I have read (but can’t currently find a cite) that in Alaska there is a positive requirement to help those who you encounter away from civilization. Can anyone find a cite?
In the Pit thread, there’s at least one post claiming that during the relevant time period, the age of consent in South Carolina was 14, which seems to put the skids to the statuory rape aspect.
To answer the question most recently posed by cole burner, the difference is that on the island, you’re not threatening to take any illegally coercive actions against your stranded island-mate. You’re simply refusing to share your food with her. That’s not the nicest thing in the world, but I don’t see it as illegal.
In the Strom case, however, the inference is that young Strom did more than merely offer up his manly studliness to the young maid. If he threatened to have her fired on some pretext, and/or to sully her name so that she could not get other work, then that could constitute rape. I hasten to add, as has been pointed out in that thread, that there is absolutely no evidence of any such threats.
If Strom offered the maid money, or an extra day off every week, that wouldn’t be rape either, and would be much more analogous to the island situation.
- Rick
Sorry to hijack, but am I being wooshed here? Kitty Genovese was a lesbian? Crimelibrary calls her
Sure, the next page mentions she lived with her girlfriend, but I don’t think that means they were lovers. At least, that’s not how I’d interpret it. Googling returns no real results.
Have I missed something?
Additionally, don’t forget about “conjugal relations”. “Cohabitation” means more that just “living together.” “Cohabitation” aspect of common-law marriage is that the parties are having sexual intercourse while living together (but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter.) In some jurisdictions, each half the couple is required to have actually stated their mutual intent to be presently married (ie/ “this is my spouse.”) in good faith (which means that extorsion such as “be my ‘wife’ or you’ll starve” wouldn’t count, because it’s not in good faith.)
Example/
I lived with a guy for three years - we shared a townhouse for fiscal reasons. We got mail addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Roomate all the time. But we slept in different rooms and certainly never had “marital relations” (no offence to former roommate, but eeeeeewww!)
We could not claim to be common law spouses, because we did not live as “husband and wife” nudge, nudge, wink, wink. And never presented ourselves to anyone as anything other than housemates. We just lived under the same roof.
Is anyone else feeling that it’s not quite proper in GQ to use Law and Order as a factual law reference?
I don’t see how this would be any different from requesting any other sort of service in return for hunting. For example: “I’ll go hunt but YOU have to thatch the roof and gather some coconuts and water.” She fails to do what she agreed, he is under no obligation to feed her. In this case he wants sexual services in return for the service of hunting for food. She doesn’t HAVE to agree to it. The only way I could see this as a criminal type activity is if she was UNABLE to hunt for her own food. Ie: a broken leg, etc. Otherwise you are just bartering for goods and services.
DeaganTheWolf:
Society, through its laws, does view sexual activity as different from other sorts of activity. I can legally hire you to paint my house or give me a haircut. I cannot (in general) legally hire you to engage in sexual intercourse.
Assuming she were unable to hunt for food, laid up with a broken leg, what law do you contend would be broken by the demand of sex for food?
- Rick
Bricker, I thought we’re talking about international waters here, this it’s not illegal.
Not only does the OP clearly postulate that the island is in the United States, but I quoted that portion of the OP not four hours ago. Read up. You’ll see it.
In any event, “…this it’s not illegal…” is a phrase not remarkable for its cogency. Do you mean “this is not illegal,” “thus, it’s not illegal,” or something entirely different?
- Rick
How specific is the law regarding what is considered currency for sex? Would something like food count? If I were to “pay” for sex with a fabulous meal = prostitution?
Hell, I basically pay for sex now 
it just doesn’t involve anything tangable.
There’s no need to be condescending. Obviously “this is” was a result of a typo (intended as “thus it’s”), though either one of the two corrections you provided would have worked in the aforementioned situation. Thank you for your acute observations. Secondly, I don’t track usernames in correspondence with a post or quote. Nor do I track the time said posts were proclaimed; perhaps that’s just an odd quirk of mine. Thirdly, I was under the impression this conversation was one of a flowing nature, evolving to the point at which international waters became involved. I’ll concede I wasn’t paying as much attention as I perhaps should been towards the tail end of this matter, however, that doesn’t invalidate my point’s core, that had it been in international waters, legality would be a non-issue. Regardless, I apologize if my prior declaration somehow caused you to take offense to (as it seems), as it was merely a result of a simple misunderstanding, another quirk that seemingly only I possess.
Bricker, Specifically if she was UNABLE to get any food for herself then the sexual request would be a form of blackmail, or a use of force. This MAY be able to be prosecuted later, though I don’t have any idea of how she’d prove her case.
Since this takes place on an island I’m going to assume that society’s laws don’t apply here; thus sexual favors COULD be a valid form of currency.
Could he not be charged with manslaughter?
Dont the laws basically say if you reasonably know your actions could somehow cause the death of another then you are guilty of manslaughter.
This is a vague explenation but im sure they would try to pin it on you.
But if you then look back at the “Alive” of the mid 70’s when the uruguan Rugby players crashed in the Andes, once it was established that they were eating the dead they were not charged with canobilism.
it would then seem that most people will not followup on most laws when applying to extraordinary situations.
