Law Needs New Category of Sexual Assault

[Superfly]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95069,00.html

Pretty sensible article

I'm not going to cut and paste, but feel free to read it yourself! :toast:

[sangh0]

1. Yeah, right

Pretty sensible article

[Superfly]

2. OK...what was not sensible?

Just wondering because your post did not expound beyond "Yeah, right"

[sangh0]

4. I have no desire to

explain the obvious to the oblivious, but I will give you a hint: Consider the source. Always consider the source

[Superfly]

5. No need to get snippy

This is a pretty sensible article, and no, I am not oblivious.

[sangh0]

9. Not sensible at all

Consider the source

[sangh0]

11. And there is a need to get "snippy"

I believe that the social disapproval bigoted comments get in public has had a beneficial effect on racial relations. Behavior like that should be met with disapproval. IMO, people who believe FAUX News deserve the same sort of social disapproval.

[Superfly]

16. Disagree with me...that's fine

but there is no need to get snippy.

I'm am completly lost on where you are coming from with racial relationships. This is an article about rape.

[sangh0]

19. You said something about getting snippy

I have lost patience for those who still, after the obvious bias of FAUX has been demonstrated time and time again, think that FAUX's "information" might be reasonable. IMO, the way to deal with people who cannot be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence of bias is with social disapproval, and not by showing them yet more evidence of bias.

FAUX News lies about how Bush* stole an election, they lie about how Bush* lied about the Iraqi "threat", they lied about Bush* links to Enron and Ken Lay, they lie about all things Bush*, and STILL you think they might be "reasonable"?

And I haven't even gotten to the actual lies in the article itself. What does it take to convince you that FAUX is not reasonable? Nothing that comes from them should be considered "reasonable". It's foolish to grant any of the "information" they provide any legitimacy or credibility.

[Superfly]

14. I have considered the source

and I think this is a sensible article.

[sangh0]

20. No you haven't

If you did just a halfway decent job of considering FAUX's bias, then you would come to the conclusion that there is nothing "reasonable" about them.

[tuck]

10. every reason to get snippy

this might be a much more serious matter for others than it is for you.

[Superfly]

13. It's very serious to me

how do you know if it's more or less serious to me than to others?

[tuck]

21. you have obviously never been in this position....

.... or you wouldn't have this view.

i would say victims of sexual assault prolly take this a bit more seriously.

BTW, did you actually read this article? because it says and assumes some pretty inflammatory stuff.....

[Superfly]

24. Oh, so now I have to be raped

to take rape seriously?

[tuck]

25. i did not say that

but calling this article "reasonable" is a slap in the face of every one everywhere who has been sexually assaulted in this way.

it happens. it doesn't hurt any less.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I wouldn't object to this further classification as to degrees

rahter than categories.

I would suggest degrees of rape instead of separate categories as RAPE IS RAPE the same way murder and manslughter are murder and manslaughter.

I do, however, have some tripidation that a more violent rapist will be able to plead down a charge.

I also think that the mistake the author makes is to fail to consider that the charges of rape where violence is concerned are usually accompanied by charges of battery and other various charges so that renders her classification a bit moot.

I also think that she trumps up the incentive for false charges as they are no more prevalent than in other crimes. There is no more incentive to plead false charges of rape than any other crime.

Finally her suggestion that it forces a defendent to make an affirmative defense of consensual sex is baloney since even in charges of violent rape, if DNA is present a defendent will make such a defense..so her logic is fuzzy. But I would exppect nothing less from an author who wrote an article entitled "Why I would not vote against Hitler"


<snip>

WHY I WOULD NOT VOTE
by Wendy McElroy
At the last Liberty conference in September '95, an intellectual brawl erupted during a panel discussion on terrorism.

Since I consider electoral politics to be the milk-toast equivalent of terrorism, my opening statement as a panel member was a condemnation of voting. My arguments were aimed at LP members who consider themselves to be anarchists, yet who jump to their feet in ebullient applause upon hearing that a fellow libertarian wants to be a politician.

In the two raucous hours that ensued, a question was posed to me: "If you could have cast the deciding vote against Hitler, would you have done so?" I replied, "No, but I would have no moral objection to putting a bullet through his skull." In essence, I adopted a stronger line -- a 'plumb-line' as Benjamin Tucker phrased it -- on eliminating Hitler as a threat.

I consider such a bullet to be an act of self-defense in a manner that a ballot could never be. The difference is that a bullet can be narrowly aimed at a deserving target; a ballot attacks innocent third parties who must endure the consequences of the politician I have assisted into a position of unjust power over their lives. Whoever puts a man into a position of unjust power -- that is, a position of political power -- must share responsibility for every right he violates thereafter.

