False Rape

[Godzilla]

Killing is killing, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter (though the maximum penalty for manslaughter is the same as the mandatory penalty for murder.)

 

-as (a) or even (b)?

 

(d) (And this is the one which worries me.) Withdrawal of consent leading to 'Date Rape: A couple go on a date. They have a pleasant evening. They go to her (or his) apartment and there is no suggestion that either is incapable of making a decision whether or not to engage in intercourse. The evening goes well and they end up in bed. (You know what happens next ... this isn't a porno show so I'm not going to discuss foreplay.) The law is 'black letter' - quite unequivocal. "Consent may be withdrawn at any time."

 

Not at any time before penetration, but at any time before ejaculation.

 

Is this reasonable? IMO, it is not reasonable.

 

I know of a young woman who went out with a group of friends and encountered her ex in a pub. They got chatting and she ended up going home with him (she'd had a few drinks but wasn't that drunk). They ended up in bed, and that's when he decided that it was pay-back time. During sex he began to call her horrible names and was very rough. This is not what she had consented to, and she told him to stop. He didn't! She felt violated and 'raped'. She did not go to the police - it would be her word against his - but the whole episode left her traumatised.

[Chris_Sleeps]

(d) (And this is the one which worries me.) Withdrawal of consent leading to 'Date Rape: A couple go on a date. [...] The law is 'black letter' - quite unequivocal. "Consent may be withdrawn at any time."

 

'NO' means 'NO'- even on the 'vinegar stroke'.

The law has to draw lines in morality though. It has to say 'no means no', because that is the common sense opinion to have regarding rape. The judicial process can be a bit more selective and say "Mrs Vinegar Stroke ... I don't think you'd have a chance of getting a jury to convict in this case".

[Closet Guy.]

You quoted a stupid number. Back it up or shut up talking daft.

 

Backed it up ages ago.

Go back, look for yourself, do what i did and use the mighty power of google to find out the details.

You people, really. You talk to someone like **** then expect them to be accomdating.

Jog on:roll:

[plekhanov]

So nearly every women you know has been allegedly raped?

 

Which brings me onto another point, when were you appointed judge and jury of the land?

What a bizarre "point" judge and jury are necessary to convict a specific individual of a specific crime not to talk about the general prevalence of a category of crime.

[plekhanov]

It is indeed indicative of attitudes towards women if the woman is invariably not believed, which essentially is what it boils down to. Who do you believe, members of the jury? Him? Or her? A woman who liked the occasional drink and was known to go out not wearing knickers. Members of the jury, you may wish to consider the actions of the the witness for the prosecution when reaching your verdict and be mindful of the number of women who make false rape claims' etc.

 

It is all nonsense. If anything, the absolute and complete reverse is true. Virtually every woman I know has at the very least been coerced into sex, a number of them 'acquaintance raped' - not one has ever reported it. So don't anyone dare tell me about the majority of reported cases being bogus.

 

It is noticeable how it is invariably men who make this spurious claim. One wonders if they are guilty themselves of coercion at some point and whether this is their way of justifying it.

To get a conviction in a criminal case entirely resting upon the evidence of one individual that individual doesn't just have to be believed, they have to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in a society of perfect gender equality cases turning solely upon "he said/she said" would more often that not end in an aquittal simply because there is so often reasonable doubt about any individuals account of anything.

[Streamline]

To get a conviction in a criminal case entirely resting upon the evidence of one individual that individual doesn't just have to be believed, they have to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in a society of perfect gender equality cases turning solely upon "he said/she said" would more often that not end in an aquittal simply because there is so often reasonable doubt about any individuals account of anything.

 

Does anyone else need a lesson in how the law operates, plekhanov is giving out lessons..

[plekhanov]

Does anyone else need a lesson in how the law operates, plekhanov is giving out lessons..

Given your bizarre 'point' that Suf must be 'appointed judge and jury' to talk about the prevalence of rape you would seem to need a few lessons in how not just the law but basic reasoning works.

[Streamline]

Given your bizarre 'point' that Suf must be 'appointed judge and jury' to talk about the prevalence of rape you would seem to need a few lessons in how not just the law but basic reasoning works.

 

Had you actually followed the conversation through and why I said it you might have a point, other than that you're just being stupid and acting like the forum bully.

[plekhanov]

Had you actually followed the conversation through and why I said it you might have a point, other than that you're just being stupid and acting like the forum bully.

Oh dear, somebody call the waaaambulance the poor little fascist is upset because I pointed out how dumb his attempt at a point was.

[Fibutton]

Has anyone who has subscribed to this thread actually been raped? Or are all your feelings just conjecture?

 

It's interesting to read.