Most humans still have compassion and would say hey what would i do in the situation.
And is a world without Rachel really that bad?
Zaphod7
No and No, for the reasons similar to those already cited by Bricker and others. There is no affirmative duty to help someone who you don’t have some sort of special duty to care for (parent/child, lifeguard/swimmer). And I’m not seeing your logic re: blackmail at all.
**
Sigh.
No. It’s the difference between an act and choosing not to act. The former might lead to a manslaughter charge (choosing to drive drunk or firing a rifle into the air in a crowd) and the latter cannot. (This has been said already.)
Look at it this way: I could probably save lives if I donated $25,000 to an anti-smoking campaign, or spent every night driving drunks home from bars, or made a kidney available for donation. I choose not to. Am I guilty of manslaughter? No. Let’s even make it an identifiable person. You’re out drinking and see that someone in your group is too drunk to walk. You do nothing. He gets in a car and kills a family of four. You have broken no laws.
OK. I think we’re all agreed that if this takes place in international waters, or on an unclaimed island IN international waters, there is no issue of legality. I think the OP was aware of this as well many months ago when this crazy topic first appeared, and, anticipating the slough of international waters-type commentary, chose to head off such speculation at the past. For the sake of our respective sanities, please put the international waters thing out of your mind.
In Virginia, the law punishes any person who, “… for money or its equivalent…” commits adultery, fornication, or oral or anal sodomy, or offers money or its equivalent for such acts. I imagine other states have similar language.
No. Blackmail involves the extortion of money or acts by threats to reveal illegal or private information about another. And “use of force” means just that – force must be used. In this case, the OP isn’t using any force at all – merely refusing to help. That is neither blackmail or “use of force.”
No. Your actions must be illegal, reckless, or negligent. There is no general law that forces you to help another. You are legally entitled to stand by and do nothing while someone else needs help, even if a death ultimately results.
- Rick
I just spent some time looking for an Alaska statute about abandonment but couldn’t find anything. Does anyone know how to do a better search of Alaska law to find out if there is an affirmative duty to help someone in the wilderness?
In the old days, if a worker spotted a rattlesnake in the oilfields (around Bakersfield) and didn’t kill it, he was fired.
Not to hijack, but this is the first time I’ve heard Kitty Genovese was a lesbian as well. Anyone want to give more details on that?
I would be inclined to disagree with the “hate crime” theory. There are many theories about why bystanders sometimes don’t bother to get involved that have nothing to do with having a personal dislike for the victim.
Most likely all the witnesses of Kitty’s murder were simply thinking, “Surely somebody else will do something, so it is not my problem”. Apathy, not hate, killed her.
How about this: he refuses outright, because it is a survival situation, and he intends to survive. She seduces him in an attemt to cold-heartedly parasitize off his hunting and gathering skills. How much does that change?
I, personally don’t see the parallel (except in humor) to a wife. Love (even lukewarm love) is a separate criteria for value judgements and life decisions – or a lot fewer children would survive to adulthood.
I’m amazed at how long at this thread has went. Let me throw some 2 cents in:
To the OP, your original question, I take it, to read: Can I exchange/trade food for sex with RLC? I use those words in the bolding b/c that’s what you’re precisely doing, correct? This is a trade or barter in the base sense of the word.
If this is the case, as I suspect, then legally, you may or not may have liability depending on the laws prevalent in the jurisdiction which your island resides.
The issue really depends on the local law. In general, I don’t believe there is a law that covers this situation, b/c as many have stated, there is no obligation to feed RLC. However, the fact that you’re wanting to trade for ‘sex,’ which most jurisdictions make special laws for, chances are you will run afoul of some sex based law. Bicker, I think, gave one such example.
The problem with knowing an exact answer is that there are so many little nuances that is dependent on jurisdictions. In an area where prostitution is legal, there will be obviously less laws, then say somewhere like Utah. However, of the ones I’ve heard about, expect to be charged, if applicable, with charges of pandering and solicitation (off the top of my head). In my experience (not that I have been charged). these are petty offenses mostly payable by fine.
Other areas of concern you have to watch out for is, as others have noted, you have a special duty of care with RLC. Depending on the jurisdiction, the special duty of care can be easily established, and once established, very difficult to break. For instance, if you see RLC drowning, and decide to pull up a log and sit down and watch the drama unfold as she struggles for survival, you’re fine. However, if take even one step to try to rescue her, and you stop, some court may find that you then established a duty to rescue and find you liable.
The same could be held true, arguably, if you were offering her food, and then one day, just stopped and told her of the exchange for sex. in this situation, you could have created a special duty to take care of her.
To help negate this special duty of care, you could question her reliance on your help. You would have to argue that there is no way RLC could have relied on your help, b/c you always wanted sex from her, or something to that effect. In life or death situations, this is not a good defense. Over the course of days of starvation, however, it may be fruitful.
[p.s. I haven’t seen the Strom Thrumond thread, but I wonder if sexual harassment has played a role]