New Il. Rape law

Great Debates
21

I already answered this above…absolutely not. “No” means no. “Stop” means stop. Pretty unambiguous to me and the person who ignores this has moved on to a criminal offense.

I already answered this too but to be more clear…

As you suggest any law can be abused and catch innocent people. It is not my assertion that there should be no laws in the interests of never imprisoning an innocent person. Nevertheless laws are written with specificity and rules of prosecution for breaking those laws is spelled out largely to avoid wrongful prosecutions. People still get caught unjustly but at some point you must have laws so we accept this possibility as a society. Sometimes the system fails such as over a dozen death row inmates in Illinois being shown to be innocent. As such the former Governor stopped the death penalty from being used in Illinois till guarantees can be made that the system is improved to avoid catching the innocent.

Before this law was in place was it ok to continue having sex with a woman once she said stop (not ok in a moral sense but a legal sense)? Seriously…I don’t know the answer to that but I would be amazed if that was the case. Considering the new law some might suppose my question is already answered so let me clarify.

Assume we have a woman such as annaplurabelle suggested who has been forced to continue to have sex and has clear and strong evidence of such occurring. Am I to assume that till this law was just passed this was legal? Once a woman submitted to having sex the law essentially allowed the man to continue as he pleased with the woman losing all say in it? I find that hard to believe but I suppose stranger things have happened.

It would seem to me that this law is lowering the bar from “clear, strong evidence” to “I told him to stop.” If that is the case it is this that I have a problem with. This law seems to allow the accusation to be made and investigation to go forward with no more than a “cuz I said he did it” without any other evidence to support that claim. If the greater evidence exists then go up tp my previous paragraph where I think the guy is busted anyway. I still don’t see how this law helps matters at all unless it really is true that men could have their way with women once sex had started.

22

The law does not speak to evidence one way or the other. It simply defines more clearly what constitutes rape and strengthens the right of a woman to withdraw consent. The standard of evidence doesn’t change a bit. Any prosecutor would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was withdrawn and that the the defendant continued without consent. This would be an extremely hard burden to meet in most cases and the rapsits will continue to get away with it just like they always have.

23

To clarify:

24

From what I gather (which could be wrong), the old law did not specify what happens when a woman revokes consent. Thus it is conceivable that someone could use that as their defense, and possibly win. This law would close that possibility off from them. This also informs women who have been raped but who blame themselves because they “got themselves in that situation” that they have legal recourse.

I still don’t understand why this would make false accusations easier. It’s pretty rare for a couple to begin sex in a public place with lots of witnesses, and then continue it in a private place where it would become a “he said- she said” situation. Most sex is initiated and carryed out in private. So it is just as easy for a woman to say “I said no and he forced me” as it is for her to say “I said yes, then I said no, then he forced me”. And besides, it’s not like there are all thse women out there just waiting to make false accusation, but it’s just a little too hard for them right now.

But lets look at the facts about rape for a minute. I know a lot more women who have been raped and have no seen their rapist brought to justice than I have seen men falsely accused. The facts back me up on this. According to RAINN, only 39% of rapes that occur are reported. Of the ones that do get reported, 50.8% end up with sombody arrested. From there you have an 80% of prosecution. If there is a prosecution, there is 58% chance of felony conviction. If convicted, there is a 69% chance of jail time.

Unless fifteen out of sixteen rapes (which is the number of rapes that end up without anyone going to jail) are false accusations, then the problem of rape being “too easy to falsey accuse” is a ridiculous claim. The burden of proof is pretty damn high for the accuser, and regardless of your hysterics, a crying woman does not automatically cause the carefully selected jurors to abandon the justice of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” that they swore to uphold. Rape, even when it did happen, is damn hard to get somebody in jail for.

Although it does makes me wonder who the heck you guys are sleeping with (and what your doing to them) if you are so convinced she’s going to turn around and accuse you of rape, anyway.

25

It SHOULD be hard to put someone in jail for rape. Rape is a capital crime carrying sentences right up there with murder and treason. I think the state needs to try really hard to ensure an innocent person doesn’t get sent to jail for life. Is this horrible to the woman who was raped and doesn’t see justice done? Absolutely. However, our system of justice is presumably founded on the notion that it is better to let ten guilty people go free rather than wrongly convict one innocent person. You can disagree with that notion but that’s probably a topic for another thread.

