New rape law allows change of mind - Page 9

Ned · July 30, 2003, 18:21

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:22

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:27

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:32

no, I was just wondering.

Ned · July 30, 2003, 18:34

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:39

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:39

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:52

Quote:

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 · July 30, 2003, 18:57

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.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 19:02

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.

Kuciwalker · July 30, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A crime requires intent to committ the crime.

I'll drop in just to point out this is patently false. Manslaughter, for example.

Ned · July 30, 2003, 19:11

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.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 19:21

No Che, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it full well.

What I AM saying that if you introduce a law with horribly ambiguous language in it ("immediately") and you can't be arsed to define what "immediately" is, then it is open to any interpretation you care to give it, which opens the door to abuse.

Immediately for you might be three seconds. If your partner who changes her mind thinks that's too long, say hello to your new roomie and 8x6 room.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 19:26

Cosmically, "immediately" is a few tens of thousands of years. That's pretty fast in cosmic terms, innit? Shall we use that definition for "immediately" here? No? Why not?

And thus, the need to nail down what that word means if you're going to put it into LAW!

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 19:35

Asuka - thanks man! And just to be clear....I'm not againt the *purpose* of the law AT ALL! Of course a woman has the right to change her mind. But IF THIS IS TO BE MADE LAW, then "immediately" needs to be defined or dropped.

-=Vel=-

Dr Strangelove · July 30, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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.

I think that a woman might ought to have at least some obligation to take into account the feelings and consent of the man, like perhaps if she's sure that she doesn't want intercourse she should draw the line way before intromission, and probably way before disrobement or even "coping a feel".

Regarding the "immediate cesseation" upon the woman's request I might point out that there is a point during the physiologic process of intercourse at which the (male) process can't (easily) be stopped. In fact if the woman suddenly lifts her upper torso and shouts "Stop!" as a guy is approaching ejaculation she might in fact trigger the ejaculation by virtue of startling him. What then? Would this be a chargeable offense?

Tingkai · July 30, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I AM saying that if you introduce a law with horribly ambiguous language in it ("immediately") and you can't be arsed to define what "immediately" is, then it is open to any interpretation you care to give it, which opens the door to abuse.

So you would be against vague terms like "reasonable doubt". Afterall there is nothing specific about reasonable.

Same thing with manslaugher, which looks at whether the accused should have reasonably known that his/her actions would cause death.

KrazyHorse · July 31, 2003, 03:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

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.

My point is that it is quite possible in the cited case that there was rape committed.

"Immediately" usually gives some leeway when used in common parlance. It generally means "as soon as reasonably possible", not "after zero time has elapsed".

KrazyHorse · July 31, 2003, 03:35

Hence: "after learning that I required course X to graduate I immediately went to see my academic advisor", even though it might have taken you five minutes to start down to his office.

But: "I immediately began performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation" would be untrue if you waited five minutes, since the situation is more time-critical.

Dis · July 31, 2003, 03:51

I'm really suprised how many people are against this.

I usually don't like silly laws like this.

But in this case the law is just. A woman should have a right over her body. Maybe in the heat of passion she thought she wanted sex, but then she realized she isn't on birth control and the guy doesn't have a condom. Then she may change her mind to not risk a pregnancy. It's the guy's responsibility to stop.

Also the guy might be just really bad at sex. If the guy can't satisfy a woman, and the woman isn't getting what she wants, she has every right to ask him to stop.

A woman should have full control over what enters her body.

I will agree that there is potential for a lot of abuse of this law. But in theory, this is very important ruling for women's rights.

KrazyHorse · July 31, 2003, 03:56

I agree. There is a reasonable window for the man to stop in (a few seconds). After that, it's rape.

If you stop in those few seconds, you stopped "immediately".

I've been asked to stop in the middle before (it turned out it was hurting her). I stopped within 1-2 seconds, and this was 5 years ago, when I was 18 and probably my horniest.

Flubber · July 31, 2003, 04:16

Vel I believe you either fundamentally do not understand much about law or are being a very good troll-- no matter-- the topic is interesting

A word like immediate is ok to use here-- The first case to be heard will probably see some jusrisprudence on the issue and the definition will be some element of the reasonableness tests such as "as soon as reasonably possible". To hold otherwise could make anyone a criminal. Words must be given reasonable interpretations-- laws have many many words in them and if you want to be afraid of every possible very silly interpretation, every sentence would need an attched 3 pages of definitions.

