If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Back woods law from 1872 states that it's only rape if the woman you tricked is married. Difficulty: California   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 61
    More: Stupid, retrials, trial courts  
•       •       •

10214 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-04 12:30:18 PM
4 votes:

ZAZ: I don't like "rape by deception" laws anyway. Repeal the criminal laws but say the woman and/or her boyfriend can chop you into little bits if they catch you at the scene.


The deception laws are a little redundant. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent.
The lady in this article either asleep and unable to consent (article is kinda iffy the way I read it), or consented to sex with her boyfriend. The rapist is not her boyfriend, therefore he did not have her consent. Even more, pretending to be someone else indicates he knew he didn't have consent.

This should have been covered under a standard rape-rape law.
2013-01-04 02:46:31 PM
3 votes:
Two things:

Gentlemen, your peeners are not the incredibly unique snowflakes that I'm sure you believe they are. Unless there is a huge difference in size or girth, they mostly feel the same. I am sure this true of vagoos, too.

Also, If I woke up to unexpected sex with a person who isn't my husband, I would not lay back and say, "Oh darn, guess you pulled one over on me. You win this round, please continue." That's rape. Rape rape rapey rape.

So if you look at a woman and ask yourself "If she was awake, would she want to have sex with me?" and you don't 100% know the answer is yes because she said so, then keep your pants on, because it's just not worth it.
2013-01-04 01:28:22 PM
3 votes:

Profedius: Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it.


As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.

From the quote about his statement posted in this thread, he clearly believed that she was asleep when he penetrated her and did not believe he had her consent.
2013-01-04 03:52:14 PM
2 votes:

freewill: Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."


Yeah, now that this handle and the real name it's associated with is more or less common knowledge, I don;t worry so much about giving biographical details, so I'm not so concerned about obscuring identifying details like I used to be.
2013-01-04 03:21:05 PM
2 votes:

Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers


HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."
2013-01-04 02:11:08 PM
2 votes:

orbister: Well, that's 95% of all the people who have ever been in a long term relationship, male or female, gay or straight, going to prison for rape.


I could phrase that better by stipulating that implied consent can be established prior to the encounter, when the prospective partner can comprehend it.

That is not important to this issue, where the guy was not in a relationship with her and was simply taking advantage of her vulnerability, knowing, by his own admission, that she was asleep. This guy is a rapist, and the idea that it wasn't rape until she woke up and became aware of the attack is completely idiotic.
2013-01-04 02:10:04 PM
2 votes:

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


Rape by deception on the part of the non-occupant sister.
2013-01-04 01:34:34 PM
2 votes:

chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".


chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".


chairmenmeow47: some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".

2013-01-04 01:28:20 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?


Here's what I would do if I were this man's Judge at a criminal trial:

Convict him of 2nd degree Sexual Assault under a PJC. Sentence him to two years Probation where he would have to do some Community Service, attend classes regarding violence, have him pay for the victim's therapy; and once the Probation was up and all requirements met by him to an agreeable fashion have the conviction vacated.

Lesson learned, accountability taken.
2013-01-04 01:00:39 PM
2 votes:

Biness: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.


Indeed. the Physical element of the crime is beyond question: unconsented to penetration.  The question is, however should a "mens rea" defense be allowed here?   While ignorance of the law is not an excuse,  it's generally held that a person must at least knowingly commit a crime before they can be charged with it (the Classic law school example is you point a gun at someone and fire, but you know it only has blanks in it.  However someone has secretly switched your blanks for live rounds.   Can you be charged with murder?  Should the REASON you pointed the gun at the person matter (IE being on stage, vs trying to scare them)? etc etc)
2013-01-04 12:59:46 PM
2 votes:

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


IANAA, but Rape requires mens rea, does it not? No intent to have actual non-concensual sex, no rape?

Terrible tragedy for her, but it sounds like her real beef is with her sister for failing to warn her of an extreme and unusual hazard in the apartment, that is, a free-roaming penis that has blanket consent to physically force itself on a woman who looks exactly like her.
2013-01-04 12:53:27 PM
2 votes:
Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?
2013-01-04 12:46:23 PM
2 votes:

JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.


From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.
2013-01-04 12:32:05 PM
2 votes:
Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?
2013-01-04 12:27:41 PM
2 votes:

Ladies, can you not tell when a different dick is pounding away at you?

I have a feeling this chick knew what was up.