Also, I have some problem with the definition of what constitutes rape. The guy who leaps put of the bushes and molests you is a no-brainer. However, the guy who wheedles his way into a woman’s bed by begging or fast talking I don’t consider a rapist. If the next morning the woman decides she was somehow unfairly coerced doesn’t make it rape. In places if alcohol is used and sex ensues it is considered rape (she isn’t in her right mind to consent…mind you I’m not talking about use of date-rape drugs). In many cases I think these sorts of notions are demeaning of women. Women aren’t their own person responsible for their own actions? Some college is on about this sort of thing (the drunk=rape and such) to the point that they have a written form the woman is supposed to sign assenting to sex. And not just once…she has to assent specifically to each move up the ladder towards sex…kissing, petting, getting naked, etc. It’s absurd.

As I said before if a woman says stop or no (or whatever) it is unambiguous and the guys had better stop immediately. But there is no way I would consider myself a rapist if I pick a woman up in a bar, we’re both drunk, inhibitions are low and we go home and have sex consensually but the next day she feels it was all a big mistake and I took advatage of her. By the same token neither does “No”, “Please?”, “I said no”, “Pretty please with sugar on top?”, “Well…ok.”

As to “who the heck you guys are sleeping with” I think most guys at one time or another have faced a seriously irrate woman and maybe even been fearful of what she might do to get back at them (making no comment on whether the guy deserves what he gets or not). Even really cheesed off I know most women would not cry rape just to harrass the guy but some might. I was at a friend’s house and he and his girlfriend got into a BIG fight. It got to pushing and shoving. Mostly she was pushing and shoving and even hitting while he attempted to ward her off (cover himself or grab her wrists to stop her). That was IT…I was watching all this progress and ineffectually trying to calm them down. He came outside with me to have a cigarette on their back porch and she shoved the door closed and managed to put her hand the the window in the door cutting her self. She proceeded to call the police and tell them that her boyfriend pushed her through the glass. I told the police that this wasn’t so but the police didn’t care. It was policy for them to take the guy away. Too many times the police got reamed for responding to a domestic dispute and leaving and then the guy killed the woman. Their policy now was regardless of the situation they would take the guy away and let him cool his heels in lockup. The court could sort it out later.

This was ten years ago so maybe policy has changed and I admit it is anecdotal. I can also see why the policy was put in place but for a guy who didn’t do anything wrong the mere accusation was enough to send him to jail even if only for a night (lockup in Chicago is not a fun place). He had to try to explain to parents and friends (trying to comeup with bail money) that he got sent to jail for abusing his girlfriend but he didn’t really do anything.

Perhaps from this you can see where a guy might be worried about what a woman would do in a fit of pique.

26

Before someone calls BS on me for this here is a link to The Antioch College Sexual Offense Prevention Policy. For this one it looks like I might be wrong about written consent (I just saw something that led me to believe there was a written aspect but maybe they were joking around). It looks like verbal consent is enough. The alcohol part seems to have been toned down from what it once was. Below I’ve quoted some selected tidbits from the linked page (bolding is mine):

The alcohol bit seems to have been modified down from their original code of conduct:

The current wording is vague and open to debate. Exactly what constitutes ‘taking advantage’ of someone? I know there are black & white areas for that but it seems there is a large gray area in that as well.

27

Whack, you are decidedly not, regarding your post, well said. Yeah, she says stop, then you do, I’ve always been that way, I think that beyond all the issues with rape, that having sex with someone who no longer wants to have sex with you is just fuckin creepy.

ON THE OTHER HAND…

Regret does, in no way, shape, fashion, or form equal rape. You did it, you own up to it. The clarification this law makes, can turn a man who was on the hunt for Ms. Right Now, (who he finds, and later she regrets it) into a felon. It’s yet another way that we can slough off the chains of personal responsibility. It’s saying that women are defenseless creatures, and that the big bad men are all out to get them (which is maddening bullshit) and that even if you regret what you’ve done, don’t you worry about it, we’ll send this bad, bad man to a place where he’ll likely be raped. Not to say that ACUTAL rapists aren’t human garbage, but there is a very, very, VERY thin line (made even thinner by Gov. Blowdryer) between being enthusiastic, and being forcable

GUIN, it’s unlikely that there are ‘scads’ of women out there just waiting to punk out some drunken sot, but some women are (and don’t hate me for the truth) petty, mean, vindictive snakes-in-the-grass who will whip up some tears and bruise themselves, just because the minute man they hooked up with didn’t call, or because they’ve somehow sullied the good name of their families.

EVEN SVEN said…

The facts back me up on this. According to RAINN, only 39% of rapes that occur are reported.

