US redefines rape to count more people as victims

[æonpax]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it is expanding the FBI's more than eight-decade-old definition of rape to reflect a better understanding of the crime and to broaden protections.

The new definition counts men as victims for the first time and drops the requirement that victims must have physically resisted their attackers. ( The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ) - http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/us-redefines-rape-to-1293280.html

This is indeed, progress.

[darkeyes]

This is indeed, progress.

It is indeed....

[Long Duck Dong]

I call it redefining a ages old and out dated law...... progress will be when people use their brains and limit the situations in which a good number of rape claims are made.......

[DuckiesDarling]

It was redefined for the FBI, many states had already taken in to account exactly the same thing. And to be quite honest, it's more the states that have to deal with rapes than the FBI, they come into play when it's a serial offender or when requested by the local police departments. To say it's progress is a misnomer, it's not progress, it's confirmation of what the states were already doing.

[darkeyes]

It was redefined for the FBI, many states had already taken in to account exactly the same thing. And to be quite honest, it's more the states that have to deal with rapes than the FBI, they come into play when it's a serial offender or when requested by the local police departments. To say it's progress is a misnomer, it's not progress, it's confirmation of what the states were already doing.

..but not all states, Darlin' darlin'.. so it is still progress...:)

[DuckiesDarling]

..but not all states, Darlin' darlin'.. so it is still progress...:)

Did you miss the part where I said it was redefined for the FBI, not as FEDERAL law that supercedes for ALL states.

So until it's a FEDERAL law, it changes nothing for those states that still have problems understanding that when anyone says no it means no.


So I don't see progress, I see a change that will mean more rapes will be compiled in the FBI's statistics.\


From the article itself.


The change will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics but will not will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions. It's an important shift because lawmakers and policymakers use crime statistics to allocate money and other resources for prevention and victim assistance

[æonpax]

So I don't see progress, I see a change that will mean more rapes will be compiled in the FBI's statistics.

Of course you don't, but then again there's a lot of things you apparently don't understand about the US legal and judicial system. I guess I'll have to explain it to you.

The FBI only handles cases involving federal law. The FBI can only enforce certain federal laws when a person crosses state lines, among other things. If you'll notice, in this link ~ http://students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/USRapeLaws.pdf ~ the federal rape law is already neutral gender and feds already have been enforcing federal rape laws between men.

The problem is, also by law, all rapes were statistically grouped under one gender, neutral, presumed female. What Obama did was allow the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, specifically "Forcible Rape" ~ http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html ~ another category for rape. The FBI also takes in statistics from all 50 states.

What this now requires is for the FBI to separate the genders and this gives state and local law enforcement (and men), an accurate database from which prosecutors, lawyers, judges and law makers especially, can track crime and adjust or advocate new laws to protect men.

Considering this issue has been kicked around for a year by the Republicans who changed nothing in it, and it gives men the tool they need to also publicize that male/male rape is indeed a problem ( which used to be brushed under the table )...that's real progress.
.

[Long Duck Dong]

so DuckiesDarling, who is a US citizen, born and raised in the US, knows nothing about the US legal system even tho she has been a victim of rape and been through the legal system ?

thats more impressive than you saying that the UJMC did not mention sodomy anywhere ( article 125 )

[tenni]

It seems to be good news. I find a couple of statements in the article interesting. The fact that forced oral sex is now part of the definition is good rather than considering only anal and vaginal penetration as criteria. The fact that the federal statistics on the number of rape cases are kept and used to determine funding is good news for male victims of rape. Previously, it seems like male rape was not statistically counted and no funding was officially allocated by the US federal government to help male victims. I suspect that rape crisis centres etc. did not turn male rape victims away though. I also wonder if male rape victims are as reluctant to report or more reluctant to report rape than women but that is not directly part of this news. If men are less likely than women to report or more likely to report than women this would impact any statistics.

[Jobelorocks]

so DuckiesDarling, who is a US citizen, born and raised in the US, knows nothing about the US legal system even tho she has been a victim of rape and been through the legal system ?

thats more impressive than you saying that the UJMC did not mention sodomy anywhere ( article 125 )

Did you mean the UCMJ ( the military law code) ?

