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.
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.
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:
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.
Would that be criminal negligence?
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.
Ever heard of Kitty Genovese?
What kind of Cook is she, anyhow?
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.
Yup, I have. Your point? (Those who heard the attack were not charged with any crime.)
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.
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.)
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.
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:
I thought giving a woman food in exchange for sex went by the legal name “marriage.”
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?
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.”
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…?
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.”
I’ve only seen criminal negligence called “depraved indifference” on Law & Order; the definitions I learned applied to positive conduct, not neglect.
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,
– what?? Could someone please explain what this would be?