# New Il. Rape law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249 "2003-07-31T23:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/121 "2003-08-05T02:28:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*Would you consider it rape if the genders were reversed? > > In other words, if it was the male who ignored the female’s requests to stop, and held her by force just long enough to finish, would that be rape? \*\* I apologize if I misunderstood Razorsharp’s questions about the scenario, but so far as I can see, he (or she) asked about financial considerations and child support. Razorsharp did not ask whether we would consider it rape. But since you ask, I would say the scenario described does not amount to rape. Razorsharp describes the woman only momentarily keeping the man from withdrawing. Moreover, she did it simply by holding on to him tightly. I guess that’s technically a use of force, but only technically. Certainly it does not involve the kind of violence – or threat of violence – that we usually associate with rape. If the woman’s physical control of the man had continued, or if she had backed it up with a threat, I would say the line was crossed. But, as described, I think the woman used poor judgment but did not commit rape. For what it’s worth, I think I would reach the same conclusion if the genders were reversed. But that’s only for this specific scenario in which there seems to be no real violence and no threats or intimidation. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/122 "2003-08-05T03:39:16Z")
**Clark K** , that analysis is completely wrong. He withdrew consent, she continued to have sexual contact with him after he withdrew consent, she commits criminal sexual assault. **Force is not a required component of criminal sexual assault.** All that is required is the absence of continued consent and a sexual touching or penetration. That’s it. No force, no violence. I hope you never serve on a jury involving a sexual assault. It’s notions like yours that let rapists go free. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/123 "2003-08-05T13:07:01Z")
> [@](#): > > How many victims falsely admit that they lied solely to avoid being subjected to involuntary commitment? If given a choice between making a false recantation and being stuck in a mental institution for the rest of my life, I would probably lie, and then get the hell out of town as fast as I could. I would lie to the police to preserve my freedom in such an unjust situation. I have no doubt that this sort of thing happens. It may very well happen a lot. Do you have any evidence that this is common? I am asking for some studies that say, “X percent of all rape victims are threatened with involuntary commitment if they refuse to recant their stories”. Preferably during the last forty years or so. It’s a rather large accusation that victims are routinely threatened with commitment if they complain of being raped. This needs to be documented, especially if you are going to imply that it affects the statistics. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/124 "2003-08-05T13:54:11Z")
Earlier, I referred to a Kansas Supreme Court case. That case shines a revealing light on some of those who posture themselves as being so concerned with the plight of victims of rape, and the inherent disparity within legislation that accompanies an agenda. A twelve year old Kansas boy, Shane Seyer, was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter. As a result of the sexual activity, the sixteen year old babysitter became pregnant. The babysitter, Colleen H. (the name has been changed to protect the guilty), was initially charged with statutory rape (“indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge – “contributing to a child’s misconduct.” When Colleen H. and her baby applied for welfare benefits, the state went after the father for child support payment. In 1993, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that just because Shane Seyer was molested and raped by his babysitter at age 12, he had no cause to be relieved of 18 years of child-support payments. The Kansas supreme court wrote,“We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.” The court ruled that “in an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, **even if criminal** , has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.” Shane Seyer was ordered by the court to take an available job delivering newspapers so as to reimburse the state for child support services. Can you imagine the cacophony of shrieks from the “sisterhood” had a court ordered a twelve year old girl to have the baby of her rapist? But there was nothing but silence. Evidently it’s okay to rape little boys, you can even get a judge to make the victim pay you for your crime. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/125 "2003-08-05T17:52:28Z")
Regarding the elusive numbers on false rape and the [**Kanin Study**](http://www.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp): > [@](#): > > …And some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: **"Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables."** ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/126 "2003-08-05T20:30:48Z")
