Welcome to the first installment of 'But Was It Really Rape?', with your hosts sab and mandalorian.
Contestants are invited to judge which of the following cases constitute a rape and which do not. sab and mandalorian will then assign between 0 and 10 points to each contestant based on criteria such as accuracy of verdict, use of evidence and level of victim-blaming, after which two finalists will be chosen from the pool and face a specially prepared challenge.
So, for all those who wish to participate, get ready to play... But Was It Reeally Rape?
A lush is out wandering the streets in a drunken stupor when a passer by stops and offers her a lift. She accepts the lift and gets in his car, before the pair drive to a different location and engage in rough sex. Afterwards they remain together and the man drives the woman to a 7-11 at her request so that she can get more to drink. The stranger drives off and leaves her there, after which the woman accuses the man of rape and gets him arrested.
Note that earlier in the evening she had been with her boyfriend, who allowed her to walk off by herself and therefore clearly felt that she was sober enough to be left unaccompanied.
Dozens of schoolgirls in China's Yunnan province engaged in sexual acts with various prominent men. An older woman - Ms. Xu - would offer money to girls, who would accept it and then find more girls to accompany them to karaoke clubs chosen by Ms Xu. In these karaoke clubs they would then be invited to drink with senior officials and other prominent figures, and many would freely choose to do so.
After drinking they then engaged in sexual acts with their male drinking partners. Afterwards they would accept money from these men before returning home. These girls did so on multiple occasions, meeting Ms. Xu and the men for food and drinks at various locations. None of them reported any offense to the police.
Note: under Chinese law these schoolgirls are above the age of sexual consent.
Case 3:
The case of Ariel Castro
Three women lived with Ariel Castro in his Cleveland home for nearly two decades. They now allege that during this time they were repeatedly sexually assaulted ('rape' is such a loaded term) by him.
During this time, they were spotted in his garden and at shopping malls with him, never attempting to leave him or even behaving in such a way as to suggest that anything was wrong. One miscarried a child of his but another gave birth to a daughter, which she chose to keep, suggesting at least some consent. Castro was never seen with visible injuries, so the three woman obviously did not resist his advances very hard. He looks kind of handsome in the right light and has a nice little beard, so it's easy to imagine how the three women would have been attracted to him.
Last edited by mrswdk on Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
1.
He allowed her to walk off. Do you mean they fought for hours and he finally said f*ck it just go! Would she have called rape if not abandoned at 7-11? You don't have any details in regards to just about everything: saying they drove to another location and engaged in rough sex. Who was being rough? If this is the crux of the issue, why not fill it in a little. Was he under the impression that she was a prostitute? Did he offer her money at the start and provide it at the end? As stated, we can't tell if it was consensual, if he used force, if she got nervous and tried to get out of the car or if she was directing him to her favorite make out spot while fingering herself and asking for $200.
What you didn't mention:
Investigators say Johnson drove to an Apopka orange grove near Boy Scout Road, where the victim said she was struck on the head and raped. violenceAccording to the report, following the attack, the victim persuaded Johnson to take her to a 7-Eleven for a drink. Once inside, she told a clerk that she had just been raped, immediately seeks helpand police were notified. Johnson fled, but was caught by the store’s surveillance camera. Evidence of guilt.
2.
Known sex offender. Please be a little more specific. Was his crime pissing behind a tree when a parent drove by in a car with their kid and had him arrested for accidentally exposing himself to the child? Was the man handcuffed behind his back? What exactly did the officer see? What was the officers take? Was she threatened by the officer? I mean, did he say: what the f*ck are you doing? It's illegal for you guys to be doing this in a police car in custody! Being arrested for alcohol doesn't necessarily mean she was excessively drunk, it could be she was excessively belligerent.
What you didn't mention:
The lawsuit states that when Gallant returned to the vehicle Kritik had his 'pants down while on top of the plaintiff,' according to the Independent.
'The plaintiff was unable to defend herself, being handcuffed in her back and unable to leave the vehicle, the doors being locked,' the lawsuit claims.
Gallant pulled Kritik off of the woman and took the two to the police station in Tasiujaq, a village in Quebec.
