Harshest Penalty for Alleged Rapist Was For Using a Computer To Arrange Contact With Teen 265
An anonymous reader writes: Today in a nationally publicized case, an alleged rapist from a fairly elite boarding school was convicted of a number of related misdemeanors, but the jury did not find him guilty of rape. According to the New York Times, his lone felony conviction was "using a computer to lure a minor." In effect, a criminal was convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including sexual penetration of a child, but the biggest penalty he faces is a felony record and years in jail because he used a computer to contact the child, rather than picking her up at a coffee shop, meeting her at a party, or hiring a fifteen-year-old prostitute. Prosecutors have these "using a computer" charges as an additional quiver in their bow, but should we really be making it a felony to use a computer for non-computer-related crime when there is no underlying felony conviction?
No, obviously (Score:5, Funny)
... unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really so funny. Yes, failed jock strap bully law enforcement types are really jealous of computer geeks and nerds and do hate them, this includes all those scammy ignorant politicians. So those laws were written to up scale what should be a misdemeanours as full felonies as an act of revenge for 'er' 'um' computer geeks and nerds being so, so much better at learning and doing it so easily. So you end up with greater penalties for DDOS some corporation temporarily than sticking a gun in some ones face
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.
It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.
"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used?
Yes, that should be obvious. A gun causes more suffering. You will have nightmares about it. Every time you remember it, your heart will race and you will start to sweat. A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose? Come on.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way the world works. The 50+ generation grew up in a world without computers. The 30+ generation grew up during the transition to widespread computer use. And anyone younger grew up when computers were ubiquitous.
As long as those (currently) 50+ people are alive, these laws will probably stay in the books for the reasons you cite. As
Three Felonies a Day (Score:5, Interesting)
Read "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silverglate to understand the fed's rationale. The ends justify the means. After all, Capone ended up in Alcatraz for tax evasion. The book is sickening reading.
http://www.harveysilverglate.c... [harveysilverglate.com]
http://www.threefeloniesaday.c... [threefeloniesaday.com]
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Fe... [amazon.com]
None of this excuses the youngster's behavior.
The summary makes me quiver (Score:5, Funny)
"...another quiver in their bow"
They fire quivers with a bow? I believe the phrase you were looking for was "another arrow in their quiver". Probably a good idea to submit anonymously.
Re:The summary makes me quiver (Score:5, Funny)
*First correct usage of "loose" in a sentence in the history of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You. You sir win slashdot.
Re:The summary makes me quiver (Score:5, Informative)
I lost an arrow once, and you still spelled 'lose' incorrectly.
As an archer myself, the grandparent poster used the correct spelling of the word they were going for.
To loose an arrow means to release the string to fire an arrow. It was not intended to mean that an arrow went missing and was lost.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, now I'll have to change my sig back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of someone else (although the XML reference would certainly be appropriate to me, as well). My previous sig was "RELEASE THE KRAKEN...".
The current one is a variant on the punchline to a joke I first heard about 30 years ago [ozjokes.com]. Or perhaps you inferred this already.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, are you going to inform me that a computer network doesn't actually have a net in it?
Re: (Score:2)
Starlord and Gamora: Eye roll. 9_9
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry the [humor] tag didn't make it through the slashdot filter for my original post. You guys have a hard time catching jokes. And with your ID you should be able to figure that out by now. BTW, my first account had a number about half of yours. You don't even get the joke in my newest account name.
Oh well. I'll have to be satisfied that at least one AC [slashdot.org] caught the joke, possibly two.
Re: (Score:2)
felony to be overturned (Score:2)
All bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.
If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
What is interesting is a few years earlier they could legally have sex. Then for a couple of years it's a felony. Then it's legal again.
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
What is interesting is a few years earlier they could legally have sex. Then for a couple of years it's a felony. Then it's legal again.
Incorrect, barring any recent legal changes in the State of New Hampshire. [state.nh.us]
Felonious Sexual Assault: II. Engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than his legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or more; or
If he was 17 and her 15, that's only two years, well within NH's 4 year 'R&J' exemption. Indeed, by the way the statute is constructed, once legal they're always legal.
Though the second article says 18 and 15, but even at 3 years and change it shouldn't have triggered statutory rape charges by the letter of NH law.
Lacking statutory rape, they'd have go go for 'actual' rape charges, IE it was against her will, and browsing news articles, that's what they did. They simply failed to make that case.