**annaplurabelle** - **Whack-a-mole** made the same point earlier: > [@](#): > > I do not think the study tries to make the case that their results can be extrapolated to cover the entire US. There are tons of variations across the country that would show numbers all over the place. I think mostly the study was done to show an alarming possibility. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/127 "2003-08-05T20:57:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **Whack-a-mole** made the same point earlier I thought _a direct quote from Kanin_ would be more conclusive than “_I think_ what was meant was…”. Sorry for the redundancy, but most of the arguments here are circular, aren’t they? Just trying to stay in the loop. Wanna bet it comes up _again_? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/128 "2003-08-05T23:40:44Z")
**annaplurabelle:** Are you a lawyer? Just curious because your most recent pair of posts smacks more of debating tactics to minimize a particular viewpoint than any real attempt to clear something up that didn’t seem to need clearing up. Kanin’s study does show a very alarming trend. While it may not be possible to extrapolate those numbers more broadly I think it is safe to say the study shows enough of a problem to merit further study. Unless that midwestern town was somehow seriously warped or Kanin’s study seriously flawed I would think it is reasonable to expect to see alarming numbers pop-up elsewhere. Regardless I will mention again that I did cite numbers gathered by the FBI showing a 25% false accusation rate. These numbers come from empirical data and as such aren’t really open to question. Earlier in this thread many were poo-pooing the notion of false accusations. Either implying they outright didn’t exist or were so minor as to not be worthy of discussion. I admit when I finally went looking for stats I was shocked. I had expected to find little evidence of such and my guess was the number would be something like 1% (or even less) and I’d find some anecdotal evidence of a few egregious cases. Instead I dug up some jaw dropping numbers and once I did the silence from the naysayers has been telling. I am very curious as regards the OP what you think (and many others who have been active in this thread). Personally I am still waiting for someone to show me that women will be protected to a significant extent by the new law where they were not protected previously. Juxtapose that with the false accusation issue that has now been shown to be very legitimate and how the new law might affect that. Understand that I myself do not have an agenda. I want to see the best laws possible on the books. I very much want to see women protected a much as possible from rapists but I also believe somewhere on the spectrum of protecting women some regard needs to be given to the accused and how to protect them from false accusations. There may not be a clearcut answer here but I’d like to see the debate so I can make a better decision for myself. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/129 "2003-08-06T01:14:23Z")
**Whack-a-Mole** , perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Throughout this thread I have been agreeing with you about the problem of false accusations. Did you miss my post on page 2 in response to **sleeper** about the same thing? > [@](#): > > I agree with you, and this point (false accusations) has been made here at length by Whack-a-Mole too. I just think it’s an issue worthy of a thread of its own, because it holds true for a person falsely accused (or convicted) of any crime. > > As far as the financials, the bondsman fee is not refundable (at least in some States), so even if charges are dropped immediately, you’re out that money unless you want to hang around in lock up. However (again, depends on State?), you will also be billed for your stay in the lock up. > > …There are a few groups that aid people falsely accused of a crime or in protracted litigation, although most of them are focused on helping those already convicted and serving prison time. Some specialise: Obtaining DNA evidence for older cases (The Innocence Project), messy child custody cases (that may involve allegations of child abuse), tort reform/reduction of prosecutorial immunity advocacy groups (for civil suits), jailhouse lawyers, etc. > From [Once You Are Accused by Jim Love](http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=34.cfm), a jailhouse lawyer: > > **"Across this nation, as you read this article, 173,000 innocent men and women sit in prisons and jails. That’s 87 entire prisons full. I know, it would never happen to you, so why should you care? Well, I never thought it would happen to me either."** > > I don’t think a revision in the Illinois rape statute will affect the systemic problem of false accusations/convictions. This particular lawyer is serving life for rape: > > **"James was convicted in a manufactured rape with no evidence whatsoever and a solid alibi. After waiting eight years, the complaining witness alleged the felony took place while he was out of the country, and before they met!"** The cite explains the systemic problem. Did you read it? What about these two posts of mine, replying to your assertions that 1) it should be hard to put some one in jail for rape, and 2)the vagueness of laws: > [@](#): > > I completely agree. > > State laws vary. And you’re right - some of them are vague. Some of them (IMO) are bad. And you never replied to this one: > [@](#): > > Whack-a-Mole, what is the alternative? I was serious when I asked you this before, and I’m serious now. I never disputed the false rape figures - I agree with you there too - the reason I joked about redundancy is because I posted the same cites you’ve used here in the Bryant rape thread a couple of weeks ago. I pulled the Kanin quote cite out of my browser history files. One more time: **I AGREE WITH YOU - FALSE ACCUSATIONS & CONVICTIONS ARE APPALLING!!!