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-01-04 12:25:06 PM
2 votes:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it unlikely that she didn't know someone other than her BF was boinking her. I mean, I think I would notice the difference even with the lights off.
2013-01-04 12:20:19 PM
2 votes:
For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape
2013-01-04 06:34:33 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


It was rape. When you have role-playing sex that involves physical or spoken resistance, it's imperative that you talk about it before each and every role-playing session. That, plus a safeword, is the only way to ensure consent.
2013-01-04 03:26:29 PM
1 votes:

freewill: Magorn: More or less, but I think everyone wanted to wash their hands of the thing by the time it was over so no appeal ever happened. I was in the courtroom because the Judge was a friend of the judge I was working for, and he mentioned to m judge the facts of the case and knew it would be a unqiue one in the annals of the courthouse. Since my judge knew I was interesting in going to lawschool, he sent me and his clerk to further our education. We returned the favor later when we invited his clerk to watch the Paternity case involving a menage-a-trois one-night stand with identical twin brothers

HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!

Magorn: "Years ago, a old DC police vet told me the story of the stragest rape case he ever worked..."


O.o
Dun dun DUNNNNNNNN!
2013-01-04 02:42:19 PM
1 votes:

DeathCipris: the planet...but...

Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.


Mmmm....because the first thing a woman would think while being raped is that it is a case of mistaken identity with her twin.
2013-01-04 02:16:41 PM
1 votes:

DeathCipris: Are you serious? She couldn't have thought to said "I am not *insert rape-lover's name here*. My name is *whatever*!" If she just took it and didn't try to make this man aware of who she was or even just trying to explain in a firm way that she isn't who he thinks she is; that he has made a mistake, then I side with the man that this wasn't rape.


Facts not in evidence, but hey, what if that was actually a key part of their regular rape role-play, her pretending that she was her sister? What then, huh? Huh? Huh? Giggity.
2013-01-04 02:12:20 PM
1 votes:
Wow, that actually worked? Dude should be given a commendation for Best Idiotic Plan that Succeeded
2013-01-04 02:05:28 PM
1 votes:

freewill: As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.


Well, that's 95% of all the people who have ever been in a long term relationship, male or female, gay or straight, going to prison for rape.
2013-01-04 02:00:18 PM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

Please tell me you have a link for this story


I might be able

CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: Yea I see that, though I did specifically ask about criminal accountability. Maybe the answer is the the guy would not face any charges since he truly believed it was his girlfriend but he would have to compensate her for counseling or even just for pain and suffering. If you accidentally burn your neighbors garage down you might not face any charges depending on the circumstances but it would be reasonable to expect that you pay to have it rebuilt.

Agreed, and I just responded to Theaetetus in what I feel would be a good set of terms for that situation.
Not only lesson learned and accountability taken, but no Sex Offender Registry, as long as conditions are met satisfactorily.


What actually happened in the case was similar to your initial analysis.  With the Judge's permission the jury read a statement  saying that they found that as a matter of Fact, the twin was raped, but that as a matter of law the accused was not guilty of rape.  They were doing it just to soother their own cosciences I think, but it ended up having some practical benefits as the judge ws able to word the verdict in such a way that the twin was elgible for assistance from the crime victim's compensation program, and manged to get free therapy IIRC
2013-01-04 01:55:39 PM
1 votes:

Profedius: I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.

I have had the experience of this from both sides and I don't consider either one of them rapes nor does the other party even though they are questionable encounters.

The first was with a woman who had fallen asleep next to me at a party and I did not realize she had been asleep since she was laying in front of me on her side with her back against me. I had reached down into her pants and began to play with her to which she responded by opening her legs wider. After a bit I pulled her pants down and mine then started to have sex with her to which she responded like any awake woman would. It was only a bit before she awoke and then I realized she had been sleeping when she asked me what the hell I was doing. I told her that I thought she was awake and asked her if she wanted me to stop to which she told me no.

The second time I had fallen asleep only to awake with a woman on top of me and she asked me if I wanted her to stop and I told her no it was alright.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
2013-01-04 01:53:13 PM
1 votes:

Profedius: Unmitigated derp


You are too stupid to have a penis. Please stop by your nearest medical center and have it swapped out with something less potentially damaging, like a throw pillow or an egg timer.
2013-01-04 01:50:17 PM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Ok, so I just realized you were talking about the hypothetical guy hits wheelchair guy with car. In that situation, without laws broken, of course not. If laws were broken, then yes. Did wheelchair guy pop a wheelie and end up in the path of oncoming car who had no time to stop? Or was driver simply not paying attention?

In the previous response I was going on twin rapey guy.

TFA guy, get that damn law off the books and he should not have charges dismissed. By all accounts she was asleep and could not have offered consent.


