New rape law allows change of mind - Page 10

Sikander · July 31, 2003, 05:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The word is that the woman who accused Kobe was deeply depressed and had tried to kill herself twice in the weeks preceding the alleged rape. I was wondering how mental and emotional problems could affect such a case.

Well for starters it poisons the jury pool once the defense team leaks it to the media or the tabloids buy the story from her college roommate.

Az · July 31, 2003, 06:06

What about subjudice or whatever it is called?

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 08:21

Flubber.....the first case you mentioned would be correct. Not a troll at all. Scout's honor.

The fact is, I really *don't* know much about the law. About the only time I even THINK about the law is in that little span of seconds between taking my foot off the gas pedal of my truck after I've seen the state trooper, and until I round the next curve taking him from my sight.

As Gepap pointed out earlier, I am a champion of individual responsibility, as well. For me, this means structuring my life such that I don't NEED the court system. I've been "in court" all of twice in my life. Neither was pleasant, ranking right up there with root canal surgery, but that's okay. As a responsible adult, and someone who takes personal responsibility for myself and my actions, I find that I do not have much need of the court system. If I am in disagreement with someone about something, we work it out.

Here are the laws that affect ME:
Speed Limit 55: 56 = breaking the law, 55 = you're okay. If I get a ticket, I pay the fine. No fuss, no muss, no questions asked.

Liquor store not open on Sunday: Because in SC, you can't buy liquor on Sunday.....guess who doesn't go to the liquor store on Sunday for next week's party? If I did (assuming there was one open) = breakin' the law. Any other day of the week = fine.

I live in a state where I could go to work to day, tell my boss to kiss my....shins, and pack my desk. No two week notice needed, no nothin' See ya, gone.

And....that's about it. I pay my bills on time, I don't make trouble, and if I FIND myself in trouble, I work it out alllllll by myself. No judge, no jury, no court.

And it works.

So the laws I deal with are a) very limited, and b) very cut and dried 55 or less, fine, 56 and over you're breakin' the law and you know it).

That is why ambiguous language IN a law scares me, and you said it yourself "everybody would be guilty". That's right. I agree.

To Ting.....you know that's not what I'm talking about. Reasonable Doubt has everything to do with instructions to a bunch of guys who weren't at a given place on a given day, being presented with evidence about events they know nothing about and asked to decide.

That's very different from this law, unless you want to make the argument that one or both parties involved were not present and accounted for when the event occured?

-=Vel=-

Flubber · July 31, 2003, 09:12

Vel

Most laws can never be as clear cut as your speeding example. Example. .. murder laws. WE could make it simple . . . kill someone=murder, don't kill anyone=no murder . But the problem is

what if its an accident in which I could have done nothing wrong?( they jump in front of my car)
what if its an accident where I am at fault? ( cleaning a loaded gun)
what if they are trying to kill me ?
what if they are robbing me ?

There are so many shades of grey when someone dies at the hands of another and range from not being an offense at all to first degree murder. In order of examples the likely result would be

-- no offense
-- possibly criminal negligence or manslaughter depending on jurisdiction
-- no offense
-- No offense in many US states ( where protection of property is an explicit defense to Murder)-- possibly an offense in Canada, and some US states depending on the circumstances

To the law at hand, you can take most any law, focus on a single word, give it its most absurd interpretation and the result is an unworkable law. There are many principles of statutory interpretation common across the jurisdictions I am aware of. oNE OF THE RULES:

-- If a word has two meanings and one of them leads to an absurdity, they meant the other meaning

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 09:20

Hiya Flubber! And yes, that last bit makes a fair amount of sense to my brain. Thank ya for taking the time to 'splain it (I know I can be hard headed, but I really CAN learn!

). In truth, this law, passed or not, will not impact my life one whit, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way. The principle is sound (of course a woman has the choice, at any time, to change her mind), but coming from the school of thought that more laws =! greater justice, I'm unconvinced that another entirely NEW law is needed to spell this out. We've got TONS of useless laws on the books right now, tons of loophole laws, tons of laws that nobody enforces, and while all of those things represent job security for the legal profession, they do not promote a greater sense of justice.

I'm fairly convinced that can be done with relative few laws, especially as compared to the sheer number that we have now.

Thus, even tho I'm hardly an expert on the subject, when something rubs me the wrong way, I'm inclined to say something about it, whether it will effect me personally or no....

