New rape law allows change of mind - Page 7

Japher · July 30, 2003, 16:03

Well, whatever the case, if the guy keeps going anyway, the offense shouldn't be as harsh as if there was no consent ever given...

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 30, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Frankly, I'm amazed that the law wasn't like this before.

It was, but some things have to be tortuously spelled out in black and white....

Rape is knowingly (or recklessly) having sex without consent. Not "iniating sex". The whole caboodle.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:08

Laz...I see what you're saying, but I don't.

Non-Consensual sex IS a crime, yes? (ie - that's how the date rape drug prosecutions are made....she's unconscious, can't give consent, so it is assumed to not be there = non-consensual = crime).

You're saying there are times where non-consensual sex is NOT a crime?

-=Vel=-
(and no, I'm not playing dumb to try and trap you or anything....I'm simply trying to understand. As someone who doesn't know his a$$ from a mens rea (sp?), I genuinely don't know!

Gibsie · July 30, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Each case is different

Of course it is, that's why guilt isn't just decided by a handy key chart like the one you (I think it was you) came up with earlier, and a jury decides whether or not someone is guilty. Given that most people in this thread think the entire law is stupid, what are the chances that an entire jury is going to think that the term "immediately" means "within zero seconds" and send a guy to jail after he admitted stopping the sex two seconds after the consent was withdrawn?

I also don't get the whole, "It's more open to abuse" thing. This is a whole new blurry area, and a woman making a false claim is far less likely to achieve a conviction through this, so if a woman is going to lie about being raped she'd just say she didn't give consent in the first palce, surely?

korn469 · July 30, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

exactly

Az · July 30, 2003, 16:11

This was always weird to me. Does she have to say it or something? like "YES I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU"? or if things just go from one thing to another and later you can be charged with rape?

Flubber · July 30, 2003, 16:12

PEOPLE THIS IS SO SIMPLE

1. NO means NO - -always no matter when it is said - - but the NO must be such that the other party can hear it

2. Nobodyshouldget convicted if they stop as soon as possible -- " well yer honor , I had to wait for the trampoline to stop bouncing"-- The idea of a millisecond of rape is CRAP and everyone mentioning it knows it--

3. This law will have NO effect on false claims of rape. A "victim" wanting to abuse the process is more sympathetic if they say they said NO from the start. In cases of no physical trauma and no witnesses, they would try to tell the best possible lie would they not? Why would they lie and say they changed their mind when saying they said no from the start makes them seem more victimized and the crime more horrific ?

THis law merely codifies what should be common sense.

Imagine this scenario. You are having sex and say to your partner " you know,you are pretty good but your mom could teach you a few things about ( insert sex act)"

She screams blue murder for you to stop . ..

Does ANYONE assert that you have a right to continue ?

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

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

-=Vel=-

A crime requires intent to committ the crime. If you are not intending to committ rape, you should not be held liable for it. A reasonable defense would be be that you didn't hear her at first or that you heard her and complied, but that you were in an awkward position and so it took a few seconds to decuople.

On the other hand, your arguing for an affirmative defense of, I didn't hear here so that's why I kept pumping away until I blew my wad."

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 30, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Laz...I see what you're saying, but I don't.

Non-Consensual sex IS a crime, yes? (ie - that's how the date rape drug prosecutions are made....she's unconscious, can't give consent, so it is assumed to not be there = non-consensual = crime).

You're saying there are times where non-consensual sex is NOT a crime?

-=Vel=-
(and no, I'm not playing dumb to try and trap you or anything....I'm simply trying to understand. As someone who doesn't know his a$$ from a mens rea (sp?), I genuinely don't know!

Actus reus = guilty act
Mens rea = guilty mind.

Both must exist simultaneously for a crime to be committed (there are a whole raft of complications and legal stuff, but that's the basics).

If you get non-consensual sex happening without any intent to have non-consensual sex, you have the physical apparatus of a crime, but it's not complete. It's like a big pile of steel, copper and plastics isn't a Dodge Viper.

Japher · July 30, 2003, 16:13

Che: If the law does not need to be spelt out so precisley than why do it at all?

[/quote] I also don't get the whole, "It's more open to abuse" thing.[/quote]

The "more open to abuse" is because there can now be actual consensual sex that occurs right along side of rape. Before, sex only need to occur for there to be a crime, now there can be sex that wasn't a crime and sex that was a crime happening at the same time.

Gibsie · July 30, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
This was always weird to me. Does she have to say it or something? like "YES I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU"? or if things just go from one thing to another and later you can be charged with rape?

I presume there is a way to consent to sex without words, otherwise that would make any instance of a mute person having sex into rape. Now can you guess how mute people express that they want to have sex?

Gibsie · July 30, 2003, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
The "more open to abuse" is because there can now be actual consensual sex that occurs right along side of rape. Before, sex only need to occur for there to be a crime, now there can be sex that wasn't a crime and sex that was a crime happening at the same time.