** Okay? Read Love’s site and tell me if you don’t think a revision of this Ill. statute means squat relative to the overall problems in the justice system. BTW, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe **Bricker** is(?). Here’s what he(?) had to say about the impact of this law (my emphasis): > [@](#): > > In a prosecution under this section, the victim is herself putting into evidence the fact that she initially consented; you must show that she didn’t withdraw consent as she’s claiming. > > That’s all. It’s not a huge change. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/130 "2003-08-06T02:42:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > Okay? Read Love’s site and tell me if you don’t think a revision of this Ill. statute means squat relative to the overall problems in the justice system. > > BTW, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe **Bricker** is(?). Here’s what he(?) had to say about the impact of this law (my emphasis): Okay…sorry if I lumped you in with the naysayers. I should have gone back to check but didn’t. My bad. As to Love’s article it was interesting and scary. I’ve actually been meaning to start a thread on whether ‘plea bargains’ are a ‘good’ thing. My only observation/questions about the article aren’t entirely related to this thread but I’m curious anyway. Love says that people wiht a prior criminal record will get that information used against them if they go to trial hence encouraging them to plea bargain. He specifically mentions that information being presented to a jury. I thought prior acts were inadmissable but perhaps I’m wrong. I could understand their use in the sentencing phase but during the trial itself? Maybe **Bricker** will be along to clear that up. Second, as I mentioned earlier in this thread laws must be crafted and they will likely have some ability to ensnare the innocent. Hopefully the laws and the rules of evidence to convict someone do a good job of of weeding out the innocent. Nevertheless some will get caught and lousy as that is we still need laws and court rules to operate our society. Too tight and the guilty roam free…too loose and the innocent get caught. 8-12% is a pretty steep price to pay IMO though. As to **Bricker’s** quote I am bothered by the notion that I have to prove a woman didn’t withdraw consent. That isn’t a huge change? I think it’s huge! For the sake of argument assume a woman accuses me of rape in that she withdrew consent but I continued anyway and assume the accusation is completely false. It is now up to ME to show she didn’t? I’d say that I’m really screwed in this instance so my issue with the new law still stands. Hopefully **Bricker** will be by to show me why I needn’t worry so much (I really hope he does…the alternative is scary). ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/131 "2003-08-06T03:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > **Love says that people wiht a prior criminal record will get that information used against them if they go to trial hence encouraging them to plea bargain. He specifically mentions that information being presented to a jury. I thought prior acts were inadmissable but perhaps I’m wrong. I could understand their use in the sentencing phase but during the trial itself? Maybe Bricker will be along to clear that up.** Sentence enhancements for prior convictions, for one thing. Which means if you opt for trial and lose, you lose big. Here’s an [article](http://www.prisonerlife.com/articles/articleID=29.cfm) with more detail on that: > [@](#): > > Criminal-defense attorneys maintain that, with the exception of the most minor offenses or the most serious – and when the accused is a celebrity – actual trials are almost rare now. Changes in the legal system have given prosecutors the power to exact extraordinary penalties from defendants who choose to go to trial and lose. The deck is so stacked against defendants who plead innocent, they say, that the average defendant doesn’t have the luxury of taking his case before a jury. Why fight, when the chances of victory are small and the penalty for losing is huge? Everyone is looking for a deal. > > “Everybody knows now that if you go to trial and get convicted, you’re going to get massacred, you’re going to get the maximum sentence allowed,” says Murray Richman, the dean of defense attorneys in the Bronx courts. “Even innocent people often aren’t willing to risk fifteen or twenty years or more in jail by going to trial. Not when they can get it down to one to four if they plead.” > > Nowadays, defense attorneys argue, justice is bartered in the prosecutor’s office, not fought for in a courtroom. “All the skills I had developed as a litigator can no longer be put to use as a criminal attorney,” says Joel Rudin, who at 48 has been practicing for nearly 25 years. “The primary skill needed for doing criminal work is as a negotiator to deal with the prosecutors. But since you’re not on even ground with them, you’re not so much negotiating as pleading. The system has totally perverted the values a lot of us grew up with.” There’s lots more to it. This is why I suggested a separate thread for this issue. 😛 > [@](#): > > **As to Bricker’s quote I am bothered by the notion that I have to prove a woman didn’t withdraw consent. That isn’t a huge change? I think it’s huge** It equals out by the fact that the woman needs to show that she _did_ withdraw consent - beyond a reasonable doubt. But I asked **Bricker** that myself: How do you _show_ consent (if you’re the defense), and how do you _show_ withdrawn consent (w/o evidence). