Full Version: MD law redefines rape
Cruising Ram
I can’t help you with your reading comprehension skills. I have given you the most essential quote in understanding the courts ruling and reliance that historically the law recognizes and continues to recognize women’s chastity as the property of men. You should just admit you don’t understand what your reading instead of blaming me for not providing the information.
Absolutely. I think the more rational definition of rape is that it is a continuing offense. Then you get into to the factual conundrum of how fast does the withdrawl have to be to not constitute rape. WHen you start leaving the bright line type of test is where you really start getting into absurd results. One court would say half a second is too long where another says that 10 seconds apply. In the end, that would be a question of fact to be answered by a jury in their deliberations based upon the evidence presented, but I am not sure you would be real happy with the results of that either with juries being anything but consistant. What looks good on paper sometimes does not always work out well in reality.
What standard would apply? A reasonable man standard on how long it takes to cease? The jury instruction on that would be a toughie to develop to protect the law and the accused.
First I would like to thank you Jagwease for replying to this thread and keeping the subject and topic in the direction I intended it. I understand your concerns because it is a very varied offense that would be difficult to make consistent and have a standard apply. I am sure you are right that many times we would find ourselves unhappy with the results. Still do you not feel this is already the current situation with rape laws to begin with as far as the giving of consent is concerned? Are not juries already deliberating and incosistently deciding on what constitutes consent and what does not. I have been trying real hard to get others here to focus on this point, that consent alone and the act of giving consent is not an easily predetermined “bright line” either. As this case shows this woman was apparently believed to have given consent by just saying... “ok, please don’t hurt me” So I feel that the fact we recognize consent so vaguely and allow each jury to independently decide or determine each case based upon the evidence. That in return we should also be comfortable (and I would argue obligated) with the idea of juries being permitted to equally recognize and decide when consent was withdrawn.
Oh ok fine, how’s this
Vaginas are not like houses people! Better? And it was not outrage I was expressing but just highlighting the absurdity of your argument and expressing my utter exasperation with someone who in a debate where I have asked participants to consider the ramifications and consequences of the law recognizing women as property believes it is still a valuable debate tactic to then use an analogy that asks us to consider women as property. I am sorry the irony (and absurdity!) of your comparison and belief that vaginas are comparable to houses was lost on you.
Nothing in my posts to reflect this notion. Nothing.
I feel the fact you will not answer my questions, my attempts and my requests to refocus this debate where it belongs proves otherwise. You insist to keep it focused on how it will affect men and you personally.
I have explained numerous times that this was not my intention of this debate and that I wish you would recognize this and address the issues I have raised. You won’t, so I have to assume this is either because you don’t care about these issues or you care more about how the issues affect men.
I reached out to you, I focused on your comments because they were without question the most reasonable of the bunch. I thought if anything I might be able to carry on a reasonable exchange with you, as many of the comments and opinions shared here are just outright unapproachable for me, I won't even address them because I feel it would be wrong to even acknowledge them. I thought I would be able to ask you to consider and discuss the issue of giving consent and how it is a very vague and undefined concept to begin with.
I thought maybe you would understand the damage it does to our society for courts to uphold views that legally women are the property of men. But you are right instead you said nothing.
Then why are you continuing to debate with me? And can you really even classify it as debating? Because I have asked numerous questions, I have asked you many times to further explain, clarify and defend your position. I have asked you to consider my opinions, my arguments and my interpretations on the issue and to then in response reply to them and you haven’t done any of this, hardly seems like much of a debate to begin with, so honestly your choice to end participation will be insignificant to me.
I can’t help you with your reading comprehension skills. I have given you the most essential quote in understanding the courts ruling and reliance that historically the law recognizes and continues to recognize women’s chastity as the property of men. You should just admit you don’t understand what your reading instead of blaming me for not providing the information.
