What if she took it after a fight? What if you had an emergancy, need to go to work or a job interview? What if you just met her, said she could borrow the car to go to the store, and then she took off for Vegas for a week? Would you be so forgiving then?

Ned, what they are arguing against is the whole concept of changing one's mind during the act. After the act is too late, and despite their claims that this will make it easier for women to claim rape as revenge (which blackice has reported happens in slightly more than 50% of all accusations), it already happens and the police seem to find out anyway. The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

My point aganist them still stands. The whole concept of date-rape was argued against "because it would make it easier for women to claim they were raped if they just didn't like the sex blah blah blah." It hasn't led to an increase in false rape claims, but it has allowed women who were forced to have sex by their aquaintences to get some small measure of justice.

This "new" law is merely a clarification of existing law. Anyone who thinks that consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn, is living about two decades in the past.

[korn469]

Azazel

TMI=too much information

If it is consensual sex, and a person changes their mind, and voices they want to stop but don't actually stop is it really rape? I think it varies from case to case with at least some instances on both sides. However, if they try to stop the sexual encounter and they are restrained then obviously it is some form of rape.

I also agree the statement that bad laws even if they have good intentions are bad laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Yet, since the general public cannot seem to be held responsible for their actions:

You mean like raping someone and not wanting to go to prison?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Q1: Did You Give Consent?
Yes - Go to Q2
No - 1st Degree Rape

Q2: Did You Ever Voice That You Did Not Want To Continue?
Yes - Go to Q3
No - No Charges

Q3: Did He/She Continue?
Yes - Go to Q4
No - No Charges

Q4: Did He/She Prevent You From Stopping?
Yes - 2nd Degree Rape/Sexual Assault
No - Go to Q5

Q5: Did You Continue?
Yes - No Charges
No - Go to Q3

If you can agree with the above, why do you have a problem with the law? How does the whole he said-she said not apply here, since it is still her word vs his? How would this prevent false rape claims?

Why do you not think that most states already have multiple degrees of sexual assault?

[Japher]

The whole concept of date-rape was argued against "because it would make it easier for women to claim they were raped if they just didn't like the sex blah blah blah." It hasn't led to an increase in false rape claims, but it has allowed women who were forced to have sex by their aquaintences to get some small measure of justice.

"it hasn't lead to an increase in false rape claims"... how the heck do you know that!? Since all the claims are sent through as rape whether they were or not! All a woman has to do to get the cuffs slapped on her man is to just yell 'rape' these days... no 'false claims' there... no

You mean like raping someone and not wanting to go to prison

No, I mean like having sex but the deciding that they didn't or don't want to anymore.

The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

So all them murderers that are being executed are really guilty... Good, because I am for the death penalty.

[Japher]

If you can agree with the above, why do you have a problem with the law? How does the whole he said-she said not apply here, since it is still her word vs his? How would this prevent false rape claims?

Why do you not think that most states already have multiple degrees of sexual assault?

You need to ask those questions to the 'victim' to get the claim. You ask them to the 'perp' to get a conviction. If he says he didn't restrain her, and there is no proof, then there is no case.

[korn469]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

this is simply laughable

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher


You need to ask those questions to the 'victim' to get the claim. You ask them to the 'perp' to get a conviction. If he says he didn't restrain her, and there is no proof, then there is no case.

And that is how it generally works these days.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by korn469
this is simply laughable

Generally doesn't mean ni all cases, and given that the police were inclined to let you go one would think you'd agree.

[korn469]

Che,

It was the judge and prosecutor not the police in my case

on my probation report the arresting officer recommended the maximum amount of jail time possible basically because he said I was a bad person, the only thing that made it ok though was that he had marked the box that said no jail time by accident and he scratched it out instead of using white out or getting a new sheet...it was quite funny because it made him look completely incompetent

[Velociryx]

Okay Che....let's use your own examples. You said earlier that you had been in a situation where the lady in question changed her mind mid-stream, right?

She said stop, and so you did.

But....you didn't stop "immediately," now did you? I mean, the whole term "immediately" is rather subjective. She said stop and yet, between that time and the time you actually DID stop, SOME time passed.

A second? Two? I wasn't there, I don't know.

What I do know is that time elapsed.

Under your definition then, you are guilty of the crime.

Duration does not matter, right? Rape is rape if it's for a second or a day, yes? And under this new law, she would have been within her rights to bring you up on charges if her "immediately" and yours differed any at all.

But that's okay too, I guess, cos after all, this law might catch us another rapist or two, so even if your intentions were honorable (ie - you intended to stop, and did, in fact....just not fast enough for her)....and if you end up doing time for it, that's okay, right?

-=Vel=-