Let me ask you something. How in the HELL can the facts back you on this? How can rapes that are unreported occur as fact? Listen, I’m not arguing that crimes (especially personal crimes) don’t go unreported, but how in the blue fuck can they say that 39% of things are aren’t reported, actually happened? The statement defies logic. It’s saying in effect “39 percent of the people we didn’t survey, said they were raped”.
I mean, I know I’m coming off a little pro-rapist here, and I’m certianly not trying to, but that’s the inherent problem with stats, if you cannot include everyone in a survey, I can just as easily rebuke your numbers with ones opposite. Ouoth Twain: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
In the end, this law, or rather this clarification of a law, is a restrictive legislation of personal freedoms, it’s a not-so-gentle nudge from the state against pre-marital sex. It’s dressed up in protective rhetoric, but the end result is still the same, it’s the legislation of morality. I guess my fellow Illinoisan men are going to be spending a few more bucks at kinkos printing off hold harmless agreements.

(sidenote: ACUTAL rapists (read: human garbage) who truly set out to rape women will be inclined to take it a little further now, since they figure they’re goin down for rape anyway (i’ve seen it happen, it’s my experience and opinion) why not knock her around and make it worth his while. Mark my words, violence against women will increase, check the illinois stats (yeah, I know) in five years.)

28

You don’t finish your sentence, so it’s hard to know what you’re talking about - pretty constant throughout your post - but no definitions have been changed.

Why are you asserting that all rape accusations are false?

Yeah, so you keep saying, with no support.

Only a small percentage of rapes are the kind of false accusations you’re ranting about.

This is pretty fucking stupid, not to mention insensitive. You sound like another idiot who thinks most accusations of rape are brought by angry, unsatisfied women who want to get even. Do you even think rape actually happens? So far, you’ve boiled it down to petty revenge from women who are sexually unsatisfied or angry at men, or women whose men are “too big.”

It’s easy to CLAIM anything, you idiot! The issue has always been PROVING it. This doesn’t lower the standard of proof. You don’t know what you’re talking about on any part of this subject. (For example, the fact that a couple has had sex in the past doesn’t have anything to do with anything.) Despite all the stuff you’ve pulled out of your ass about ‘women always win’ and innocent men getting their names dragged through the mud, your basic assertion that the accused have to prove their innocence is flat-out wrong. This withdrawn consent DOES sound hard to prove for the accusers.
Moronic, ass-backwards attitudes like yours probably have a lot to do with why the vast majority of rapes are never even reported to police.

I’d go on, but it’s really hard to wade through your barely-intelligible post.

29

I believe that we all can agree that one does not have the right to cause another to endure physical pain, right?

Okay, how about the excruciating pain (Yes, it is painful, ladies.)that a man must endure when forced to stop an act that he previously had permission to perform?

30

Whack-a-Mole, something very similar just happened to my brother. His girlfriend started smashing up some of his furniture when he asked her to leave during an argument (they don’t live together). She finally left, and the next morning the police were at his door and he was arrested. She didn’t even press charges, or want to, but the hospital called the police in since her injuries (cut and bruised hands) occured during a “domestic dispute”. In some states, the police can press charges, even if the injured party doesn’t want to…

So yes, I think I understand where you’re coming from with some of your concerns. But what alternative are you suggesting, particularly in regard to this rape law revision?

If you agree that “no means no”, how would you write that law so as to protect the innocently accused, and at the same time not invalidate the meaning of the law itself? This is why laws are revised. This aspect of it is certainly worthy of a debate, in and of itself.

I still think you’re underestimating the point about the burden of proof. Yes, anyone can make false charges about almost anything. There might be an arrest. But again, the chance of it leading to indictment/prosecution/conviction - w/o clear strong evidence - is minute.

My brother was arrested. Charges were dropped because of lack of evidence. A bad experience for an innocent party, but what alternative do you have to offer? (I have opinions on this myself, but that would be a topic for another thread, don’t you think?)

Some of your views on rape seem a little foggy to me:

**However, the guy who wheedles his way into a woman’s bed by begging or fast talking I don’t consider a rapist. If the next morning the woman decides she was somehow unfairly coerced doesn’t make it rape. **

“Somehow unfairly coerced” in the sense you seem to be using it (fast talk, wheedling, begging) wouldn’t be a viable basis for a charge of rape.

And no, the woman can’t retroactively decide to withdraw consent (ie the next day) if it hadn’t been withdrawn at some point during the act(s) in question.

Remember though, that use of force, duress, or threats of some kind, usually negate the conditions for consent. IMHO, this is going to be the basis for the Kobe Bryant case - if the corroborating evidence proves the knowing use of force, it doesn’t matter if consent was withdrawn or not - this is the essence of the conditions for consent concept, per Colorado case law. Strong physical evidence can prove force, it’s the “knowingly” part that might be attacked by the defense. We’ll see…

State laws vary. And you’re right - some of them are vague. Some of them (IMO) are bad. If you’re interested, here’s a site that has a compilation of sexual assault laws state by state, and just about every country (handy if you travel). The focus is on the legal age of consent, but if you click the state or country, it gives broader statute info.