QUOTE(Jagwease)
Absolutely. I think the more rational definition of rape is that it is a continuing offense. Then you get into to the factual conundrum of how fast does the withdrawl have to be to not constitute rape. WHen you start leaving the bright line type of test is where you really start getting into absurd results. One court would say half a second is too long where another says that 10 seconds apply. In the end, that would be a question of fact to be answered by a jury in their deliberations based upon the evidence presented, but I am not sure you would be real happy with the results of that either with juries being anything but consistant. What looks good on paper sometimes does not always work out well in reality.
What standard would apply? A reasonable man standard on how long it takes to cease? The jury instruction on that would be a toughie to develop to protect the law and the accused.
First I would like to thank you Jagwease for replying to this thread and keeping the subject and topic in the direction I intended it. I understand your concerns because it is a very varied offense that would be difficult to make consistent and have a standard apply. I am sure you are right that many times we would find ourselves unhappy with the results. Still do you not feel this is already the current situation with rape laws to begin with as far as the giving of consent is concerned? Are not juries already deliberating and incosistently deciding on what constitutes consent and what does not. I have been trying real hard to get others here to focus on this point, that consent alone and the act of giving consent is not an easily predetermined “bright line” either. As this case shows this woman was apparently believed to have given consent by just saying... “ok, please don’t hurt me” So I feel that the fact we recognize consent so vaguely and allow each jury to independently decide or determine each case based upon the evidence. That in return we should also be comfortable (and I would argue obligated) with the idea of juries being permitted to equally recognize and decide when consent was withdrawn.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
That's why it's called an "analogy". If I had said that the punishment for rape should be the same as the punishment for breaking-and-entering, then you'd have an excuse. Please don't just look for things to latch onto and get outraged about without reading the full post.
Oh ok fine, how’s this
Vaginas are not like houses people! Better? And it was not outrage I was expressing but just highlighting the absurdity of your argument and expressing my utter exasperation with someone who in a debate where I have asked participants to consider the ramifications and consequences of the law recognizing women as property believes it is still a valuable debate tactic to then use an analogy that asks us to consider women as property. I am sorry the irony (and absurdity!) of your comparison and belief that vaginas are comparable to houses was lost on you.
QUOTE(entspeak)
Nothing in my posts to reflect this notion. Nothing.
I feel the fact you will not answer my questions, my attempts and my requests to refocus this debate where it belongs proves otherwise. You insist to keep it focused on how it will affect men and you personally.
I have explained numerous times that this was not my intention of this debate and that I wish you would recognize this and address the issues I have raised. You won’t, so I have to assume this is either because you don’t care about these issues or you care more about how the issues affect men.
I reached out to you, I focused on your comments because they were without question the most reasonable of the bunch. I thought if anything I might be able to carry on a reasonable exchange with you, as many of the comments and opinions shared here are just outright unapproachable for me, I won't even address them because I feel it would be wrong to even acknowledge them. I thought I would be able to ask you to consider and discuss the issue of giving consent and how it is a very vague and undefined concept to begin with.
I thought maybe you would understand the damage it does to our society for courts to uphold views that legally women are the property of men. But you are right instead you said nothing.
QUOTE
And perhaps this is the reason why you are accusing the men in this forum of being insensitive. I see there is no point in further debating this issue with you, as every response is tainted by the above assumption – that it is difficult for a man to empathize.
Then why are you continuing to debate with me? And can you really even classify it as debating? Because I have asked numerous questions, I have asked you many times to further explain, clarify and defend your position. I have asked you to consider my opinions, my arguments and my interpretations on the issue and to then in response reply to them and you haven’t done any of this, hardly seems like much of a debate to begin with, so honestly your choice to end participation will be insignificant to me.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 18 2006, 02:59 PM) 
droop- actually- there was a fourth person- right? The of-age female?
Actually, there were 5 to begin with. Three boys and 2 girls. Both girls were adults at the time of the incident. During the course of the night one boy left and one of the the adult females left. Leaving the one female adult, and the two underage boys. The "victim" "Jewel", the appellent in the case "Baby"(last name), and the other guy "Mike" Like I said I'm not sure if Mike was ever charged with anything or not.
