LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Okay, this thread relates to rape, which is of course a highly sensitive subject. Anyone who might be upset by a discussion of related subjects might not want to go any further.
I came across a story the other day, and despite obvious arguments that this is a positive development, it raised a number of question in my mind. I was wondering what all of you would make of this.
http://www.teencvs.org/news-SexualConsent.html
WITHDRAWAL OF SEXUAL CONSENT QUALIFIES AS RAPE, JUSTICES RULE
Decision based on case in which a teen boy failed to stop despite girl's pleas
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
SAN FRANCISCO - A man may be convicted of rape if his sexual partner first consents but later changes her mind and asks him to stop, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In a 6-1 decision, the justices said a man who continues sexual intercourse with a woman once she has retracted her consent can be charged with rape. The court ruled in a date-rape case involving teenagers at a party in El Dorado County.
"A withdrawal of consent effectively nullities any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the court.
The decision clears up conflicting definitions that state courts have grappled with in recent years. In 1985, an appellate court ruled that withdrawing consent during intercourse does not constitute rape, but in 2000, another California appellate court ruled that it did.
Supreme courts in at least five other states have ruled it is rape if a woman withdraws consent at any time and her partner does not stop. But women's advocates caution that because many rape cases, particularly ones in which the victim knows her offender, are so tough to prosecute, juries still will probably be faced with the difficult task of deciding whom to believe when it comes to consent.
Deputy Attorney General John McClean, who represented the prosecution, called the ruling a "common-sense decision."
"Kids and booze is a bad combination, and kids and booze and no parents around is a real bad combination," he said.
Douglas Beloof, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School and the director of a national victims' right group, called Monday's ruling "modern and progressive."
"It means that a woman has complete choice over her sexual activity," said Beloof, director of the National Crime Victims Law Institute.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the overall ruling but dissented on its application to the case. She contended that the victim did not clearly communicate her feelings, and the male did not use obvious force.
The court's decision stemmed from an incident in El Dorado County at a party in 2000. Laura T., 17, agreed to drive a friend, Juan to a party at the home of John Z. John's parents were not home. Laura was the only female present. The males, who were drinking beer, ranged in age from 16 to 21.
For a while, Laura spent time in a bedroom with Juan and John, who like her were under 18; they kissed her and partially disrobed her. At first, "she enjoyed the attention," according to the opinion. But she said that Juan then raped her. Juan eventually reached a plea agreement and admitted to sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse, a misdemeanor. He was part of Monday's case.
John, 17, also had sex with Laura and contended that it was consensual. Laura, however, said she tried to end the intercourse and told him three times that she needed to go home. "Just give me a minute," he replied, according to the opinion.
She said she told John he would not be "doing this" if he truly cared about her. She said he continued for about a minute and a half after her final protest.
A juvenile court found John had committed rape, and a Court of Appeals agreed. John appealed to the California Supreme Court.
"In the present case, he clearly was given ample time to withdraw but refused to do so despite Laura's resistance and objections," Chin wrote in people vs. John Z., S103427. The court observed that John continued the sex act for "at least four or five minutes after Laura first told him she had to go home."
Brown, in her dissent, said she agreed that "clear withdrawal of consent nullifies any earlier consent" and "forcible persistence" is rape. "A woman has an absolute right to say 'no' to an act of sexual intercourse," she wrote.
But she questioned if Laura's statement "clearly communicated her withdrawal of consent in what Brown described as "a sordid, distressing, sad little case." She noted that Laura had been openly affectionate with Juan during the evening and engaged in mutual kissing with John in a bedroom. Brown said Laura did not protest when the sexual act began and later admitted she had not "officially" told John she did not want sex.
Foster, John's lawyer, said John served several months at a youth facility for the rape. If John commits a felony as an adult, the rape could become a first-strike offense and substantially raise the amount of time he would have to serve foe the felony, she said.
Carol Foster a Sacramento attorney for the young man in the case, said she was disappointed with the decision because she believe that once the victim consented her client ceased in a "reasonable" amount of time.
"What does the law say is he to stop that split second?" she asked. I was looking for the court to go further in the definitions of these questions because I think they are going to come up in future cases."
???
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Galant
)