The Independent reports that the woman was kept in a holding cell overnight, and was not given medical attention. Her parents were not contacted.
Kritik pleaded guilty to the sexual assault and was sentenced to 39 months in prison, CBC reports, Gallant was suspended and later resigned.
3.
Did he get them there by force? Did he keep them there by threat? If he had the addresses of their families and threatened to kill them, isn't that quite different to: we started out as two couples, a straight couple and a lesbian couple. We decided to have a foursome and after that, it made good financial sense, we enjoyed being together and we'd petitioned to have polygamy laws amended.
What you didn't mention:
(Wiki)
Each woman was kidnapped after accepting a ride from Castro. Castro drove each to his home, lured her inside, took her to the basement, and restrained her.
Prosecutors at Castro's sentencing wrote that diaries kept by the women "speak of forced sexual conduct, of being locked in a dark room, of anticipating the next session of abuse, of the dreams of someday escaping and being reunited with family, of being chained to a wall, of being held like a prisoner of war, of missing the lives they once enjoyed, of emotional abuse, of his threats to kill, of being treated like an animal, of continuous abuse, and of desiring freedom." The women were kept in locked upstairs bedrooms, where they were forced to use plastic toilets that were "emptied infrequently."[74] They were fed one meal a day, and allowed to shower at most twice a week.[31]
In all these cases, consent was forcefully and clearly taken according to the victim.
In the cases I brought up, there was no allegations of the accused taking their consent away.
In the mans alleged rape, the claim that his consent was taken is based on being drunk, which he did to himself. We don't know if he clearly said no, he made no physical indications he didn't consent, he makes no claims that he was physically forced, not does he give any indication that the woman knew she was raping him.
He doesn't mention going to the police, writes anonymously, no corroboration from anybody. And he expresses some funny ideas about rape:
"How about the scene in Forrest Gump where Jenny molests the clearly uncomfortable, mentally challenged Forrest by forcibly placing his hand on her breast until he involuntarily ejaculates? It's played as a joke, but swap the genders and it becomes the stuff of nightmares. "
The people you mention all went to the police immediately, when they felt safe to do so. They have their names on the reports. They have corroboration. They allege actual force was used. Each rapist knows what he was doing. Two of the accused admit it and the third flees.
It doesn't necessarily make it true, but it makes it rape if true. Even if everything the guy says is true, we have no way of knowing the woman understood she was forcing sex upon him. He wasn't speaking clearly according to him, offered no resistance and we have no idea how the apparent forced sex took place.
If it turns out that he was doing her doggy while they were both drunk, would you say he wasn't consenting just because he was drunk?
For all the cases as written in the newspaper, the prosecutor will be making the claim that consent was forcefully denied. As you presented the cases, the prosecutor could not make the claim, but would have to rely on "non explicit consent".
Last edited by _sabotage_ on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
If a politician anonymously says he was offered a bribe, says he is not comfortable with it, but doesn't stop the person from giving him the money, doesn't report it, doesn't say who gave it, would you say he was bribed? You wouldn't even be able to say it happened let alone make a conclusion either way.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
First two guys were opportunistic predators. Level of harm inflicted, out of 10, 5.5 for the first, 7 for the second (the guy inflicted a 5.5, but do the situation, of being handcuffed and put there by the police, the overall harm was more than his doing).
For the third, 9. Prolonged suffering on multiple levels experienced by extended family as well and will never be far from their minds.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
So does that mean you did in fact take into account the fact that none of the women in question resisted with maximum physical force? On top of the fact that in 2/3 cases they had heavily consumed alcohol and probably just had sex but now regret it.
No, actually, it's not. It's sex without consent. That's why statutory rape exists (the idea being someone under the age of 18 cannot give consent).
Now, I expect you don't agree with that definition and would posit it's another example of the state getting you down; but under legal definitions, that's the definition.
No, I took into account that violence was shown and therefore the requirement to resist no long exists. Once someone needs to use violence to have sex, the person clearly knows you are not willingly consenting. Just as if they have sex with you while you are unconscious. If someone drugs them to specifically lower their ability to give consent, then I would consider it.
