Can I legally refuse to feed Rachel Leigh Cook unless she sleeps with me?

[cole burner]

Here's the scenario:

Rachel Leigh Cook and I are the only survivors of a plane wreck, ending up on an island as seen in Tom Hanks's "Castaway" or maybe "Lord of the Flies." It's a lot of work to either hunt wild boar or spear crabs. I'm willing to do it if Rachel is willing to sleep with me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to hunt and fish to feed someone who isn't going to give up da booty.

Am I breaking any laws by refusing to feed her and letting her figure out how to get me to change my mind? I assume if I just lay out the deal it's a prostitution violation. But is there any law (let's say the isalnd is US territory) that says I have to feed her?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

No. It's still a form of sexual coersion.

She, however, may be legally entitled to bash your skull in with a rock for trying to coerce her.

[Skammer]

If she has the choice of sleeping with you or starving to death, it sounds like rape to me. You've taken away any meaningful ability for her to consent.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, she also has the choice to hunt for her own damn boar. So it's not actually coersion...more of a contractual exchange.

[Duke of Rat]

Shoot..she'd be skinning wild boar with a pocket comb just to have the pleasure of hanging with ol' Duke! Peel me a grape, will ya Rachel??

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Skammer
If she has the choice of sleeping with you or starving to death, it sounds like rape to me. You've taken away any meaningful ability for her to consent.

What does the law say rape is?

Does this conduct meet that definition?

This is a GQ.

[LordVor]

Well, you're trading food for sex, so at the very least you're pandering if she goes through with it.

There is no law on the books that says that you have to feed anybody else. If you actively prevent her from finding her own food, I imagine you could be guilty of kidnapping/false imprisonment, depending on your methods.

IANAL.

-lv

[pravnik]

"I'll only sleep with you if you give me crabs."


Now there's a first.

[x-ray vision]

[slight hijack] What if Rachel does not have the skill required to hunt for her own food and will starve without cole burner's help, and he will only help her in exchange for sex? What's the worst (or most likely) charges cole burner will receive?[/slight hijack]

[Mangetout]

Is not the fact that Rachel does not have the skill to hunt for food a separate issue from the ethical rights and wrongs of cole burner's offer of food for sex?

(Who the hell is Rachel Leigh Cook anyway?)

[Duck Duck Goose]

Flavor-of-the-Month, evidently. Josie and the Pussycats.

http://www.imdb.com/Bio?Cook,%20Rachael%20Leigh

I never heard of her, either.

[Conflict of Interest]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
[slight hijack] What if Rachel does not have the skill required to hunt for her own food and will starve without cole burner's help, and he will only help her in exchange for sex? What's the worst (or most likely) charges cole burner will receive?[/slight hijack]

I would think no charges. She can't force him to hunt and gather for him any more than he can force anything from her. However, if she wants to eat off hhis labors then he can ask that she pay for it. In this case he is asking for sex. She can say no and hunt for herself is she would rather. Where is the rape in that situation?

[pravnik]

Originally posted by Mangetout
(Who the hell is Rachel Leigh Cook anyway?)

I think this is a pretty good photo of her.

Under Texas law (if you find out you were on South Padre island all along, like Uncle Duke), solicitation of prostitution if nothing else.

[Phnord Prephect]

Ok, IANAL of course but here's how I see the situation.

You're stuck on an island. You can hunt with relative ease, for her it's more difficult. Unless you give her food she will starve. You will only give her food if she sleeps with you.

So remove you from the picture. If you weren't there at all, she would starve. Nobody's fault but hers.

So why should that be different if you WERE there? If I have money, my neighbor doesn't, and he's gonna starve, does that mean I HAVE to buy him food? We're both still on an island, just a rather larger one.

Far as I know, there is no law that says you HAVE to help someone else find food. If there were, would we have so many starving people? Is it actually a CRIME to drive past a 'will work for food' sign-holder without giving them food? I really, really doubt it.

Of course you're not going to help her just out of the kindness of your heart; I presume you're an American. q;}

If you were to actively PREVENT her from hunting/gathering/whatever, that would be 'illegal'. But doing nothing whatsoever to help shouldn't be.

Now, she has to make a choice... does she willingly starve to death, or does she offer sex in exchange for food?

Seems to me that SHE is the one breaking the law, if anybody could be said to do so in this kind of situation. You offer a reasonably legal commodity in trade... she offers something commonly considered illegal to sell.

