Have you heard the latest news out of Maryland? If you are having consentual sex, and then decide for some reason that you want to stop - for example, if your partner starts doing something you really don't want any part of - and you ask him (or her) to stop, and he (or she) forces you to continue having sex against your will... apparently that does not count as rape. WTF?!
An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun. A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point. The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law. [article]
Discussions on this can be found here, here and here.
In other news, the Bush administration has changed restrictions in order to encourage sex-segregated public schools. Because separate but equal has always worked. Sheesh. [article] [discussion]
11 comments:
Well, as bad as it is, you can't blame the court for enforcing the law as-is if that is in fact an accurate interpretation. It should be a wake-up call to the legislature to change a ridicuous law.
Bob
Well, those are two very intresting topics. I am a little horrified with the court rulling but have to agree with Bob in that the law has to be rewritten in order for the court to change its rulling. That is a sad part of our legal system. On the other topic, I am also like Melissa and have torn feelings. I am not really concerned with the segregation of sexes as I do not believe that has any significant impact upon learning. I actually think that everyone should be thrown in the mix together as it helps to socalize everyone for the real world. Can you image having gone to school with just guys or girls all of your life then be expected to know how to interact in the real world. Besides this, the Republicans seem so concerned over homosexuality, and while part of me believes that some people are born that way, another part of me believes that others are socalized within the gay lifestyle through early sexual experimentation. This is not to denegrate anyone who believes that they were born that way, but I imagine that the percentage of homosexuals at same sex schools in significantly higher than those at coeducational schools. Maybe, I am wrong. I personally believe that classes should be segregated based upon patterns of learning. I.E., visual learners should be together and students whom are more theory oriented should be grouped together. The subjects taught should be the same, but the method in which they are taught should be different. While this does seperate the sexes to a great deal being that most boys are visual learners, it seems to me that this all falls into a continum and that all people fall along the scale and maybe that is how classes should be determined in the future based upon ones position within the two bianaries of learning. Oh well, did you read about Aunt Aggie. I am off to teach which should be intresting. I just had a non malignant cancer burned off of my lip with liquid nitogen. It hurts now and feels as if my lip might have been dipped into a vat of boiling grease. Hope that all is well. I liked the kids Autumn poem. You have to love a poem that includes refrences to dragon flies. Ok. Talk to you later,
Christopher
Yeah, except in the rape case the guy stopped within a few seconds.
The law was correctly applied.
According to the _girl's_ version of events, the Maryland case went something like this:
Guy: "Let's have sex."
Girl: "Will you stop when I ask?"
Guy: "Well, I don't want to rape you."
Girl: "OK."
Guy: (Inserts penis)
Girl: (sometime later) "Stop."
Guy: (stops a few seconds later)
Girl: "Rape."
Melissa and Chris: I definitely worry about the notion of sex-segregated public schools, for a number of reasons. Think about the fact that I wasn't comfortable talking to boys until I was a senior in high school. What would have happened had I gone off to college without the 12 years of mixed-gender classes to prepare me for interaction with the opposite sex? Also, while I do agree that in certain situations, with good, equal funding and quality focus on the differences in learning styles, same sex schools could work. But just think about our hometown, and the "quality" education we received at our high school, and imagine if we'd been segregated. I can just see the logic, "well, the boys play football, so they need more funding" etc.
Bob: You're right, it is simply an interpretation of a preexisting law, it's not like they pulled it out of their ass on a whim... but the problem remains: the law says that you can't revoke consent, and that is bullshit.
anonymous: For one thing, stop means stop... NOW. It doesn't mean that you continue to keep thrusting inwards repeatedly. It means that you pull out. You might want to read this for more details of the events leading up to the withdrawal of consent.
Additionally, the law needs to be changed now. You seem to think it's okay to keep going for a few seconds following withdrawal of consent... but how long is "ok" then? A minute? Ten minutes? An hour? According to the current law, it's however long an individual want to keep forcing unwanted sex on someone who has withdrawn their concent. The law MUST be changed.
I read the appellate court's decision before I posted above. My summary of her version events above is correct.
I find it amazing that a D.A. would actually prosecute with such crappy facts.
Let's review: The "victim" willingly climbed into the back seat of a car with two guys, willingly had sex with one of them, then agreed to sex with the other, willingly allowed him to insert his penis and then, changing her mind, told him to stop -- which she agrees he did within a few seconds (she says five, he says as soon as she sat up).
If that kid had a real defense attorney, he never would have been convicted in the first place.
I suspect this whole case came about because another prosecutor wanted to look tough on rape. (See, for example, the Duke "rape" case.)
The prosecution's case here basically boils down to, "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he stopped -- but not fast enough. Put him in jail with the guys who kick women's teeth in when they refuse sex."
Or how about this example:
Woman: "Let's have sex."
Man: "OK."
(sex begins)
Woman: "I've climaxed. Now stop."
Man: "Wait, I'm almost there."
(five seconds later, man finishes)
Woman: "Rape."
You didn't answer my questions:
You seem to think it's okay to keep going for a few seconds following withdrawal of consent... but how long is "ok" then? A minute? Ten minutes? An hour?
Your example is stretching it. If a man and a woman are having consensual sex, the woman isn't going to demand cessation of sexual activity immediately upon climax. Stop creating paranoid scenarios. The fact of the matter remains that the law states that a woman cannot revoke consent, and that is WRONG. Period.
Paranoid scenarios? Do an internship in your local legal aid clinic when you get back home and let us know what you learn about the lengths politically motivated prosecutors will go to in order to to appear "tough on crime."
Even without going to all that trouble we can be sure such things would indeed happen. How can I be so sure? Because my example above is almost identical to the facts in this case. According to the "victim's" version of events, the encounter began with consentual sex (twice actually). She says she revoked consent as to the second guy mid-coitus and then, by her own testimony, he stopped within five seconds. Guess what? He _was_ charged with rape. Just like the kick-in-the-teeth guys I mentioned above. In my opinion, they are not the same.
Maybe if he'd been a bit better and she climaxed, you wouldn't think the extra few seconds was much of a problem. But I can assure you, given the opportunity, prosecutors _will_ charge on those very facts I suggested above.
See, this case is a good example of how things sound good in theory, but don't work nearly as well in practice. In theory, "no" _always_ means "no" and anything beyond _automatically_ means rape. But in real life, things are often more complicated. Five seconds or less (assuming she really did say "stop") is a pretty short time. Especially given that she reports guy said "I don't want to rape you" prior to sex and _did_ stop within just a few seconds. No, it doesn't really sound like "rape" to me. It's my guess that the appellate court felt the same. I doubt they would have reversed if it had been five minutes. And despite the way in which this decision is getting reported, I'm fairly confident any refusal to stop that lasts much more than a minute or two will still lead to a conviction. If you come across similar cases in which it does not, be sure to let us know.
But, to answer your question, if there is a policy judgment to be made, I'd prefer to err on the side of letting rapists go free -- as bad as that sounds -- than convict innocent men for not pulling out fast enough.
There's nothing wrong with rape. Dolphins rape each other and so do apes. Cavemen raped cave women all the time
anonymous-
and many female insects eat their mates after sex. ain't nothing wrong with drawing a man's sperm and then beheading him,is there? or cannibalizing his delicious body?
your example from the animal kingdom is irrelevant. since we no longer live in caves and now live in industrialized society we have these things called laws. and rape is a felony.
Just plugged back in after being out of town. Here are my two cents (actually, I guess this would be cents 3 and 4).
The facts of this case are really difficult and unfortunately we will probably never know exactly what happened. That said, the law needs to change.
Melissa
Post a Comment