rape: a matter of opinion

[Velociryx]

Or hell, why not take it even further than that...I mean, if we're headed down the slippery slope, why not go whole hog and decree that any time there is to be sex occuring, you go ahead and assemble a jury of 12 of your peers to witness the act (maybe even get a judge on scene to do the video taping so there's a record of the mutual consent during the entire event), and turn it into a party!

And I agree with Flubber....intimate relationships are about trust and mutual respect....if you don't TRUST your partner enough to know his/her mind without asking about, or asking permission FOR every blessed little thing....exactly how strong of a relationship can you realistically have? IMO, not very.

-=Vel=-
$0.02

[Flubber]

Vel you are agreeing with me too much LOL.

DL!!

[Japher]

I have a friend and she is permicous to say the least. As a joke she has a form that I've seen on the internet that is a "sex act release form"... She never makes her lovers fill it out, but presenting it to them pretty much opens the door.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Japher
I have a friend and she is permicous to say the least. As a joke she has a form that I've seen on the internet that is a "sex act release form"... She never makes her lovers fill it out, but presenting it to them pretty much opens the door.

Now thats good natured fun

[Velociryx]

I....agree again!

/me does the DL Dance





-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

As far as Kobe's statement, it was agreed upon by her and his lawyers....not to be used in a civil trial.

He had to make the statement to end the criminal trial.

ACK!

[Az]

Sure there is. He can ask permission. Yes is an affirmative defence

Should he get it on tape, or something?

That's pretty much how it seems to work, at least where I come from. At least if the woman was a "good girl".

This is one of the parts that annoys me the most. What does that have to do with anything?

[Tuberski]

Kobe Bryant sex assault case dismissed as alleged victim drops out; civil suit still looms

By STEVEN K. PAULSON, Associated Press Writer
September 2, 2004

EAGLE, Colo. (AP) -- The sexual assault charge against Kobe Bryant has been dropped, but his accuser -- whose reluctance to participate derailed the criminal trial before it really got started -- isn't letting him off the hook just yet.

With jury selection under way, the criminal case was dropped late Wednesday by prosecutors who said the 20-year-old woman accusing Bryant of rape decided not to participate. She dropped out following a series of gaffes that led to the public disclosure of her name and other personal details, and prosecutors said they would not carry on without her testimony.

But the Los Angeles Lakers star still faces his accuser's federal civil lawsuit seeking unspecified damages. That case is still on, said L. Lin Wood, the woman's attorney.



``There has been no settlement of the civil lawsuit and there have been no discussions concerning a settlement,'' he said.

The 26-year-old Bryant issued a written apology that stopped short of taking responsibility for his actions.

``Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did,'' he said.

Bryant's statement was a condition of the woman withdrawing her testimony, his lawyers told ESPN for a story posted on its Web site Thursday. Defense attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon told the sports network that the accuser ``insisted on that statement as a price of freedom.''

Bryant tearfully admitted more than a year ago he had consensual sex with the then-19-year-old employee of a Vail-area resort where he stayed last summer. If convicted, the married father of a little girl could have faced four years to life in prison, or 20 years to life on probation, and a fine up to $750,000.

Instead, prosecutors dropped the case after spending at least $200,000 preparing for trial. District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said he could have won the case, but he supported the woman's decision to withdraw, with a stipulation that charges will never be refiled.

``Today justice is sadly interrupted. The casualty in this interruption has been a brave young woman who was grievously hurt,'' Hurlbert said.

Victims' rights groups said the way the case disintegrated could force states to take another look at rape-shield laws, which typically bar the sex life of an alleged assault victim from being admitted as evidence.

Wendy Murphy, a professor at the New England School of Law in Boston and a former prosecutor, said the case could shake many women's faith in the justice system.

``The rules, the laws, the things that are supposed to make us treat each other with civility are a big joke, it doesn't matter,'' she said.

In this case, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle ruled that the woman's sex life in the three days surrounding her encounter with Bryant could be admitted as evidence, which may have bolstered the defense contention that she slept with someone after leaving Bryant and before she went to a hospital exam -- a potentially key blow to her credibility. The woman's lawyers have denied the accusation.

And after mistakes that revealed her identity, at least two death threats and relentless media attention, she apparently had had enough.

``The difficulties that this case has imposed on this woman the past year are unimaginable,'' said John Clune, one of her attorneys. He said she was particularly disturbed by mistakes including the release of her name on a state courts Web site and her medical history to attorneys.

