New rape law allows change of mind

[Rasbelin]

After reading Tingkai's post, I do admit that "Laura" had the right to sue him as after all she quite clearly said "no" - IMO. Maybe not a very clear case, but I think that law might after all be okay and work. Only time will show. However it maybe abused as well. Hopefully not.

(However so many Americans like to sue others for almost anything, so it's not really any news either.)

Combat Ingrid,

kan du ge länkarna? Tack!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
"it hasn't lead to an increase in false rape claims"... how the heck do you know that!? Since all the claims are sent through as rape whether they were or not! All a woman has to do to get the cuffs slapped on her man is to just yell 'rape' these days... no 'false claims' there... no

And yet, according to blackice, more than fifty percent of initial claims are dropped by women, even knowing that making a false claim of rape is against the law.

But to heck with that. Since anyone can make a false claim, let's throw out all laws. I could fake a murder or claim someone stole something from me which I never owned. Because I can do this, the law must be wrong. :rolleye:

No, I mean like having sex but the deciding that they didn't or don't want to anymore.

So your solution is thinking that they should have to lie there and take it?

So all them murderers that are being executed are really guilty... Good, because I am for the death penalty.

Most of the people that go to prison are guilty. As far s Death Penalty cases go, about a third are released from death row because of flaws in the process. So about two thirds of the time, they get the right person. I'd say 2 out of 3 counts as generally. Doesn't mean that all the people who get executed are guilty nor that all the people who get released are innocent, but it does point to two things: one, police generally get their man, two, the system is still very much flawed with regards to capital cases.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Consent.

Before the ****ing, the woman says "Let's ****" or "Yeah, we can ****" or the similar. This is an example of consent. Without consent, it is illegal to continue to the actual ****ing.

During the ****ing, it's an opt-out thing, obviously. Should the woman changer her mind mid-****, the man should pull out reasonably soon. What is reasonably? No one knows. This is why the law should not be there--more attention to the consequences of the **** should be given BEFORE the ****, not during it.

After the ****ing, although some parties doubt this, the woman is within her legal rights to break up, claim the **** a rape, and get a hefty legal settlement. This precedent has not been tested against in a court of law; why would you not trust the little innocent thing?

@ whole post

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay Che....let's use your own examples. You said earlier that you had been in a situation where the lady in question changed her mind mid-stream, right?

She said stop, and so you did.

But....you didn't stop "immediately," now did you? I mean, the whole term "immediately" is rather subjective. She said stop and yet, between that time and the time you actually DID stop, SOME time passed.

Immediately does not mean instantly. I stopped in under a second, as soon as the sounds hit my ears, traveled to my brain, and were recognized as the word no.

Ten to fifteen seconds is rather a long time when you are being subjected to something you don't want. It also gives too much creedence to the "guys are just animals when it comes to sex" argument. I'm not special, I can do it. Yeah, it royally pissed me off when it happened once, but that's how human interactions work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
After the ****ing, although some parties doubt this, the woman is within her legal rights to break up, claim the **** a rape, and get a hefty legal settlement. This precedent has not been tested against in a court of law; why would you not trust the little innocent thing?

This is wrong. Falsely accusing somone of rape is a crime. You do not have a right to withdraw consent after the act is finished.

[Velociryx]

But a definition of what constitutes "immediately" is in order if such a law is to be passed, yes? We must know how long "immediately" is, because that presents a rather large loophole, doesn't it?

Until and unless "immediately" is nailed down (which was Boris' initial point I think, and one I agree with), this law is bad news.

-=Vel=-

[Japher]

So your solution is thinking that they should have to lie there and take it?

My solution is for a person who is not certain that might not be sure of the consequences of an action, not do that action in the first place. Else, be held accountable. My solution is to define what Rape is, say it is against the law, and leave it at that. Don't begin defining all the circumstances that can lead to it, else you create loop-holes for the guilty and innocent alike.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not clear from the case presented that this girl had an ongoing relationship with the guy. It appears that she had just had sex with someone else, was okay having sex with this new guy when she then changed her mind.

To some extent, then, I agree with result in California. There has to be some relationship between the two for the woman to have any private "remedy."

Would you argue, however, that you should not have the option to involve the police? What if she took it [the car] after a fight? What if you had an emergancy, need to go to work or a job interview? What if you just met her, said she could borrow the car to go to the store, and then she took off for Vegas for a week? Would you be so forgiving then?

Obviously, if you really do not have an ongoing relationship with the woman, you should have the option of involving the police.

But think, Che, how useful is it to society to use public resources on matters that are essentially private. Rather than talk about the rights of women, we should talk about the right of privacy. Where should the state draw the line?

The degree of relationship the woman has with the man should be a strong factor in deciding whether to involve the state. If there is no relationship at all, the state should be involved precisely because there is no private remedy that is strong enough to deter the "crime" in the first place.

Clearly, the almost complete absence of a relationship between the couple in the California case was a significant, if unstated, factor in the court's decision.