[Jobelorocks]

I think that it is so sad and sickening that people don't take male rape victims seriously especially when the rapist is a woman. Just like women who get wet or have orgasms during their attacks, men can also have physical reactions to attacks.

This is one more step towards equality in the area of rape issues, but we still have a long way to go.

[Long Duck Dong]

yeah the UCMJ, lol bloody early morning typing lol.....

the difficulty with female sexually assaulting a male, is that its so bloody hard to prove the burden of proof aspect..... ( I asked a couple of NZ cops that are good friends ) it falls under the gray area aspect of consent or non consent.... and unless you have clear defining aspects such as restraints, drug or alcohol usage with the intention of debilitating the victim, you have very lil chance of proving anything.... unless you can prove mental / emotional blackmail / manipulation.....

its easier to lay a complaint under the sexual harassment in the work place laws in NZ, than it is to lay a complaint of female rapes male, cos the burden of proof is so different.......

part of the reason why its so hard to prove a claim, is that if the burden of proof was not required, we would see much more claims of rape and sexual violation.... and unfortunately burden of proof is what works against rape victims, as often they have to prove that they are victims of rape, not victims of their own actions and bad decisions......

many females will argue that no female chooses to be raped or sexually assaulted so they bear no responsibility for their actions what so ever..... and that is where the legal and court systems are differing as it comes down to the burden of proof aspect.... can a person prove that they did not give consent or that they withdrew consent as its the one aspect of sex that doesn't leave any mark or trace.......

[Katja]

many females will argue that no female chooses to be raped or sexually assaulted so they bear no responsibility for their actions what so ever..... ....

No person, male or female chooses to be raped or sexually assaulted and they bear no responsibility for their actions for the shits that cant cotrol themselves and do the deed! there is no justification for rape ever.

[Long Duck Dong]

No person, male or female chooses to be raped or sexually assaulted and they bear no responsibility for their actions for the shits that cant cotrol themselves and do the deed! there is no justification for rape ever.

as far as I know, nobody is trying to justify rape, however not everybody ( including the court and legal system ) are blindly saying the prep is automatically guilty cos somebody claimed rape / sexual assault.....
they now look more carefully at the circumstances of what happened to see if it was a case of clear cut rape or if there is a lack of burden of proof by the victim to show that they in no way, shape or form, assisted in creating a situation that could be too obscure to prove their claims.....

my stance is the same as last time this issue arose in the forum.... a gray area is created by the * no means no * statement, and how some posters stated that implied consent is not consent, but their right not to have to clearly give consent, should not be infringed upon... that its their right to imply consent, but other people should not think that implied consent, means consent is given

something that comes up in court and is argued that a person must be guilty as clear consent was NOT given and a number of cases have hinged on the aspect of implied consent......


is it right or wrong? its both and neither.... its created by people that imply consent as part of their rights with their body, but do not want that aspect used against them in a court of law

[æonpax]

It seems to be good news. I find a couple of statements in the article interesting. The fact that forced oral sex is now part of the definition is good rather than considering only anal and vaginal penetration as criteria. The fact that the federal statistics on the number of rape cases are kept and used to determine funding is good news for male victims of rape. 1) Previously, it seems like male rape was not statistically counted and no funding was officially allocated by the US federal government to help male victims. I suspect that rape crisis centres etc. did not turn male rape victims away though. 2) I also wonder if male rape victims are as reluctant to report or more reluctant to report rape than women but that is not directly part of this news. If men are less likely than women to report or more likely to report than women this would impact any statistics.


1) You are correct on a few counts. One of the benefits this new procedure will have is that federal dollars allocated to victims of rape, previously all female, will now take into account males whom have suffered rape.