Now for a dose of realism... if you're on a deserted island, presumably you're in international waters. If so, there IS NO LAW. Go for it. And besides, I doubt anybody would really prosecute you for anything you did while struggling to survive on a desert island. "Welcome back to civilization. Here's your cell for the next 20 years." Why bother resucing me in the first place, dammit!!

[x-ray vision]

originally posted by Mangetout

Is not the fact that Rachel does not have the skill to hunt for food a separate issue from the ethical rights and wrongs of cole burner's offer of food for sex?

Well I think the difference would (or should in my opinion) affect what cole burner would be charged with. If he doesn't do her hunting for her because she won't have sex with him and she is capable of hunting herself, I don't think that would be a big deal. However, if he doesn't share food with her for the same reason and she starves to death I would think he would be in big trouble.

[x-ray vision]

Don't you guys know about the good sumaritan law? Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine got sent up the river for ten years for not helping someone!

[Conflict of Interest]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
Well I think the difference would (or should in my opinion) affect what cole burner would be charged with. If he doesn't do her hunting for her because she won't have sex with him and she is capable of hunting herself, I don't think that would be a big deal. However, if he doesn't share food with her for the same reason and she starves to death I would think he would be in big trouble.

Why? What law has be broken? I mean, people may see him as a real slime but is there a law against that?

[Bricker]

I gather that the OP intended to imply that Ms. Cook does not have the ability to hunt and fish and feed herself.

And I can't tell if x-ray vision is being serious or not in bring up the "Good Samaritan" law under which George, Jerry, Kramer and Elaine were charged.

[x-ray vision]

I don't know. Any lawyers in the house with the answer?

[x-ray vision]

Half serious Bricker. Thier must be some law that doesn't allow one to let someone die when you can easily help that person.

[Bricker]

My take is that a prostitution-related charge is about as serious as it would get. I don't see a legal duty to provide food to someone else, and deciding to not feed your fellow castaway is not a threat or force within the meaning of common-law rape.

If anyone can defend the assertion that it's rape from a criminal standpoint, I'd like to hear it.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
Half serious Bricker. Thier must be some law that doesn't allow one to let someone die when you can easily help that person.

I'm not aware of a particular criminal law.

cole burner might be breaching a civil duty, and Ms. Cook might have some civil recourse against him upon their return to civilization. I leave that to someone more hip to the world of torts than I.

[pravnik]

Okay, a attempt at a serious answer, then.

At common law, assuming it applies for some reason, cole burner has no affirmative duty to prevent Wilso- ah, Rachael from starving unless he has a special relationship with her, a statute imposes a duty, a duty is based on the contract between them, he volutarily assumes care of her and then doesn't follow through, her peril is his fault, or he invited her to the island, which he owns.

If none of these applies, he has no duty to act. He can eat half his crabs and have races with the others while she dwindles to a pretty little movie star stick figure, like Callista Flockhart. But what if he offers her some crabs in exchange for sex? Well if she she gives her effective consent, it's prostitution (unless they see a movie afterwards; then it's just a date). If she didn't give effective consent, it's more serious.

At common law, rape is the uncarnal knowledge of a woman (who, at common law, isn't your wife) without her effective consent. Lack of effective consent exists:

1. where intercourse is accomplished by actual force;
2. or threats of great and immediate and bodily harm;
3. the victim is incapable of consenting due to unconsciousness, intoxication, or mental condition,
4. the victim is fraudulently caused to beieve the act is not intercourse.

You could maybe argue, maybe, that due to her mental condition she was unable to give effective consent, starving and all, or that the situation was the virtual equivalent of holding her hostage. But it's a defense if cole reasonably believed that she did in fact give her willing and effective consent. So, I dunno. These would be questions for a jury.

[Casey1505]

Originally posted by x-ray vision
Half serious Bricker. Thier must be some law that doesn't allow one to let someone die when you can easily help that person.

Would that be criminal negligence?

[Bricker]

No, Casey - negligence arises only as the breach of a duty that you owe. cole burner has no particular duty to feed Ms. Cook; his failure to do it isn't criminal negligence.

[Opus1]

Half serious Bricker. There [corrected] must be some law that doesn't allow one to let someone die when you can easily help that person.

Ever heard of Kitty Genovese?

[dr hermes]

What kind of Cook is she, anyhow?

[kanicbird]

I'm not sure that any law would apply unless you were stranded on a terratory of a country.

Assuming you were stranded in the USA, somehow. I would say that it depends on how you approach the matter. If you came right out and said "lets make a deal, I give you food, you give me sex" then it's prostitution.

