 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
While I agree that the woman or man has that right, I am skepticle of the practicality of this law. Because the original sex was consensual, you are talking about a lack of physical evidence. And without evidence of rape, it boils down to a he said/she said situation. There is too much of a potential for abuse/false accusation. I believe the pendulum has swung too far. And my slippery-slope comment is perfectly legit. |
No, it isn't legit, it's slippery slope nonsense.
I don't think this law changes anything with regards to the burden of proof. It is simply clarifying something that should be evident to most people, but apparently isn't--changing one's mind can be done at any time, and is their right. I'm sure the law was in reaction to cases where defendants had acknowledged continuing sex acts after being told to stop, but claimed they thought it was ok because the woman originally consented. I don't see this as lowering any proof requirements. Such claims appear to be strawmen.
I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct. Allowances must be made for a person to register the refusal. If that means erring in the direction of acquitting those few who finish up in the 5 seconds after being told to stop, that's gotta be the way it is. The rights of the accused are given a bit more weight in our system, and that is how it should be in this regard as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct. |
When humans are having sex they do not lose their power of reason, their ability to understand language, their ability to determine right from wrong. . . . except maybe during the moment of orgasm, and possibly just before it. Even then, it can be done. It is, after all, a form of birth control (if not a very effective one).
The instant consent is withdrawn, it becomes a crime to continue. That's how it works for all crimes, I see no reason to treat rape any differently.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:29
|
|
I found this description about the California case. Can't vouch for its accuracy.
In the case that challenged the old rule, a 17-year-old girl, Laura T., had consented to sex with the defendant, John, but then later told him that she needed to go home. While she never explicitly told him to stop, he continued for, "four or five minutes after Laura's first statement and for a minute to 90 seconds after her third and final one" (Cooper, 2003:2). John had apparently told Laura, "Just give me a minute" (Cooper, 2003:2). While this case may not appear to be rape to some, the California Supreme Court has ruled that it was indeed a rape. The Court took into account what was called a "primal urge theory" that could possibly justify a "reasonable time" rule for John's failure to stop. However, the Court later rejected this claim saying that John had been given sufficient time to withdraw and that the law books would not allow for such a claim of "reasonable time" (Cooper, 2003:2). It is important to remember that rape does not occur when a woman simply changes her mind or feels that she has made a bad decision. In this case, John had also grabbed Laura's waist and pushed her down while she was making the statements that she needed to go home.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2003 22:00
okay Fez... 
|