"The change will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics but will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions. It's an important shift because lawmakers and policymakers use crime statistics to allocate money and other resources for prevention and victim assistance." - (Huffington Post) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/men-as-rape-victims-_n_1191154.html



2) Males definitely do under report rape. (National Center for Victims of Crime) - http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361

[darkeyes]

as far as I know, nobody is trying to justify rape, however not everybody ( including the court and legal system ) are blindly saying the prep is automatically guilty cos somebody claimed rape / sexual assault.....
they now look more carefully at the circumstances of what happened to see if it was a case of clear cut rape or if there is a lack of burden of proof by the victim to show that they in no way, shape or form, assisted in creating a situation that could be too obscure to prove their claims.....

my stance is the same as last time this issue arose in the forum.... a gray area is created by the * no means no * statement, and how some posters stated that implied consent is not consent, but their right not to have to clearly give consent, should not be infringed upon... that its their right to imply consent, but other people should not think that implied consent, means consent is given

something that comes up in court and is argued that a person must be guilty as clear consent was NOT given and a number of cases have hinged on the aspect of implied consent......


is it right or wrong? its both and neither.... its created by people that imply consent as part of their rights with their body, but do not want that aspect used against them in a court of law

I hate and loathe the term "implied consent".. I do not accept "implied consent"... I know of at least one instance where consent to anal sex was taken as "implied" because both oral and vaginal sex had occurred perfectly consensually within an hour of that assault taking place even although the victim had clearly informed the rapist that she would not do anal sex, does not do anal sex, will never do anal sex... a brutal, agonising, contemptuous and humiliating anal rape occurred, but the procurator fiscal's office and the police made it quite clear that there was no realistic hope of conviction because vaginal and oral sex had occurred within such a short time frame and informed the victim that they could and would investigate no farther than merely record the report and retain the DNA evidence on their database... the victim not only had to endure what was a humiliating experience of rape, but the humiliating experience of being told that because she had consented to oral and vaginal sex, that a court of law would not convict because even although she had clearly said no to in the words of one insensitive bastard policeman, to "an arse fucking", the other sexual acts having been consented to and performed freely with her consent meant that she had "implied consent" to anal sex.

[void()]

I hate and loathe the term "implied consent".. I do not accept "implied consent"... I know of at least one instance where consent to anal sex was taken as "implied" because both oral and vaginal sex had occurred perfectly consensually within an hour of that assault taking place even although the victim had clearly informed the rapist that she would not do anal sex, does not do anal sex, will never do anal sex... a brutal, agonising, contemptuous and humiliating anal rape occurred, but the procurator fiscal's office and the police made it quite clear that there was no realistic hope of conviction because vaginal and oral sex had occurred within such a short time frame and informed the victim that they could and would investigate no farther than merely record the report and retain the DNA evidence on their database... the victim not only had to endure what was a humiliating experience of rape, but the humiliating experience of being told that because she had consented to oral and vaginal sex, that a court of law would not convict because even although she had clearly said no to in the words of one insensitive bastard policeman, to "an arse fucking", the other sexual acts having been consented to and performed freely with her consent meant that she had "implied consent" to anal sex.

Ah, I see you do understand. Stop pretending you don't.

[elian]

So let me get this straight, up until just now men couldn't be raped? Wow, what a 'wonderful' society we live in. "About damn time" Sadly there is no perfect solution for trying sexual abuse crimes and there will continue to be just as much ambiguity as there always has been. I've known at least one person who was labeled a "sexual predator" where the sex was completely consensual but the accuser did not want their OTHER partner to know it was consensual, needed leverage in a child custody dispute and the DA needed another conviction in order to make their statistics look good.

[Jobelorocks]

I hate and loathe the term "implied consent".. I do not accept "implied consent"... I know of at least one instance where consent to anal sex was taken as "implied" because both oral and vaginal sex had occurred perfectly consensually within an hour of that assault taking place even although the victim had clearly informed the rapist that she would not do anal sex, does not do anal sex, will never do anal sex... a brutal, agonising, contemptuous and humiliating anal rape occurred, but the procurator fiscal's office and the police made it quite clear that there was no realistic hope of conviction because vaginal and oral sex had occurred within such a short time frame and informed the victim that they could and would investigate no farther than merely record the report and retain the DNA evidence on their database... the victim not only had to endure what was a humiliating experience of rape, but the humiliating experience of being told that because she had consented to oral and vaginal sex, that a court of law would not convict because even although she had clearly said no to in the words of one insensitive bastard policeman, to "an arse fucking", the other sexual acts having been consented to and performed freely with her consent meant that she had "implied consent" to anal sex.

