New Il. Rape law

Ok, Illinois now has a law that makes it rape, even if she says “stop” while it is in, and the sex act is in progress.
Doesn’t it get a little difficult to prove innocence when fluids have already been exchanged?(don’t give me the innocent until proven guilty bullshit, we all know it doesn’t work that way)


:smack:

Right about now is the time I’m glad I’m not a man in Illinois.

Really, what do they expect men to do? Ask her every 2 seconds if she wants to do this, and then instantaneously be somewhere else if her answer becomes ‘No’ at any point, even if she doesn’t vocalize it?

Actually, you have it backwards: it’s going to be more than a little difficult to prove guilt under this statute. Physical evidence will be worthless, as you noted - it will be entirely a case of he said/she said - that she said stop after the sex act was initiated.

And he said/she said cases are extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
About the only use for this law is to allow convictions for rape where the man becomes physically abusive after a consensual sex act has begun. It plugs a loophole in the law on that point, but I strongly doubt you are going to see any prosecutions under this law where there is no physical evidence of abuse.

Sua

Yep, even more reason NOT to live in IL.
With all these crazy laws going around (or in the case of the state of KS, whacked interpretations of laws)
So, if a woman says stops just as a man is having his orgasm, she can easily claim rape and the man is doomed.
I agree about the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ comment. At least in this context. A man (or in some cases woman) who is so much as accused of such a crime, doesn’t matter if he/she was even in the country at the time of the crime, that person will always be looked upon with guilt and suspicion. Sad.
As far as KS goes, AG Phil Klein has stated that if a 16 yr old girl has an abortion, then whoever performs the abortion must notify state law enforcement authorities. In KS it is illegal for a woman to have sex under the age of 17 (I think) and so a rape must have occured. If a 15 year old boy goes into a drug store or wherever, then he must be commiting rape to someone. I do not condone sex at that age, but this is reality and kids are having sex at younger age.
Whoa, I better stop before I get off-topic!

Lets say we are having sex. I realize that I forgot to take my pill that morning. Additionally, you didn’t use any forplay or lube, so your hurting me pretty badly. And for the record, lets say we are in my house and I realize my husband is about walk right in.

So I say, clearly “Stop now. I no longer want to do this. Please stop now”.

If you ignore me and continue, what does that make you? A rapist. You have no inherent right to orgasm every time sexual activity is initiated. Imagine how absurd it’d be if we argued it was wrong for a man to stop sex before a woman reached orgasm. If you do not think you are capable of having sex without being able to stop should the woman decide that she no longer wants to have sex with you, please do not have sex.

"So, if a woman says stops just as a man is having his orgasm, she can easily claim rape and the man is doomed. "

No - easily and doomed do not apply.

I was going to cancel my post, since it mirrors what SuaSponte has said, but maybe it bears repeating (until someone reads it!):

As for proof - the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt - so I’m not sure what you mean about proving innocence. If the defense is consensual sex, fluids don’t matter.

Based on what I’ve read from trial attorneys, the withdrawn consent charge presents an extra burden of proof for the prosecution. The spirit of the law is one thing, how a jury reacts is another.

Evidence of force or coercion being used - which tends to negate the concept of consent - is about the only way to take it beyond “he said-she said”.

Oh, and welcome boerjog - I’m new here myself.

There have been a slew of rape threads on this forum the last few weeks, so a lot of this has already been discussed. Try a search, if you’re really interested…

Let me clarify a little bit…
If we were having consensual sex and as we got started or sometime during you say ‘stop’ for whatever reason, then the act is to cease without delay. I agree.
What I was trying to point out was, if the act has been going on long enough for a man to be at or near an orgasm or the man is having an orgasm at the time she says ‘stop’, then what?
I guess it is to determine when the act is over. Obviously when either partner says ‘stop’ or something to that effect. If the woman has an orgasm and the man has not and she says ‘stop’. it ends. If the man has had an orgasm and the woman has not and he continues till she does (some men can and do do this) and she says ‘stop’ then.
A case of ‘blue balls’ or ‘busted nuts’ (when sex is stopped just as the man is about to orgasm, it hurts, but in this case, that is too bad) is a lot easier to get over than a rape accusation or conviction.
Along those lines, if a woman says ‘no’, then that means ‘no sex tonight’. Peroid. I would say to the woman that do not change your mind later and then allow the act to begin, then say ‘stop’ and change your mind AGAIN and then cry rape.
I will again emphasize, no means no. If a woman says that to me, then that is the end of the subject and I will by all means avoid it like the plague for the rest of the evening, if not the rest of my relationship with that particular woman.

The legal burden of proof may be on the prosecution, but we all know that the in terms of the media and wrecking someone’s life, often all it takes is the guy’s picture on the evening news and an accusation of rape, or a report in a newspaper, to ruin a life, a career, and cause all kinds of devastation.

"I would say to the woman that do not change your mind later and then allow the act to begin, then say ‘stop’ and change your mind AGAIN and then cry rape."

Welcome to you too, drugmaker. I understand what you’re saying. But remember, the law is designed to allow for rape charges in the case where consent is withdrawn, and force is used to continue. As much as most men would hate to stop just before, or during orgasm (understandably), forcing someone to continue is an act of assault. Since you’re saying you wouldn’t do that, then you’ve got nothing to worry about, right?

But, your view on this is also likely to reflect what some jurors might think - a negative in their perception of the accusor - which is another example of why it’s more difficult for the prosecution to present.

I agree with SuaSponte - it’s only going to work if there is strong evidence of force or coercion.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that a man be allowed to continue having sex if the woman says “no” or “stop” or “get the f**k off of me” or whatever.

