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
Actually, you are the one who is trying to escape the truth of this situation. All justices, except one, agreed with the girl and that she was raped and the boy has served his sentence. If you have a problem regarding the actual truth of the fact-finding as overseen by the court system, then perhaps you should write the justices and make your grievance known to them.
Well, harpseal....I would say that if this girl wasn't 'really' raped and just wanted to be a "b!tch" - as someone else on the thread commented earlier....that perhaps she could have just lied and said she said the word "stop", instead of putting herself through the type of scrutiny that has been brought up on this thread over a single word.
That's a nice non sequitur -- now would you care to actually address the point that Harpseal actually made?
If she was lying about the whole idea that she was raped; I doubt if lying over the fact if she said a particular word or not would not have been an issue to her.
Apparently not...
By my reading, both sides agree that the girl's efforts to make the boy stop were essentially limitted to the utterances "I should be going now" and "I need to go home"; the article doesn't make clear the time between these statements, but suggests that both sides agree intercourse continued for about 90 seconds after the first was issued. The issue before the court is whether the utterance of such statements is sufficient for a girl to revoke her consent.
If this were a 'he said/she said', and she'd claimed she told him clearly and unambiguously to "STOP IT!" there would have been no basis for appeal. The defense's appeal here is on the basis that even if every fact claimed by the prosecution were true the conduct alleged would not merit the prescribed charge.
Another example: your grandmother's sagely advice is now dismissed as "old wives tales", "anecdotal evidence", "urban legend". A year or so ago, I read about one of those governement funded scientific studies that concluded after much sweat an thousands or millions of dollars, that indeed, an apple a day does keep the doctor away (I kid you not!) I am sick of lawyers, halfwitted judges and sociologists, defining for us what's right and wrong. Given a choice, I'll go to a humble parish priest to hear some age old wisdom, thank you.
I mean, just logically.. common sense says at that point it would take a few seconds to confirm what was said and to be sure it was understood correctly. Probably the LAST thing you would expect to hear is "STOP"
Electronics have a response time measured in microseconds, not people.. be they male or female.
From the facts presented, it seems unjust.
What a stupid statement. I suppose he wouldn't have understood "Get away from me, you jerk" either.
He probably *would* have understood that one because that (very different) announcement would have actually been a clearer statement of her alleged meaning.
However, after getting the woman's clear consent to sex (and after having engaged in it a while with her voluntary assistance), he probably took her actual statements of "I should be going now" and "I need to go home" in exactly the way *I* would take it (and I'm no young pup): As meaning, "we need to hurry up and finish, I'm short on time".
In no *way* would I interpret either "I should be going now" or "I need to go home" as meaning "stop this very instant" or "you're raping me, you asshole".
However, *EVEN SO* -- despite her poor communication skills -- the boy apparently got the message after a bit (probably by her attitude if not her words) and then stopped. (From the article: "The boy testified that the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded.") It is not disputed that he *did* stop. The only dispute (more like "confusion") appears to be over the point where the girl actually did "demand" that it stop (as opposed to making unclear statements about needing to go home soon).
As another poster pointed out, since the sex up to that point was consensual, it's incumbent upon the girl to *clearly* indicate when/if she has definitely changed her mind. Guys aren't mind-readers, no matter how often women might wish them to be (said the long-married man).
NO! Her body belongs to her, not to him.
"As soon as"? Even before she bothers to let the guy know?
A hormone-charged boy is akin to a car rolling downhill. Apply the brakes for a few seconds, and it will stop; if persistent application of the brakes does not stop the car, one may rightly conclude something's wrong with it. But tapping the brakes lightly for half a second, waiting awhile (with the brakes not pressed), then pressing them lightly for another half-second, and then waiting awhile more (with the brakes again released) isn't apt to stop any car I know of.
Since I know of no claims of improper legal procedure in this case, the only basis for appeal would have been "Even if everything the prosecution alleges is true, the allegations do not support the current charge." If the girl had claimed to have done anything to encourage the boy to stop beyond making her two utterances, those claims would have been presumed factual in this appeal. Since they weren't, she didn't.
Hell, even if you heard "STOP" during consensual sex, it could mean a lot more than "get off of me, you brute":
1. "Stop thrusting, I'm getting chafed, let's rest for a minute."
2. "You're pulling my hair, you oaf."
3. "I heard something strange, wait a sec so I can listen better."
4. "Wait, you're about to finish and I need more time."
5. Or, like the punchline to an old joke, it could mean "wrong hole, wrong hole!"
Etc., etc. The word "STOP" is often ambiguous itself, inviting the question, "um, stop *what*?"
Heck, I've heard my wife say "STOP" during sex, and she was telling the dog to stop bugging us.
I really don't know if the "vicious little b*tch" swore out charges against the vicious little b*stard.
What you seem to be failing to take into account was that she had agreed to lend it to him, then failed to clearly indicate exactly when she wanted it back.
That is one of the worst anologies I've ever heard.
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.