Actually something very similar happened to myself. I was raped anally even though I said no multiple times and that it really hurt which just led to him choking me harder and harder until I stopped resisting. Afterwards I was left bruised and bleeding. Since I had consented to oral and vaginal sex prior, the cops really wouldn't do anything. I was devastated. He got off scott free and did permanent damage to my anus (part of the reason I cannot have anal sex with my husband). It was humiliating to have to talk to doctors and police about this and then have them do nothing was devastating.

The implied consent defense was ridiculous. I told him before that I would not do anal and never would and saying no when he forced himself inside of my anus, was obviously not enough for him to stop. He told me while he was doing it that I liked the pain, which I said I didn't and to stop, but since I had oral and vaginal sex willingly, that somehow meant I consented.

[æonpax]

I hate and loathe the term "implied consent".. {snipped for brevity}


When it comes to rape, for a female at least, “implied consent” comes in different fashions and incidences: date rape, alcohol consumption, manner of dress, coercion and spousal, to name a few. How many times, for example, have you been around guys whom when they see a woman provocatively dressed, say “she’s looking for it”…”it” meaning rape? NO!, she’s not looking to be raped.



These kind of men belong in a community that adherers to radical Sharia law, where even showing skin (in extreme cases, even facial skin, as in being forced to wear a ‘burka’) is punishable by the lash or stoning.

While “implied consent” in the US, at least, as a legal defense against a rape charge is diminishing, there is the problem with “false reporting”. It exists but not to the extent some believe it to be. According to FBI statistics up to 8% of all rapes are considered false http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics . This kind of incident was highlighted in 2006, with the Duke University/Lacrosse incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case whereby three strippers were raped and reported it to the police but the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, claimed that the women were lying and filed a false report. The strippers were eventually cleared but the fallout was ugly.

[tenni]

I had no memory of this defence of "implied consent". I looked into it and the reason that I don't recall this argument is that it has been rejected as a defence by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1999!!!!! Talk about out dated backwards ideas!:eek:

"R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the defence of consent to a charge of sexual assault. The Court held that there was no defence of implied consent.

Justice Major, for the majority, held that there was no defence of "implied consent" to sexual assault and overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

The accused, Major explained, must raise a reasonable doubt that there was consent. Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the "complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place" or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where "the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused."

L'Heureux-Dube held that the defence could not be used unless the accused took sufficient steps to ascertain consent. Here, the accused did not make any attempt to ensure that the accused had consent when he moved from a massage to sexual touching.

She also castigated McClung J.'s opinion severely, arguing that it reposed on myths and stereotypes about women and sexual assault."

In other words a guy needs to ask Do you want me to stick my dick in your vagina, anus etc.?

[darkeyes]

I had no memory of this defence of "implied consent". I looked into it and the reason that I don't recall this argument is that it has been rejected as a defence by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1999!!!!! Talk about out dated backwards ideas!:eek:

"R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the defence of consent to a charge of sexual assault. The Court held that there was no defence of implied consent.

Justice Major, for the majority, held that there was no defence of "implied consent" to sexual assault and overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

The accused, Major explained, must raise a reasonable doubt that there was consent. Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the "complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place" or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where "the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused."

L'Heureux-Dube held that the defence could not be used unless the accused took sufficient steps to ascertain consent. Here, the accused did not make any attempt to ensure that the accused had consent when he moved from a massage to sexual touching.

She also castigated McClung J.'s opinion severely, arguing that it reposed on myths and stereotypes about women and sexual assault."

In other words a guy needs to ask Do you want me to stick my dick in your vagina, anus etc.?

There is no assumption of implied consent in either Scots or English law either. It did exist for married couples in England I believe but that has long since passed into the history of law. Yet although there is no assumption of implied consent it still rears its ugly head in rape cases too frequently and does raise doubt in the minds of some jurors.. as in the case I outlined, although people have the right to say no at any time in law at times consent even if accepted as not having been given by police or the crown legal eagles, they do not proceed because of what they assume is an unrealistic chance of conviction.. occasionally if there is sufficient evidence they will proceed, and convictions have been handed down, but all too often procurator's and prosecuters will not even allow a case to proceed.. they and the police may not use the term "implied consent" in court but it has been and is used to victims to frighten them off and befuddle them with law.. the young girl I referred to was just one such, but she is not alone..