It SHOULD be hard to put someone in jail for rape. Rape is a capital crime carrying sentences right up there with murder and treason. I think the state needs to try really hard to ensure an innocent person doesn’t get sent to jail for life.

I completely agree.

31

There is some evidence that a large portion of rape charges may be unfounded, but to be honest, no one can accurately study that. Certainly an awful lot of them are dropped. Maybe that’s proof, maybe not. Regardless, the fact that is so easy to accuse and regardless of evidence, it can destroy a man’s life is quite frightening.

32

Part of the problem seems to be that much conduct that the law (rightly in my opinion) defines as rape many men consider fair tactics in the battle of the sexes. Illinois law also codifies that lack of resistance does not imply consent.

When I told that to a group of college males, they were outraged. One said, if they don’t resist, how are we supposed to know they don’t want it? He said this earnestly, as if this would be a regular problem for him. If all that communicated my sexual partner’s desire to have sex with me was a lack of resistance, I could not continue. I’d be concerned about him or her and also wonder about my own desirability. How could anyone routinely continue when faced with that kind of blah response?

I have not had the misfortune to be at a campus where a true “he said/she said” rape accusal/denial was going on. I have been on a campus when a female student said she was raped and reported it, but public opinion was that she should not have reported it because: [ul]
[li]The guy was a nice guy, popular athlete etc.[/li][li]She got what she should have expected what with walking by herself after dark two blocks from a concert to her dorm.[/li][li]She should be grateful someone so nice had wanted her.[/ul][/li]The facts as agreed in the court of public opinion were:[ul]
[li]She had been at a concert with her friends and began to feel quite ill. The illness was not due to drink or drugs.[/li][li]She asked that one of her friends escort her to her room, but no one would because they wanted to see the rest of the concert.[/li][li]She decided to walk to her dorm.[/li][li]This athlete encountered her, took her to a disused shuttle bus and had sex with her.[/li][li]They had not previously dated.[/ul][/li]I still don’t understand the general reaction, since no one seemed to think she would have felt up to doing anything at all. They did not seem to think that she had ever really consented, just that she should not cry rape.

Is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where this new law could apply? Imagine this: A woman and a man are going to have sex, both in the mood. As they begin, he calls her a pet name which unbeknownst to him was used by someone who was previously abusive to her. She no longer wants to have sex, and tells him to get off. She begins to struggle. At first he thinks she just playing and plays into it, but her now sobbing protests grow stronger and is he gets the message that she has changed her mind. Instead of immediately stopping, he gets mad calls her a cocktease and forcefully finishes the act using as much force as he needs to keep her in place.

33

I’m going to cry bullshit on that one. I need a cite before I’ll believe that a large number of rape charges are unfounded. So some women don’t press charges. Could that have to do with the fact that rape is hard to prove and the trial tends to damange the reputation of the woman as much (or more) as that of the man?

There is also ‘some evidence’ that a lot more rapes happen than ever get reported.

Frankly, I’m deeply disturbed that so many people in this thread assume that there are more women faking rape than real rape victims. Sure, the circumstances described here are a little different than the typical rape scenario. But it isn’t that hard to imagine a situation where a newly met friend sweet-talks a woman into bed, then starts hurting her once she’s consented.

If you guys are worried that the women you have sex with are going to have you put in jail by ‘crying rape,’ then all I can suggest is that you should stop having sex with women you don’t/can’t trust.

34

Of course that’s rape. I don’t think any one will disagree with any obvious acts of violence. The problem I think you’re seeing is in cases where a honest misunderstanding may have occured in the height of passion.

Let’s use your example with a slight change or two, bolding mine: A woman and a man are going to have sex, both in the mood. They’ve been at it for some time now and are enjoying themselves, he’s at the “the point” and quite frankly isn’t aware of anything else. ** He calls her a pet name which unbeknownst to him was used by someone who was previously abusive to her. She no longer wants to have sex, and tells him to get off. He’s honestly not aware of her displeasure.** She begins to struggle. (we haven’t defined what ‘stuggled’ encompasses…)** The additional movement ‘finishes’ him. He immediately gets off of her, when he realizes that she is now sobbing. Asks her what’s wrong.**

She tells him he raped her. Did he?

I’ll wait before I follow up.

