Assuming it does come down to two people with opposing stories, it gets resolved in the same way any other such case does- based on the credibility of the two people. Just like if she says she never consented, and he says she did. Or if I report that someone robbed me of cash at gunpoint, pick someone out of a lineup and the person denies it.
And the reason I say assuming it does come down to that is that your can never overestimate how stupid people can be- I can easily imagine the man in such a case saying at some point to someone (a friend or even the police) something along the lines of “She didn’t have a right to change her mind”
Originally posted by cole burner:
I think in her mind it was about consent. She would never consent to being with me because I had a girlfriend. Because I promised to break up with the girlfriend, she consented. Then when I didn’t break up with the girlfriend, it meant that I had got her cosent under false pretenses, thus = rape.
Thanks for addressing that - very enlightening. A very unfortunate idea about consent on her part. It’s very generous of you to allow that she might have had a perception problem, instead of only being (understandably) angry about the false accusation.
She was lucky to escape charges - I hope she at least realised that at some point (hmm - we hardly ever hear directly from “rehabilitated” false accusers, either). Did the experience change your attitude toward women? (you don’t sound negative or bitter at all)
My lawyer said I could sue her but since her and her family was not wealthy, it wouldn’t do a lot of good, she had no money to make a lawsuit worthwhile. He said he would do it, but we would have to give him a $5000 retainer and he couldn’t guarantee we would even get that back if we won. He would have done it for less if the police had actually gotten a conviction for false reporting but they only made her get counseling and dropped the charges, so he said we would have to have a full trial on if she lied or not, her sister would not be cooperative, etc.
Sorry again - that just sucks. Civil suits are rarely feasable in these situations, from what I’ve heard so far. I didn’t like the the way the State handled this case either - I wouldn’t doubt it happens more often than people realise. You deserved better - I hope that karma has come back to you since then.
Originally posted by sleeping:
**Then there is the financial burden. I’m not sure if the bond money is refundable, but the lawyer’s fee certainly isn’t (as evidenced by cole burner’s post). $3000 (and it could be more) is a lot for most people and that money is lost forever.
And aren’t there be foundations that help people deal with rape, as well as foundations that help victims that have been falsely accused?
I would appreciate any info.**
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 many rape crisis orgs, private and govt funded. 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, a jailhouse lawyer:
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:
You can’t possibly codify something like that. And I’d say that if it takes the guy 2 seconds to pull out, he’s not likely to get charged with rape anyway. Perhaps these two stories will clarify the reasons for the law a bit. Both stories use the word “immediately,” which is obviously not a defined length of time. Again from both stories, the law was inspired by a California Supreme Court ruling that a man who continued to have sex with a woman who withdrew consent, although it doesn’t say how long he took to stop either.
As others have said, doing this was really already illegal; the Illinois legislature has said they just wanted the law to be clear.
Highly doubtful, and at best I doubt this would account for more than a miniscule fraction of cases.
I don’t think it needs to say anything about that issue because that would be decided in a trial.
Bwaa? That url sure came out weird. (The term I searched for was “rape.”)
The two stories I read at Stateline.org are here (from the AP) and over here (from the Sun-Times).
Arg again. What I meant was “The law was inspired by a California Supreme Court ruling that a man who continued to have sex with a woman who withdrew consent was guilty of rape, although it doesn’t say how long he took to stop either.” To turn this into a race against the clock is probably to miss the main (and, admittedly, pre-existing idea) that just because a woman consents to sex does not mean she has no right to ask him to stop.
The Illinois law on sexual assault is written in gender neutral terms, exactly how is it sexist?
Just out of curiosity is it even possible to rape a man? By ‘possible’ I mean in a legal sense. Is it possible for a woman to get a life sentence in prison for raping a man? I’m just curious if the possibility exists in both directions equally…not a discussion on how men are FAR more likely to be sexual predators.
This may seem silly but I have a nagging notion that ‘rape’ as legally defined cannot be applied to men. Sexual assault, sexual battery maybe (are they the same thing as rape?).
Whack-a-Mole, yes, it is very possible to rape a man. Not only do men rape other men, but it would be very possible for a woman to rape a man, either simply through force, or by the use of drugs, bondage, or force of numbers. Erections do not imply consent, either; the mere fact that a man has a hard-on does not mean he wants sex.
Note also that Illinois has no “rape” statute; it’s called “criminal sexual assault” and covers any unwanted genital contact regardless of the sex of the contactor or contactee. A woman who gives a sleeping man an unwanted blowjob commits criminal sexual assault just as much as a man who vaginally pentrates a woman without her consent. Legally, the offense of “rape” does not exist in Illinois; this was done (as it was in most states) to help eject the traditional (and harmful) baggage that goes along with the term “rape”, including the myth that women cannot rape men.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
First, the legislation was sponsored by a relatively conservative Republican man.
Second, it was approved unanimously in both legislative chambers _ and the Illinois Legislature is hardly a hotbed of radical feminism.
Third, it in no way assumes “women are always victims and men are always scoundrels.” It simply assumes that every person has a right to choose whether or not to have sex. If someone _ of either gender _ has a change of heart, the partner must stop. To continue after someone has said no is rape. The law simply makes that clear to any judge or jury who might be inclined to see a legal “out” where none was intended.
Here is the addition to the sexual assault law, in its entirety:
© A person who initially consents to sexual penetration or sexual conduct is not deemed to have consented to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual penetration or sexual conduct.
I can imagine scenarios in which a woman might be charged with rape under this law, although that seems extremely unlikely.