[elian]

Actually something very similar happened to myself. I was raped anally even though I said no multiple times and that it really hurt which just led to him choking me harder and harder until I stopped resisting. Afterwards I was left bruised and bleeding. Since I had consented to oral and vaginal sex prior, the cops really wouldn't do anything. I was devastated. He got off scott free and did permanent damage to my anus (part of the reason I cannot have anal sex with my husband). It was humiliating to have to talk to doctors and police about this and then have them do nothing was devastating.


When someone says "stop" I stop. Nobody deserves to TRULY be treated like a piece of property, no matter what the relationship is. I hope to God that my partner would never do something like that to me, because that would be the LAST time we ever slept together.

I can easily imagine some guy saying, "Oh, I was hopped up on hormones.." Or Sanduky, "I guess I shouldn't have *horsed around* with those kids..." Bull-shit, keep it in your pants asshole. Sex is very powerful and it can be abused.

[Long Duck Dong]

the danger with implied consent, is that we use it all the time, every time we have sexual / intimate contact with a person where verbal / clear consent is not given or withheld.....

I have noticed that people immediately look at it from a legal stand point... not from the situation of their own interactions with other people..... and that is where the issue arises that I mentioned earlier in the thread, the * no means no, but I have the right to imply consent as I see fit, others do not have the right to think that me, implying consent, is giving consent *

the other issue is the way that its used to refer to drink, clothing etc etc.... however implied consent is most commonly at the point of sexual interaction, not the hours before..... unless people go to bed fully clothed in high heels, stockings, low cut tops etc etc.......

reasonable doubt is what the legal system uses ( police, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and the jury ).... as the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, becomes the burden of proof for the victim and the offender....... and if there is a gray area, then it makes things a lot harder for the prosecutors to get a conviction......

one of the things that make it very hard for any victim of sexual assault, to be heard, is the fakers and liars that abuse the system, as it becomes harder to prove a situation has appeared beyond clear reasonable doubt......

it is something that DD and I have talked about in the past, and again with this thread.... about how if I was to go to bed with her, and we were to be intimate without each of us giving consent, its implied consent, but the burden of proof rests on my shoulders to prove that consent was given......

as a couple of police friends of mine have said, the hardest thing for any person to do, is prove that consent was or was not given, so they look for aspects of implied consent in the cases where there is overwhelming evidence that the situation was most likely consensual as the case and charges can all rest on that..... and its a dammed sight harder to prove you are a victim of sexual assault if there is a good indication of implied consent, than if you were jogging down the road, grabbed by a total stranger and forced into bushes.....

its one of those things that can be argued and debated in forums til hell freezes over.... but its a sad fact of life, we all too often give implied consent in the bedroom as we do not always give clear consent or ask for clear permission from our partners.... but people will state clearly that implied consent is not consent at all when other people use that defense / statement or point out the loopholes and issues with it

[Diva667]

for those of you who haven't seen this:

http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/men-can-stop-rape.jpg

This one , too

http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/18/stop-rape-101811-400x470.jpg

[drugstore cowboy]

This is actually a very good thing even if Long Duck Dong and Duckie's Darling are going to claim that it's not.

[tenni]

This is actually a very good thing even if Long Duck Dong and Duckie's Darling are going to claim that it's not.


Well, it isn't as if they are "experts" or sitting on the US Supreme and their opinion is worth more than any other poster.

[DuckiesDarling]

Well, it isn't as if they are "experts" or sitting on the US Supreme and their opinion is worth more than any other poster.

You know I really wish people would actually read my posts instead of just running their mouths about them. I never said it wasn't a good thing the guideline was redefined. I quoted the part about it not changing any laws and that it will help with allocating more resources. Before you point at the splinter in my eye, take the whole tree out of yours please, BOTH of you.

[Long Duck Dong]

This is actually a very good thing even if Long Duck Dong and Duckie's Darling are going to claim that it's not.