QUOTE
At trial, the complaining witness, Jewel L., testified that, at the time of the incident at issue, she was an eighteen-year-old student at Montgomery College. On the night of December 13, 2003,
accompanied by her best friend, Lacey, she went to the McDonald’s Restaurant located in Montgomery Village. Appellant, Lacey’s younger brother and her boyfriend at the time were all friends.
When Jewel and Lacey were about to leave, appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, prevailed upon Jewel to give him and a friend, Mike, a ride in her Chevrolet Cavalier, which she had owned for approximately seven months. Mike and another person identified as an “Hispanic boy” were passengers in the back seat of the car. When the group arrived at its destination, a community center believed by them to be the site of a party, they discovered there was no party. The Hispanic boy alighted from the vehicle and
left the group.
During the return trip to McDonald’s Restaurant, the complainant complied with appellant’s request to park briefly near an apartment complex, thereafter proceeding back to the restaurant.
The complainant complied with appellant’s second request to stop at another location in a townhouse development near the McDonald’s Restaurant, where all of the passengers alighted from Jewel’s car
and proceeded toward a clearing between two townhouses. As appellant and Mike smoked marijuana, they discussed the possibility of getting a hotel room, noting that the boys were too young, but the girls could get a room. Upon their arrival at McDonald’s, Lacey left the group to join a friend, after which the complainant agreed to drive appellant and Mike to a residential neighborhood where she parked her car. The
complainant complied with the request of appellant and Mike to sit between them on the back seat of her car.
accompanied by her best friend, Lacey, she went to the McDonald’s Restaurant located in Montgomery Village. Appellant, Lacey’s younger brother and her boyfriend at the time were all friends.
When Jewel and Lacey were about to leave, appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, prevailed upon Jewel to give him and a friend, Mike, a ride in her Chevrolet Cavalier, which she had owned for approximately seven months. Mike and another person identified as an “Hispanic boy” were passengers in the back seat of the car. When the group arrived at its destination, a community center believed by them to be the site of a party, they discovered there was no party. The Hispanic boy alighted from the vehicle and
left the group.
During the return trip to McDonald’s Restaurant, the complainant complied with appellant’s request to park briefly near an apartment complex, thereafter proceeding back to the restaurant.
The complainant complied with appellant’s second request to stop at another location in a townhouse development near the McDonald’s Restaurant, where all of the passengers alighted from Jewel’s car
and proceeded toward a clearing between two townhouses. As appellant and Mike smoked marijuana, they discussed the possibility of getting a hotel room, noting that the boys were too young, but the girls could get a room. Upon their arrival at McDonald’s, Lacey left the group to join a friend, after which the complainant agreed to drive appellant and Mike to a residential neighborhood where she parked her car. The
complainant complied with the request of appellant and Mike to sit between them on the back seat of her car.
Edited to add reply to Bucket
Bucket
QUOTE
I can’t help you with your reading comprehension skills. I have given you the most essential quote in understanding the courts ruling and reliance that historically the law recognizes and continues to recognize women’s chastity as the property of men. You should just admit you don’t understand what your reading instead of blaming me for not providing the information.
Maybe.. It's not Cruising Ram Maybe it's you. Which quote is the most essential in understanding the courts ruling?? Why don't you stop mischaracterizing the Court?? You keep saying the courts are calling women Chattel... welll show us in their 46 page opinion when the Court referred to women as Chattel or stop saying it.
And stop being so bias... llok at your debate question
Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?
How can the law allow rape to happen legally if it is against the law to rape someone?? The courts are explaining the legal definition of what rape is. That's it. You don't like theline they drew, O.K. But they aren't allowing people to be raped legally.
Uh- droop and bucket- you agree with the concept of statuatory rape?
1) the adult smoked marijuana with the minor- she was not charged in offering drugs to a minor? Or consuming illegal substance with a minor?
2) We all agree she initially consented, right? Since the minor was below the age of consent- why wasn't the woman charged with statuatory rape? Had the sexes been reversed along with the ages- if an 18 year old man was talked into sex with a 16 year old, gave his consent then withdrew it- would he have still been charged with some sort of sex with a minor- even if she were the aggressor?