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/132 "2003-08-06T03:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > \*\*Sentence enhancements for prior convictions, for one thing. Which means if you opt for trial and lose, you lose big. \*\* I understand that but I thought that came in the sentencing phase. My question regards telling the jury during your trial about prior offenses. I thought this was prejudicial and generally not allowed but Love’s article seems to indicate that it is. I know this is off-topic but if you (or anyone) has a quick answer that’d be great. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/133 "2003-08-06T04:14:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\ ***Clark K** , that analysis is completely wrong. He withdrew consent, she continued to have sexual contact with him after he withdrew consent, she commits criminal sexual assault. **Force is not a required component of criminal sexual assault.** All that is required is the absence of continued consent and a sexual touching or penetration. That’s it. No force, no violence. > > I hope you never serve on a jury involving a sexual assault. It’s notions like yours that let rapists go free. \*\* I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I know force is not a required component of criminal sexual assault. That’s why I specifically mentioned the use of threats or intimidation. I would gladly convict someone of rape who never lifted a hand against the victim but instead threatened violence or implied that resistance would be punished. I would gladly convict someone of rape who used a date rape drug so that the victim could not resist, or simply could not give consent. I simply said that in the narrow circumstances described here, where one person held on to the other for a few extra seconds, without force or threats or intimidation, I don’t see rape. If I were on a jury, perhaps a prosecutor could walk me through the fine points of the law and demonstrate that I am wrong. I would keep my mind open and be ready to vote guilty if the law says these actions do in fact amount to rape. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/134 "2003-08-06T04:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > Love says that people wiht a prior criminal record will get that information used against them if they go to trial hence encouraging them to plea bargain. He specifically mentions that information being presented to a jury. I thought prior acts were inadmissable but perhaps I’m wrong. I could understand their use in the sentencing phase but during the trial itself? Maybe **Bricker** will be along to clear that up. The general proposition is that prior bad acts are inadmissible at trial to prove that the accused acted in conformity therewith. In other words, you can’t simply tell the jury that the man on trial for rape has a prior conviction for rape, if the only inference is that he did it before, and so is likely to have done it again. That’s an impermissible inference. Indeed, you can’t tell the jury that he has a prior conviction for arson, for the same reason. We don;t want the jury returning a guilty verdict just because the accused is a bad guy. We want a guilty verdict only if the prosecution proved each element of the offense beyond a reaosnable doubt. However, prior bad acts are admissible for other reasons. If the accused chooses to testify in his own defense, the prosecution may impeach his credibility with the fact of prior felony convictions – a permissible inference for a jury to draw is that convicted felons are less trustworthy than others. This doesn’t mean that the jury must automatically disbelieve the accused, but they are entitled to know he’s a felon – and in some jurisdictions, they’re entitled to know what felony. A prior bad act is also admissible to show absence of mistake, or to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. If the accused claims he believed he was acting out a rape fantasy at the behest of the accuser, it’s relevant that he previously made such a claim. If the accused dressed up like a clown and forced women to laugh as he assaulted them in prior crimes, and the instant case also involves a clown that demanded his victims laugh, then the prior convictions are relevant. Hope that clears it up! - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/135 "2003-08-06T04:58:43Z")
Thanks **Bricker**. That clears it up mostly (I suspect legal battles can be fought over the gray areas here but this is enough for my purposes). Do you have an answer to the following that is confusing **annaplurabelle** and me? > [@](#): > > As to Bricker’s quote I am bothered by the notion that I have to prove a woman didn’t withdraw consent. That isn’t a huge change? I think it’s huge! For the sake of argument assume a woman accuses me of rape in that she withdrew consent but I continued anyway and assume the accusation is completely false. It is now up to ME to show she didn’t? I’d say that I’m really screwed in this instance so my issue with the new law still stands. Hopefully Bricker will be by to show me why I needn’t worry so much (I really hope he does…the alternative is scary). ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/136 "2003-08-06T11:25:25Z")
