Posted on 01/06/2003 6:33:57 PM PST by RCW2001
Monday, January 6, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/01/06/national2027EST0776.DTL
(01-06) 17:27 PST SAN FRANCISCO (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.
©2003 Associated Press
Are you suggesting all boys who have premarital sex should go to prison for six months if the girl's parents find out? Personally I prefer Exodus 22:16 (wonder how society would be different if it were still common practice?)
Since this is an appeals court case, the most damning evidence the prosecution has is regarded as fact; the nature of the appeal is, essentially, "Even if everything the prosecution alleges is true, the defendant's actions would not merit the charged faced." The only way the girl's utterances "I should be going now" and "I need to go home" would be relevant would be if they were the strongest requests (verbal or physical) she made that the boy stop. And frankly, the notion that a girl who was raped for 90 seconds wouldn't come up with something more emphatic than "I need to go home" is absurd.
Enticed, perhaps, but not with any intention of entrapment. If the girl wanted to get this guy in trouble she'd come up with some better lines in court than "I should be going now" or "I need to go home". Only way this makes any sense if if her parents (or someone else other than the girl) is pushing it.
Yes.
Unless the facts of the case have not been presented accurately in the thread, I would say the California Supreme Court has made a terribly unjust decision.
How on earth am I supposed to teach my sons to respect women if I also have to explain to them how evil and deceitful so many of them are?
"I should be going now". Now means NOW, not later, not tomorrow, N-O-W! Followed by 'I need to go home'. Looks like she was politely asking him to stop so she could leave. The 90 second delay was probably because he had to have his Big-O before he'd stop, so he probably didn't hear her mention her need to go home now. jmo
Not if she were relatively inexperienced in how to 'end' the situation. In the future she will probably be more clear and the word STOP comes to mind.
This story is notable, if for nothing else, for the dearth of facts about what actually happened. I looked the case up at www.courtinfo.cal.gov and have posted the "Facts" section from the Supreme Court decision below. The facts are quite different from what the newspaper article claims and may change a few opinions (in both directions).
People v. John Z. (PDF document)
People v. John Z. (WORD document)
On one hand, there was more than sufficient information for both boys to understand that the issue of consent was in question. On the other hand, any girl that tells you that she was on top of the boy for "four or five minutes" and tried to pull out but was unable to do so, is a 24-karat, gold plated, bald faced, liar. As bad as this recitation of facts is, it still does not offer any testimony by the girl saying that she told either boy "no" or "stop" at any time.FACTS The following facts are largely taken from the Court of Appeal opinion in this case. During the afternoon of March 23, 2000, 17-year-old Laura T. was working at Safeway when she received a call from Juan G., whom she had met about two weeks earlier. Juan wanted Laura to take him to a party at defendant’s home and then return about 8:30 p.m. to pick him up. Laura agreed to take Juan to the party, but since she planned to attend a church group meeting that evening she told him she would be unable to pick him up.Sometime after 6:00 p.m., Laura drove Juan to defendant’s residence. Defendant and Justin L. were present. After arranging to have Justin L.’s stepbrother, P. W., buy them alcohol, Laura picked up P. W. and drove him to the store where he bought beer. Laura told Juan she would stay until 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. Although defendant and Juan drank the beer, Laura did not.
During the evening, Laura and Juan went into defendant’s parents’ bedroom. Juan indicated he wanted to have sex but Laura told him she was not ready for that kind of activity. Juan became upset and went into the bathroom. Laura left the bedroom and both defendant and Justin asked her why she "wouldn’t do stuff." Laura told them that she was not ready.
About 8:10 p.m., Laura was ready to leave when defendant asked her to come into his bedroom to talk. She complied. Defendant told her that Juan had said he (Juan) did not care for her; defendant then suggested that Laura become his girlfriend. Juan entered the bedroom and defendant left to take a phone call.
When defendant returned to the bedroom, he and Juan asked Laura if it was her fantasy to have two guys, and Laura said it was not. Juan and defendant began kissing Laura and removing her clothes, although she kept telling them not to. At some point, the boys removed Laura’s pants and underwear and began "fingering" her, "playing with [her] boobs" and continued to kiss her. Laura enjoyed this activity in the beginning, but objected when Juan removed his pants and told defendant to keep fingering her while he put on a condom. Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura’s struggling, the condom fell off. Laura told Juan that "maybe it’s a sign we shouldn’t be doing this," and he said "fine" and left the room. (Although Juan G. was originally a codefendant, at the close of the victim’s testimony he admitted amended charges of sexual battery (§ 243.4) and unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor.)
Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so. Defendant, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and "he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed." Laura did not say anything and defendant began kissing her and telling her that she had "a really beautiful body." Defendant got on top of Laura, put his penis into her vagina "and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him." Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, will you be my girlfriend." Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this." After about 10 minutes, defendant got off Laura, and helped her dress and find her keys. She then drove home.
On cross-examination, Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, "just give me a minute," and she said, "no, I need to get home." He replied, "give me some time" and she repeated, "no, I have to go home." Defendant did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me." After about a "minute, minute and [a] half," defendant got off Laura.
Defendant testified, admitting that he and Juan were kissing and fondling Laura in the bedroom, but claimed it was with her consent. He also admitted having sexual intercourse with Laura, again claiming it was consensual. He claimed he discontinued the act as soon as Laura told him that she had to go home.
Regards,
Boot Hill
Even if she doesn't say she changed her mind?
I'm also female and I agree with you. By all accounts, this was his "first" time and not hers.
Too bad he didn't wait for his wedding. Perhaps now he will. I'd say he learned his lesson the hard way.
Juan indicated he wanted to have sex but Laura told him she was not ready for that kind of activity.
Laura told them that she was not ready.
She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina.
Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this."
Its seems to me that this was a girl who wanted to be "cool", liked by guys and not considered a "prude". She wanted to fool around or do who knows what. Her desire to be "cool" stopped her from making correct, prudent decisions, if her desire was truly to not have sex with the guys. She already admitted that two guys asked "why wont you do stuff?". Her going into the bedroom with them, after already knowing what they wanted,in my mind, says she was afraid of not being cool and essentially consented to be "cool"(or is completely lying). She probably in hind site realized she had done something she wished she hadn't and maybe really didn't want to deep down inside. Her story was shaky and its obviuos that her parents pushed this prosecution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.