They don't set a specific time like 10 seconds since, as you correctly point out, there are scenarios where more or less time is warranted.

Also vel-- it is possible that there can be moments where "sex" is technically occurring but it is not rape. Its the whole mental element-- To commit a sexual assault I must be aware that the person does not consent to the act using a reasonableness test (so NO you can't jump the first woman you see and continue to have sex until she manages to get the word "no" out.)

Essentially , to not commit a crime you must have a reasonable belief in the consent of the other person. This works for things as simple as shaking hands-- I might shake your hand without your express permission but no court in the land would convict me of a battery if I had a reasonable belief that the contact was permissable. But the second you say " Don't touch me", continuing the contact WOULD be a criminal battery.

This rape law is no different than

1. handshake battery example above
2. Trespass to property -- I tell someone to get out of my house when I had permitted them inside-- they are immediately trespassing as they are present against the wishes of the owner but it is not criminal if they leave as soon as reasonably possible as they never formed an intent to trespass

Overall-- I think that folks are getting too hung up on the word immediately in this law. Its obvious how it will be interpreted and this "millisecond rape" is a silly strawman. To rape someone you must do an act in furtherance of the rape AFTER you are aware or ought to be aware ( can't ignore the obvious) that the other party is not consenting to the act

Oh and guys . . . strict liability --- One example is oil spills in an oil development. The theory is that the operator chose to develop the field and they have a "strict"-- some due diligence defences are possible, or even an "absolute" liability in case there is a spill.

Sikander · July 31, 2003, 05:09

I have to assume that some of the objections to this are based in part on sheer inexperience. Women want to stop sexual intercourse fairly frequently. Most of the time it's a completely temporary thing, ie you are hurting them directly or they have developed a cramp or something. Keep pounding away and see if you ever get another invitation from her again. Really. You have to be sensitive more or less constantly during sex, lest you become a rapist at worst or a lousy lover at best. If you are paying this much attention in bed already (and you should), this law will never have an effect on you.

There are certain situations where you aren't completely in your right mind. The period a few seconds before you climax until the period perhaps a minute or so afterward can be pretty intense, and I can see how sometimes one's response time and ability to parse language can be seriously impaired. The thing is, when things with a woman are dodgy I don't tend to get lulled into that sort of luxuriant revery. My mind stays clearer as I am aware of her drifting away from the sex act mentally. I do the same, and the intensity of my orgasm (if there is one) is much diminished as a result. In such a case if she suddenly wanted me to stop I could do so much more quickly than above. If you make it your business to match your energy to hers you shouldn't ever end up on the wrong side of the law unless she is underage or unconscious.

The other situation where you can easily not be in your right mind is when you are wasted drunk, or on drugs or both. For some people this is the only way that they ever have sex, as they are too uptight normally to do so. Watch out for these people (especially if you are one of them), as sometimes what inhibits them is past sexual abuse or assault. Alchohol and drugs sometimes act as a gateway to their sexual self, which is often an underdeveloped and angry or crazy shard of their personality which was broken off from their main personality due to sexual trauma. The consequences of sex with that underdeveloped personality can vary widely. She may be completely passive and let you do whatever you want without responding to any of it. (Not my cup of tea) It may be insanely wild sex, she may be the craziest lover you've ever had, and she might not remember a thing the next day. She might not remember ordering you to tie her up and spray her with whipped cream while laughing maniacly, and then doing you hard for four hours in every conceivable position and then jumping your roommate when he got home. She may simply find herself waking up partially tied up, sticky and sore with a couple of naked stinking guys next to her, remember nothing and assume the worst.

You might be the person who is too wasted. Perhaps you are too shy to approach someone for sex or even conversation, and alchohol helps loosen your tongue. You are feeling good, and your recently loosened tongue is finally getting you some female attention. You drink more, and she drinks more. You are pretty far gone now and the bar is closing. She invites you up to her place which is only a block away and you agree because she is fun and you have no idea how you can find your own way home in this state. Can you guarantee that you won't overstep the bounds of legality when you are thrashed like this? You can barely stand up, much less recall the nuances of civilized or legal behavior. If you can't remember what happened you will find it hard to defend yourself against charges. For all you know you might be guilty.

Know yourself, know your partner, know the law, and be careful exploring the edges of reality with drugs and alchohol and you'll have a lot of fun and you won't ever have to explain to your parents why you need $10,000 to hire a really good lawyer like Flubber.

Ned · July 31, 2003, 05:37

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.