Why rape is unique and why should it be a distinct crime from battery?

[milkweed]

Yes, and fortunately we have laws against assault for just that purpose. ("Assault" means an "act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person" - and most verbal sexual harassment fits that description quite well.)

you forgot part(s).
Truncated:
However, assault requires more than words alone.

Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)

 

[Kittamaru]

How about rape by fraud?

CAL. PEN. CODE § 261

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/0...pe-by-impersonation-and-a-new-california-bill

At present, it is not rape, and thus is not pertinent to this conversation...

If/When it is classified as rape, then coercion is still being used - plus, honestly... I have to question - how do you impersonate someone that the person knows well enough to want to have sex with? I would wager that the "victim" has to either A) be incredibly stupid B) incredibly naive, or C) incredibly drunk to mistake someone as someone they know well enough to want to have intercourse with.

 

[milkweed]

Does anyone agree with the woman in the following video, who believes that the best way to overcome the inequality of women is to assert a parallel between rape and nonsexual violent assaults, if not, why?

At the end of the following video, the question of punishment for verbal sexual harassment and freedom of speech is addressed. Should verbal sexual harassment be punishable? What are your thoughts?

The video was an interesting listen. I dont know if its the 'best way' but I think there is a parallel between rape and violent assaults.

Define sexual harassment first. Here is a clip from Daily show. Around 2:25+ there is a group of women describing some things that have happened to them that I doubt anyone would disagree with; it is verbal sexual harassment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/jessica-williams-cat-calling-daily-show_n_5927894.html

But on the flip side and in real life, I have had two jobs recently where the hiring manager expressed hesitation on having me working with the men due to fears I may be easily offended. These are both small companies who simply cant afford trouble and the reality being created is, its easier to just not hire a woman than it is trying to imagine (and prevent) any possible combination of ways something as simple as Wow, I love the way that shirt looks on you may be perceived.

I've worked places where the answer became No one talks to anybody about anything non-work related. Bleh. Couldnt wait to get out of those places.

 

[Trooper]

At present, it is not rape, and thus is not pertinent to this conversation...

It was signed into law in California by Governor Jerry Brown on September 9, 2013.

I gave you the penal code.

Now, please go away.

 

[Trooper]

The video was an interesting listen. I dont know if its the 'best way' but I think there is a parallel between rape and violent assaults.

Define sexual harassment first. Here is a clip from Daily show. Around 2:25+ there is a group of women describing some things that have happened to them that I doubt anyone would disagree with; it is verbal sexual harassment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/jessica-williams-cat-calling-daily-show_n_5927894.html

But on the flip side and in real life, I have had two jobs recently where the hiring manager expressed hesitation on having me working with the men due to fears I may be easily offended. These are both small companies who simply cant afford trouble and the reality being created is, its easier to just not hire a woman than it is trying to imagine (and prevent) any possible combination of ways something as simple as Wow, I love the way that shirt looks on you may be perceived.

I've worked places where the answer became No one talks to anybody about anything non-work related. Bleh. Couldnt wait to get out of those places.

Good point.

 

[Kittamaru]

It was signed into law in California by Governor Jerry Brown on September 9, 2013.

I gave you the penal code.

Now, please go away.

I do apologize - I did not notice the date on that.

In that case, you would do well to read the rest of my post, as it still applies...

then coercion is still being used - plus, honestly... I have to question - how do you impersonate someone that the person knows well enough to want to have sex with? I would wager that the "victim" has to either A) be incredibly stupid B) incredibly naive, or C) incredibly drunk to mistake someone as someone they know well enough to want to have intercourse with.

But, then again, I guess you don't have anything to say about that, as usual.

 

[Trooper]

Read the history and the cases. Google it.

 

[Kittamaru]

Read the history and the cases. Google it.

Why should I? My point is rather simple - I don't see how you can be so easily fooled as to the identity of someone who you should be close enough to have sex with... unless of course you are just sleeping around (excluding perhaps identical twins). None the less, such a case should be treated the same - coercion is still being implied, only it is psychological rather than physical.

 

[Trooper]

Are you done?

 

[Kittamaru]

Are you done?

Dunno - seems I've made the only real point in this thread thus far (rape involves battery)... does this thread happen to serve a purpose, beyond your soapboxing and (essentially) attempting to disguise re-opening a previously closed thread?

 

[Trooper]

Obviously, you cannot really rape someone without "using force against another".

"In 2008, it was reported that a Massachusetts woman, Marissa Lee-Fuentes, unknowingly had sex with her boyfriend's brother in the dark basement that she was sleeping in. He could not be prosecuted, because Massachusetts law then required that rape include the use of force."

"Many of the rapes committed by Richard Allen Minsky fit the definition of rape by deception."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception#Notable_cases

I asked you a question.

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

But, then again, I guess you don't have anything to say about that, as usual.

 

[James R]

Consent is a defence to a charge of rape. In the case where the victim seemed to consent to sex because the perpetrator was impersonating another person with whom the victim would have been willing to have sex, the victim's consent would probably not be considered by a court to be real consent. Consent implies informed consent - i.e. that the person consenting understands the important details of what they are consenting to. Where fraud is involved, consent may be vitiated.

Caveat: This may not be true in all jurisdictions. Obviously, statutory law can override common-law notions of consent.

 

[Trooper]

Consent is a defence to a charge of rape. In the case where the victim seemed to consent to sex because the perpetrator was impersonating another person with whom the victim would have been willing to have sex, the victim's consent would probably not be considered by a court to be real consent. Consent implies informed consent - i.e. that the person consenting understands the important details of what they are consenting to. Where fraud is involved, consent may be vitiated.