But in all situations, I would like to know that a reasonable person would clearly understand a rape was taking place before I convicted them of the crime. If they could prove to me that they had legitimate reason to believe what they were engaged in couldn't be viewed as forcing someone to do something against their will from a reasonable persons perspective, then I'd let him walk. The law won't though if all that needs to be stated is: I was drunk.
Did Jenny know she was raping Gump in this random perhaps made up guy's perspective? Would a reasonable person consider that rape? For everyone's sake, I hope not.
Not in my books, TGD.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
No, actually, it's not. It's sex without consent. That's why statutory rape exists (the idea being someone under the age of 18 cannot give consent).
Now, I expect you don't agree with that definition and would posit it's another example of the state getting you down; but under legal definitions, that's the definition.
In the other thread he explicitly said that he doesn't care what the legal definition is and has his own opinion on what defines rape.
So the guy talking in the religion thread about how we need a universal moral standard that people can look to so that they are not making up their own morality, comes in here and says that he gets to define what rape is, and whatever the rest of society has agreed upon is irrelevant.
Do onto other as you would have others do onto you.
Would you have a girl who showed all signs of enjoying your company and you had no reason to feel you were hurting in any way claim you raped her and then you are expelled from uni or put into prison for rape, an open invitation to getting raped while there?
You're at a bar with a girl you like. You offer to buy her a drink. She takes it. Before finishing her second drink, she whispers in your ear: "I want to have sex tonight." And strokes your arm as she pulls her hand off your shoulder. You get well tipsy, but are having a blast. She asks you if you have a roommate and hits a 7-11 on the way to your place and buys some condoms. Back at yours, she strips for you, but nearly falls, but catches herself. She gives a self amused smile and asks you why you are still dressed. Etc and so forth and the whole time, start to finish she seemed perfectly at ease.
You got her number but forgot to tell her you'd be out of contact because you were away. When you arrive back, you find you've been charged with rape.
According to you, you raped her. And since by your definition you raped her, you can be said to have done it premeditatedly by buying her drinks. None of the rest of the story matters. You are held guilty by all the posters who write:
Rape is sex without consent.
But your honor, she said she wanted to have sex when she was still sober.
She didn't say with you. You knew she was looking for sex and not with you so you plied her with alcohol and made it so she couldn't decide anymore.
What's the sentence for premeditated rape in this country?
Here's New York Mets,
All three degrees of rape are felony offenses and range from class B to class E felonies. These offenses carry sentences of 5 to 25 years of imprisonment for first-degree rape and a maximum of up to 4 years in prison for third-degree rape. The court may also impose a fine of up to $5,000 for a felony offense.
_sabotage_ wrote:No, I took into account that violence was shown and therefore the requirement to resist no long exists. Once someone needs to use violence to have sex, the person clearly knows you are not willingly consenting. Just as if they have sex with you while you are unconscious. If someone drugs them to specifically lower their ability to give consent, then I would consider it.
But in all situations, I would like to know that a reasonable person would clearly understand a rape was taking place before I convicted them of the crime. If they could prove to me that they had legitimate reason to believe what they were engaged in couldn't be viewed as forcing someone to do something against their will from a reasonable persons perspective, then I'd let him walk. The law won't though if all that needs to be stated is: I was drunk.
Did Jenny know she was raping Gump in this random perhaps made up guy's perspective? Would a reasonable person consider that rape? For everyone's sake, I hope not.
Not in my books, TGD.
I don't remember exactly, but I thought there was some discussion about whether Jenny raped Forrest.
It appears your definition also is determined based on consent. I also suspect that, in certain situations, most juries would need additional information to determine whether a rape had occurred (for example, in the drunken sex context). In any event, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
I'm not being accused of rape. I don't need to defend myself.
My definition is based on tacit consent. The definition coming into use is explicit consent. The difference is quite clear. In the first instance, tacit consent, the prosecutor requires a heavier burden of proof. In the case of Jenny, she could establish this through their history together, through knowledge of Gump's ability to consent to other things, and his ability to not consent to other things. She could then show that by showing no sign of refusal, though quite capable of showing sign of refusal, he expressed tacit consent.