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/hitler.htm

On edit: Perhaps the thread starter did not know he was using a regular contributor to the NATIONAL REVIEW to make his point.

[patcox2]

7. Funny you should say that "murder is murder"

And "manslaughter is manslaughter," because murder and manslaughter are in fact different "categories" of homicide. Do you really think there is a difference between a "degree" and a "category"? They are just arbitrary labels given to justify different punishments for different actions.

And that is indeed what they ought to do with "rape." There is a huge difference between accosting a person in public and dragging them off and forcibly raping them, on the one hand, and merely continuing to have sex after being asked to stop even though you had permission to start. Yet under current law, and in the warped and brainwashed views of many, one is just as bad as the other. I don't care if its Fox that says it, its just wrong to treat those two situations the same, and there are dozens of other scenarios that likewise should not be considered on a par with forcible sexual assault.

As a practical matter, there would be more convictions in cases of date rape and the kobe scenario (the old "he had permission for one hole but not the other") if the law permitted a distinction.

The fact is that the crime of rape is a vestige of sexist paternalism, an institutionalized version of the double standard (you remember the double standard, men who do it are cool, women who do it are tramps). The severe penalty for rape (the only crime considered as serious as murder) is not imposed as punishment for the physical sexual act, its punishment for turning the woman into a tramp, slut, whore, all the things women were considered in our sexist society for having or enjoying sex. Its a sexist law intrinsically and in its application. Writing it in gender nuetral terms changes nothing.

By the way, here's another great example of how the crime of rape is drastic overkill as currently defined and applied. Recently, an appellate court in my home state upheld a conviction for aggravated rape (defined as an act of penetration performed on a minor) against a man who, in an internet chat room, told a minor to penetrate herself with her finger. The court held that this was the equivalent of penetrating the girl himself, and he was sentenced accordingly, which under our law means he was subject to the same sentence range as if he had dragged her off and raped her.

At least now we know, under this logic, cyber-sex is definitely cheating.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. I wasn't disagreeing merely heading off the cry for a CATEGORY

versus a DEGREE of charge at the outset...the ultimate goal of some is to UNDO rape sheild laws. I argue for a degree rather than a separate category as I wish to see rape shield laws remain applicable.

I am all for a lesser degree of rape in the event that the victim originally consented in that it accomplishes what I want and what men want.

Men don't want to be categorized for life for a charge that began when they originally had enough relationship present to get started.

I don't want a man walking around who does not understand that NO MEANS NO..no matter when. Therefore, punishments would be assessed according to the crime.

As far as conviction rates of date rape is concerned I am not certain I agree with you as to the reasoning since statistics demonstrate that the charges are sought according to the emphasis placed on the crime by law enforcement agencies and follow up of date rape charges is poor. The conviction rates for ALL rapes is low compared to other crime categories.

Finally. as regards your categorization of rape being the only crime equivalent to murder...I think you are wrong there..kidnapping and child molestation seem to fit the bill and there is no statute of limitations on tax evasion...so what measure are you using to claim such?


BTW I am gone for the day after this post so if you respond...I am not ignoring your response.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Well...I disagree with the CASC.

I find their decision to be horribly unfortunate.

[tuck]

8. um ... no.

when a woman (or a man, for that matter) says stop, that means stop.

i don't fucking care about any extenuating circumstances.

plus the fact that this whole aarticle is build on the "women who accuse men of rape are lying" premise.

this is by no means sensible.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. oh jeez, here we go again...

Didn't we just have a 350+ post thread on this a week or two ago?

No means no, whether it's before or during penetration.

No..........means.............NO.

[MaineDem]

17. Nope...no means no whenever it's said

I think it's ironic - probably the wrong word but the only one I can think of right now - that on the same page and to the right of this article is this:

Move Over Viagra — The little blue pill is about to face some stiff competition. Will a rival drug deflate Pfizer's profits?

This infuriates me so I better not say any more.

Edited for a dumb typo

[Superfly]

18. What infuriates you? Viagra?

N/T

[tuck]

23. how about the fact that....

you can freakin' get a prescription for viagra covered by health insurance, but not birth control.

message: men's pleasure is more important that womens' health

that is pretty fucking infuriating

[MaineDem]

26. That's basically it

Viagara is available but where can I get something healthy to stop these damned hot flashes?!

And the idea that saying no to sexual intercourse comes in degrees. Blows my mind.

[HFishbine]

22. Like what

"Sexual tresspass?"

[Fescue4u]

27. Wow, thats ridiculous

Its absurb to suggest that the first half of a sex act is consenual, while the 2nd half is rape.

I agree its trivializes rape.

What next? its rape if the woman changes her mind the night after?