Neither Bryant nor his accuser were in the courtroom as the judge threw out the case, blaming budget cuts in part for a lack of courthouse staff and the mistakes.

Outside the courthouse, Hurlbert said the decision to drop the case ``is not based upon a lack of belief in the victim -- she is an extremely credible and an extremely brave young woman.''

``A trial can be traumatic for any victim of any crime, more so with the victim of a sexual assault, and even more so with the victim of a sexual assault whose victimization has been subject to worldwide scrutiny,'' the prosecutor said.

Bryant said the civil case against him ``will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.''

``I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman,'' Bryant said. ``No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case.''

Larry Pozner, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said he did not think Bryant's statement suggested an interest in settling the civil lawsuit.

``I would have guessed today would have been a global settlement (covering both cases),'' he said. ``If it isn't, it's because the defense has told them, `We aren't paying you very much, and if you want to continue, bring it on.'''

The lawsuit, like the criminal case, accuses Bryant of attacking the woman in his room at the Cordillera resort near Edwards, causing her emotional and physical problems that linger to this day.

Prosecutors said Bryant flirted with the woman, a front desk employee, during a tour of the resort. After the two ended up in his room, they began to kiss, which she acknowledged was consensual. Investigators have said the encounter turned violent and that she told Bryant ``no'' at least twice.

In the civil suit, the attorneys said at some point during the kissing ``Bryant's voice became deeper and his acts became rougher'' as he began to grope the woman. She asked him to stop, but Bryant allegedly blocked her exit, grabbed her and forced her over a chair to rape her. Bryant's hands were around the woman's neck, the attorneys said -- ``a perceived threat of potential strangulation if she resisted his advances.''

A more complete story....

ACK!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Azazel

This is one of the parts that annoys me the most. What does that have to do with anything?

A persons sexual history should NOT be relevant usually but IF the girl was a virgin or ALWAYS required condom use or something, it buttresses her credibility that she would not have consented to behaviors outside what was normally acceptable to her.

In the same manner, if she liked to be tied up and was frequently tied up by sex partners, then the fact that she was tied up in an encounter does not NECESSARILY mean that it was a rape. So sexual history matters if it goes to the credibility of someone's story.


In theory, a defendents past bad acts can be brought out if he tried to make his character into issue saying he wasn't the type of guy to be aggressive with girls. Then theoretically the prosecution could call anyone they could find that he groped or ever got a bit too aggressive with.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Once again we have seen that rich people in America can walk away from almost anything. Ted Kennedy killed a woman while drunken driving and didn't tell anyone about it for days, OJ stabbed his ex-wife and her new boyfriend, millionaire CEOs bilk investers out of millions, and they all walk.

Innocent before proven guilty, my friend. Obviously, the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kobe raped this woman. Therefore, he must be treated as innocent.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


And if she viewed it differently, then he's admitting it was against her will. That's rape.

Not necessarily. If the difference of viewpoints at the time meant there was no mens rea, then he's not guilty.

That's the English law position, anyway. If he genuinely thought she was consenting, and is not held to be reckless in that assumption, then he's not raping her. Whether, in fact, she was consenting or not.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Not necessarily. If the difference of viewpoints at the time meant there was no mens rea, then he's not guilty.

That's the English law position, anyway. If he genuinely thought she was consenting, and is not held to be reckless in that assumption, then he's not raping her. Whether, in fact, she was consenting or not.

Exactly-- to rape someone you have to have intent or be willfully blind to the facts.

My breaking into a cabin example illustrated the same point.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Ludd, try and understand the impossibility of what your saying.

By your logic, what if a woman is just looking for money and has sex with the explicit purpose of claiming rape (just a hypothetical)? By your rules of evidence there is no way to stop that.

Don't be such a slut that you'd sleep with any woman at the drop of a hat and it's not a problem. If you can't trust the person you're having sex with, you shouldn't be doing it.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Don't be such a slut that you'd sleep with any woman at the drop of a hat and it's not a problem. If you can't trust the person you're having sex with, you shouldn't be doing it.

You wouldn't need to be a slut. It could happen to a virgin on his wedding night.

You never know for sure whether you can trust someone, you can only believe you can trust them. Only the other person knows how trustworthy they will be to someone. And someone might be trustworthy today, but years later a relationship could go sour, she could turn bitter/hateful & betray that trust.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's always better to get it in writing i guess

Some colleges over here required the students to actually ask permission before taking each step from kissing to intercourse. I imagine that has been largely ignored (and even spoofed on Saturday Night Live) but if something happens and they didn't follow this then the lack of consent is implied.