New rape law allows change of mind

[Ned]

Iman, et al., I find it almost impossible to believe that one would put a man behind bars for life for not stopping "immediately" under these circumstances. Real life juries would simply find the defendant not guilty if they knew the penalty for not stopping immediately was the same as for a violent assault on the steet by a stranger.

This is one of the reasons most prosecutors probably would never bring such a case in the first place.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, Temp... what is your solution to this? I'd imagine that you'd agree with me that a partner can change his/her mind in the middle of sex, but when should it become rape?

I honestly have no idea.

As someone above pointed out, being in coitus for a male entails certain biochemical disadvantages (i.e. less blood for the brain, hormonal stuff). Then again, you don't want to go so far as to require actual physical resistance. A simple 'no' should always be enough to render sex non-consensual.

Perhaps once coitus has begun there should be time for 'are you serious' followed by another simple 'no'. I don't know.

Oh wait! The libertarian solution: contract out of this. Before initiating coitus, sign a pre-coital agreement that once coitus has begun, continuing consent is obligatory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Iman, et al., I find it almost impossible to believe that one would put a man behind bars for life for not stopping "immediately" under these circumstances. Real life juries would simply find the defendant not guilty if they knew the penalty for not stopping immediately was the same as for a violent assault on the steet by a stranger.

This is one of the reasons most prosecutors probably would never bring such a case in the first place.

That is probably true. Jury nullification does happen. Though the problem is that a jury MAY choose to convict if the defintion of immediately is too rigid.

[Az]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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"

Ah, ok. I imagined it to be "If he doesn't grind to a screetching halt in a second he's a rapist". no problem then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, ok. I imagined it to be "If he doesn't grind to a screetching halt in a second he's a rapist". no problem then.

That's what we are discussing now, I think . What's "immediately" mean.

[Ned]

Azazel, What we are talking about here is a California Supreme Court decision, IIRC. How does this affect you in Israel. Do your courts follow our courts as "secondary" authority?

[Az]

no, I was just wondering.

[Ned]

Hah! The Bryant case looks like what we are talking about here.

"The case against Kobe Bryant will focus on injuries suffered by the alleged victim and the prosecution's belief that Bryant intentionally deceived law enforcement officials, sources familiar with the prosecution's case have told ESPN and ABC News.

Those sources claim that Bryant met his alleged victim when she gave him a tour of the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera, during which he extended an invitation for the woman to come to his room later that evening, which she accepted.

The 19-year-old woman did go to Bryant's room the night of June 30, where she spent less than half an hour, according to the sources.

ABC News sources claim that the two engaged in some consensual sexual activity in Bryant's room, but that the intercourse that took place was not consensual. Those same sources say that the alleged victim sustained some physical injuries, which Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlburt and his staff plan to say prove that the sex was not consensual."

According to ESPN's sources, prosecutors also believe that Bryant intentionally deceived police officers and that his statements to them were inconsistent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/story?id=1587569

[chequita guevara]

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....

So giving women and Black people the right to vote was stupid because people argued back and forth about it? Making spousal rape against the law was stupid because guys like you disagreed back when it happened. Clarifying that date rape was against the law was stupid.... Controversy does not make the law stupid. In fact, if anything, it makes the law necessary. There are plenty of people here who seem to think that rape is perfectly acceptable if she's given and retracted her consent.

[Az]

If there are injuries, this means jailtime for Bryant. It would be a shame that such a great athlete would go to prison because of his stupidity and bad nature.

[Rasbelin]

Vel,

I have to agree with you after reading all posts. The law would be okay, but that word immidiately just doesn't fit into the picture. However also Flubber is right. It's so basic stuff which is documented into the law now. IMO it should either be fully dropped or modified with a timeframe statement, like e.g. "The intercouse must be stopped immidiately, although giving enough time for the partners to stop the intercourse safe." Or something similar. Maybe not with a specific time given in time units (e.g. seconds). Duh, I'm not the educated scholar here.

DT,

that made me crack up. Indeed. What a loophole that offers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
If there are injuries, this means jailtime for Bryant. It would be a shame that such a great athlete would go to prison because of his stupidity and bad nature.

The injuries sure point to lack of consent. However the point I was raising is that she said no after engaging in some consensual sex.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Sure it does....in the sense that if the case never makes it to court (stopping in a timeframe she likes), then it's not a matter for the law at all, but if your "immediately" and hers differ (up to her completely to decide), then it's see you in court!

-=Vel=-

Harrasment is a similar situation. You may not mean any harm, but if you continue trying to associate with someone who doesn't want your company, you can end up in jail. That's why we have trials and juries, to decide whether or not the application of the law in a particular case is reasonable rather than have the police watching our every move and jailing us for the slightest infraction.

In a case where a man is accused of rape, first the victim has to convince the police a rape occured. Then the victim must convincce a DA that a rape occured. Finally the victim must convince a judge and jury that a rape occured. If just one of those groups of people disagrees, then you aren't going to prison.

Do you really, honestly think, in the real world, that this is going to lead to an increase in the numbers of false or "mistaken" accusations of rape?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


The injuries sure point to lack of consent. However the point I was raising is that she said no after engaging in some consensual sex.

Consensua sexual activity does not equl consensual sex. Maybe there was some heavy petting going on. That's sexual activity, but it doesn't necesssarily mean you want to have sex. You can consent to the former while refusing to consent to the latter.

[Ned]

Che, of course. But the problem is that under the circumstances, Kobe may have believed that she was there and had consented to the who nine yards.