My point aganist them still stands. The whole concept of date-rape was argued against "because it would make it easier for women to claim they were raped if they just didn't like the sex blah blah blah." It hasn't led to an increase in false rape claims, but it has allowed women who were forced to have sex by their aquaintences to get some small measure of justice.

This "new" law is merely a clarification of existing law. Anyone who thinks that consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn, is living about two decades in the past.

Think, Che. "Date rape" implies virtually no relationship between the man and the woman. Under such circumstances, yes the state should be involved.

But, let's go one step further. Assume you are living with the woman or she is your wife. The woman has, I believe, significant private remedies to deter a violation under these circumstances.

[korn469]

well if they nailed down a reasonable amount of time to reply with the request, and said that restraining a person who withdrew consent instantaneously made it rape, then i don't think it would be so bad

[Japher]

well if they nailed down a reasonable amount of time to reply with the request

Get your stopwatch out!

The whole law is absurd.

Each case is different:

"No, stop"
"What, ok."
"No I'm kidding."

One hour later

"I can't believe you rapped me! I said stop!"

Following the letter of the law!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If she says no while they are, then, per your definition, RIGHT THEN, it's rape. It's already too late. The man is guilty (he's still inside her when consent is withdrawn). Guilty. Bang. Done.

BINGO! Che, please answer this. If you say that consent for sex is withdrawn at the moment of saying 'NO', the man then is already guilty, because at the time of 'no', he is inside of her. She withdrew consent and a millisecond later, you haven't left.

That's the major problem and why there needs to be a 'reasonable time' limit of say 10-15 seconds or so.

[Velociryx]

And your last post brings up another point...why DON"T you have the right to withdraw consent after the act is finished? Further, what precisely constitutes the act as being finished? Finished for whom?

Here's an example of why this law sucks goat a$$ (to borrow a line from Venger) - it hearkens back to the auto example used earlier.

Che and I decide to go out for burgers. He asks me to drive and I do (I consent).

En route, I decide that this whole thing is NOT something I want to do. It's...oppressive....a form of slavery...I am being FORCED to drive this stinking car, and....I don't want to.

Fearing greatly this oppressive goat sitting next to me, I say no....but, he complains that we're almost to the burger joint....it's not much farther.

Clearly, this man has no concern WHATSOEVER for my feelings. He's oppressing me, making me drive this car on such a hot, miserable day.

So....fearing for my rights as a free human being, I slow down and jump out of the vehicle, regaining my freedom.

Tires screech as other autos attempt to avoid the now driverless car, and in the ensuing crash, Che winds up with a broken arm.

I think I may still take him to court tho, for his efforts to enslave me. Clearly, we need a law that covers this heinous crime.

-=Vel=-

[korn469]

Originally posted by Japher

Each case is different:

I agree with that, depending on the wording this could be an improvement in the law (a more just society) or it could be as bad as what some fear I'd have to see the actual wording and how it was implemented before I could make a real judgement of it

though i think the fewer laws the better

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Think, Che. "Date rape" implies virtually no relationship between the man and the woman. Under such circumstances, yes the state should be involved.

But, let's go one step further. Assume you are living with the woman or she is your wife. The woman has, I believe, significant private remedies to deter a violation under these circumstances.

The existence of a relationship should have no bearing on whether or not rape is a crime. If I beat my wife or children, because I have a relatioship with them, the state shouldn't be involved? What if the wife thinks she deserved it (some women do, you know)?

Having a relationship with another person gives you no right to use their body. Access to another person's body is a privledge.

In most cases of partner rape, I expect that the rape is dealt with privately. In those cases I know of among my friends, it was dealt with privately. One woman just accepted that how men are, they can't control themselves and left it that. Another just stopped associating with the person who raped her and wouldn't tell us who it was so her friends couldn't go kick his ass (and we would have, too). Another woman had an RA open her door, enter her room, and rape her. The school had the charges dropped to assault. The rapist was a friend of mine, too. A third woman took several years to end her relationship with the would be rapist (he couldn't get it in) because he was her cousin and they were as close as brother and sister. Emotionally, it has pretty much made her a wreck and though it was sixteen years ago, she's still dealing with the consequences of it.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ned
Rather than talk about the rights of women, we should talk about the right of privacy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher


Get your stopwatch out!

The whole law is absurd.

Each case is different:

"No, stop"
"What, ok."
"No I'm kidding."

One hour later

"I can't believe you rapped me! I said stop!"

Following the letter of the law!

Except for the part about saying she was kidding, thus negating the withdrawl of consent. So, following the letter of the law, if she tried to have him thrown in prison, she would go to jail for a false claim of rape.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

If she says no while they are, then, per your definition, RIGHT THEN, it's rape. It's already too late. The man is guilty (he's still inside her when consent is withdrawn). Guilty. Bang. Done.

BINGO! Che, please answer this. If you say that consent for sex is withdrawn at the moment of saying 'NO', the man then is already guilty, because at the time of 'no', he is inside of her. She withdrew consent and a millisecond later, you haven't left.