Re: (Score:3)
Good info. I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't 15 underage? Why isn't it just plain statutory rape?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't 15 underage? Why isn't it just plain statutory rape?
It was statutory rape. They sued for regular rape hoping to send him to jail for longer.
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
> It was statutory rape. They sued for regular rape hoping to send him to jail for longer.
Because our goal in life is to make sure people spend as much of theirs in jail as possible...
Re: (Score:2)
Thx.
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It's not plain statutory rape because New Hampshire, like a lot of states, has revised their statutory rape law to prevent people from being charged in cases where both parties involved are minors. There's usually a limit as to how far apart in age the two parties can be, but generally two minors having sex is not statutory rape in states that have revised their laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Police and prosecutors care, which is sort of the whole point of this discussion, you boneheaded cretin.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you know this? Or are you another of those who think that guys never lie but girls always do?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, girls have more reason to lie afterwards than boys do. I would guess that they deny having been willing much more often than boys do, whether or not the population sampled was willing.
That said, in a "he said, she said" argument, you shouldn't believe either of them. You need additional evidence. Which is what the jury decided.
Re:All bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Where I live, there's pretty much no sexual shame for a woman to have sex, which eliminates the concept of this argument. Yet rape rates are still very high.
And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:
1) The concept that a woman had sex is shameful
2) The concept of going down to a police station, telling them that you were raped, having strangers probe you, having the media cover your sex life, getting countless threats and personal attacks and people calling you a liar and a slut, etc, all for what everyone knows is a pitifully tiny chance of getting a conviction (wherein even more calls of "liar" and "slut" will be fielded), is totally easy and totally not shameful.
I mean, WTF people?
Re: (Score:2)
1) you're assuming that the argument is based on shame. My actual argument was based on potential economic cost. The shame concept could work either way. (It can be pretty expensive to raise a kid, though. And not only in direct costs.)
2) you're assuming that I'm contemplating only official complaints. I have a very hard time imagining a teen going to the police and saying she was raped unless coerced by her family.
That said, I still expect that the official claim of rape would be quite rare wrt even a
Re: (Score:2)
because there are many sexists and misogynists on slashdot, and in life
there is such a thing as false charges of rape. but actual rape greatly outnumbers false charges of rape
but hear it according to the prejudices of sexist people, such as many comments here, and the discussion is immediately about fake rape charges. there is no thought or consideration to the more likely possibility the girl was actually raped. because that possibility goes against their misogyny. they have to reinforce their hate. so all
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
http://nypost.com/2009/09/18/t... [nypost.com]
Danmell Ndonye, 18, who had accused five men of gang rape, admitted the truth only when prosecutors confronted her after learning of a cellphone video that captured the whole sordid episode and showed she had willingly participated, officials said.
She created her outlandish tale when her boyfriend, a Hofstra student whoâ(TM)s been dating her since the semester began a few weeks ago, demanded to know where she had disappeared after a wild frat party early Sunday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
On advice from his lawyer, Banks had pleaded no contest to raping his childhood friend on campus 10 years ago, reports the Associated Press. He served five years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, and then spent the next five years on parole.
To his surprise, Banks received a Facebook friend request from Gibson after he got out of prison. During their first meet-up, Gibson confessed that she faked the rape accusation and expressed a desire to help him. It was music to Banks' ears -- except for the fact that she didn't want to face prosecutors with the truth for fear she would have to return settlement money her mother had won from the school.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you quantify that? If I were to go by high profile cases that made the news, I'd say that's a rather dubious statement. The parent poster was trying to make the case that the logic was just impossible. I provided evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:3)
Actual studies on the subject have found upwards of half of all rape claims in the US are false.
https://archive.is/at8Uo [archive.is]
https://archive.is/R4TNM [archive.is]
"According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, there's pretty much no sexual shame for a woman to have sex, which eliminates the concept of this argument.
It hasn't eliminated anything, there is nowhere on this planet (outside a 1970's hippie commune) where a 15yo girl can have sex whenever she wants, with whoever she wants....AND....still have nothing to hide because all the parents are cool with it.
Disclaimer: I make no claims about this case in particular but at the end of the day, some males are violent arseholes, some females are manipulative arseholes. Violent aresholes ruin lives, manipulate arseholes ruin lives. It's not, as Feminists and MRA's wou
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.
18, not 17. It's in the article:
But at its core, the case was about an intimate encounter last year between a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old acquaintance, and whether she consented as it escalated.
