|
On August 28 2012 09:48 TabyLing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 09:19 Chriscras wrote:On August 28 2012 08:22 TabyLing wrote:On August 27 2012 13:57 TheDougler wrote:
Could somebody point me to somewhere that says what exactly Assange did? Wikipedia was most unhelpful.
I feel like I should be saying more here to add to the intriguing conversation but I'm really not sure IMO, don't have sex with someone unless she (or he) gives consent in an adult sober state of mind... But I don't get laid often (read: ever) so to be honest my opinion there is actually just a reflection of my insecurity and not my morality as my morality hasn't been tested really. I mean, if there was a naked woman passed out in my bed and my roomate wasn't home what would I do? The truth is that I don't know. I'd like to tell you I'd go fall asleep on the couch without a second thought but I can in no way gaurantee that. Context is everything of course. Were she and I drinking all night? Well that SHOULDN'T matter, but it does... Probably.
Anyway yeah, what exactly did Assange do? He had sex with 2 women, the sex was consensual on the condition that a condom was used. With one it broke she told him to stop and he wouldn't. With the other he said he used one and he didn't, also it is said that he had sex with her while she was asleep without a condom. some blog about itsome other blog about it Okay, but don't you think Sweden should guarantee they won't extradite him to the US so that he will cooperate with the investigation? This isn't about avoiding rape charges this is about his very real fears that this is all just a precursor to the US getting of hold of him for the purposes of prosecution. Sweden can't actually guarantee that, by law it is completely impossible. However to be extradited to the US it would require the permission of Sweden AND the UK. There are also international laws in place that protect people from being extradited if they would face torture or death in the country in question. you can read about such myths here
That's not what the French are saying:
http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/yh6g6/why_didnt_the_uk_government_extradie_julian/c5vn3ue
EDIT: Sorry, I don't want to go any further off topic, obviously rape is a horrible horrible crime. I just think the prosecution of Assange specifically may be for unrelated motives.
|
On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here.
Just a question, why would it be "insulting" when a girl refuses to have sex with you? I mean its their right, right?
|
On August 28 2012 16:01 GT350 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Just a question, why would it be "insulting" when a girl refuses to have sex with you? I mean its their right, right?
Maybe for the same reason some guys get insulted for absolutely no fucking reason, especially if they are under the influence of alcohol. Some people get insulted by people just looking at them "funny", I've seen a guy go bonkers when someone threw a frisbee that landed a few feet next to him like it hurt his pride or something, there's plenty of similar examples where someone logically have no reason to feel insulted but do. People are not rational.
|
>: the "Man raped by 'Angelina Jolie' " thread got closed before I could reply, so I have to bump this even though I feel it's already run its useful course:
Yes but in 'lad' or 'bro' culture or whatever term you want to use to describe Egotistical Macho culture (GymTanLaundry w00t), the only point to EVERYTHING is to work out and practice to put yourself as high as you can on the sexual market. *cough* SquattinCassinova *cough* *cough* Someone say 'Rape Culture' - its ingrained, and this mentality and lifestyle goes to great lengths to justify predatory sexual values. When you talk about 'all guys want is sex', well actually, there are a lot of (quite sad) guys where sex is the whole center and meaning to their life.
I would say that believing 'all guys want is sex' is a normal, and even expected opinion of guys in today's society. This is the fun part: so when they're so geared towards getting sex, they take away a lot of the inhibitions and barriers to sex. That means they get MOAR SCHEKX! yay.
But being such slaves in how much they value and seek sex, it also means they forfeit their right to step back and say 'well actually I don't want sex ATM'. When its all they're after, the argument 'they don't want sex' can never hold any water or coherence, because I WANT SEX is such an ingrained part of their identity and culture. Everything about them screams 'sexually available' - they do try, you know...