-=Vel=-

Flubber · July 31, 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

We've got TONS of useless laws on the books right now, tons of loophole laws, tons of laws that nobody enforces, and while all of those things represent job security for the legal profession, they do not promote a greater sense of justice.

Thus, even tho I'm hardly an expert on the subject, when something rubs me the wrong way, I'm inclined to say something about it, whether it will effect me personally or no....

-=Vel=-

I agree that there are very very many useless or unenforced laws.

You have every right to make your views known . .. Its just that some of your views were based on an inaccurate legal analysis.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 10:23

That's why I like 'poly....I've actually learned quite a lot here from different folks!

As to this law in particular....I really hope it doesn't create a loophole and open the door for abuse, but it sure looks like it could, and the whole more laws != more justice gets my goat too....that's why I'm leery of every new law that comes down the pike....even well-intentioned ones....the more weight added to the legal system, the more opportunities for abuse and stupid loopholes, and the more laws that will wind up being not enforced. This detracts from justice, rather than adding to it, yes?

-=Vel=-

Flubber · July 31, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
you won't ever have to explain to your parents why you need $10,000 to hire a really good lawyer like Flubber.

While I appreciate the compliment, I fear you have little evidence on which to make the assessment of my skills

Most of what I am spouting on here is basic first year criminal law stuff remembered from law school with some recent crim cases that I read for interest. I don't practice criminal law as I could never get past the dilemma of defending say a child molester, knowing they will likely reoffend. I am actually a bit of a coward/hypocrit in that I believe in everyone's right to a fair trial but leave the work of defending them to others

Flubber · July 31, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
That's why I like 'poly....I've actually learned quite a lot here from different folks!

As to this law in particular....I really hope it doesn't create a loophole and open the door for abuse, but it sure looks like it could, and the whole more laws != more justice gets my goat too....that's why I'm leery of every new law that comes down the pike....even well-intentioned ones....the more weight added to the legal system, the more opportunities for abuse and stupid loopholes, and the more laws that will wind up being not enforced. This detracts from justice, rather than adding to it, yes?

-=Vel=-

I don't think that there is ANY added room for abuse here. IF a woman wants to be a total liar and make a false claim, her most sympathetic course is to claim no consent from the start.

I don't mind this law-- its probably unneccessary since IMHO it merely codifies what everyone should know-- consent to sex may be withdrawn at any time and that decision must be respected. I think they just wanted to make that point clear.

I found it interesting that the people with legal training seemed to fear this law much less than those without. Its perhaps because we see every day how much ambiguity there is in the language used in our laws and have a greater trust in the courts to reach a reasonable interpretation.

THis particular law will have even less effect on me as
1. I am Canadian and
2. I only have sex with one person and just my love and respect for her would mean I would not continue any contact she is not happy with -- I am trying to be super-sensitive on this point since she had the baby

Shi Huangdi · July 31, 2003, 14:35

Hmmmm, noticed a typo. I meant to say impossible to prove unless there was an audio or video recording of the sex. It seems hard to imagine many situations in which it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she withdrew consent during sex and he didn't stop.

So ya, I guess to apply to this law you need Vel's "consent cam"

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 14:59

Patent pending, and coming to a Best Buy near you!

-=Vel=-

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 31, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Hmmmm, noticed a typo. I meant to say impossible to prove unless there was an audio or video recording of the sex. It seems hard to imagine many situations in which it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she withdrew consent during sex and he didn't stop.

So ya, I guess to apply to this law you need Vel's "consent cam"

Or a statement from the man. You'd be amazed how often they will incriminate themselves.

Ned · July 31, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Or a statement from the man. You'd be amazed how often they will incriminate themselves.

Lazarus, apparently, one of the reasons the prosecutor brought charges in the Kobe Bryant case was due to his "inconsistent" statements. He may have hung himself.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 31, 2003, 15:46

Sounds about right. I can see statements like the following cropping up.

"Well she started saying "no" and trying to push me off, but I was nearly finished so I just speeded up."

Agathon · July 31, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
I found this description about the California case. Can't vouch for its accuracy.