How long do you think it takes to stop and/or pull out?

Geez, I would have thought at least you were on my side, Imran.

[Velociryx]

Che,

The answer to your "how long do you think it would take" question is:

TIME!!!

It takes time, which is why that amount of time needs to be codified if this is to be made law.

Instantly doesn't work, for the reasons already stated (cos in that case, the man's already guilty)

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

(and yes, IF you codify that amount of time, I'll try to come up with scenarios that render whatever timeframe you select invalid)

-=Vel=-

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sorry Velo, but you're wrong. The issue is not whether the cessation is instantaneous, but whether a mens rea to commit the act of rape is formed.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Except for the part about saying she was kidding, thus negating the withdrawl of consent. So, following the letter of the law, if she tried to have him thrown in prison, she would go to jail for a false claim of rape.

that'd be cool. rape cases could be like double edged sword. no matter how it turns out! someone is going to jail!

ahhhhhh that'd make good tv.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che and I decide to go out for burgers. He asks me to drive and I do (I consent).

En route, I decide that this whole thing is NOT something I want to do. It's...oppressive....a form of slavery...I am being FORCED to drive this stinking car, and....I don't want to.

Fearing greatly this oppressive goat sitting next to me, I say no....but, he complains that we're almost to the burger joint....it's not much farther.

The law doesn't say you can't try and talk the person into continuing to have sex. If you decided to pull over and I wouldn't let you, then clearly I would be breaknig the law.

So....fearing for my rights as a free human being, I slow down and jump out of the vehicle, regaining my freedom.

If I had threatened actual violence against you, would this be wrong?

Let's turn this around, however. In your case, it would be as if she was on bottom, the guy no top, and he decided he didn't want to have sex anymore.

Rather look at it this way. I drop by with my car and ask if you want to grab a burder. As soon as we pull away, you remember you have someplace to be, and ask me to pull over because you don't want to go get a burder anymore. I say, "We're almost there" and don't stop and keep driving. I've just committed kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

But beware, now no one will ever give anyone else a ride because of the danger of false claims of kidnapping. Oh sure, they consented at first, but after the ride they decided they really didn't want to go, and woe, now people will go to jail for taking people places they really did want to go.

[Velociryx]

Laz, sure it matters. She withdrew consent. At that point, it's NON-CONSENSUAL sex, isn't it?

-=Vel=-

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No it isn't. It's not a strict liability offence.

Mens rea must exist simultaneously with actus reus, or there is no crime.

[Velociryx]

Exactly my point....let's not put people in jail for taking them places they want to go, and let's not be hasty and put a poorly worded law in effect that opens the door for abuse.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Laz, so if she says no, then it's....still consensual sex, or just not a crime?

-=Vel=-

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx Che and I decide to go out for burgers. He asks me to drive and I do (I consent). En route, I decide that this whole thing is NOT something I want to do. It's...oppressive....a form of slavery...I am being FORCED to drive this stinking car, and....I don't want to. Fearing greatly this oppressive goat sitting next to me, I say no....but, he complains that we're almost to the burger joint....it's not much farther.

The law doesn't say you can't try and talk the person into continuing to have sex. If you decided to pull over and I wouldn't let you, then clearly I would be breaknig the law.

Quote:

So....fearing for my rights as a free human being, I slow down and jump out of the vehicle, regaining my freedom.

If I had threatened actual violence against you, would this be wrong?

Let's turn this around, however. In your case, it would be as if she was on bottom, the guy no top, and he decided he didn't want to have sex anymore.

Rather look at it this way. I drop by with my car and ask if you want to grab a burder. As soon as we pull away, you remember you have someplace to be, and ask me to pull over because you don't want to go get a burder anymore. I say, "We're almost there" and don't stop and keep driving. I've just committed kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

But beware, now no one will ever give anyone else a ride because of the danger of false claims of kidnapping. Oh sure, they consented at first, but after the ride they decided they really didn't want to go, and woe, now people will go to jail for taking people places they really did want to go.

yah I guess u'd have to drop them off by the side of the road and go get a burder by urself. but if u ask any guy he'll tell u that burders are better w/ a friend.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Laz, so if she says no, then it's....still consensual sex, or just not a crime?

-=Vel=-

It's not consensual sex, but it's not a crime either.

If you don't hear her say "no", there's no mens rea. No crime.

If she changes her mind after the act, there's no mens rea. No crime.

[Ned]

When Che says he stopped immediately, I find this hard to believe. Most guys will protest, will literally "beg" to go on. At some point in this negotiation, it will be clear to the man that he has to stop or else he is proceeding only by force. At this point, the rape occurs.

Che is again being too "radical" if he suggests that the man must stop immediately, without protest - or else.

[Ramo]

Frankly, I'm amazed that the law wasn't like this before. The idea that a woman can't change her mind about having sex is insane. 'Course I'd be much more comfortable with "immediately" better defined.