But for the most part, in women there isn't such an ingrained condoned culture of agressively seeking sex, and I bet when they do become pushy, most guys would be rather open to it. Regardless, if anyone says 'dun touch my nono square' and the predator keeps on goin, that's rape.
|
I think rape actually is a crime of passion, it's only that the passion isn't only the sexual passion. I think definitions may be involved and various people looking at the exact same facts could attribute different motivations to the rapist. Some would emphasise the fulfilment of sexual desire (at some point by whatever means it takes), others would put primary importance on anger, yet others on entitlement, finally some on dominance and the desire to enslave others (for the record, the dominant desire isn't necessarily the actual reason for which a decision was made or the actual cause for which something happened). I think much of that is guesswork, presumptions, projections. One example could be the hyperbolic and paradoxical statement that rape isn't about sex, where the purpose of the statement is to discredit rape and also to soothe the victims with the idea that it wasn't really sex. While especially the latter motivation is rather noble, we can't go as far as saying that it isn't a sexual crime, the act isn't sexual etc. This even though I'd say that the violent nature of the act is horribly understated by courts, penalties are low. Sometimes I wonder if the exact same level of violence as happened in a rape incident wouldn't be punished harsher if it didn't include rape, that is, if it fell exclusively undery assault and battery or whatever is the relevant crime in the relevant jurisdiction. Or if robbery occurred instead of rape but with the exact same application of violence. So I guess courts and lawyers need to stop looking at rape as sex that somebody didn't want, they need to start seeing it for real as a very serious assault, violating the victim on a deeply personal, intimate level. So in this sense, I too would say rape isn't sex, but it's a very sexual assault, with emphasis on assault, not on sex. But if anybody claimed the perpetrator's sexual drive were irrelevant in rape, I wouldn't take that person seriously (even though some forms of rape may conceivably be committed without intent to satisfy sexual desire, not even a warped sexual desire that feeds on violence more than it does on sex; e.g. it could be committed as torture in order to force information at war).
I don't have the knowledge of the relevant disciplines to go point by point who dissect the rapist and his motivations, but as a criminal lawyer I just don't buy into theories that seem to make individual circumstances irrelevant and just focus on making general statements, especially value-laden and intended to provoke some change in society because then facts lose their importance from such a perspective and in any criminal case the facts are and should always be paramount. I want to look at the individual person and the actual facts of the case, as opposed to trying to fit it into a particular philosophical framework, bending it where necessary. One guy was sick and couldn't find satisfaction in having consensual intercourse, another couldn't find consensual partners and didn't think about prostitution, yet another thought that something in the woman's behaviour game him the right to get what he wanted from her, yet another wanted to mark his domination in the local society, and yet another wanted specifically to humiliate her, and finally perhaps one or two guys actually failed to control themselves when the level sexual desire went very high, without feeling entitlement. I don't believe one glove fits all.
As for evidentiary problems, I think one thing we are missing sometimes: the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We can say that this or that (basically previous behaviour) reinforces or undermines the accuser's credibility but we can't forget that the presumption of the accuser's truthfulness and good faith cannot be valued more highly than the presumption of innocence of the accused. In fact, that's like an internal battle of presumption of innocence: presuming the innocence of the accuser (of false accusation), we violate the presumption of innocence of the accused. The accused generally should not have to enter into a credibility contest with the accuser (unless it's his own motion to dismiss the accusation summarily) because criminal cases are tried on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, not on the preponderance of the evidence (where roughly preponderance means somewhat better than a coinflip and beyond a reasonable doubt means sure). So when the problem of the credibility of the accuser is raised, it begs question whether the court and the prosecutor aren't shifting the burden of proof on the accused.
But to address "previous history": sometimes the alleged victim's (I'll explain the alleged victim in a while) lawyers try to build the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (which is not actually quantifiable, although I could provide links to some interesting attempts if anybody's interested) basing on the improbability that e.g. a morally upright virginal woman as the victim's reputation is, would of her own volition go with a stranger to his hotel room, drink alcohol and have sex there. This being so improbable, it is therefore very probable (in the victim's lawyer's words probably sure) that the accused employed some foul play in procuring the result. The point made is that even though it can't be proved that the man actually raped her, it's supposedly sure that she couldn't have consented in such circumstances. It's then that the defence lawyer may legitimately argue that the alleged high moral character (used as a piece of circumstancial evidence, leading to a full "chain" of circumstancial proofs) is not actually true, to negate that piece of circumstial evidence. In some other situations, an accused will simply argue that just because the accuser/alleged victim doesn't remember what happened but believes she didn't consent and feels she can't have consented, doesn't mean it really was rape. Or he will use a reasonable impression of consent as his defence (in a limited number of cases it may actually have merit, for example a man and woman habitually having sex while under the influence of alcohol, one day she isn't sober enough to make an informed judgement when the same happens, there is an accusation of rape), and while I don't want to categorise people based on their past as if it determined the present and future or as if promiscuity made people liars, the past is generally a good guide and it can show that the impression of consent was reasonable (e.g. because the externally manifested behaviour of the accuser was the same as in cases that she agrees were consensual).