**Clark K** , the use of threats or intimidation are also not required elements of criminal sexual assault. It doesn’t matter if force is used; it doesn’t matter if threats are used; it doesn’t matter if intimidation is used. All that matters is whether a sexual touching took place and whether consent was given. Again, I hope you never serve on a jury in a rape case, or that you at least let the judge correct you on your mistaken understanding of the law before reaching judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/137 "2003-08-06T14:40:41Z")
KellyM: don’t be too sure. In Virginia, to take one example, “sexual battery” includes the element of “…by force, threat, intimidation or ruse, or through the use of the complaining witness’s mental incapacity or physical helplessness…” So does “rape.” There is no “criminal sexual assault” charge in Virginia. Whack-a-Mole: > [@](#): > > As to Bricker’s quote I am bothered by the notion that I have to prove a woman didn’t withdraw consent. That isn’t a huge change? I think it’s huge! For the sake of argument assume a woman accuses me of rape in that she withdrew consent but I continued anyway and assume the accusation is completely false. It is now up to ME to show she didn’t? I’d say that I’m really screwed in this instance so my issue with the new law still stands. Hopefully Bricker will be by to show me why I needn’t worry so much (I really hope he does…the alternative is scary). The ISSUE may be huge – the _change_ isn’t. The only change is that the gray area concerning the withdrawal of consent is now clearly resolved. The prosecution must still prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that consent was withdrawn. Like any other element of a crime, the testimony of the complaining witness is sufficient, if believed by the finder of fact, to establish that consent was withdrawn. You ask if it’s up to you to show she didn’t withdraw consent – in fact, it’s up to the prosecution. Once they establish it, then you’re guilty. Now, if the complaining witness testifies she withdrew consent, and you testify that she did not, it’s up to the finder of fact - the jury, or in a bench trial the judge - to weigh each witness’ credibility and decide who they believe. This isn’t new. If you were accused of rape after a consensual sex act before this law passed, the exact same thing would be true: you both would present your version, and the finder of fact would weigh the credibility of you both and decide. So - no huge change. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/138 "2003-08-06T16:14:28Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t suppose you’re going to answer my request for a cite about the juror leading a discussion during deliberations with other jurors concerning the tragedies the Kennedy family suffered, are you? I’m still waiting for a return phone call on that cite, Bricker. Which reminds me----isn’t it that true that if said prior bad acts on the part of a defendant show a great similiarity, they’re admissible in some states. This is a judgement call on the part of the judge. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/139 "2003-08-06T16:29:49Z")
> [@](#): > > According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin (search) of Purdue University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as “false.” Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were “false.” I’m sorry, but I’m sort of disturbed that no one has commented on the size and duration of this study. 109, across ten years, in a city of 70, 000? That’s just not a real big study. And no one here has brought up situations like Florida’s, where they used to demand polygraphs from rape victims, or the situation in Baltimore or Philadelphia’s police department, where it was found that thousands or rape complaints were routinely tossed out without investigation. Yes, Bricker, I’m looking for a cite. I find it mildly amusing that no one is demanding cites from people they agree with, myself included. I think we should rectify that. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/140 "2003-08-06T16:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin (search) of Purdue University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as “false.” Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were “false.” I’m sorry, but I’m sort of disturbed that no one has commented on the size and duration of this study. 109, across ten years, in a city of 70, 000? That’s just not a real big study. And no one here has brought up situations like Florida’s, where they used to demand polygraphs from rape victims, or the situation in Baltimore or Philadelphia’s police department, where it was found that thousands or rape complaints were routinely tossed out without investigation. Yes, Bricker, I’m looking for a cite. > [@](#): > > Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been **inconclusive** (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests **have excluded the primary suspect,** and about 6,000 have “matched” or included the primary suspect.1 The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26-percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions. This is the other thing. The word ‘false’ tends to imply deception or venom. That is why people reject this argument. It’s the same argument one frequently makes against ‘unfounded’ , a term which doesn’t mean the case was maliciously brought—it means there wasn’t enough evidence to take the case to court. Nor does it take into account mistaken identification by whomever as an impetus to trial. Using the word ‘false’ implies nothing less than malice on the part of the victim. With these cases cited only by numbers, I cannot make any determination as to what actually happened. What I find disturbing is that there appears to no position in this discussion beyond, “She lied!” or “She did not!” It’s the fact that people instantly jump to truth or lie/ black or white that gets peoples’ backs up, my own included. I find it mildly amusing that no one is demanding cites from people they agree with, myself included. I think we should rectify that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249.md?page=8)