On the other hand, if Gump is declared unable to consent, it's rape regardless of anything else. The prosecutor just has to show two things: Gump is mentally challenged and sexual activity occurred. The fact that he was able to be a soldier, a businessman, live on his own and otherwise consent to a wide range of activities doesn't give him the ability to consent to sex and doesn't give Jenny the to judge.
Everything that Jenny knew about Gump, how he reacts, what he is capable of, that he expressed only physical pleasure doesn't matter.
There is no longer a presumption of innocence.
The same goes for being drunk and if both parties are drunk, it boils down to who calls the cops first. This is clearly seen in the college case, and the boy was expelled.
What you are defending is his expulsion, please do so or recognize wherein lies the problem with your definition.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
_sabotage_ wrote:I'm not being accused of rape. I don't need to defend myself.
My definition is based on tacit consent. The definition coming into use is explicit consent. The difference is quite clear. In the first instance, tacit consent, the prosecutor requires a heavier burden of proof. In the case of Jenny, she could establish this through their history together, through knowledge of Gump's ability to consent to other things, and his ability to not consent to other things. She could then show that by showing no sign of refusal, though quite capable of showing sign of refusal, he expressed tacit consent.
On the other hand, if Gump is declared unable to consent, it's rape regardless of anything else. The prosecutor just has to show two things: Gump is mentally challenged and sexual activity occurred. The fact that he was able to be a soldier, a businessman, live on his own and otherwise consent to a wide range of activities doesn't give him the ability to consent to sex and doesn't give Jenny the to judge.
Everything that Jenny knew about Gump, how he reacts, what he is capable of, that he expressed only physical pleasure doesn't matter.
There is no longer a presumption of innocence.
The same goes for being drunk and if both parties are drunk, it boils down to who calls the cops first. This is clearly seen in the college case, and the boy was expelled.
What you are defending is his expulsion, please do so or recognize wherein lies the problem with your definition.
It's not my definition and I'm not saying you are being accused of rape. I'm saying any guidance you may provide is misleading. I suspect, but obviously do not know, that juries will take into account things like "they were both drunk" or "history of the accused and accuser." However, the safest bet is to not have sex with a drunk person and not have sex with a mentally challenged person. If you take that risk, you are assuming responsibility for your actions and the consequences.
@sab You suggest that placing a heavier burden of proof on the prosecution in a rape case is a good thing, but then you are willing to declare Case 1 a rape based on nothing other than the fact that the woman later turned around and accused the man of rape. I might need to review your eligibility to be a judge on this esteemed show.
Mrs, if your only intention is to say I'm I'm a sick illogical bastard, please stop with the charade.
From my post:
Investigators say Johnson drove to an Apopka orange grove near Boy Scout Road, where the victim said she was struck on the head and raped. violenceAccording to the report, following the attack, the victim persuaded Johnson to take her to a 7-Eleven for a drink. Once inside, she told a clerk that she had just been raped, immediately seeks helpand police were notified. Johnson fled, but was caught by the store’s surveillance camera. Evidence of guilt.
Three clear things if proven would show rape:
Violence. If proven, rape.
Immediately seeks help. Helps to prove it was unwanted.
Suspect flees. Indicates he understood he was in the wrong.
These three things, if proven, suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it was rape.
Why not just violence? I think violence would be hard to prove in this case. If you read the article you posted, she was having a fight with her boyfriend before leaving her place.
This means the defendant could argue that the violence was not done by him. More info is required.
I said, if proven.
The thing is, with the example I used for Mets, if proven according to my standard, it's not rape, but if proven by his standard, it is premeditated conscious rape.
In jury selection, I would be ruled out. All those who agree with mets standard would be allowed on the jury and by his definition he would be found willfully guilty. 15 years?
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
Actually, if you read the articles in question, you would realize you are wrong, TGD.
According to California, consent can be revoked at any time. What that means is, even if the woman (or man) whispered in Mets ear: I want to have sex with you tonight after drinking, it is still rape.
She/he made a completely sober, unforced decision and as soon as she/he had a drink, consent was revoked.
And no again on the juries. During selection they will specifically get rid of people like me. The judge and prosecutor will continually remind them what the law is. They will not say, act according to what you feel is rape or what damages you felt were suffered. They will continually hammer home their definition and hammer home the most egregious examples of why they must act according to this definition.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