Now I realise what I said in the last sentence of the above paragraph may be offensive to some, so I will elaborate and ask anybody who feels offended to suspend judgement and think through this coolly. Basically, in no crime can the person wronged or believing himself or herself to have been wrong, be the one who dictates the rules ad hoc, to apply to that one single case retroactively, nor can a victim judge a proven offender e.g. as to the amount of punishment which is fair, much less judge a currently only alleged offender as to whether he did the crime or not. The rules must be dictated in advance and must be clear. Prosecution or lack of it can be governed by the victim's decision (to press charges or not) but not the existence or severity of the crime, which the court (which in common law countries includes the jury) should decide on its own, based on facts and in a way reflecting the truth of the matter. The degree to which we feel wronged doesn't necessarily translate into the degree to which the offender is culpable (not only the severity of the crime but also the minimal threshold), it may be either greater (e.g. when the alleged offender acted in error or the mistaken belief of consent, while false, was actually not unreasonable in light of the circumstances, and we are slow to accept that excuse due to how intensely violated we feel) or even lesser (e.g. in some jurisdictions a prosecutor is powerless if the victim doesn't want to prosecute, even if the prosecutor has all the evidence needed for a conviction, frequent case with domestic violence and similar crimes).
Also, while the healing of the victim is important, an accused can't be sacrificed for the sake of it (as they are equal citizens), if he could in fact be an innocent man, who'd be wronged very intensely by falsely attributing a crime to him, destroying his name, locking him up in prison, and more. For similar reasons, while some aspects of evidence or evidentiary procedure may be traumatising to the victim (or alleged victim), this cannot lead us to ignoring the necessity to respect the presumption of innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that relevant evidence must be admitted, that being even any degree of potential relevance rather than some arbitrary high threshold that the accused would need to prove affirmatively before that evidence were even allowed (because overall, in the entire trial, he should be able to limit himself to denying the accusation and still get out free if innocent). Only everything possible should be done to limit the traumatising impact, e.g. no press, assistance of a psychologist, accused out of the room but only his lawyer present, no person of the opposite sex present in the room when inappropriate etc., perhaps even up to the point of forcing the accused to retain a defence lawyer of the appropriate sex. But not arbitrarily excluding evidence, nor even excluding potentially relevant evidence on the basis of it being traumatising. So if previous history can actually be relevant (i.e. is not blatantly irrelevant), it should be admitted. And if overall it is difficult to decide what happened, the benefit of the doubt should always go only to the accused and not to the victim.
I was going to explain the "alleged victim". The presumption that a person (basically the accuser) claiming that he or she is a victim, is a victim, is an understated issue in the practical reality of law enforcement. Sometimes it can lead to a presumption that a crime did take place, or to very much credibility being given to words alone. In some jurisdictions, it's possible to sentence someone for rape with just the victim as the witness. A prosecutor can't have anybody sentenced merely on the prosecutor's word. But if the prosecutor and the accuser are not the same person, the accuser becomes the prosecutor's witness and everything is supposedly okay with that (or at least it's hard to assail). Especially with criminal law having abandoned the old notions of needing two witness or some other rules of proof in favour of free evaluation of proof, especially in continental European systems (and systems derived from those). Coupled with the notion that a case simply must be decided either way, like in a civil action between two competing parties (rather than acquittal/dismissal for lack of evidence due to the necessity to acquit even if the accused is probably guilty but not surely guilty, which I guess gets forgotten or sacrificed in rape cases), the latter sometimes leads to hazy, controversial rulings. This is also why I say "alleged victim", not to imply that accusers are not truthful. And by the way, acquitting the accused doesn't mean that the accuser was lying, that'd be another false dilemma. For a conclusion that an accuser accused falsely, a separate trial would need to be held, with the same guarantees of burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt etc., necessarily leading to acquittal if there were any doubts (pretty much by logical necessity, if your accused gets off the hook on the basis of benefit of doubt, you have the benefit of doubt that you aren't a false accuser). So a court not ruling guilty (because the evidence wasn't enough in that court's judgement) shouldn't be interpreted as a court calling the accuser a liar.
|
|
|
*bump*
In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back.
german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.html
German definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither.
The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender.
edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based:
1. the door was open, so she could've escaped
2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard.