In the case that challenged the old rule, a 17-year-old girl, Laura T., had consented to sex with the defendant, John, but then later told him that she needed to go home. While she never explicitly told him to stop, he continued for, "four or five minutes after Laura's first statement and for a minute to 90 seconds after her third and final one" (Cooper, 2003:2). John had apparently told Laura, "Just give me a minute" (Cooper, 2003:2). While this case may not appear to be rape to some, the California Supreme Court has ruled that it was indeed a rape. The Court took into account what was called a "primal urge theory" that could possibly justify a "reasonable time" rule for John's failure to stop. However, the Court later rejected this claim saying that John had been given sufficient time to withdraw and that the law books would not allow for such a claim of "reasonable time" (Cooper, 2003:2). It is important to remember that rape does not occur when a woman simply changes her mind or feels that she has made a bad decision. In this case, John had also grabbed Laura's waist and pushed her down while she was making the statements that she needed to go home.

If the case was like this, then I think there is reasonable doubt as to whether it was rape.

Compare:

You are having sex with a woman and she says "stop I have to go to work".

One reasonable interpretation of this statement is that it implies the conditional, "If I didn't have to go to work, we could finish having sex", which entails, "It's not the sex I am objecting to, it's the time wasting". In this case the woman apparently isn't objecting to the sex per se which is the usual grounds for rape.

Confronted with this I don't think a reasonable person could be deemed evil for thinking "****, she's in a hurry, I'll be finished soon, I better hurry up" since it's unclear whether the woman is objecting to the sex or the time it's taking.

What this shows is something that is little appreciated. If people wish to stop having sex they should indicate so in a way that avoids ambiguities - some variant on "I want to stop doing it right now" without adding riders that would lead people to understand differently.

Imran Siddiqui · July 31, 2003, 17:57

Agathon, I think though after the 2nd time she stated she wanted to go home, he should have ended it. It took 90 seconds after the THIRD time she said so. But I totally agree with your last point. When you want to stop sex don't just say "I have to go home soon", say "Stop!".

Agathon · July 31, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Agathon, I think though after the 2nd time she stated she wanted to go home, he should have ended it. It took 90 seconds after the THIRD time she said so. But I totally agree with your last point. When you want to stop sex don't just say "I have to go home soon", say "Stop!".

My point is that she could have said this numerous times and it still wouldn't necessarily indicate to anyone that she considered it rape.

Anyway, the whole rape thing has become ridiculous. In most cases it is clear that a crime has been committed; but in cases that are often labelled "date rape" it often comes down to a he said/she said.

Feminists point out that this leaves women vulnerable to exploitation and they are right because these situations are ones where there are invariably no witnesses. However, their solution seems to be to abandon the notions of reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty in an attempt to prevent more rapes. This strikes me as silly: thinking that we have to compensate for the number of innocent women who are the victims of date rape by locking up innocent men is a fundamentally wrong headed approach to the law. This is not a comparative wrong, the rape of 10 women is not compensated for by locking up one man, just as we don't compensate for murder victims by finding innocent people to kill. It also provides more incentive for malicious claims of rape (which are documented in spite of what radical feminists say)

In short I think this is a problem that cannot be solved. We cannot abandon the notions of reasonable doubt and there is no way that we can really make things more equal for women unless we have supervised intercourse or other such unrealistic policies. I guess they just have to suck it up and be as careful as they can - we simply can't make it better without making it worse.

Sikander · August 1, 2003, 04:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber

While I appreciate the compliment, I fear you have little evidence on which to make the assessment of my skills

Most of what I am spouting on here is basic first year criminal law stuff remembered from law school with some recent crim cases that I read for interest. I don't practice criminal law as I could never get past the dilemma of defending say a child molester, knowing they will likely reoffend. I am actually a bit of a coward/hypocrit in that I believe in everyone's right to a fair trial but leave the work of defending them to others

Don't sweat it, I was just throwing you a bone because you are generally a thoughtful poster and a fellow SMAC player, and because your post was right there when I was writing that bloated prose. My girlfriend is an attorney also, but she quickly decided that she didn't like it much and could make more money as a pharmacist (her undergrad degree) anyway. Now she volunteers at legal aid and handles divorces and such, which she calls the world's most expensive hobby.

Ben Kenobi · August 1, 2003, 18:25

I'm concerned about hearing someone who wants to stop. Granted, it should be obvious when someone wants to stop having sex without hearing them say anything, but what if the guy normally can't hear?

