New rape law allows change of mind

[GePap]

Now I know if I ever have a friend who raped someone and has been charged and is feeling low, to come post in Poly, cause he will be sanctified and all the mysogenists will crucify the "hoar"... All the people who claims this gives womne undo power: it would only apply to the dickheads who did not stop when asked.. and those, gentlement, are rapists. Is that so hard to understand? She say no, YOU STOP!! After that you are free to ask why, try to set your bruised ego, whatever. But the procedure seems rather simply laid out, no?

This is a clarification of the law, making it clear that a person is free to withdraw consent for a sexual act at any poin, that the the other party must comply. Simple, clear, reasonable.

[Velociryx]

And THIS....this right here....all this continual back and forth nit pickery is EXACTLY why it's a stupid law....the fact is that there ARE circumstances where non-consensual sex isn't a crime (Laz pointed it out), and there ARE grey areas, and it really IS a matter of each case being different, and you know what? This law doesn't cover that. It says that if she says no, and her "immediately" is different than your "immediately" you are toast, and she is within her rights to take you to jail where you may well ROT, even if (as in your case), your intentions were perfectly honorable.

This nation has a disease, and it's called lawyers, and it's this disease that sees our country bogged down with the "I'll sue!" fetish.

Used to be that the "American Dream" was to work hard, buy a house, white picket fence, and all that.

Now, the "American Dream" is I hope to GOD I can find some legal loophole so I can sue the a$$ right off of you and retire fat and happy!

But yes, let's have more laws like that, and maybe one day I'll get mine....

-=Vel=-

[DeathByTheSword]

to vel

[chequita guevara]

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

And this is different from before how?

There is nothing in the law that physically prevents anyone from making false claims. It's illegal, but that doesn't necessarily stop people.

If we are to get rid of laws because people can make false claims, why should we only limit it to rape cases? Why should theft be decriminalized. After all, it's only your word against mine that I could take your stuff. It's only your wordagainst mine that I threatened to hit you or threatened to kill you. It's only your word against mine that I committed fraud. It's only your word against mine that I'm extorting money from you.

[Japher]

Vel

[GePap]

Please. Lawyers serve a purpose. In a democracy, laws are complex, and ditto in capitalism. You call yourself a huge advocate of personal responsibility, ability, of democracy and capitalism..well, Lawyers are the price you must pay for the series of complex agreemnets that make those things work. Don;t like lawyers? Move to NK.


As for the rest of your bunk you seem to assume only men get villified for claoiming rape. This thread is PROOF against that, given the mysogenistic attack on women in represents. A womna raped has not only to deal with the memories, but crap like this from a bunch of sexual dinosaurs.

This is not claimibng a lawsuit, this is making a felony charge, and if it were so easy for women, would they not do it more often? Give me a ****ing break.

[DeathByTheSword]

the difference is that in rape cases you can never find a objective jury...the rape victim has an edge...

i fully believe no is no....but what vel said is true...sue this and sue that...

there is a comic about in i read...(it is in dutch so i will explain it)

it is one frame...you see the 2 main persons (fokke and sukke) looking at fokke`s penis and saying: yes clear to read: 'sex can cause childern'...above the frame: Fokke and sukke dont want any claims...i believe that say it all...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel


The minds of people say nothing of your future.

Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

Azazel, I think something was lost in the translation.

Saying "he did not stop immediately" is a completely acceptable way of saying "he stopped but only after another minute or two"

[Japher]

If we are to get rid of laws because people can make false claims, why should we only limit it to rape cases? Why should theft be decriminalized.

It isn't the same. As it was said earlier lending something does not change into theft if something is not returned immediatly upon request.

Whereas this law says it is rape if the actions are not stopped immediatly upon request.

I don't feel it is the time frame that matters, though it is a good argument, IMO it is the defining of the transition that is absurd.

Bob:"Can I borrow your lawn mower to mow your lawn?"

Jim:"Sure"

A week goes by

"Can I have my mower back, I need to mow my lawn."

"Oh, no I still haven't mowed my lawn."

"But it's mine"

"But you said I can borrow it to mow my lawn, and I haven't yet done that so I still need it."

"I'm calling the cops."

What if the Jim never asked for the lawn mower back and Bob never returned it, but Jim just called the cops on him? What if Jim never asked for the lawn mower back but called the cops anyway? What if Bob returned the lawn mower but Jim felt he held on to it too long so he called the cops anyway? What if Bob broke the mower and is having it fixed? What if Bob denied ever borrowing the lawn mower? What if Bob lent the lawn mower to someone else?

The case of the matter is that Jim felt Bob stole the lawn mower and the cops and the law system have to figure out if he actually stole it or not. Yet, what would happen if the law defines when stealing begins and borrowing ends? When is that point?

'Anytime over 1 week of borrowing is now stealing': so if Bob even returns the lawn mower 1 week and 1 day later, even if Jim never asks for it back, it becomes stealing and he calls the cops.

'Anytime the item looses possesion of said item': so if Bob lends the mower to some else Jom calls the police.

'Anytime time the item is not returned upon request': so Jim calls the cops if the mower is in getting fixed.

Heck we can think of many ways to define this transition and think of some legitimate excuses for why it wasn't or shouldn't have been against the law for each excuse.

Each case is different. Yet defining such a specific transition open up to many doors to keep people from behaving like sane, mature, adults.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

No ****, Sherlock.

Hence my stating that rape is not a strict liability offence.

Hence my stating that there are exceptions and complications.

Thanks for taking part, though.

[korn469]

Originally posted by 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!

We should do away with strict liability crimes, they're utter bs...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hence my stating that rape is not a strict liability offence.

Hence my stating that there are exceptions and complications.

You stated mens rea and actus reas were needed for a crime. You may have been thinking of rape, but phrased it in a general manner.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And THIS....this right here....all this continual back and forth nit pickery is EXACTLY why it's a stupid law....the fact is that there ARE circumstances where non-consensual sex isn't a crime (Laz pointed it out), and there ARE grey areas, and it really IS a matter of each case being different, and you know what? This law doesn't cover that. It says that if she says no, and her "immediately" is different than your "immediately" you are toast, and she is within her rights to take you to jail where you may well ROT, even if (as in your case), your intentions were perfectly honorable.

How would the intention be honourable?

[Velociryx]

Laz: If she said stop and you did, but your "immediately" wasn't fast enough for her liking (even if it was only 2-3 seconds)

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

How would the intention be honourable?

I think he was saying if you were slowing down to a stop (taking say 5 seconds). Your intentions may be honorable (you were stopping), but you didn't 'immediately' end, based on what 'immediately' means.