The problem lies in the accusation and a man’s ability to defend himself. If you truly said “stop” and he kept plugging away then he has moved on to rape. What about a woman who for some reason or another wants to mess with the guy, has sex, never says “stop” and then after the fact claims rape? How is the guy supposed to defend himself? As mentioned it becomes he said/she said. Unfortunately just the accusation of being a rapist can seriously mess up someone’s life even if it is 100% baseless and the man is innocent. You can lose friends, family, your job, be looked at funny in the supermarket and so on.

Given that the law seems nearly impossible to prove sufficiently in the absence of other evidence (abuse, videotape, witnesses, etc. but that evidence is more likely very rare) to get a man to jail then the only thing it is good for is harrassment.

I’m all for putting rapists in jail but I don’t see how this helps matters any.

Well yeah, but a man can be falsey accused with the current laws. How much easier is to say “I said no after penetration” than it is to say “I said no beforehand”? If you are hell bent on harrassing someone with a false accusation, I don’t think your going to let little things like the facts get in the way.

But then again, your chances of being prosecuted for a rape you did commit are next to nothing. The chances of you getting prosecuted for one you didn’t are even less.

A LOT easier unless you are a woman who says “no” to sex beforehand but puts up zero resistance if the man continues and rapes you. One would assume that if you say “no” first you will put up a fight, scream, whatever and will likely have wounds or other evidence to back you up.

However, if you consent to sex this won’t happen but NOW you can say after the fact that you told him to stop. To me that is a FAR easier path to abuse of the system.

What do you base that on? There are certainly a lot of people in prison for rape right now. There are also a fair number who have been released in the last few years after DNA evidence proved their innocence suggesting the system already gets it wrong when a tougher standard than this is is applied.

To go one step further. Say during the course of some intense fore-play, clothing gets ripped. An errant fingernail scrathes skin. And then penetration happens and then the woman says ‘stop’ and the guy didn’t stop quickly enough for her tastes. Maybe he didn’t hear her (sometimes in the throws of passion it is difficult to understand and sometimes hear your partner)
Then the case for rape can easily be made.
I work in a law office and although we do not specialize in criminal cases, we do a substantial amount of pro bono and I am privy to records of such cases.
A lot of time alcohol or other drugs are involved and that makes the case that much more complicated.
Am I saying that all rape accusations should be looked at with suspicion? No. But as laws change, it becomes increasingly difficult to prove innocence. Yes I said ‘prove innocence’. Put a distraught woman in front of a jury and add some damning circumstantial or relativaly unprovable evidence, then a conviction or at the very least, mistrial is not far behind.
When the prosecutor gathers enough evidence to go to trial, he/she is not concerned with the innocence of the accused. He/she, in effect, is making the accuse prove the contrary, thus, prove his innocence.

Why do so many think that there are scads of women out there just waiting to make false accusations of rape?

:rolleyes:

Not trying to say or imply that there are “scads of women out there just waiting to make false accusations of rape”, just pointing out how easy it can be and lowering the bar only makes it that much easier.

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

Seriously…how many false accusations are ok? I’m not suggesting ‘scads’ of women make false accusations but where should the line be drawn? They certainly occur…people have been released from prison after better evidence was found to exonerate them.

No law is perfect and any law might scoop up the innocent. We accept this to an extent in the interests of society. However, if a law such as this can show NO good side whatsoever…does nothing to protect anyone…how many people is it ok to sacrifice on the altar of justice on its behalf?

I don’t see the problem with the law. Does anyone think it should be legal for a man to continue if consent is withdrawn. Do we agree that any guy who refuses to stop is a rapist? Do we agree that the guy should be charged as a rapist or not?

I don’t see what the objection is here. If she says stop, you stop, that’s it.

Do you think it should be legal for a guy to keep forcing a woman after she says no?

…just pointing out how easy it can be and lowering the bar only makes it that much easier.

But it is NOT easy to begin with, and this law does NOT make it easier. Ask a trial lawyer.

Again, unless there is strong corroborating evidence (an “errant fingernail scratch” does not apply) this type of case will most likely not be prosecuted to begin with, much less lead to a conviction.

Seriously…how many false accusations are ok?

None are okay. But the only way to avoid them completely is to suspend all laws.

However, if a law such as this can show NO good side whatsoever…does nothing to protect anyone…

As stated, the good side of this law is that it allows for prosecution in the event someone withdraws consent but is forced to continue. Forced. With clear, strong evidence of such. Unless you are willing to say that isn’t rape, your assertion here is a contradiction of what you’ve already acknowledged as rape/sexual assault.

Other than giving “rough sex” aficionados some pause, I don’t understand why someone should be worried about this law in particular. If someone wants to “mess with” you, there are plenty of ways to do so apart from this law. Easier ways. Much easier ways.

  1. yes rape has been discussed here (obviously) however, NOW THERE IS A LAW, CHANGING DEFINITION OF

2)Sure, a woman should be able to say no, at ANYTIME! “it’s too big, take it outta my ass… ect.”

3)Prosecutable? Some ass will try. (period) the shit doesn’t belong on the books. Questions arise.
Q. (copper to female) were you fucking ect.?
A. Yes, but I said stop!
Real Answer, I was getting even with the prick. Now semen is on my face, ass, puss, whatever.
Meaning= OMG, she didn’t cum, and she found out I banged her friend!= I am going to have to FIGHT THIS PAY FOR ATTORNEY, AND END UP IN THE HICK-TOWN PAPER!!!

kinda screwed up, you don’t think?
Easy enough to claim rape. If the “peers” “friends” “ect” knew they were already screwing, (i.e. have a kid, have been together, did it ON FILM, perhaps?"

HE SAYS, SHE SAYS,
SHE WINS.
(period)