Bucket- as usual- though, I am frequently in agreement with you on many issues- but your hysterical ranting that this is an example of women being chattel to the court is just plain silly.
1) He can still be charged in sexual assault- I don't know about MD, but in most states, sexual assault caries the same penalty as agravated rape.
2) She was an adult, he was a minor, in fact, the only adults IN the car were female- and they were aiding and abbeting them in breaking the law, and at least one of them (the girlfriend and boyfriend in the poeple mentioned) was guilty of a statuatory rape crime- why wasn't she charged with sex with a minor?
Could it be because, no matter what Bucket- men are the bad guys and women have no culpability in a crime according to you? And any ruling, that doesn't say "he is a scumbag and we should just kill him for the natural born rapist he is" is making women "Chattel".
Not one person, save yourself, seems to think this decision makes women "chattel"- and, in link upon link, this "victim"- the adult in the car, is not treated as a man, being the only adult in the car, would have been had the roles been reversed. Had both drivers been men, BOTH of the ADULTS would have been charged with something like aiding and abetting to the deliquency of a minor? 
In fact, in light of the fact that the only ones in the car that were CONSENTING ADULTS WERE THE FEMALES- at the very least, shouldn't ONE of the females be a co-defendent here? Or do you only apply that reponsibility to males in that situation?
1) the adult smoked marijuana with the minor- she was not charged in offering drugs to a minor? Or consuming illegal substance with a minor?
2) We all agree she initially consented, right? Since the minor was below the age of consent- why wasn't the woman charged with statuatory rape? Had the sexes been reversed along with the ages- if an 18 year old man was talked into sex with a 16 year old, gave his consent then withdrew it- would he have still been charged with some sort of sex with a minor- even if she were the aggressor?
Bucket- as usual- though, I am frequently in agreement with you on many issues- but your hysterical ranting that this is an example of women being chattel to the court is just plain silly.
1) He can still be charged in sexual assault- I don't know about MD, but in most states, sexual assault caries the same penalty as agravated rape.
2) She was an adult, he was a minor, in fact, the only adults IN the car were female- and they were aiding and abbeting them in breaking the law, and at least one of them (the girlfriend and boyfriend in the poeple mentioned) was guilty of a statuatory rape crime- why wasn't she charged with sex with a minor?
Could it be because, no matter what Bucket- men are the bad guys and women have no culpability in a crime according to you? And any ruling, that doesn't say "he is a scumbag and we should just kill him for the natural born rapist he is" is making women "Chattel".
Not one person, save yourself, seems to think this decision makes women "chattel"- and, in link upon link, this "victim"- the adult in the car, is not treated as a man, being the only adult in the car, would have been had the roles been reversed. Had both drivers been men, BOTH of the ADULTS would have been charged with something like aiding and abetting to the deliquency of a minor?
In fact, in light of the fact that the only ones in the car that were CONSENTING ADULTS WERE THE FEMALES- at the very least, shouldn't ONE of the females be a co-defendent here? Or do you only apply that reponsibility to males in that situation?
At common law, the consent of the woman is almost irrelevant - almost except that if she consented then she would not have been raped. However, in trial, that is almost presumed. The kicker becomes the intent of the man. If the man believed she was consenting then, regardless her lack of consent, he could not be convicted. Since Rape is a general intent crime, his mistake but be honest and reasonable. In other words, it must be subjectively believed and a reasonable person would also have believed that she consented.
To address Bucket's question earlier on about inconsistencies, yes there are lots of inconsistencies in the results. Rape is one of the easiest charges to claim and hardest to disprove. I have spent my professional career in prosecuting and defending these cases. They are all very factually specific. I have dealt with very few stranger crawling in the window type cases. It then comes down to parsing the facts and trying to piece together what actually happened. At least in this case both parties weren't drunker than Cooter Brown.
Here you are adding more tests and more variables into the jury's instructions. Not that it is a bad thing to do so, but it will lead to more errors.
Now there is an abandonment of the rule of law. If there is no penetration, there cannot, by definition, a conviction of rape. There are other offenses that were committed, various indecent assaults, but no rape if no penetration. If true, then he should be held responsible for the indecent assaults. However as they become res gestae of the rape, it would be up to a jury to decide if those were the actual facts of the case.