Ah. It appears that, under the DC statute, twin rapey guy is a rapist. Technically, he's committing rape (or meeting all of the elements of the statute) when he forceably has sex with the masochist twin  but has an affirmative defense of consent, which is under a different statute.
2013-01-04 01:48:24 PM
1 votes:

bittermang: And that would be what separates manslaughter from murder. Intent. It's still a crime to kill someone, even if the circumstances were accidental.


Manslaughter still requires reckless behavior. If you're driving at a reasonable speed down the street and a kid runs out from behind a truck and splats on your bumper, if you weren't being reckless, you're not guilty of manslaughter. You may not even have any civil liability if you weren't at all negligent and it really was a freak accident.
2013-01-04 01:44:59 PM
1 votes:

freewill: ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.

Did I walk into a Rapist's Association meeting, or are we all really this confused about what we're talking about?

It's one thing for a significant other to wake you up with sex, someone who has implied consent to have sex with you. This dude was not her significant other. He reportedly did not believe she believed he was her significant other. He shoved his wing-wang up her hoo-hah prior to her awakening, believing she was asleep. His goal was to have non-concensual intercourse with someone who would not have consented if she was awake.

It's not open season when someone is unconscious. It's farking rape, whether the confusion makes it "nice" or not.


Their reasoning is that "spouses sometimes wake each other up with sex, and that's implied consent and not rape... so significant others can do it too... and therefore, people on a first date can do it also, so when I'm on a date and the girl falls asleep, I can do it, and it's exactly the same as a couple that's been married for twenty years, and therefore I didn't rape that girl that one time."
2013-01-04 01:41:46 PM
1 votes:
note to farkers: never be unconscious around Profedius.
2013-01-04 01:39:31 PM
1 votes:

ElBarto79: I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.


Did I walk into a Rapist's Association meeting, or are we all really this confused about what we're talking about?

It's one thing for a significant other to wake you up with sex, someone who has implied consent to have sex with you. This dude was not her significant other. He reportedly did not believe she believed he was her significant other. He shoved his wing-wang up her hoo-hah prior to her awakening, believing she was asleep. His goal was to have non-concensual intercourse with someone who would not have consented if she was awake.

It's not open season when someone is unconscious. It's farking rape, whether the confusion makes it "nice" or not.
2013-01-04 01:38:50 PM
1 votes:

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: ElBarto79: CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.

If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.

You or your insurance should be on the hook for covering that man's medical expenses due to you hitting him. There should be some level of accountability, yes.

Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke?

No.

Did you meant to reply to someone else? Or are you saying that you can't be monetarily liable for an accident if it was, in your opinion, a "complete fluke"?

Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

I would call into your reading comprehension but you wrote it.


Uh, bit of pot calling the kettle black there, bub. If you scroll up, you find I was saying he shouldn't face a criminal charge if he didn't break any laws.

Next time, before you fire off an angry reply, take a deep breath and read the post you're replying to.
2013-01-04 01:34:25 PM
1 votes:

freewill: Profedius: Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it.

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone's "responding", if you have knowledge that they're asleep or that they are otherwise impaired in such a way that they can't comprehend the situation, it's legitimate rape-rape.

From the quote about his statement posted in this thread, he clearly believed that she was asleep when he penetrated her and did not believe he had her consent.



I dunno, waking up to your significant other touching you is pretty normal and, most people would say, nice. Certainly not rape. If that's rape then virtually everyone, male or female, is guilty.
2013-01-04 01:32:31 PM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: Ah, but that's civil... Should he face an attempted murder or battery criminal charge?

Here's what I would do if I were this man's Judge at a criminal trial:

Convict him of 2nd degree Sexual Assault under a PJC. Sentence him to two years Probation where he would have to do some Community Service, attend classes regarding violence, have him pay for the victim's therapy; and once the Probation was up and all requirements met by him to an agreeable fashion have the conviction vacated.

Lesson learned, accountability taken.


And then maybe he'd think about implementing a "Go" word in congress with his "Safe" word.
2013-01-04 01:27:13 PM
1 votes:

Profedius: I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.


And if you RTFA or any of the previous comments then you would have gotten the bit where she fought him off and screamed for help which prompted him to finally stop.
2013-01-04 01:26:10 PM
1 votes:
some of you are farking insane. she was in bed asleep. how on earth is that consent for any man who comes waltzing by to come and have sex with her?!?! "oh look, a sleeping woman, she must want to have sex with me".
2013-01-04 01:25:21 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


Depends. Everyone knows that one of each set of maternal twins is missing a soul (i.e. the evil twin). If it turns out that the "victim" was the soulless twin, one must acquit.
2013-01-04 01:25:19 PM
1 votes:

JonPace: Theaetetus: JonPace: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Isn't it screamingly illegal to have at someone who is asleep, especially if you have no indication of prior consent? Or are we going with the "women who occasionally fall asleep are totally asking for it" defense?