And he was convicted because his story wasn't credible. He (now) claims he suddenly saw the light, seconds before penetrating her. And yet, for days afterwards she was texting him to ask whether he used a condom, and she went to a pharmacist for emergency contraception. Are those the actions of someone who wasn't penetrated? Add to that the fact that he repeatedly changed his story, and it's very easy to see why a jury didn't believe him.
And yet, despite all that, they didn't convict of rape. So you're right on that count, Anon. So why all your crying and attacking the victim?
Re: (Score:2)
He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.
We've got a clairvoyant on our hands! Quick! Someone call James Randi!
Re:All bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.
If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.
The facts support you on this.
Half the population had sex by age 17. Are we going to put half the population in jail for having sex with the other half?
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... [kinseyinstitute.org]
Percent of population having had first intercourse, by age
Males Females
25% by age 15 26% by age 15
37% by age 16 40% by age 16
46% by age 17 49% by age 17
62% by age 18 70% by age 18
69% by age 19 77% by age 19
85% by age 20-21 81% by age 20-21
89% by age 22-24 92% by age 22-24
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.
While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's
Re: (Score:3)
The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.
While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'
A certain overly randy POTUS fired a very well-spoken Surgeon General who had the nerve to suggest that teens would be far better off both physically and mentally if they engaged in autoeroticism. High time we accepted that position and did whatever we can to reduce the societal pressures to have early sex.
The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.
While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'
Claiming that sex under the age of 17 or 16 is by definition "not consensual" is handing prosecutors a free pass to torment, harass, convict and jail half the teenage population at their total unaccountable discretion.
Sex, starting in the early teenage years, is a normal part of human development. Most of the research that claims that teenage sex is harmful is done by right-wing religious organizations like the Heritage Foundation, who have a long track record of being anti-science. This is global warming f
Re: (Score:3)
And so long as you're citing medical reviews, please look up some of the work in the last decade or so on development of the frontal lobes and the established physical fact that teens (and in fact up to the late 20s) do not have the capability to make judgements about engaging in behavior which is both pleasurable and risky.
I read those studies. So does that mean people shouldn't have sex until their late 20s, because they can better make risky decisions then?
Teenagers routinely make equally risky decisions, such as following a religion, taking out college loans, joining the military, driving, swimming and playing football. Do you think they should be prohibited from doing all those things until their 20s?
According to Rind, teenage sex is no more harmful than any other activities of daily life. Every situation is different, so
Re: (Score:2)
Just about anywhere that's enough to get charged as if consent is not given, because for a variety of good reasons technically it is not. Fucking kids (who often don't know any better and are often easily convinced) is a bad idea and society reacts to it.
As for your school - the situation is out of control not the law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.
That is what he claimed. Do you believe him?
Whether that is the actual sequence of events or not... that's what the trial was about. The answer is, they were unable to prove that the sex was not consensual. That's not quite the same as saying that the sex was consensual.
Do I believe him? I have no reason to believe, nor to disbelieve. I have no way to know either way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is gibberish. Clarify your poisition.
News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Old prosecution trick (Score:2)
This is an old prosecution as old as Al Capone getting thrown in jail because of tax evasion rather than murder. Throw everything at them and hope some of the shit sticks.
Re:News at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad it doesn't apply to EULAs...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is, of course, not even remotely true.
Bogus Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone feel safer now that this kid has been prosecuted and faces years in prison, basically for using a computer to contact this girl?
Has this prosecution done any real "good" for anyone, anywhere?
Has anyone been saved, rescued, or protected? Have any crimes been prevented?
"No" to all of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the guy committed statutory rape, yeah, this was good. By the way, the meaning of being below the age of consent is that the girl in question COULD NOT CONSENT.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the guy committed statutory rape, yeah, this was good. By the way, the meaning of being below the age of consent is that the girl in question COULD NOT CONSENT.
You are denouncing normal human sexuality. Prosecutors are putting boys in jail for exercising normal human adolescent sexual activity.
26% of females have intercourse by age 15.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... [kinseyinstitute.org]
What are you going to do? Put half the teenage boys in jail?
You really ought to think through your COULD NOT CONSENT. It makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he did not. He was within 4 years of her age.
Felonies in general need to be tightened. (Score:2)
Personally, I think that the term 'felony' has lost too much of it's meaning. Back in the day, it was used to describe a crime where the death penalty could be used.
Today, it's generally used to describe anything that could be punished by a year or more in prison. Not that you are, just that you could me.
