Sez who?
It is rape in the common law. Consent may be withdrawn at any time and if the man continues, it’s rape. Kaitamaki v R.
Sweden, of course, is not a common law country, so this may not reflect the law there. But to say that it is “definitely” not rape to continue having sex with a woman after she has asked you to stop is quite inaccurate.
Here’s some more detail on the charges from the wiki discussion page ":“3) that in that court, “Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told (City of Westminster magistrates court) Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.
She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of ‘unlawful coercion’ on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange ‘sexually molested’ Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange ‘deliberately molested’ Miss A on 18 August ‘in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity’.
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.””
[scratches Sweden off list of potential vacation destinations]
Why? It would seem like those acts, if they did occur as described, would be a crime in almost all countries, including the United States.
Ya, better stick with Thailand.
I moved Ravenman’s post about the defense fund for PFC Bradley Manning to “What is WikiLeaks’ mission?” It was originally post #103 in this thread.
There’s a detailed analysis of English common law rape in Battle v. State, 414 A. 2d 1266 (1980), which reaches the opposite conclusion:
(emphasis added)
This view was held to be merely dicta in State v. Baby, 946 A. 2d 463 (2008), but that case dealt with the statutory crime, not the common law crime.
Nor do I think that “Kaitamaki v R.” is directly on point. So far as I can tell from Google summaries, that case involves a man who never had consent, but believed he did initially, and then failed to stop after he realized he did not.
Succinctly put. Do those that say it’s definitely rape, full stop, also agree with this? Or would you put him in the sex offenders’ cell block and consider him as despicable as anyone else in there?
Note that a lot would depend on testimony. If they were smooching, she asked him to use a condom, he said no, and forced himself on her anyway, that’s different than midway through the act, him telling her it broke yet not stopping. This is not to excuse the latter, but (IMHO) they are two different things.
The implications of that seem really disturbing. If a woman consents to sex, but then wants to stop, she has to continue having it until the guy decides it’s over? Or does that law just mean that anyone who’s having sex can continue having it until they feel like it as long as their partner consented to the initial penetration?
Or maybe it could be some other kind of offense but not rape.
I heard on TV that some of those who were named in the complaints, did not want to press charges. This is not rape as we see it . It is possible to get a 700 dollar fine for this.
Myself, I am neutral on the subject and his possible guilt. The timing is rather odd, no doubt. We shall see.
Here’s an Australian article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-d…-1225967892481
I think the implication is really that the common law aspect isn’t that important (in England) since English criminal law became codified. I presume rape is now an offense under the English criminal code, and I’d be willing to bet (in other words, I am too lazy to research) that this would be criminal behavior in England.
Ahem, that was kind of my point.
You misunderstand the “common law” comments. It is not saying that US or UK law is not written down. Rather, there is a heritage of law that comes from the “Common Law” that is now codified but follows the principles of that system, and there is a different heritage of law that is called “civil law” that places less priority on precedent.
With regards to “rape”, that word is a loaded word. Many people have a notion of “rape” as being forceful coercion. The implication is an act of physical aggression - restraint, striking, or threats to compel the act. However, what others are arguing is that the act of “rape” is not defined by the violence of the coercion, but by the violation of consent. If consent is not given, or consent is revoked, then further actions are rape.
With regards to the accusations, as I read the articles and quotes by DrDeth, one of the claims is that he had consentual sex with woman B using a condom as agreed, went to sleep in the same bed, and then she awoke in the morning to him having sex with her without a condom. That violated the terms of her consent - use of a condom. He engaged in sex after being told the conditions in violation of those conditions. That is a violation of consent.
Freudian Slit said:
Wait, are you suggesting the implication is that once she consents 1 time, she is forced to always have sex with him until he decides the relationship is over? Clearly that is not what that says.
The statement appears to be saying that if she consents prior to penetration and then after penetration withdraws consent, it does not constitute rape. What it does constitute, if anything, is not specified by that quote. It appears to be arguing that if consent was given during the first act of penetration, then the man can continue to completion and consent cannot be withdrawn midway. Without looking further, that is how it reads to me.
Well, I meant that if a guy is having sex with a woman and she consents to penetration but then revokes that consent, the law says it’s not rape if he continues. That makes it sound like once a guy is in he can keep doing it until he wants to stop. Or it’s not rape anyway. If it were considered to at least be some kind of sexual assault, that would be good because otherwise it seems to imply that even if a woman doesn’t want to continue, the guy can just keep going until he decides he’s through.
Those were the factual circumstances. The reason it’s relevant is because the court held that in a continuing act, the accused is liable if mens rea and actus reus coincide at any point - so where he realised that she was not in fact consenting the act became rape. I haven’t read the entire decision, but the textbooks I used in Criminal Law all give it as authority for the principle that consent must be present throughout the sexual act, and that initially consensual sex becomes rape if consent is withdrawn and the man refuses to stop.
New Development: Supposedly, one of Assange’s accusers has fled Sweden to the Palestinian territories, and is no longer co-operating with the investigation. Apparently, this is why charges are a long time in coming.
I haven’t seen any really solid confirmation, but that’s the one who supposedly posted praise about Assange on Twitter after the supposed rape, and then deleted the posts around the time she went to the police. She’s also the one who posted on her blog about getting revenge on cheating boyfriends.