I believe what I said was that when people use their brains and limit the chances of them being raped, its would be a better thing .......

having a lot more money and resources to assist people AFTER the crime has been committed, is never as good as limiting the chances of the crime happening in the first place......

[darkeyes]

I believe what I said was that when people use their brains and limit the chances of them being raped, its would be a better thing .......

having a lot more money and resources to assist people AFTER the crime has been committed, is never as good as limiting the chances of the crime happening in the first place......

We will all stay indoors locked up windows barred then shall we? Maybe if some people took no for answer and just kept their cocks in their drawers that would help.. most people do use their brains as it happens but no matter how well we use them there will always be an arsehole who will abuse power..

..in (partly) another context maybe I shouldnt go visit my bank either, carry my shopping home, use a hole in the wall, take our children to the park, allow them to go to school or nursery, speak to my neighbours or relations, catch a cab or late night bus home, walk in the countryside, go swimming or cycling... I use my brains at all times as do most people.. but we can never fully bargain for those who will still try and exploit and hurt us and worse with criminal intent.. I want to live life, Duckie, not be bored out of my mind by the need to stay safe and merely exist... no matter what we do.. we are never entirely safe..

[Long Duck Dong]

and as a male, fran, should I do the same as i can be raped too......?? but it can be by females that are touching my body without my express consent or permission or males that do not keep their cocks in their drawers....

no, I want to live life too.... just like you.... so I want people to respect me and my rights not to be sexually molested and violated by drunken females that want to go to bed with any male they can find, I do not want to be used and abused by females that regret their own actions in the morning......

its not just males that rape and its not just females that can be raped.... but your post doesn't reflect that.... it places the blame on the male....

[jamieknyc]

I can't speak for the UK or Canada, but in the United States there is no such thing as "implied consent" to a sexual act. In some states, the woman doesn't even have to inform the man that she does not consent and can press charges for rape, saying after the fact that it was done without her consent.

[darkeyes]

and as a male, fran, should I do the same as i can be raped too......?? but it can be by females that are touching my body without my express consent or permission or males that do not keep their cocks in their drawers....

no, I want to live life too.... just like you.... so I want people to respect me and my rights not to be sexually molested and violated by drunken females that want to go to bed with any male they can find, I do not want to be used and abused by females that regret their own actions in the morning......

its not just males that rape and its not just females that can be raped.... but your post doesn't reflect that.... it places the blame on the male....

No it doesnt.. ur quite right Duckie.. it merely recognises that the great majority of rapes and sexual assaults are by men upon women.. women rape too and commit many crimes against the person...I'm sorry for not giving that fact due recognition.. but what I say holds good.. do we live or do we lock ourselves away just to survive? Life is full of risk, not all predatory, in some way or t'other.. and no matter what we do we can't avoid that.. do we enjoy life and make the most of it or do we not just because there is risk...

[jamieknyc]

No it doesnt.. ur quite right Duckie.. it merely recognises that the great majority of rapes and sexual assaults are by men upon women.. women rape too and commit many crimes against the person...I'm sorry for not giving that fact due recognition.. but what I say holds good.. do we live or do we lock ourselves away just to survive? Life is full of risk, not all predatory, in some way or t'other.. and no matter what we do we can't avoid that.. do we enjoy life and make the most of it or do we not just because there is risk...

In many Aneruican states, rape statutes define the crime as forcible penetration of the victim's vagina by a man's penis, and define other sex crimes as sodomy, sexual abuse or other terms. A woman can be charged with rape, though, if she participates in assisting a man to commit a rape on the victim.

[æonpax]

In many Aneruican states, rape statutes define the crime as forcible penetration of the victim's vagina by a man's penis, and define other sex crimes as sodomy, sexual abuse or other terms. A woman can be charged with rape, though, if she participates in assisting a man to commit a rape on the victim.

That would be an "accessory" to rape.

[jamieknyc]

That would be an "accessory" to rape.

Not so. An accessory is someone who assists in a crime or in covering it up, but is not an actual participant. Anyone who is an actual participant can be charged with the main crime (except for a charge of capital murder, in states where that exists).