Personally, I'd change it up slightly. It wouldn't be a felony UNLESS you are actually sentenced and serve a complete year in prison for it.
I thought about having a fine equivalent - something like $12k,
Re: (Score:2)
Felonies are a Mid-Evil concept that every country (excepting America and Nigeria) in the world got rid of, generally in the 19th century. The idea of having a class of citizens who permanently have their rights infringed perhaps made sense in a feudal society when things like inheritance were important.
Now a days, a Judge sentences you, once the sentence is finished, the person should be able to rejoin society.
Where I live, a Judge has to remove your privilege of owning firearms, and they only do it if you
Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement? (Score:2)
If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.
Oh, come on. Don't you want to suppress women? That way we can hire them for less money and they won't complain about cleaning up the bathroom.
Old news (Score:2)
Already saw this on nambla news.
I guess this means ... (Score:5, Funny)
Sucker, next time spend a weekend in Europe. (Score:3)
15 is a legal age in many European countries, for example Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So who cares about the facts? 'Obviously' she didn't lie about rape, so therefore lets lynch him with stacked/extrapolated charges instead? Are you serious?
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, yeah she lied about the rape, the jury aquitted him of the rape charges. Convicted him on statutory rape because she was 15 years old 7 months rather than 16 the age of consent in NH. She was a willing participant and it was very clear from the trial.
Two teens consensually hook up and you want to lynch the kid? Unreal
So wake up.
Re: It's not about the crime (Score:2)
Except one of them was legally an adult. You don't just get the benefits of adulthood without any of the responsibility.
Re: It's not about the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
at 18 you can buy smokes but not beer, you can get shot at in war
21 you can finally buy beer, but still cant rent a car
25 you can finally rent a car
they made the word "adult" a useless word years ago
Re: (Score:3)
...except this isn't "English", this is law including little things called rights and criminal liability.
If you aren't a full adult, then you're just another variation on the underclasses. What's sadder still is that some people are enthusiastic to go along with that kind of crap.
People are considered "children" and "protected", except when they aren't. People are considered "adult" and granted full rights, except when they aren't.
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.
Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it should be! For example, if you E-mail me and ask for $10 to help you out and I agree to give you that money when me meet, you wouldn't get convicted of robbery even if someone sees me giving you that money; the presumption would be that it was voluntary. Neither would you be convicted of robbery if we had dinner together and two months later I claim that you took $10 out of my wallet against my will. Yet, for some reason, if you replace the $10 with "sex", you seem to think that someone should get convicted simply because I claim that you took my money against my will, with no corroborating evidence.
The standard for robbery is pretty clearly that there need to be witnesses to coercion and/or that there needs to be physical evidence showing that you coerced me and harmed me. And you're absolutely right: that should be the standard for rape as well.
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
To be more technical:
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires that the "facts of the case" be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - every one of them individually, with a list of facts to prove being given in the jury instructions and depending on the crime and jurisdiction For example, in a murder case, basic facts can be "The victim is dead" and "The defendant deliberately killed them". Beyond that, the prosecution "bears the burden" of demonstrating these facts as undeniably true. For more about what the legal burden is, there's details here [wikipedia.org].
The same does not hold true to what are called "affirmative defenses" or "defense theories". For example, if you charge me with assault and say I hit you with a chair, and I say that I was trying to stop you because you were trying to rape me, you don't face a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and 100% of the burden to prove that you weren't trying to rape me. Depending on the circumstances, there's either a "shared burden" or I would bear the burden of proof on my own. If the defense is to be analyzed on its own, as it's not a "basic fact", but rather a "defense theory", it would not on its own face a "reasonable doubt" standard (generally a "preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" - although the claim may shift the jury's views toward whether there's reasonable doubt toward the basic facts in other ways.
There are many different types of defense theories, too numerous to go into here. And in most crimes, claims of consent are treated as defense theories - they don't on their own need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (they contribute to doubt relating to the basic facts but are not themselves a specific fact for jury evaluation), and there's either a shared or shifted defense burden. If you say "Hey, I wasn't robbing her, she gave me the money because she wanted to help me out", the burden doesn't fall 100% on me to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't - it's your theory, you have to bear part of the burden of proof for it. The case as a whole still needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.
It would be nice - and in fact, would only be basic fairness - if rape cases faced the same standard. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, it does not work that way. Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money, for being taken strange places by strangers, or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex. No matter how weird, twisted, sick the sexual practice, with whatever person they may be, even with a person not matching your sexuality, you're presumed by default to be in consent for it. And the burden falls 100% on the accuser in this one type of case to prove that consent was not given.