I understand the somewhat greater potential for false accusations against men. I also see tremendous potential for defense attorneys to shred women on the witness stand if a case of this type came to trial. Defense attorneys already go after the sexual histories of women who claim rape and say they never consented at all; imagine the picture they could draw of a woman who gave consent and then withdrew it.
By the way, if memory serves the kid in the California rape case that inspired this law kept going for about 90 seconds after the girl said no.
There are only three basic defense strategies to a charge of rape:
- The act never happened;
- It happened, but she consented; and what we in the criminal bar often cynically called the SODDI defense:
- It happened, but someone else was responsible. (Some Other Dude Did It).
Under ordinary circumstances, you look to the evidence and the victim to see what direction things might go. If there is physical evidence of sex, #1 is out. If there is no physical abuse, bruising, etc, then you may be able to argue consent. If there is no sereological evidence, then #3 is possible. And so forth…
Rape shield laws generally prevent you from arguing that the jury should infer consent in this case because you can show that the victim consented to sex with others in similar situations.
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.
- Rick
How could you show consent, or for that matter, if there’s no physical evidence of force, how do you show withdrawn consent? Doesn’t that mean it comes down to he said-she said?
In an earlier post you said:
I understand your main point (I think!) about less ambiguity, but I don’t see how that really favours the prosecution as fact if there’s no physical evidence to support it. It’s still he said-she said, and that supposedly doesn’t favour the prosecution. What am I missing?
I think Bricker is just saying that the prosecution is not going to argue the woman never consented in these cases.
I think he’s saying what favors the prosecution is that IF - and obviously it’s a big if - it can be demonstrated that the plaintiff withdrew consent during sex after previously giving it, the act of continuing is definitely criminal. It can’t be argued that it was OK for the defendant to continue on the grounds that there was initial consent because it is now specifically illegal to do so.
Marley23, I see what you’re saying, but I’m thinking of the negative perception the jury might have if the idea of consent is put forth by the prosecutor.
Remember in the Kobe thread, when you used the “walking naked into the hotel room” argument and said it shouldn’t matter? Well, you’re right, according to the spirit of the law. But from what I’ve read by trial lawyers, that image is the last thing they want to give to the jury.
So I’m trying to figure out what the new trial strategies might be in regard to this revision (on both sides).
here cums everybody…
–Humphrey C. Earwicker
Has he hegemony and shall she submit?
And remember that golden silence gives consent, Mr Anklegazer!
Cease to be civil, learn to say nay! Whisht!
Come here, Herr Studiosus, till I tell you a wig in your ear.
Now you see! Respect. S.V.P.
–Your wife. Amn. Anm. Amm. Ann.
:rolleyes:
Ha, I don’t know what I am talking about, but yet, you start off with two non-sequiturs.
So-called “rape shield laws”, where the alleged “victim” is protected from being recognized in the press, while the alleged rapist is not protected, is a de facto assumption that women are always victims and men are always scoundrels.
Now, care to address the scenerio?
Ha, I don’t know what I am talking about, but yet, you start off with two non-sequiturs.
So-called “rape shield laws”, where the alleged “victim” is protected from being recognized in the press, while the alleged rapist is not protected, is a de facto assumption that women are always victims and men are always scoundrels.
Now, care to address the scenerio?
No, he should not be financially responsible, although he would have to prove that the situation happened as it did, which would be very difficult. I’m not sure if it would be considered rape under this law.
Uh, Razorsharp, the reason for rape shield laws is to prevent defense attorneys from introducing irrelevant but prejudicial facts at trials. This is because defense attorneys are scoundrels who have no concern whatsoever for whether their clients are guilty or not, and will do or say anything they are allowed to in order to get their clients off, even if that means ruining the life and reputation of the victim.
Rape shield laws have nothing with creating victim classes; they are there to ensure a fair trial and to protect an already identified victim from further abuse.
Does anyone remember the William Kennedy Smith case? A more perfect example of how frail rape shield laws are could not be found. Smith was defended by Roy Black, who never explicitly went into the victim’s past, but still managed to work in a portrait of her as some kind of unstable social climber. Profiles done by The New York Times of both victim and accused were instructive in how far we haven’t come. The victim’s ‘little wild streak’ was discussed, as were her speeding tickets, her mother’s jump in social standing upon her second marriage, and her own drinking. Most of this came from ‘anonymous sources,’ a pattern that was subsequently abandoned for Smith’s profile. The article about Smith read like a celebrity piece, not something about an accused rapist. Funny, while the victim’s past was fair game, the accused’s never is. Smith’s driving record, his father’s social climbing, his sexual past, and his drinking were not mentioned during a piece done on him by the same paper. The defense attorney later married one of the jurors from the trial, though he denied they were involved at the time of the trial. This juror, Lea Haller, led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations. One has to wonder where she got her information.
You still don’t know what you’re talking about.
My supposed non-sequiturs were demonstrating that this law is not the product of some fringe group of wild-eyed feminists. They directly addressed your mischaracterizations of the law’s origin.
Second, shield laws don’t “shield” the accuser/victim’s identity from the public. They keep her past sexual history from being brought up in court, at least theoretically. In other words, they keep the defense from turning the proceedings into a trial of the accuser/victim.
Finally, what about your scenario? Your questions dealt with paternity and child support, not rape. They seem pointless to this discussion. For what it’s worth, I think the man in that situation would be morally free from parental obligations. Whether he would be legally free of such obligations I have no idea.