Which of these following cases is rape?

Post Reply New Topic

The Judge's comment are really useful because it highlight the impracticability of a traffic light system of consent, in cases of intoxication.

I think the moral of the story is, if you are accused of rape and you think you are falsely accused, go to the police immediately, make sure you write down all you can remember, including details of the encounter that you might not think would be relevant.

This is a really good question...

I don't believe that the crimes in "C" and "D" could cancel each other. The man and woman each committed the same act and therefore would be equally guilty.
Duty perspective: each individual is required to obey the law and be punished for failure to comply (obtain legal consent).
Pragmatic perspective: either individual would self-incriminate by pursuing charges against the other person and would therefore self-harm by declaring the incident.

Now, it would become a more complicated dilema if the woman became pregnant in scenarios "C" or "D" and decided to pursue child support.

Interestingly, under the laws of Green River Community College, a few of those scenarios could actually be turned into rape after the fact. To wit:

A person under the influence of alcohol or drugs is legally incapacitated, and therefore incapable of giving consent to sexual activity.

Green River makes no mention of what constitutes "influence." By their broad statement that could be one drink, two drinks or five drinks.

https://grcc.greenriver.edu/policies/po ... t_SS19.htm

Whatever the police department decides. After that whatever the prosecutor and judge decide. I could say jury after that, but most of the time jury trials never happen and people simply get plea bargains.

lol @ people thinking laws actually matter.

Crimes like assault or rape, are based on accused and accusers, Rape is primarily based around the issue of consent.

If the are non compos mentis, and it doesn't involve a minor, then no crime has taken place. It is not because they are equally guilty, and nobody is guilty until convicted.

I either one decided to go to court, then if scenario C and D were established, it would be thrown out of court, plain and simple.

If the woman became pregnant, then the male would have responsibility to pay support as normal, it is not a mitigating factor.

It is unfortunately this incorrect view is disseminated. Police can only press charges based on support from the prosecution service, it is not their job to try the individual only to enforce. Yes in some cases they don't do their job.

But they can't bring a case that the prosecution service won't support. They can only ensure that the right people are arrested, and charges are brought were possible.

The prosecution service's job is to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

It is not the job of the judge to change rape law or make it up. That is for parliament,. It is their job to test however.

A community college is free to make rules. This is different from the crime of rape.

Washington State Code RCW 9A.44.010 says this about mental incapacity.

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

In the OP's scenarios, the woman did understand the nature of the act of sexual intercourse. She was drunk but not incapacitated. That she regretted it later is superfluous.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.010

None of them are. Don't get drunk. Be a man and don't take advantage of drunk women. And women taking advantage of men is equally as bad, don't be a succubus. Still it isn't rape, it is just being a low life. Rape=Sexual Assault, not Sexual Escapade.

It is an issue of consent not regret.

Did I mention consent or regret?

Why do you think I was talking to you?

Your reply wasn't even there when I decided to post.

I agree with this, and would not wish to take advantage of anyone. I have rejected someone who was clearly out of in and emotional, I still had to make sure she go to her train safely. It was annoying not so much because of the awkward emotional proposition, by leaning against me with resting hair on my face.

However two people can quite reasonably have fun together and have sex consensually after getting drunk.

You're in UK or somewhere else? In USA prosecution is not the "Prosecution Service." The prosecution is technically who charges people, yes. However, regarding the police, they're who decide whether or not to report something to the State's Attorney in the first place. The police can do whatever they want in enforcing who gets to go to court and who doesn't. If someone is accused of one of these hypothetical rape scenarios, the police have the power to not charge him if they don't feel like it.

It's pretty arbitrary on who gets charged and who doesn't. It's the same way if you're driving, and you're going 5mph over the speed limit. Yes, the police can ticket you. No, they won't always. It depends on, besides the individual cop's mood, his quotas for arrests or tickets he needs (which is a real thing in USA), the individual department's policy in enforcing speed limits, or the traffic stop is done for a completely tertiary reason unrelated to speed limits entirely, ie, "acting suspicious," cop thinks he's drunk, guy fits description for someone involved in another crime, etc.

As far as prosecutors and judges, first off, in USA, it's supposed to be the grand jury who determines if a case has enough evidence to go to trial.


After that, the prosecutor, well, prosecutes. He tries his best to prove you did what you're accused of doing to the jury or judge (or more likely, the plea bargain route of playing "let's make a deal.")

As far as laws themselves, well, the judge is the determiner of the law. Whatever the judge allows to go to trial goes. Then it's the problem of the next judge in appellate court to appeal that judge's decision. Then there's case law, which is a whole different can of worms.

-----
So yes, the law is on the books. No, you're not a lawyer, judge, etc. What you think of it doesn't really matter. The only applicable thing to do would be to look up the actual laws and look up various legal cases in your state and see where judges and juries have said regarding sexual assault and it's definition.

I guess it makes a difference whether a legal or a moral perspective is used to evaluate the scenario.

From a moral perspective, a person who breaks a rule is guilty whether or not it is proven. From several western legal perspectives, a person who breaks a law is innocent until proven guilty.

For these scenarios, I used a moral perspective and used the word guilt to imply a rule has been broken. I've also assumed that the word "drunk" implies heavily intoxicated and therefore inability to legally give consent.

From a moral perspective, I think that it is fine for a person to feel happy and drink with the anticipation of having sex and then be lucky enough to follow through on that plan.

None of those examples are rape in Connecticut because all sex is considered consensual unless the victim specially states otherwise, fights back or is psychically unconscious.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... cratching/