New rape law allows change of mind

[Az]

so 'No' means no, and nothing, or 'Yes' means yes? sounds right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher

I also don't get the whole, "It's more open to abuse" thing.

The "more open to abuse" is because there can now be actual consensual sex that occurs right along side of rape. Before, sex only need to occur for there to be a crime, now there can be sex that wasn't a crime and sex that was a crime happening at the same time.

There could always have been consensual sex when an act of rape is claimed. Nothing about this law changes the fact that people can and do lie. What it does do, however, is tell guys that even if the woman has consented, she can withdraw her consent and you have to respect that, under penalty of law. There is no more possibility for abuse than there was before.

[DarthVeda]

This law assumes women are not fickle?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Both must exist simultaneously for a crime to be committed

Not all the time. Strict Liability crimes only require an actus reas. Mens rea has no place there. Such as a crime (say) to be carrying on your person any drugs for whatever reason. Doesn't matter what your intent was, if it's strict liability, the act only matters.

If you were unaware that the drugs were on you, such as you were carrying a box for a friend, that can be a legitimate defense.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
This law assumes women are not fickle?

Actually, it assumes the oposite, that women have the right to change their minds.

[Japher]

This law assumes women are not fickle?

There in lies the rub

[Velociryx]

But only if she signs a fifteen page legal consent document under the watchful eye of the consent cam is the "rub" perfectly safe....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So....if he's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug himself), and she's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug herself), and they both sorta zoned out for a while, and came to their senses later with clear evidence that there had been sex involved, neither party "raped" the other (cos they had not the "guilty mind" even tho the (non-consensual) act was there).

If you take the date rape drug, you will be unable to initiate sex. It more or less turns you into a zombie. However, being drunk or on drugs is not a defense against rape.

[Velociryx]

why not....if it puts you in a state of mind where there's no "guilty mind" (and since both must be present per the conversation above).....no crime, yes?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

You know, all you have to do is not be an ******* to women and be a little disciminating about where you stick your cheney and you'll be safe from the hordes of women waiting out there just for the opportunity to send you to prison.

[DeathByTheSword]

this is dangerous...think about intrapment....you lure someone in to bed...you say NO ones...and you can sue him/her

[Az]

If you take the date rape drug, you will be unable to initiate sex. It more or less turns you into a zombie. However, being drunk or on drugs is not a defense against rape.

Ok, so if to people are drunk senseless, and sleep together, the guy can be charged with rape?
(makes an interesting situation in a case of a gay couple )

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
why not....if it puts you in a state of mind where there's no "guilty mind" (and since both must be present per the conversation above).....no crime, yes?

-=Vel=-

If you're so drunk or high you black out, I highly doubt you can function enough to get your pants off, let alone get it hard and find a hole to put it in. However, if you did black out, you might get lucky and find a sympathetic jury.

[C0ckney]

laz is right. it seems to me that it would difficult to prove something like this.

'i said stop'
'i didn't hear you'
'i was shouting'
'not very loud, because i didn't hear you'

but there you go, it'd be for the jury to decide. on that subject, the 'immediacy' test should be one based on reasonableness and not on some arbitary time limit. a matter of fact for the jury, not a matter of law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you were unaware that the drugs were on you, such as you were carrying a box for a friend, that can be a legitimate defense.

Not if it is a strict liability offense (as I believe I've laid out), che. Strict liability means NO excuses!