J
To address Bucket's question earlier on about inconsistencies, yes there are lots of inconsistencies in the results. Rape is one of the easiest charges to claim and hardest to disprove. I have spent my professional career in prosecuting and defending these cases. They are all very factually specific. I have dealt with very few stranger crawling in the window type cases. It then comes down to parsing the facts and trying to piece together what actually happened. At least in this case both parties weren't drunker than Cooter Brown.
Here you are adding more tests and more variables into the jury's instructions. Not that it is a bad thing to do so, but it will lead to more errors.
QUOTE(Crusingram)
Okay- I didn't read that part I guess? Then yes- they should be convicted of rape- penetration or no.
Now there is an abandonment of the rule of law. If there is no penetration, there cannot, by definition, a conviction of rape. There are other offenses that were committed, various indecent assaults, but no rape if no penetration. If true, then he should be held responsible for the indecent assaults. However as they become res gestae of the rape, it would be up to a jury to decide if those were the actual facts of the case.
J
QUOTE(Jagwease @ Nov 18 2006, 05:04 PM)
At common law, the consent of the woman is almost irrelevant - almost except that if she consented then she would not have been raped. However, in trial, that is almost presumed. The kicker becomes the intent of the man. If the man believed she was consenting then, regardless her lack of consent, he could not be convicted. Since Rape is a general intent crime, his mistake but be honest and reasonable. In other words, it must be subjectively believed and a reasonable person would also have believed that she consented.
To address Bucket's question earlier on about inconsistencies, yes there are lots of inconsistencies in the results. Rape is one of the easiest charges to claim and hardest to disprove. I have spent my professional career in prosecuting and defending these cases. They are all very factually specific. I have dealt with very few stranger crawling in the window type cases. It then comes down to parsing the facts and trying to piece together what actually happened. At least in this case both parties weren't drunker than Cooter Brown.
Here you are adding more tests and more variables into the jury's instructions. Not that it is a bad thing to do so, but it will lead to more errors.
QUOTE(Crusingram)
Okay- I didn't read that part I guess? Then yes- they should be convicted of rape- penetration or no.
Now there is an abandonment of the rule of law. If there is no penetration, there cannot, by definition, a conviction of rape. There are other offenses that were committed, various indecent assaults, but no rape if no penetration. If true, then he should be held responsible for the indecent assaults. However as they become res gestae of the rape, it would be up to a jury to decide if those were the actual facts of the case.
J
Okay- point taken
- it wouldn't be rape- but rather sexual assault- which, once again, has, from what I have seen, about the same sentence as rape, if not THE same sentence.Also what culpability would the ADULTS in that car have Jagwease?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 19 2006, 11:32 AM)
Okay- point taken
- it wouldn't be rape- but rather sexual assault- which, once again, has, from what I have seen, about the same sentence as rape, if not THE same sentence.Also what culpability would the ADULTS in that car have Jagwease?
Usually they get a much different punishment for an non rape sexual assault. It grades out at battery, then up to an indecent assault/sexual battery, then rape. I have not looked at the model code to see what the "aggravated" aspects of each are, but they would generally be such things as age of victim, type of force used. It is the poor judge that sentences all alike.
As to the adults in the vehicle? Perhaps a misprison offense if they did not report it, maybe an accessory after the fact if they aided in a cover up. But if the complaining witness is an adult, there is really no duty to aid under the common law. If the complaining witness is a juvenile, perhaps a child abuse type offense, but that is stretching it.
There generally is no duty to aid under the law unless a person is in a special category (peace officer, etc).
J
QUOTE(Jagwease)
Here you are adding more tests and more variables into the jury's instructions. Not that it is a bad thing to do so, but it will lead to more errors.
But the fact we allow more errors on the inverse means we will also allow more corrections. This point could be made for a great many things when exclusion is argued. Exclusivity gives control yes, but it also gives privilege. Should we be aiming for privilege towards the individual who requires consent over the consenter's own body?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.