Caveat: This may not be true in all jurisdictions. Obviously, statutory law can override common-law notions of consent.

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

Or how 'bout this little scenario?

"He told me that he loved me. I wouldn't have had sex with him had he not promised to marry me."

 

[James R]

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

It extends to any kind of impersonation.

Or how 'bout this little scenario?

"He told me that he loved me. I wouldn't have had sex with him had he not promised to marry me."

The question is: would a reasonable person agree that she probably would not have consented to sex if she had known that his promise was a lie? The answer to that question would depend on the factual evidence of the case at hand.

On the other hand, that might not be relevant in such a case because the promise to marry might not be considered a proximate part of the consent required for the sex. That is, it may be that consent requires only that she know with whom she is having sex, that she understands what sex involves, that she consents freely at the time to the particular act(s). Reasonable people usually realise that promises can be broken. Any action taken on the basis of a promise is a risk to some degree. The deception in this example may not vitiate legal consent to the sex act, even though it is morally objectionable.

 

[Trooper]

It extends to any kind of impersonation.

I get a call from a guy, who said that he was a record producer and was bringing in his client, who had hurt his back. He wanted to make sure that we could keep it on the down low. He said that it was Roger Waters. I wasn’t a big Pink Floyd fan at the time and had never heard of him. No one else knew what he looked like. Well, excitement ensues, and in enters a big fat, red-haired, Irish man with a heavy accent. He had fractured a disk. So, they admit him. He prances around the hospital telling everyone who he is. Says that he has a concert in Europe in a few days and offers to pay one of the physicians an enormous amount of cash to fly with him and keep him comfortable. He convinces the doctor to order a case of morphine to take with them and says his pilot will pick it up from the hospital pharmacy. A man shows up in plain coveralls and exits with the morphine. He then convinces the hot X-ray tech to sneak him out that night and take him hot tubbing at her place. The dumbass slept with him. She brings him back and the next morning his room is empty. The hospital ate the bill, of course. The president of the corporation, administrator, and all involved (including myself) was called in and told to keep our mouth shut, or else. Well, it’s been years, and the corporation went belly up, but now I know what Roger Waters looks like. I've always wondered if they pulled that same scam elsewhere.

This was rape then, right, James?


BTW, I never once argued that victims were responsible for their own rape.

 

[Kittamaru]

"In 2008, it was reported that a Massachusetts woman, Marissa Lee-Fuentes, unknowingly had sex with her boyfriend's brother in the dark basement that she was sleeping in. He could not be prosecuted, because Massachusetts law then required that rape include the use of force."

So she had sex with someone without ascertaining their identify first... okay then. Doesn't make him any less of a creep, nor make the crime any less "wrong"... but I have to question her in this... but maybe it's just a part of who I am that I make sure the person I'm talking to is actually who they say they are, and if I cannot be sure then personal information is never released. Then again, how could you not know your lover well enough to distinguish them from someone else... and if there were any question, why would you just "go for it"?

"Many of the rapes committed by Richard Allen Minsky fit the definition of rape by deception."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception#Notable_cases

I asked you a question.

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

And I already answered

But, then again, I guess you don't have anything to say about that, as usual.

Au Contraire - you simply failed to read and comprehend.

Why should I? My point is rather simple - I don't see how you can be so easily fooled as to the identity of someone who you should be close enough to have sex with... unless of course you are just sleeping around (excluding perhaps identical twins). None the less, such a case should be treated the same - coercion is still being implied, only it is psychological rather than physical.

In this case, the person was tricked into having sex through deception - perhaps Coercion is the wrong word, as that in itself implies force or threats of a physical nature. As Alan Wertheimer writes:

The "force" or "coercion" that negates consent ought to be defined to include extortionate threats and misrepresentation of material fact. 3

Coercion can take many forms. Free choice may be thwarted by compulsion of the body through physical violence, or more subtly by the creation of false beliefs through deception. 4

Alan Wertheimer - Consent to Sexual Relations, page 194 - Citation 3 from Susan Estrich, Real Rape Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, page 102. Citation 4 from Jane E. Larson "Woman Understand So Little, They Call My Good Nature Deceit": A Feminist Rethinking of Seduction" Columbia Law Review, page 374


As I have not only answered your question, but laid to any reasonable rest any sort of question of my motives and meaning, I ask again - what is the point of this thread? What are you trying to ascertain here? Deception invalidates consent; that seems to be a reasonable understanding of the law. The problem, then, is determining if deception was present ("I wouldn't have had sex with him if he didn't love me" argument - how do you quantify "love"?)

 

[Trooper]

These are tough questions that law makers have to deal with. If you don't like the thread, don't participate.

Run along now, Kittamaru.

 

[GeoffP]

Dunno - seems I've made the only real point in this thread thus far (rape involves battery)... does this thread happen to serve a purpose, beyond your soapboxing and (essentially) attempting to disguise re-opening a previously closed thread?

God, are you serious? Get off the thread if all you're going to do is prevaricate and troll, or ask an adult if you don't understand something.

 

[GeoffP]

How about rape by fraud?

CAL. PEN. CODE § 261

Should this extend to impersonating anyone that the victim would not otherwise have sex with, such as a famous or rich person?

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/0...pe-by-impersonation-and-a-new-california-bill

Ah. Wasn't sure how that would work, but that's a good point. An actual point. I suppose that would conceivably be rape also.

 

[GeoffP]

you forgot part(s).
Truncated:
However, assault requires more than words alone.

Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)

Is all assault tort assault?