All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law".
|
On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law".
Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all.
So how exactly did people conclude she was raped?
|
AFAIK there is no such thing as "rape" in Canadian law, but rather "sexual assault". From the law that defines the crime:
Sexual assault is defined as sexual contact with another person without that other person's consent. Consent is defined in section 273.1(1) as "the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question".
There are separate definitions for sexual assault that involve implied or real physical harm and aggravated sexual assault.
An advantage of this definition is that it is gender neutral.
|
On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped?
Because she didn't consent to the sex.
Especially considering that she is 15 and he is 31 and according to the two other women who were with them he becomes violent if they don't do what he tells them to do, it's quite possible that she felt defenseless (even if she objectively could have screamed for help or run away) and that's why she didn't fight back.
But apparently, according to german law, saying "no" isn't enough of not consenting.
|
On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped?
Dunno, the article is not really describing all facts, it is more like a comment (a form of article, where the author - with name - states his/her opinion gives reasons why he/she is of that opinion).
But this is what I get from that article:
- there was alot of alcohol and some drugs involved
- the offender was known to be violent
- victim claimed that she stated that she did not want to do it
- victim was underage
- before the deed, he send the two other women into the cellar
|
On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped? Because she didn't consent to the sex. Especially considering that she is 15 and he is 31 and according to the two other women who were with them he becomes violent if they don't do what he tells them to do, it's quite possible that she felt defenseless (even if she objectively could have screamed for help or run away) and that's why she didn't fight back. But apparently, according to german law, saying "no" isn't enough of not consenting.
i really dont like the idea that people can get charged for rape for a girl not explicitly consenting. what do i need to have her sign a contract or something every time? if she vocalizes or resists, then thats a completely different story.
however, the facts in this case are not clearly presented
|
Sweden256 Posts
did anybody else see the title and sing in their head "what is rape? baby don't hurt me. don't hurt me. no more. dun dun dun dun dun..."?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 14 2012 02:30 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 02:02 Sandtrout wrote:On September 14 2012 01:56 sunprince wrote:On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law". Based on Google Translate, the defendant did not act violently, did not threaten her, and she neither chose to leave nor to scream for help. In other words, there's no evidence of rape at all. So how exactly did people conclude she was raped? Because she didn't consent to the sex. Especially considering that she is 15 and he is 31 and according to the two other women who were with them he becomes violent if they don't do what he tells them to do, it's quite possible that she felt defenseless (even if she objectively could have screamed for help or run away) and that's why she didn't fight back. But apparently, according to german law, saying "no" isn't enough of not consenting. i really dont like the idea that people can get charged for rape for a girl not explicitly consenting. what do i need to have her sign a contract or something every time? if she vocalizes or resists, then thats a completely different story. however, the facts in this case are not clearly presented
She did say "No, I don't want to", so it's not just missing explicit consent.
Edit: If there's interest, I could try to translate the article later.
|
Rape = forcing someone to have a form of sex (intercourse, oral, anal)
It's really that simple. Groping and stuff falls under sexual assault, which is a slightly less serious crime (but still very serious).
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 14 2012 01:46 JustPassingBy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +*bump* In Germany, a man was sentenced non-guilty, because the girl he is said to have raped did not fight back. german source: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-landgericht-essen-spricht-angeklagten-frei-a-855639.htmlGerman definition of rape includes something about violence, or threats, or being defenseless and according to the judge, the victim was not defenseless, as she could've shouted for help or run away but did neither. The literal translation of the "defenseless" clause is something like "abusing a situation in which the victim is defenseless at the mercy of the offender. edit: two facts upon which the sentence is based: 1. the door was open, so she could've escaped 2. there were people in the other apartments of the house, so her screams would've been heard. All sides in Germany are aware that the sentence is legally correct, but not morally. The article I stated talked about "men vs law".
Well, I think that you can't really put someone in jail without any sort of objective evidence. Making judgment solely on victim's words would be pretty retarded.
|
|
|
We all know that legitimate rape does not cause pregnancy.
|
On September 14 2012 07:02 0mar wrote:
We all know that legitimate rape does not cause pregnancy.
The female body has ways of dealing with that.
(ie vagina cannon)
|
On September 14 2012 07:02 0mar wrote:
We all know that legitimate rape does not cause pregnancy.
Yea thats what they say these days.
(Americans to be more specific).
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