[æonpax]

No it doesnt.. ur quite right Duckie.. it merely recognises that the great majority of rapes and sexual assaults are by men upon women.. women rape too and commit many crimes against the person...I'm sorry for not giving that fact due recognition.. but what I say holds good.. do we live or do we lock ourselves away just to survive? Life is full of risk, not all predatory, in some way or t'other.. and no matter what we do we can't avoid that.. do we enjoy life and make the most of it or do we not just because there is risk...

1) According to current FBI stats, 91% of all reported rapes are men raping women. The other 9% involve women raping woman. This is mainly an urban and prison crime consisting of females (usually gang members) forcibly putting an object into a female. Females raping males, statistically, falls under the category of "Statutory Rape" and involves an adult female and a minor male. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender ~

2) The FBI change in the statistical collection of rape incidences will now include male rape but previous research done on this state that the vast majority of male rapes is done by men and minor males. ~ http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361 ~

[DuckiesDarling]

Not so. An accessory is someone who assists in a crime or in covering it up, but is not an actual participant. Anyone who is an actual participant can be charged with the main crime (except for a charge of capital murder, in states where that exists).

Careful Jamie, she'll google it and tell you what the law is according to her as opposed to the law that is actually practiced by well... you know lawyers :)

[æonpax]

Not so. An accessory is someone who assists in a crime or in covering it up, but is not an actual participant. Anyone who is an actual participant can be charged with the main crime (except for a charge of capital murder, in states where that exists).

Prove it. You said it yourself, "if she participates in assisting a man to commit a rape on the victim." That fits the legal definition of an "accessory" to a crime. ~ http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html ~

[æonpax]

Careful Jamie, she'll google it and tell you what the law is according to her as opposed to the law that is actually practiced by well... you know lawyers :)

Hush please. You are welcome to voice your opinion but when it comes to facts, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This topic is out of your league.

[DuckiesDarling]

Hush please, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

That would be a no to your request. I do know what I'm talking about, if you care to look at Jamie's profile you'll see he is a practicing lawyer. You are a journalist or so you say, I'll go with Jamie's take on the law any day over any google links. He has to be up to date on all definitions and court decisions that can affect any case he comes across.

[void()]

Why can we not define rape as a person sexually violating another person?

Men can rape men. Men can rape women. Men can rape sexual butterfly people.

Women can rape women. Women can rape men. Women can rape butterfly people.

People sexually violating other people is rape. I use butterfly people as a euphemism for transsexual people. Apologies if such is considered offensive, no intention of offence exists.

My point being, people sexually violating other people is rape. I think if such definition existed there would be a lot less hassle over the issue, rape is rape, and it is unethical and illegal.

[jamieknyc]

Prove it. You said it yourself, "if she participates in assisting a man to commit a rape on the victim." That fits the legal definition of an "accessory" to a crime. ~ http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html ~

An accessory is defined as someone whose acts are incidental to the actual crime, and does not actually participate in the crime itself. Accessories would include people who are involved in the reparations for the crime, such as the person who scouts out locations for a gang of burglars, or who helps the perpetrators get away.

In the United States, anyone who participates in the actual acts constituting the offense may be charges with the offense. Thus a woman who holds th victim down while a man rapes her could be charged with rape along with the male rapist. The main exception is in a capital murder case. A person charged with capital murder must be either the person who killed the victim or the person who ordered the killer to do it.

[æonpax]

An accessory is defined as someone whose acts are incidental to the actual crime, and does not actually participate in the crime itself. Accessories would include people who are involved in the reparations for the crime, such as the person who scouts out locations for a gang of burglars, or who helps the perpetrators get away.

In the United States, anyone who participates in the actual acts constituting the offense may be charges with the offense. Thus a woman who holds th victim down while a man rapes her could be charged with rape along with the male rapist. The main exception is in a capital murder case. A person charged with capital murder must be either the person who killed the victim or the person who ordered the killer to do it.


You are correct. However, the word "assisting" as you originally phrased it, is ambiguous. The question would be, how is the person assisting? If you said "directly assisting the principle actor at the scene of the crime", then I would agree, they become "party" to the crime. If by "assisting" you mean "one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act", then they become an accessory.

In this case, "assisting" could be considered a legal amphiboly.