If it's more along the lines of "if we get together in a sexual relationship I would feel like sharing my kill with you" then I think you would be safe.

[Random]

Originally posted by Opus1
Ever heard of Kitty Genovese?

Yup, I have. Your point? (Those who heard the attack were not charged with any crime.)

[stockton]

What if he gives all his extra food to Maryann and Ginger instead?

She'll be off with the professor in no time. I saw that sumbitch build a radio out of a couple of coconuts once. Righteous.

[Opus1]

Random--that's exactly my point. X-ray vision said that there must exist some law forcing people to help when they can do so easily. The fact that 37 people did exactly the opposite and faced no charges demonstrates that this is manifestly untrue.

(The guy who let his friend rape and kill the 7 year old girl in the Nevada casino bathroom is another good example of not just "not helping" but actually allowing a murder to occur without legal consequences.)

[Evil Captor]

Sure, there'll be legal consequences. If you're the average doper, your net worth is $39.17 plus two mustard packets and a gameboy. Rachel Leigh Cook is rich. You will get your ass sued seven ways from Sunday once you're back on the mainland ... any mainland. Will those suits be valid? Maybe, maybe not. Will you win them or Cook? Who knows? But you'll be the one who's dead broke forever after, not her, no matter who wins.

The law is only for the rich.

[Una Persson]

I don't know nothin' 'bout no law, but wouldn't allowing someone to starve to death in this situation be considered "depraved indifference"? You know, where conduct becomes so "reckless so as to be considered the same as intentional conduct"?

I do not know if anything quoted here is accurate, which is why I'm asking:

In New York, where depraved indifference means circumstances which create a grave risk to human life, depravity aggravates an assault charge (NYS CPL § 120.10). Or, even if no physical injury occurs, depravity warrants a charge of reckless endangerment (NYS CPL § 120.25).

[bradministrator]

I thought giving a woman food in exchange for sex went by the legal name "marriage."

[Alereon]

Originally posted by pravnik
4. the victim is fraudulently caused to beieve the act is not intercourse.

What kind of situation could this involve? A girl agrees to sleep with you as long as YOU DON'T PULL ANYTHING, but then you do?

[Nametag]

Anthracite, doing nothing isn't conduct -- it's the absence of conduct. The law CANNOT and DOES NOT put any general duty on anyone to do anything for anyone else. Depraved indifference can only apply when you take some action with wanton disregard for its danger to human life (like throwing rocks off an overpass onto a highway). I have heard it applied to criminal negligence, when some duty exists due to a special relationship, but I think that's incorrect.

Here's a quote from some jury instructions I found: "Conduct evincing a depraved indifference to human life is much more serious and blameworthy than conduct which is merely reckless. It is conduct which, beyond being reckless, is so wanton, so deficient in moral sense and concern, so devoid of regard for the life or lives of others, as to equal in blameworthiness intentional conduct which produces the same result."

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Nametag
I have heard it applied to criminal negligence, when some duty exists due to a special relationship, but I think that's incorrect.

I think this is the context in which I'm asking. I think, however, I've only seen it applied in the case of a parent/guardian who deprived sustenance to a child/dependent...?

[Nametag]

Alereon, it could involve a very naive girl; one who does not actually know what sex is. The maggot in question might tell her he's just, um, "topping off her tank."

It could also involve a doctor in his office; particularly when examining a paralyzed patient or one otherwise obstructed from properly detecting what Doc is up to. "It's nothing, Ms. Rhino -- the speculum's stuck, is all."

[Nametag]

I've only seen criminal negligence called "depraved indifference" on Law & Order; the definitions I learned applied to positive conduct, not neglect.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

The only "good samaritan" law that I know of here in Minnesota doesn't have anything to do with this. The law just says that you can't be sued for offering assistance in an emergency. Like a doctor who helps at a accident can't later be sued for malpractice.

About Kitty Genovese: I'd say that is what we nowdays call a hate crime (though the term was unknown then). She was a lesbian living in a conservative neighborhood; the 37 people who heard this probably just thought "the dyke's getting what she deserves." And they weren't prosecuted, any more than the spectators at any Southern lynching were prosecuted for not stopping it.

Finally,

4. the victim is fraudulently caused to believe the act is not intercourse.

-- what?? Could someone please explain what this would be?

[Ranchoth]

You know, they had a similar (well...similar in principle) case on Law and Order once...A senior partner at a law firm tells a junior partner (Or whatever the proper job titles were), basically, "Sleep with me, or I'll make sure you never work in this town again." She sleeps with him, and he doesn't stand in the way of her career (He doesn't help it, either).

