New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contact

AP ^ | 01 31 2024 | MAYSOON KHA

[CIB-173RDABN]

Maybe something happened 20 years ago.
—
I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that a new law can not be used to charge someone for what may have been legal in the past.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-3/ALDE_00013193/

[stanne]

“ Trump was found guilty. ”

Nope. Not of rape. Nope

[jpp113]

He was found guilty of sexual abuse (with ZERO physical evidence and flimsy half-baked testimony), NOT rape

[rx]

I think we all agree NY couldn’t charge someone for an act that was not a crime when it was committed, but now might be considered a crime by the letter of this new law.

The mechanism I’m less sure about is whether NY thinks the new meaning they (these communists) have generated promulgates for all future instances of interpretations of those older laws that mention the word rape.

That clearly would misconstrue the intents of the legislatures that passed such laws with the earlier definition.

Surely not... but you never know with communists.

[Pox]

Such attitudes and stances that we see from New York targeting President Trump, and reflected here in this sadistic redefining of rape, typically were described as seeds of rebellion/revolution as I was taught.

I’m very happy I have no reason to ever step foot in that state for the rest of my life.

[midwest_hiker]

Almost like the South Park episode where every person, verb, noun, etc…. Is called “Marklar”
So a conversation would be :
Rape raped Rape over in Rape Town. So now rape rape rape and rape.

[stylin19a]

Whoopi said it along time ago: I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.

[ansel12]

When you turned away digging in the cushions for the remote, he raped me, in 2003.

[CraigEsq]

Trump wasn’t found GUILTY of anything. Guilty is a criminal term. He was found LIABLE.

[CraigEsq]

So actually I think this is completely appropriate. New York has had a meaningless duplicitous definition of “rape” for vaginal penetration vs. “sexual assault” for other penetration. They were the exact same class of crime with the exact same punishment, but oddly only one was called “rape.” I guess now they’re all called rape. But as far as I’m aware nothing actually changes but the title.

[Mr Rogers]

Traditional rape is consider a serious crime because it is a serious violation of the woman. It is not “She might catch a disease” but a violation of who she is with the possibility of then becoming pregnant with the attacker’s baby.

It has been a very serious crime for at least 3,000 years. Old Testament Law:

---

“23 “Suppose a man is caught in a town having intercourse with a young woman who is engaged to someone else. 24 You are to take them outside the town and stone them to death. She is to die because she did not cry out for help, although she was in a town, where she could have been heard. And the man is to die because he had intercourse with someone who was engaged. In this way you will get rid of this evil.

25 “Suppose a man out in the countryside rapes a young woman who is engaged to someone else. Then only the man is to be put to death; 26 nothing is to be done to the woman, because she has not committed a sin worthy of death. This case is the same as when one man attacks another man and murders him. 27 The man raped the engaged woman in the countryside, and although she cried for help, there was no one to help her.

28 “Suppose a man is caught raping a young woman who is not engaged. 29 He is to pay her father the bride price of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he forced her to have intercourse with him. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” - Dt 22

---

Notice a woman in a crowded area, where she could get help, if she does not ask for help, is to be put to death along with the man. And 3,000 years ago, when women were treated more like property, a woman not engaged to be married andwho is rape then became the rapist’s wife, to be cared for, for life, by the rapist - along with a large fine.

I’m not suggesting we go back to laws from 3,000 years ago, but we shouldn’t have much tolerance for someone crying “Rape” if the supposed rape happened in a crowded store with people just a few feet away...

If it happened the way she said, both she and Donald should be punished. But I don’t believe a syllable, let alone a word, of that vile woman’s testimony!

Which is why it has no effect. No one outside of NYC or DC believes ANYTHING a jury in those banana republics says.

[DaxtonBrown]

New York’s only male population will be homeless illegal aliens.

[Shady]

This will be overturned. Don’t do those things, period.

[Vermont Lt]

Those things have been sexual assault of ages in other states. Rape remains rape.

[Shady]

Someone needs to stop Princess Kathy. She is enjoying her despotism too much.

[Secret Agent Man]

Good. The current definition of “rape” pushed for in laws was purposely done so by feminist groups in order to define it only as sexual misconduct by men towards women, and to exempt lesbians and women in general from being able to be charged with rape (which they do to both men and women).

[Revel]

Now even if a husband kisses his wife and she is in a bad mood then look out!

[ronnie raygun]

E Jean Carrol law, if you are turned down by a man you can sue for rape

[moovova]

[lurk]

Isn’t it unconstitutional to make laws to target individuals?