Also, the lack of a third party or evidence corroborating one testimony over another causes problems trying to prevent false convictions.

Agathon:

It seems to me the best way to fix things is to encourage men to work with the women rather than against them.

No means no may be simple, but it doesn't make men into better lovers.

chequita guevara · August 1, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Che, you're not in the least bit prejudiced, are you? You seem to have convicted Kobe by attributing to him the behaviour of other atheletes.

Actually, I don't care one way of the other about Kobe. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The lives of celebrities really dont' matter to me.

On the other hand, it's interesting whow the women who are alledging rape are always demonized. She was stupid. Maybe, but that doesn't mean you should be raped. Most people are stupider than me, does that mean I get to rape them? She's just in it for the money? Oh, has she sued yet? She's a liar. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know, we weren't there and we haven't examined the evidence.

edit: fixed spelling error

Ned · August 1, 2003, 21:49

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Actually, I don't care one way of the other about Kobe. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The lives of celebrities really dont' matter to me.

On the other hand, it's interesting who the women who is alledging rape is always demonized. She was stupid. Maybe, but that doesn't mean you should be raped. Most people are stupider than me, does that mean I get to rape them? She's just in it for the money? Oh, has she sued yet? She's a liar. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know, we weren't there and we haven't examined the evidence.

No, actually, I find it hard to believe that anyone would bring false criminal charges against anyone. So, I am already half believing that Kobe did something wrong. I just do not assume he is guilty because atheletes in general abuse women.

FrustratedPoet · August 2, 2003, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The lives of celebrities really dont' matter to me.

What an odd thing to say. Does their fame make them any less worthy of the basic respect you would give any other human being?

chequita guevara · August 2, 2003, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

What an odd thing to say. Does their fame make them any less worthy of the basic respect you would give any other human being?

No, I just don't really care about them. So they're celebrities, whoop de doo. So that makes them instantly better than everyone else? I'm just not one of those people who gives a damn about the cult of celebrity. I don't watch Extra! or ET or give a **** about shows like the Anna Nicole Show or the Osbornes.

Kuciwalker · August 2, 2003, 12:42

Quote:

On the other hand, it's interesting who the women who is alledging rape is always demonized.

As is the man who is accused. I thought you were for equal rights for women.

chequita guevara · August 2, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
I just do not assume he is guilty because atheletes in general abuse women.

I didn't say that athelets in general abuse women. It is true, however, that athelets tend to have very macho views and behavior, and there is a correlation between such views and bahavior and the treatment of women.

That doesn't mean that atheletes are all like this or that atheletes are all bad people.

chequita guevara · August 2, 2003, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

On the other hand, it's interesting who the women who is alledging rape is always demonized.

As is the man who is accused.

Yeah, Kobe's soooooo demonized.

Hell, people today still think Tyson was innocent and that Ms. Washington was only out for some money (not that she ever sued him).

Kuciwalker · August 2, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I didn't say that athelets in general abuse women. It is true, however, that athelets tend to have very macho views and behavior, and there is a correlation between such views and bahavior and the treatment of women.

Read your first sentence. Then read your second sentence. Is this sort of like the "gradual change in views" that you attribute to conservatives as an explanation for why they aren't rapists?

Oh, and let us just look at what you claimed wasn't a statement that "athletes in general abuse women".

Quote:

In my experience, there are a lot of men, especially associated with sports, who don't care a lot about what women think or say.

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Yeah, Kobe's soooooo demonized.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!!

Yeah, Kobe is demonized by this. Before he was known as a clean cut guy who played good basketball. Now this will follow him around everywhere, even if he was totally innocent. The perception towards him has already changed.

Boris Godunov · August 2, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Yeah, Kobe's soooooo demonized.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!!

Yeah, Kobe is demonized by this. Before he was known as a clean cut guy who played good basketball. Now this will follow him around everywhere, even if he was totally innocent. The perception towards him has already changed.

That's his fault, ya know. He shouldn't have been committing adultery with a 19-year-old girl if he didn't want to lose his clean cut image.

Even if the accusations are false, he bears responsibility for acting so stupidly with someone whom he had no reason to trust.

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 14:32

Adultery and rape are vastly different to a person's reputation, Boris, and you should know that.

To say Kobe isn't being demonized by this is just not looking at the situation at all.