And this is wrong.
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?
FWIW, as far as your analogies go, I don't think they're correct, either. If I go to the local convenience store and buy something, and then later accuse the shopkeeper of stealing my money, I very much doubt that any court would entertain the notion that the shopkeeper should prove on preponderance of evidence that the transfer was voluntary, and that if he is unable to do so, he gets locked up for robbery.
Re:It's not about the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money,
A charity (or even a beggar) rarely needs to prove that the giver gave the money voluntarily.
for being taken strange places by strangers,
A taxi driver (or even bus driver...) rarely needs to prove that their passenger did indeed want to go where they wanted to go... Even if he is a minor (at least for buses). And even if you do accidentally hop on the wrong train, I don't think you've got a case to prosecute the driver for kidnapping...
or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex.
Really, in daily life, giving or lending money, or giving people a ride is common, without needing to worry about getting a written affidavit that it is indeed voluntarily. And somehow, this still doesn't hamper our ability to prosecute against genuine cases of theft or robbery, or of kidnapping. Why can't sex be treated the same way?
Re: (Score:2)
How about we discuss the subject at hand instead of trying to second guess what you would have written about something only loosely related if you had put a bit more effort in?
Re: (Score:2)
Rei made the "very silly use of a flawed analogy" (paraphrasing: "rape should be treated like robbery") to make a point. I was pointing out to him why it was flawed.
My position is simple and doesn't require any analogy: nobody should be convicted on the word of an accuser alone; there needs to be independent evidence of the crime. Applied to rape, that means saying after two people get together "I didn't consent to sex" or "
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really?
So witness testimony is worthless in your opinion?
Please justify why you think such an opinion is worth consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't be either. Arrows go in quivers, not bows.
Someone's got it confused with "another string to your bow," most likely.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it should be 'additional arrow in their quiver'
And we all know archery is immoral (see Walter Palmer) but guns are ok (2nd Ammendment)
Re: (Score:3)
Bows and arrows should be just as protected under the 2nd Amendment as firearms are.
Unless they're nuclear tipped arrows, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, a 18 year old banged (sorry, ALMOST banged) a 15 year old. It's not like some 60ish geezer locked up an 8 year old girl to sodomize her.
Re:Hundred of felonies each day (Score:4, Insightful)
hell, if you are going to make up a number, lets say most people commit billions and billions of felonies a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
Re: (Score:3)
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
I'd be interested in the citation on that.
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)
(Although Congress undid SCOTUS's correction to some degree.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Acquitted (Score:2)
They couldn't prove statutory rape, since they could not prove he had sex with her. Part of the he said she said, but since she wanted so long to come forward there was no physical evidence they had sex. This is why there was no statutory rape charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly--I may have overstated the case on the statutory rape; I've only read the secondhand accounts.
Re: Acquitted (Score:2)
Legally no, he is no longer an alleged rapist. As such a newspaper would never print that he is an alleged rapist since they know that they would lose a libel case.
Same reason why OJ was not called an alleged murder in the press after being a quite.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong.
E.g. https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a Politically Correct statement, so obviously you are a woman-hating exerciser of male privilege. As someone above noted, retroactive withdrawal of consent --- even decades later, apparently --- is now the Politically Correct position to support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a joke, son, but unfortunately some people actually think that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day feminism stood for Women's Right, now they're not even remotely the same concept. Feminism is now the drive to enslave men, stripe there rights, allow them no use of there own bodies and in general suppress them.
On the other hand, women's rights, is a very important movement, because it's attempting to make sure men and women share the EXACT same respect, rights and privilege.
It's sad that feminism is grouped together with women's rights, because they don't rem
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day feminism stood for Women's Right, now they're not even remotely the same concept. Feminism is now the drive to enslave men, stripe there rights, allow them no use of there own bodies and in general suppress them.
On the other hand, women's rights, is a very important movement, because it's attempting to make sure men and women share the EXACT same respect, rights and privilege.
It's sad that feminism is grouped together
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, using technology to commit a crime is now now as bad as using a gun.
Based on the "scary technology == scary technology" transference of properties.
Re: (Score:2)
In today's world, does anyone have ANY of their friends or acquaintances whom they have never, EVER, contacted over a computer of some sort? I seriously doubt it.