I think our minds are working in completely opposite directions here. To me, if consentual sex and rape can occur next to each other, if someone is going to abuse the law and claim totally consentual sex to be rape, they'd just say it was all rape, rather than admitting they gave any form of consent, thus really damaging their own case.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:20

So....if he's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug himself), and she's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug herself), and they both sorta zoned out for a while, and came to their senses later with clear evidence that there had been sex involved, neither party "raped" the other (cos they had not the "guilty mind" even tho the (non-consensual) act was there).

-=Vel=-

Flubber · July 30, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
This was always weird to me. Does she have to say it or something? like "YES I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU"? or if things just go from one thing to another and later you can be charged with rape?

In Canada I seem to recall cases where the courts indicated that there must be some evidence of an absence of consent ( or an incapacity to consent such as extreme intoxication)

A person cannot participate willingly in a bunch of acts and then say they did not consent, if they did nothing to vocalize that lack of consent and were fully competent to make their feelings known.

In some older decisions, Canadian courts sometimes allowed the defense of " Reasonable but mistaken belief" in sexual assault cases-- Its been 10 years since law school and I am not sure where the courts stand on that defense now-- I would think it still aspplies as it was a possible defense to a number of offences

The idea was that you are not guilty of an offence if you REASONABLY believe ( Ie you believed and an objective person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe) in a set of facts that , if true would mean that no offense had been committed.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

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.

Not on this exact 'instantaneous' idea. I am much more backing of Boris' proposal that 'instantaneous' be taken to mean 10 seconds or so.

Quote:

If you are not intending to committ rape, you should not be held liable for it.

No, it's intent to have sex, after the consent is removed... in these situations you don't intend to 'rape'. It's a subtle distinction, but very important.

Quote:

Both must exist simultaneously for a crime to be committed

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.

Az · July 30, 2003, 16:29

so 'No' means no, and nothing, or 'Yes' means yes? sounds right.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

Quote:

I also don't get the whole, "It's more open to abuse" thing.

The "more open to abuse" is because there can now be actual consensual sex that occurs right along side of rape. Before, sex only need to occur for there to be a crime, now there can be sex that wasn't a crime and sex that was a crime happening at the same time.

There could always have been consensual sex when an act of rape is claimed. Nothing about this law changes the fact that people can and do lie. What it does do, however, is tell guys that even if the woman has consented, she can withdraw her consent and you have to respect that, under penalty of law. There is no more possibility for abuse than there was before.

DarthVeda · July 30, 2003, 16:33

This law assumes women are not fickle?

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Both must exist simultaneously for a crime to be committed

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.

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.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DarthVeda
This law assumes women are not fickle?

Actually, it assumes the oposite, that women have the right to change their minds.

Japher · July 30, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

This law assumes women are not fickle?

There in lies the rub

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:40

But only if she signs a fifteen page legal consent document under the watchful eye of the consent cam is the "rub" perfectly safe....

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
So....if he's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug himself), and she's drunk (or had taken the "date rape" drug herself), and they both sorta zoned out for a while, and came to their senses later with clear evidence that there had been sex involved, neither party "raped" the other (cos they had not the "guilty mind" even tho the (non-consensual) act was there).

If you take the date rape drug, you will be unable to initiate sex. It more or less turns you into a zombie. However, being drunk or on drugs is not a defense against rape.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:47

why not....if it puts you in a state of mind where there's no "guilty mind" (and since both must be present per the conversation above).....no crime, yes?

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:48

You know, all you have to do is not be an ******* to women and be a little disciminating about where you stick your cheney and you'll be safe from the hordes of women waiting out there just for the opportunity to send you to prison.

DeathByTheSword · July 30, 2003, 16:48

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

Az · July 30, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

If you take the date rape drug, you will be unable to initiate sex. It more or less turns you into a zombie. However, being drunk or on drugs is not a defense against rape.

Ok, so if to people are drunk senseless, and sleep together, the guy can be charged with rape?

(makes an interesting situation in a case of a gay couple )

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
why not....if it puts you in a state of mind where there's no "guilty mind" (and since both must be present per the conversation above).....no crime, yes?

-=Vel=-

If you're so drunk or high you black out, I highly doubt you can function enough to get your pants off, let alone get it hard and find a hole to put it in. However, if you did black out, you might get lucky and find a sympathetic jury.

C0ckney · July 30, 2003, 16:52

laz is right. it seems to me that it would difficult to prove something like this.

'i said stop'
'i didn't hear you'
'i was shouting'
'not very loud, because i didn't hear you'

but there you go, it'd be for the jury to decide. on that subject, the 'immediacy' test should be one based on reasonableness and not on some arbitary time limit. a matter of fact for the jury, not a matter of law.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

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!