35

Jesus Christ. I have to echo the cry of “Bullshit!” on this one.

Oh, and this?

                  "Heaven hath no rage, like love to hatred turn'd,
                  "Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman Scorned."

It was written by a man, in 1697. Update, for Christ’s sake.

36

Depends on what State/country you’re in. And, if you are married and/or living together or not (remember?)

In any case, if I were your defense attorney, I wouldn’t put you on the stand and let you say what you just wrote here. Try to imagine the jury’s reaction - your peers - something like the reaction you’ll get on this forum. Just something to think about…

37

What’s wrong with what i wrote? I took a scenario suggested by Leeand tried to make it a bit more ‘realistic’, as to how two people who are not trying hurt one another, may find themselves in this type of situation. As I don’t think I’m a-hole, I would really like to know what’s wrong with it?

Hell, maybe I am.

38

Most of the experience I, and hopefully most men present, have had with the false accusations deal with interpersonal, rather than interlegal confrontations.

I’ve never known anyone prosecuted for a rape they didn’t commit(Or personally known someone prosecuted for rape, period.), but I can recall at least ten accusations of rape carried out in public arenas, colleges and such, by women who were angry after the fact. In some cases I was a personal witness to the fact that nothing, including consentual sex, had occurred.

Invariably, I heard individuals mentioning these things, saying charges should be pressed, so-and-so should be kicked out of school, or so-and-so’s new boyfriend is going to get together with his pals and beat the snot out of her ex because he’s an abusive rapist.

I understand, now in hindsight, that nothing would have been legally likely to happen, given my forays into more sophisticated circles than old school chums. There were some guys sweating bullets over it in college and HS though.

IOW, while I personally have no issue with the law, I can understand the fear that it may be misused. I have greater doubt that it could be, but I understand.

39

This is just the point! It is the accusation that is horrible. Even if in the end nothing comes of it and the guy goes free. Imagine a firend of yours calls you from jail asking you to bail him out because he wahs just arrested for rape. Assume he is toally innocent do you think it won’t matter to him? If this law makes it easier to level the accusation then I think it is a bad law. If the woman makes the accusation but evidence is lacking do the police arrest anyway and then let the DA/courts figure it out? She says, “I told him to stop.” He says, “I never heard her say anything of the sort.” Are the police still obliged to arrest the guy and leave it for the courts to figure out?

I think it would be interesting to know how many times an accusation of rape has been levelled because the woman withdrew consent during sex but the guy continued anyway. Of those where enough other evidence existed to prove her case beyond a he said/she said and of those cases where the guy was found innocent because the law wasn’t clear on consent being revoked and the guy continuing constituting rape. If it is a he said/she said before or after this law it is doubtful the guy would be successfully prosecuted. If enough evidence existed to prove the case I am still not convinced the guy would be off the hook even prior to this law. In short, does anyone have a sense of how many more rapists will now be brought to justice that previosuly would have walked?

My sense of the above is the new law will catch few, if any, more rapists than prior to the law being passed. The law is a political feel-good piece of legislation that will do little if any good at all. If anything, the law can do more harm than good by lowering the bar on what is needed to level a charge of rape at someone. Merely having the charge laid at someone’s feet is a BIG deal even if in the end the guy is found innocent.

If my views on rape seem a bit foggy it is because they are a bit foggy. There are black-and-white cases of rape that are simple to decide but I believe there are more complex gray areas where determining if rape has been committed is difficult to assess. I have real problems when I see some rape numbers being bandied about. I have seen it said that 3 out of 4 women will be raped in their lifetime. Huh? Maybe if the definition of rape is extremely broad but I don’t agree with the broader definitions. There have been times when both I and my partner were drunk and alcohol almost certainly was a contributing factor to us having sex. I did not get the woman drunk to have sex anymore than she got me drunk to have sex. Yet there are some who would claim I took advantage of her and equate me to a rapist (why isn’t the woman just as guilty as I am in this instance?). I know many women…some very close…and I can say without equivocation that 75% of them don’t claim to have been raped. Or even 15% of them (a few have been however so I’m not suggesting it doesn’t happen).

I know these gray areas have been used to defend creeps and they’ve succeeded at it but to close the loopholes and catch those creeps you start turning those gray areas more and more black and white where truth and responsibility still remain gray. When does it happen that I get sent to jail for rape because my girlfriend and I got drunk and had sex?

40

Ok, this does it for me. I used to think that having her sign a notarized affidavit of consent was enough but now I will refuse to have sex with fewer than three women so that I may have witnesses. Furthermore, the whole proceedings shall be videotaped in case there is any question as to what happened. You can never be too prudent.