EPTRape should not be defined by the sex of the victim or perpetrator, I am very disappointed in some of you
What is Rape? - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
Rape should not be defined by the sex of the victim or perpetrator, I am very disappointed in some of you | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:27 mcc wrote: Outdated laws which should be fixed. Of course if they are not already de facto fixed by courts extending the purpose of the law in practice. If that is truly your opinion then we are in agreement. Fix the laws, instruct juries to treat men and women equally. None of this "if you have sex with a drunk chick it's rape". It's either rape for both genders or neither. | ||
|
ElvisWayCool
United States437 Posts
Does that cover all the bases? Seems like if you're doing any of these things anyway, you're in the wrong. However, if the person doesn't communicate their desires to you, you can't know for sure what they want. So, maybe make it: (all of those things) + unless they tell you to. Guilt is in the hands of the victim until they pass it to the other party by explaining their desires. If someone is too intoxicated to do so, they are protected by the law. If someone is unable to do so (eg. asleep), they are protected by the law. And no call backsies: once you say it's ok, it's ok. On August 24 2012 09:43 Body_Shield wrote: Rape should not be defined by the sex of the victim or perpetrator, I am very disappointed in some of you This. Which I tried to make obvious in my post. Who cares what gender you are? If you don't want to get touched, you shouldn't be touched. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:43 Body_Shield wrote: In the US, Men are the most raped demographic.....due to the prison system... Rape should not be defined by the sex of the victim or perpetrator, I am very disappointed in some of you I find that very hard to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Prison_population With those two you should be able to see how unreasonable that statement is. There would have to be an absurd amount of rapes happening in your prisons for that to be true. | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
A) I'm pretty surprised by how many times people repeated the "what is rape? baby don't hurt me! no more!" line from the 'what is love' song. I think I counted almost 10 separate references to it. B) I think the simpler the definition we have, the better, so as to avoid confusion and traffic jams in court. From what I understand, the easiest way to define rape is when someone forces someone else to have sex. I think forcing someone else to have sex usually means some physical or violent threat is involved, although I would be open to understand the term outside of scenarios contingent on physical threat/violence. I think if one is intoxicated, and another takes advantage of that fact in order to have sex, then this constitutes something else, but remains rape nonetheless in certain instances. I do think that this particular version involving intoxication is the most difficult to classify, because some cases are more clear than others. For example, if one is unconscious by intoxication, and another proceeds to have sex with that person, it undoubtedly constitutes rape. However, if both are intoxicated, and both begin to have sex, but then one backs out while the other misunderstands, then it becomes less clear. In the end if there is a clear & verbal "no" which is not respected, then it is necessarily rape. C) I think it makes more sense to restrict it to intercourse, rather than also including oral sex & other sexual acts (someone forcing another to give him oral sex should be considered sexual assault, for example). | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote: Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. Rape shield laws, however, address this wrong with a far more heinous wrong, by infringing on a defendant's right to defend themselves via cross examination. A notable example case was the rape trial of Mike Tyson, in which a rape shield law prevented his counsel from introducing evidence that the woman had a history about lying about sexual encounters. Rape shield laws are consequently one of the reasons why there is an unusually high false conviction rate for rapes,. Rape shield laws also display a blatant double standard in that they shield the names of accusers, while failing to similarly protect the accused. The simple fact of the matter is, rape trials are always going to be problematic because it can be difficult to determine whether there was consent. In the words of Blackstone, however, it's better that ten guilty men escape than that one innocent person suffer. Rape shield laws turn that on it's head by placing the conviction of rapists before protecting the rights of the accused. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:35 Zahir wrote: If I told you the vast majority of money launderers are and historically have been white and showed you an entire legal code which defines money laundering as an act committed by a white dude you would probably not be so happy yes? You would probably be able to draw some negative inferences about the opinions and biases of the people who support bias in law such as that yes? That's a poor analogy. The law does not protect only women. The various laws offer certain protections for women, but the definition of rape isn't only for when it is against women. A more accurate analogy would be the use of certain kinds of evidence in money laundering cases. Evidence that has no merit, that the rules of legal procedure should already prevent from being brought up. Laws exist because of society. Female promiscuity is considered bad by society, while male promiscuity is not. Hence, female rape victims need protection against such accusations. I wouldn't mind seeing it broadened to everyone (since the argument, regardless of society, is fallacious), but I don't see it as a particularly heinous issue. On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote: Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. So, a miscarriage of justice due to jury preconceptions is fine, but preventing the introduction of evidence that has nothing to do with the case is bad. And no, sexual history alone is never