[Light_and_Dark]

First off I am glad this change was made though I have never been a victim of such crime...

Now my counter argument to implied consent thing...Yes it is wrong that the situations you experienced were passed off as implied consent...I admit I am no lawyer but that sounds wrong in my ears( not saying it didnt happen just sounds wrong due to my belief you need permission for each stage of sexual contact). The main purpose of the implied consent defense from my knowledge is when you bring a girl back to your place you are getting heavy and she strips lays on her back and spreads her legs for you...grabs your hips and pulls you into her...That would be implied consent it is not ACTUAL consent...At that point the woman does not have to say a thing and the next day could file rape before the implied consent defense..(mind you not a lawyer so just going on what i do know). Where in order to by pass the implied consent defense a woman has to say yes, then if she does not stop the sexual contact and say no then at no point is that rape...From my knowledge that is what the implied consent is to help defend....women dealing with real issues that are defeated with tools meant to help others suffer because someone at some point did something stupid....sorry for the rant....just my :2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

First off I am glad this change was made though I have never been a victim of such crime...

Now my counter argument to implied consent thing...Yes it is wrong that the situations you experienced were passed off as implied consent...I admit I am no lawyer but that sounds wrong in my ears( not saying it didnt happen just sounds wrong due to my belief you need permission for each stage of sexual contact). The main purpose of the implied consent defense from my knowledge is when you bring a girl back to your place you are getting heavy and she strips lays on her back and spreads her legs for you...grabs your hips and pulls you into her...That would be implied consent it is not ACTUAL consent...At that point the woman does not have to say a thing and the next day could file rape before the implied consent defense..(mind you not a lawyer so just going on what i do know). Where in order to by pass the implied consent defense a woman has to say yes, then if she does not stop the sexual contact and say no then at no point is that rape...From my knowledge that is what the implied consent is to help defend....women dealing with real issues that are defeated with tools meant to help others suffer because someone at some point did something stupid....sorry for the rant....just my :2cents:

nods... and that is where the gray area aspect comes into it.... one of the hardest things to prove in court is consent as it leaves no mark or trace on the human body.......

lawyers will generally ask if the person acted in any way, shape or form that indicated that they were not interested in intimate contact... and cases can hinge on that aspect

that is what makes rape and sexual violation so hard to prove in cases where a person has entered into a intimate situation that is obscure.... IE a few too many drinks at a night club and going to a strangers house, as opposed to being grabbed in a park by a stranger.....

most males in that situation would think that the female is expressing interest in intimacy..... yet if the female want to claim sexual assault / rape, the male would be blamed for it.... and that is the aspect that annoys the hell out of me...as its like saying that females that play games, are blameless cos the male has a cock......

implied consent is something that couples use regular and often single people hooking up.... and even with clear communication and a agreement to engage in intimate contact, there is still the burden of proof on the male to prove that it was consensual as its his word against the proof of sexual contact ( medically proven ) in the case of the female......

its something that has nearly sunk a number of high profile people in NZ....

[jamieknyc]

First off I am glad this change was made though I have never been a victim of such crime...

Now my counter argument to implied consent thing...Yes it is wrong that the situations you experienced were passed off as implied consent...I admit I am no lawyer but that sounds wrong in my ears( not saying it didnt happen just sounds wrong due to my belief you need permission for each stage of sexual contact). The main purpose of the implied consent defense from my knowledge is when you bring a girl back to your place you are getting heavy and she strips lays on her back and spreads her legs for you...grabs your hips and pulls you into her...That would be implied consent it is not ACTUAL consent...At that point the woman does not have to say a thing and the next day could file rape before the implied consent defense..(mind you not a lawyer so just going on what i do know). Where in order to by pass the implied consent defense a woman has to say yes, then if she does not stop the sexual contact and say no then at no point is that rape...From my knowledge that is what the implied consent is to help defend....women dealing with real issues that are defeated with tools meant to help others suffer because someone at some point did something stupid....sorry for the rant....just my :2cents:

In American law, the only form of implied consent to sexual intercourse was that in many states, a husband could not be prosecuted for rape for intercourse with his wife. That has since been abolished.