The D.A.'s office finds out about this eventually, and tries to charge the senior partner with rape. The judge won't accept it. But the D.A. is able to press forward with another charge...extortion. They win in court.

All of this is moot, of course, if the island you're shipwrecked isn't under the control and jurisdiction of the United States, or any other first-world country.

However...there's always international law. Law of the Sea might prove useful.

So, be forewarned...in this situation, the U.S. might not be able to try you as a rapist, extortionist, or panderer. But the U.N. might want to consider you a Pirate praying on a shipwreck survivor, or an effective "warlord" committing crimes against humanity.

In any case, though, such conduct would be highly dishonorable. You may expect your shade to be cast down into Hel, the frozen underworld of the dishonored dead, after your passing.

[Tommyturtle]

To carry this weird premise even further is there a point where the people on the island can be considered common law spouses and she can then say hey bud now we're common law wed you start getting me my food and no sex either?

Since they now have a relationship? Does it depend on the size of the island? If it is too big do they EVER become 'married' common lawwise?

IANAL but there are states where you live with a woman for a certain amount of time and you are considered wed without any document saying so...is this correct? Would this carry over to being stuck on an island for years with someone?

What if there are kids from this? Can the guy after being rescued say tootles toots thanks for everything and leave her with the kids? Can she go after 50% of his belongings? AND child support?

Or if as in the original OP can HE get 50% of HER stuff?

Sorry if this seems to be a hijack but these questions seem natural extensions of the OP(I doubt either would be carrying enough birth control to last if they are there for years...therefore the kids question)

[Snooooopy]

Rachael Leigh Cook also did the "This is your brain on heroin" commercial where she smashes up the kitchen with the frying pan.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[Krokodil]

I've never lifted a finger to feed Rachel Leigh Cook, and she has yet to have sex with me. Oddly enough, we have both thrived in spite of it.

[AWB]

Originally posted by cole burner
Am I breaking any laws by refusing to feed her and letting her figure out how to get me to change my mind? I assume if I just lay out the deal it's a prostitution violation. But is there any law (let's say the isalnd is US territory) that says I have to feed her?

Well, if the island's in Nevada (maybe you're on an unknown island in the middle of Lake Tahoe), everythings okie-dokie.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Ranchoth
The D.A.'s office finds out about this eventually, and tries to charge the senior partner with rape. The judge won't accept it. But the D.A. is able to press forward with another charge...extortion. They win in court.

I remember seeing that episode; McCoy's opening line of summation to the jury was something like "Sleep with me, or I'll indict you for murder. I'm the DA - I can do it."

Again - it was a positive threat. It wasn't simply the refusal to do something.

[mangeorge]

cole burner's island is in the US. He said so.
Maybe he could be charged under sexual harrassment laws. Cook could be considered an employee if she's paid for her services.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Evil Captor]

How much of this is gender based. What if I asked:

If I and Rachel Leigh Cook were stranded on a desert island, could she refuse to bring me food unless I agreed to sleep with her?

Well, it's a nice fantasy, anyway ...

[Otto]

To carry this weird premise even further is there a point where the people on the island can be considered common law spouses and she can then say hey bud now we're common law wed you start getting me my food and no sex either?

Since they now have a relationship? Does it depend on the size of the island? If it is too big do they EVER become 'married' common lawwise?

IANAL but there are states where you live with a woman for a certain amount of time and you are considered wed without any document saying so...is this correct? Would this carry over to being stuck on an island for years with someone?

What if there are kids from this? Can the guy after being rescued say tootles toots thanks for everything and leave her with the kids? Can she go after 50% of his belongings? AND child support?

IANAL, etc.

To be common-law spouses one of the requirements is that the couple in question present themselves as husband and wife and are so conidered by others. Since RLC and cole burner are alone, there is no one else to consider them to be husband and wife or for them to present themselves to. In addition the island would have to fall under a jurisdiction which recognizes common-law marriage. There are only about seven (I think) states that recognize c-lm. As for child support, that would be completely separate from spousal status of the parents. No alimony would be owed since there was no marriage or divorce, but there may be a claim by one party or the other for "palimony," again depending on the law of the jurisdiction to which the island was subject.

[Bill H.]

Yanno what I think?

I think if you ever got on that island alone with her that the balance of power would be way far in the other direction. I think you'd be begging to go kill something for her for a kiss.

She'd have you building her a hut and everything, and you'd be happy to do it just cause you were lucky enough to be on the same island.