relevant to consent. Remember: a rape trial is ultimately about establishing whether there was consent. And consent is a question of honesty; therefore, the only thing that matters is whether the witness is trustworthy. A history of lying can be admissible, but not just sex for its own sake. On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote: Rape shield laws, however, address this wrong with a far more heinous wrong, by infringing on a defendant's right to defend themselves via cross examination. A notable example case was the rape trial of Mike Tyson, in which a rape shield law prevented his counsel from introducing evidence that the woman had a history about lying about sexual encounters. Rape shield laws are consequently one of the reasons why there is an unusually high false conviction rate for rapes,. Rape shield laws also display a blatant double standard in that they shield the names of accusers, while failing to similarly protect the accused. That's not a double-standard; there is a difference between the accused and the accuser. A "double-standard" only applies when both parties are the same. They are not. The accused does not have to testify; the accuser does. So shielding the accuser is not bias or a double-standard or anything. It's protecting someone's identity. On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote: The simple fact of the matter is, rape trials are always going to be problematic because it can be difficult to determine whether there was consent. In the words of Blackstone, however, it's better that ten guilty men escape than that one innocent person suffer. Rape shield laws turn that on it's head by placing the conviction of rapists before protecting the rights of the accused. Nonsense. It places the pursuit of justice before anything else; nothing more. The presentation of "evidence" that exists solely to prejudice the jury is not conducive to finding justice. That's why juries don't get to hear about the legal background of the defendant. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:00 gruff wrote: I find that very hard to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Prison_population With those two you should be able to see how unreasonable that statement is. There would have to be an absurd amount of rapes happening in your prisons for that to be true. Actually it is true by some recent studies. Prison rape is absolutely rampant in our prison system at the moment. It's ridiculous considering we have prison guards and such. Recently Obama did sign a bill to try to curtail it. Anyway, prison rape is a different issue from civilian rape (which is overwhelmingly male on female). Prisons are simply not enforcing rape issues in their controlled prisons. In the civilian population, we have rape laws and a culture that is preventing rapists from being brought to justice in alarming numbers. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:00 gruff wrote: I find that very hard to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Prison_population With those two you should be able to see how unreasonable that statement is. There would have to be an absurd amount of rapes happening in your prisons for that to be true. There actually is an absurd amount of prison rape in the US. The US Department of Justice found that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes in the United States in 2008. And actually, even if you set aside prison rape, there were almost as many male rape victims as female victims in 2010 (even if feminists do their best to define rape as something that only men do to women). The reality is quite different from the "women are victims" narrative you find in the mainstream media. | ||
KwarK
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote: Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:15 NicolBolas wrote: That's a poor analogy. The law does not protect only women. The various laws offer certain protections for women, but the definition of rape isn't only for when it is against women. Yeah, but in practice, as well as outside of the law, rape is frequently treated as only a crime committed by men and to women. On August 24 2012 10:15 NicolBolas wrote: Laws exist because of society. Female promiscuity is considered bad by society, while male promiscuity is not. Hence, female rape victims need protection against such accusations. I wouldn't mind seeing it broadened to everyone (since the argument, regardless of society, is fallacious), but I don't see it as a particularly heinous issue. As I explained a few posts above, the argument is not necessarily fallacious. Rape shield laws prevent legitimate evidence from being used in trials. Female rape victims do not need particular protection against such accusations, because the laws of evidence already prohibit fallacious arguments. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote: But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 24 2012 09:28 BBQ`BBQKingPrime wrote: What's to explain? My statement was pretty clear and straight forward. But please tell me what you are confused about, then I can maybe help you understand. What legal terminology is misleading to you and in what way ? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote: If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41980 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
Therein lieth my objection, Nikol. Society is tougher on women so it's ok for laws to be tougher on men... I understand where you're coming from but that is not the correct approach to me. Educate society so they can live up to the law, or find ways to remove bias from the judicial process. There are two ignorant beliefs involved here. One that a woman can somehow "have it coming". Another that women are just too weak and vulnerable to be held to the same standards as men. I simply wish to abolish both. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote: It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote: The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. If the consent is murky, then it should logically follow that the wrongness is also murky. Philosophically and socially, the wrongness should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but of course legally it is not unreasonable to use strict liability. | ||
| ||