She didn't sleep through the whole thing. She woke up and consented. It would be nice to know what the guy did in order to deceive her. If his crime is just banging a chick with the lights off, I don't think that should be rape. He'd have to do something extraordinary in order to make her think it was the husband. Really need more details before I can form an opinion on whether this is rape or not.

From the decision:
According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

If "pushing away, crying, and yelling" is consent to you, I'm concerned.

Read a different article that didn't have that part in there, which is pretty damn important. It implied she had sex with someone then later out it wasn't who she thought it was.

I honestly don't see how this case isn't a straight up rape and where there controversy is.


Because the prosecution had those two theories- rape of an unconscious person, and rape of someone through fraud- and the jury didn't specify which one they found him guilty on. So, since the judge notes that the latter one doesn't apply, he has to assume that the jury could have meant that one and reverse the conviction. He does remand for a new trial, though.
If the jury comes back in the new trial saying "rape of an unconscious person", the guy's going to jail.
2013-01-04 01:19:42 PM
1 votes:
I don't know from the way it sounds it seems that she was asleep and he started messing around with her to which she responded and was awakened. Up until the point she realized it was not her boyfriend I wouldn't consider that rape, because from the man's point of view it would have seemed that she was ok with it. Now if sexual activity continued after she realized it was not her boyfriend and then objected at that point it would become rape. I know that sounds wacky, but it is not clear that the man had any idea he was committing a crime since only she is reporting that he pretended to be her boyfriend.

I have had the experience of this from both sides and I don't consider either one of them rapes nor does the other party even though they are questionable encounters.

The first was with a woman who had fallen asleep next to me at a party and I did not realize she had been asleep since she was laying in front of me on her side with her back against me. I had reached down into her pants and began to play with her to which she responded by opening her legs wider. After a bit I pulled her pants down and mine then started to have sex with her to which she responded like any awake woman would. It was only a bit before she awoke and then I realized she had been sleeping when she asked me what the hell I was doing. I told her that I thought she was awake and asked her if she wanted me to stop to which she told me no.

The second time I had fallen asleep only to awake with a woman on top of me and she asked me if I wanted her to stop and I told her no it was alright.
2013-01-04 01:19:41 PM
1 votes:
cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband

I guess the prevailing wisdom of the time was that if a woman agreed to have sex she was a dirty whore morally compromised and who she was agreeing to have sex with was irrelevant.
2013-01-04 01:08:04 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Biness: Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.

Indeed. the Physical element of the crime is beyond question: unconsented to penetration.  The question is, however should a "mens rea" defense be allowed here?   While ignorance of the law is not an excuse,  it's generally held that a person must at least knowingly commit a crime before they can be charged with it (the Classic law school example is you point a gun at someone and fire, but you know it only has blanks in it.  However someone has secretly switched your blanks for live rounds.   Can you be charged with murder?  Should the REASON you pointed the gun at the person matter (IE being on stage, vs trying to scare them)? etc etc)


It certainly looks like specific intent is not an element of 22-3002 or 22-3004 (contrasting the fact that it is an element in 22-3003 and -3005), so I think he'd be boned. And consent is a defense under 22-3007, but that's actual consent, not the defendant's belief that he had consent.
2013-01-04 01:06:53 PM
1 votes:

Holocaust Agnostic: RoyBatty: Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order

Err, how would that be helpful?


Not a lawyer, but I don't think justices should be deciding cases based on adherence to a law that they believe is unconstitutional. They complain that the legislature should write a new law.

Better than complaining, how about refusing to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.
2013-01-04 01:06:50 PM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: Theaetetus: CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.

You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.

Of course. But she didn't consent. The whole situation is a big pile of confusion... but, she still did not consent.


If I accidentally run someone over with my car, putting them in a wheelchair for life, am I guilty of a crime? Even if I broke no laws and the accident was a complete fluke? I can guarantee you the person in the wheelchair will tell you they didn't consent to being run over.
2013-01-04 01:04:30 PM
1 votes:
Also, holding him accountable for what happened does not automatically mean finding him guilty of first degree rape.
2013-01-04 01:02:20 PM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.


Your level of horror isn't generally a factor, isn't it?
2013-01-04 01:02:04 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


No mens rea. Not guilty. Bad taste to masturbate over the memory afterwards, though, and he would be unwise ever to try the "your sister was better" line.
2013-01-04 01:00:57 PM
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: Magorn: IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?

