Don’t forget though that “witchdoctors” in some societies have far, far more credibility amoung the locals than they would on the SDMB.
Think of the cases of child and baby rape in rural Africa where traditional medecine men have spread the belief that “sleeping with a virgin will cure/protect you from AIDS.”
In regions where religions like Voodoo, Santeria or Shango are still practiced there are many who believe without question that the magics can do great harm or save your life.
It’s not necessarily that the woman was an idiot or mentally imapired. If she had great faith in Shango (which is practiced in her homeland) she could be set up as a victim by someone who claimed to have such powers.
She was intimidated and led to believe that she was in mortal jeopardy – coercion by the threat of death. It’s up now for the jury panel to determine if this particular case fits the definition of rapes as it’s drafted in their laws.
This makes we wonder, are there stricter laws against violating the mentally impared?
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure there are. There’s obviously a great potential vulnerability involved, making the mentally impaired a special case. Most folks find taking advantage of them to be especially abhorrent, and I believe the law reflects that.
One problem, as others have noted, is that the article doesn’t make it clear whether Dubay said that he put the curse on her which will kill her if she doesn’t have sex with him, or that there was already a curse on her from elsewhere and he could save her. The first case is clearly a threat (direct or implied, depending on your level of belief).
The second seems less clear. It’s more like if a minister in America told an adult follower: “It is God’s will that we have sex. If you refuse, you will burn in hell.” In this case, would you call it rape?
What I don’t agree with, though is the opinion that the strength of her belief in her religion grants her special protection from having to think rationally.
Isn’t it odd that we take property rights more seriously than women’s sexual autonomy? A con man who takes your property has committed theft. A con man who takes your virginity… gets a notch on his bedposts.
A real case:
Boro v. Superior Court. The victim got a phone call from “Dr. Stevens” who said she had a medical condition that would either require expensive and painful surgery (at $9K), or to have sex with an anonymous donor who had been injected with a serum that could cure the disease (for $4500). She gave Boro (posing as the anonymous donor) a $1K down payment, then let Boro have sex w/ her. Boro was charged with rape “accomplished by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury,” and with rape “where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the accused.” He was convicted of 2nd count. The appellate court reversed his conviction, since while this is fraud in the “factum” (what was consented to) rather than in the inducement (the reason for consenting), the rape statute doesn’t provide for conviction if either is present.
The state legislature promptly revised the rape law to criminalize intercourse where consent was procured by fraud in the factum, provided that the deception induces fear of physical injury or death to the person or any relative of the person. Many legislatures have variants of this law in effect. The legislature’s revision required that the fraud be one to which a reasonable person would be susceptible. Oddly, Boro wouldn’t be convicted even under the new statute.
By contrast, when one steals property by deception/fraud, there’s no requirement that the fraud be one to which the reasonable person be susceptible. Of course, the deception has to amount to more than mere puffing… but I digress.
Sorry, elfkin, I forgot to mention that the Model Penal Code also provides that having sex with someone the defendant knows is so “mentally impaired that she is incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct” is also punishable as a gross sexual imposition.
