redman Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 What an absolutely stupid decision. From CNN.com: Calif. court: Rape begins with 'no'SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) --The California Supreme Court defined rape Monday as continued sexual intercourse by a man after his female partner demands that it stop. The 7-0 decision reverses a 1985 ruling by a lower court. "This opinion is significant. It appears the California Supreme Court has clearly rejected an opportunity to revisit past barriers to rape convictions," said Douglas Beloof, an attorney with the National Crime Victim Law Institute. The 2000 case involved two 17-year-olds who had sex in a bedroom during a party. The boy testified that the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded. She testified the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she called it off. The boy was convicted of rape and served about six months in a juvenile facility. The high court affirmed that conviction Monday. Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty. She wrote that the girl never clearly said stop, instead saying "I should be going now" and "I need to go home." Brown also wondered how much time a man has to stop once a woman says stop. "Ten seconds? Thirty?" she wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Boy does that open up loopholes. What if the person is passed out and cant say no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 c'mon kilmer, that's pretty obvious. i doubt that this ruling would undo all of the decisions that determine exactly what condition a woman must be in for sex to be concentual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Obviousness and common sense dont apply in court rulings. I havent read the decision, but if it describes rape as "continuing after the demand to stop" that's pretty specific. No demand to stop would mean no rape. Terrible ruling, but that's what has been coming out of that court for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Ummm, how do you know what decisions have been coming out of the California Supreme Court "for years now"? The Court has six Republicans and one Democrat on it. It is considered moderate on civil matters and tough on crime. It is probably the most respected state supreme court in the nation. Some of these decisions are a lot tougher to decide than they are to criticize with pithy sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 In haste I didnt look at the court. I assumed it was the 9th Circuit court of appeals. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Obviousness and common sense dont apply in court rulings. I havent read the decision, but if it describes rape as "continuing after the demand to stop" that's pretty specific. No demand to stop would mean no rape. This case takes the cake. I would agree with your statement above whole heartedly. The problem is, as was pointed out by the dissent, the girl in question never said "Stop". She said that she had to get going and it was time for her to go home. One of the justices in her dissent stated that although she agreed with the majority, the girl never said no. What kind of ludicrous precedent does this set? How would you like, or your son for that matter, to be charged with Rape under this opinion if the girl in question stated that she had to go to the dry cleaners before they closed? That is exactly what kind of precedent this could set. Amazing :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I don't know how this is incorrect in any way? The California Supreme Court has been a pretty good group. It ruled gun manufacturers can't be sued if someone uses one of their products illegally. That alone gives it credibility in my eyes. I don't know a great number of cases from this court, but, I've never heard it slammed. I also know California is an at-will work state and some terminated employee/s sued saying they had an implied contract or something and the court told them to go take a hike. And, the best of all, I know the California Court upheld a law disallowing race or sex based hiring practices, essentially ending Affirmative Action in that state. These are great things. Until I see something different, I'll tip my hat to the California Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Art, For the most part the Cal. Sup. Ct. has been, in the recent past, in line with most of the Country (except for the ninth circuit court of appeals, they're just way off). Every now and then, however, they come up with an opinion like this that sets what they have done over the short term back a few steps. This opinion is one of them. Now, to be fair, I have not read the opinion in full, but I have read some excerpts (if they have been fairly reproduced). The problem here is that Rape is a specific intent crime and it becomes criminal behavior based upon a SUBJECTIVE view point of the victim. Did she or did she not rebuke the advance and actually communicate that the encounter was unwanted (saying "no"). This is where the traditional lines of what constitutes a crime and what does not have been blurred by this opinion. If the excerpted potions of the opinion I have seen are indeed correct, then this is very poor logic indeed. As I stated above, one of the dissenting justices pointed out specifically that the girl did not say "no". She said that "it was about time for her to get going" and "she had to go home". Now does this mean to a normal, rational person that any activity that you are currently engaged in must cease at that nanosecond in time? This is certainly debateable. Her own testimony states that the activity carried on for about 90 seconds after she stated she had to go home. When does the withdrawl of consent occurr here? She said yes to begin with and never communicated her intention to withdraw that consent and this boy is going to serve prison time over that! I don't have a problem with someone being charged with a crime when they are aware that their actions are criminal. I just can't see how a court can decide that "I have to get going now" or "I have to go home" as an absolute withdrawal of consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 56, Understand, I don't believe in the application of the law. But, take that up with the jury here. This law seems appropriate. If a woman says no and a man keeps banging her, he's probably raping. I believe the subjective nature of the case in question would automatically make for reasonable doubt. I don't know how the jury convicted. But, that's on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I agree with you Art that the subjective nature of the evidence was certainly a jury question and I have no idea what the jury instructions entailed but, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction based upon something. What that was I can't say off the top of my head. Tell you what, before I go spouting off at the mouth too much I'll find that case and post it here for all to read and make a well informed opinion of the matter. It very well could be that I am basing my opinion on what I have read through the media, and as I have learned in the past, that is not necessarily the smartest thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Here is the link for the case out of the California Supreme Court. It is in .pdf form so I could not post it. Read the opinion and discuss. I don't know how to hyperlink this, maybe someone who does can put this into hyperlink form. WARNING: This opinion is graphic in nature!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 After having read the opinion, I find that the media portrayal of this case was not exactly brilliant. There are more facts surrounding this case than was reported. Art, I will admit that my original thoughts on this were wrong. At the time I made the post above, foolishly, I had not read the entire opinion. There was obviously more to the story than I was aware of. However, this case arose out of a juvenile court. There was no jury and the level of proof in a juvenile court, while still beyond a reasonable doubt, is measured by a juvenile cout judge. I still have a problem with the subjective nature of the facts of this case and not having a standard in which to compare this type of action for future precedent. I still think this will only serve to cloud the issue in the future because the court refused to delineate exactly what constitutes "continuation" and "force" in the context of this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 I haven't read the opinion yet. However, what's funny is that the liberals who are celebrating this ruling are the same ones who are chanting, "Keep the government out of the bedroom!" when it comes to abortion, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Soma cases are harder than they appear at first sound bite. This is one of them. I'm not sure that there is a perfect answer to this problem, or that we can even tell from the cold written record exactly what evidence was presented to the jury. I'm glad I didn't have to decide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by redman I haven't read the opinion yet. However, what's funny is that the liberals who are celebrating this ruling are the same ones who are chanting, "Keep the government out of the bedroom!" when it comes to abortion, etc. Although, I think you would find that both parties have been pretty consistent about protecting woman's "rights". Its the "rights" that cause the arguments a lot though. This was a tough case - because it seemed like it was a he said/she said case. As is the case for a lot of rapes. Just saw Minority Report the other day - lets hope we never get to the stage of that - not that "pre-crime" cognition will ever be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Boy does that open up loopholes. What if the person is passed out and cant say no? The best I understand it. If a person is unable to speak due to some form of incapacitation (drugs, alcohol, etc.) there is no concent, and the assumed response to sex would be no. So if someone has sex with a passed out woman, they could be charged with rape, and that charge would stick. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.