For the twin's horror alone, regardless of the fact of his confusion... yes, he's a rapist.
Did he know GF had a twin who would stay over sometimes? Or that she had a twin?

Still, with what the girl went through, she deserves some accountability taken.


You can't place liability on someone based solely on how horrific it was for the victim. That's not finding someone guilty, that's finding a scapegoat.
2013-01-04 12:54:35 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Reminds me of the Inverse case I once saw prosecutted in a DC court:

WOman and her boyfriend reuglarly engage in rough sex with a side of violent rape fantasy.  Much screaming biting , kicking , pleading etc to the intense delight of both partners. Unbeknowst to the BF the Girl has an indentical twin sister who is a stewardess who has a key to the apt and often crashes there unannounced when she has an unexpected layover in town.

 Boyfriend comes home see his girlfriend sleeping on the bed in a sexy stewardess' outfit, thinks it is a signal for some hard-core role play.  Girlfriend doesn't disappoint giving an oscar-worthy performance of unwilling rape victim, fighting back extra hard, screaming at the top of her lungs etc.

In the post-coital quiet, the BF lights up a cigarette, the Girl runs out and calls the cops.  His sex partner turns out to be the unknown twin and not his GF and he is promptly charged with rape.

IF you are on the jury, How would you have found?


sucks for that dude, but there was no consent. he's a rapist.
2013-01-04 12:53:30 PM
1 votes:
I can understand why this is rape, my question is how far does this extend? If a guy lies about being a doctor to get in a girls pants can he be charged with rape? In both cases the guy is misrepresenting who he is to trick a girl into sex.
2013-01-04 12:51:55 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: If you read the article or the judgement (linked earlier),according to her, when she woke up and noticed it wasn't her boyfriend, she fought and pushed him off.


Why would I do that?
2013-01-04 12:51:43 PM
1 votes:
farm6.staticflickr.com

Note to self: Go to California. Rape.
2013-01-04 12:44:06 PM
1 votes:

Why Would I Read the Article: The deception laws are a little redundant. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent.
The lady in this article either asleep and unable to consent (article is kinda iffy the way I read it), or consented to sex with her boyfriend. The rapist is not her boyfriend, therefore he did not have her consent. Even more, pretending to be someone else indicates he knew he didn't have consent.

This should have been covered under a standard rape-rape law.

I do agree with this, but I also have the question of how in the world can a woman not know if somebody other than their significant other is sticking their bandingo in her hoohaw?

it's not just the peener that's different, it'll be the height/weight of the guy, feel of their skin, hands, etc. It boggles my mind, honestly, and it's the one thing that casts doubt for me whether this was true "rape rape," Whoopi Goldberg style, or just a girl who cheated on her boyfriend and felt bad about it.


If you read the article or the judgement (linked earlier), according to her, when she woke up and noticed it wasn't her boyfriend, she fought and pushed him off.
2013-01-04 12:39:09 PM
1 votes:
Why Would I Read the Article: For a precedent on this ruling, one needs to only look at the case of Revenge Vs. Nerds, c. 1984.

Verdict: Not rape


Only because the girl didn't press charges.
2013-01-04 12:38:32 PM
1 votes:

ZAZ: I don't like "rape by deception" laws anyway. Repeal the criminal laws but say the woman and/or her boyfriend can chop you into little bits if they catch you at the scene.


I'm not a fan of rape by deception laws either, but I don't think this was really rape by deception. It was regular rape where the victim was just confused for a minute. I understand why the judge overturned it though. California needs to get their shiat together.
2013-01-04 12:37:50 PM
1 votes:
If she was drunk, don't they have something on the books to fry him on the grounds she couldn't consent?
2013-01-04 12:32:34 PM
1 votes:
Wh ... wha ... say what?
2013-01-04 12:24:21 PM
1 votes:
Is there a statute of limitations on this? Whilst in college, I was asleep in my roomate's room after a night of partying (very stoned and drunk). His girlfriend came in (also very drunk and stoned) and we had sex. I thought it was my girlfriend, she thought it was her boyfriend.

Even though we lived in Austin, I am scared the GOP might press charges on both of us.
2013-01-04 12:21:10 PM
1 votes:

RoyBatty: Are the judges saying this law violated equal protection under the US Constitution?

So why don't, why can't they just declare that law unconstitutional and ignore that?

/this whole trial is out of order


Err, how would that be helpful?
2013-01-04 12:16:19 PM
1 votes:
Justice was served....
2013-01-04 10:04:18 AM
1 votes:
Good thing we don't have legislators now that have vague views on rape.
2013-01-04 08:58:45 AM
1 votes:
The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.

This is certainly a problem. Get it together, prosecutors
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report