Posted on 06/22/2017 5:03:33 PM PDT by Trump20162020
North Carolina is the one state where the law explicitly says you cannot revoke consent once it's given. A bill that would remove this "unacceptable loophole" has little traction.
One May evening in 1977, Beverly Hester was sexually assaulted. According to the summary included in the North Carolina Supreme Court decision State v. Way, she testified that the perpetrator, Donnie Way, threatened to beat her if she didn't have sex with him while hanging out at a friend's apartment. When she tried to leave the bedroom, he allegedly slapped her in the face.
Hester went on to tell the court that Way penetrated her anally and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She said he began having intercourse with her—though she begged him not to because she was a virgin—but stopped when she complained of severe stomach pains. Later, at the hospital, she told her mother she was raped.
Despite her testimony, the jury appeared to be swayed by the defense's argument that Hester initially agreed to have sex with Way. During deliberations, they returned to ask the judge "whether consent can be withdrawn." The judge noted that it could, especially in cases where intercourse has turned violent and thus "no longer consensual." Way was convicted of second degree rape.
(Excerpt) Read more at broadly.vice.com ...
I wonder if Bill Clinton has anything to say about this.
Sounds like you need to join a bowling league.
If they follow through on this it will unfairly victimize those afflicted with OCD.
Kobe Bryant, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
I would have gone with “consent” under duress/threat is not valid...
Wrong!
It should be CDO.
(In alphabetical order.)
Yes, this is common sense. Under duress. Its forced so it isnt real.
I’m not sure I agree with that.However,for a woman to withdraw consent while the “party” is underway can present some difficult problems.If a woman is unsure it’s *much* better to say “no” while both are still clothed.
LOL feminists aren’t going to like this at all. Sounds to me like some legislators have had enough of them.
I agree.
Where do people get this stuff? Consent to sex is not consent to assault.
And this is not a "law" - it was a N.C. Supreme Court decision interpreting the rape statute. There is no reason they can't overturn that ruling if another case like that reaches them.
What the NC Supreme Court ruled was that once consent is given, the crime is no longer rape. The NC SC noted that continuing relations might constitute assault, battery, lewd or lascivious conduct, or other crimes, just not rape. For most states this is a grey area, and many have lesser rape "degrees" that an assailant would be guilty of even if he can't be convicted of felony 1st degree rape or felony sexual assault. The only real difference in NC is that it is never rape (of any kind) once consent is given.
As the article itself notes, only eight states have some requirement of "continuous" consent in their case law, and there is only one state with a statute requiring consent to be "continuous." That state is currently headed into the fiscal abyss. That state also appears to believe that the consent of the American Founders has to be continuous or else parts of the Bill of Rights no longer apply there. Go figure.
Yet another sign common sense is becoming uncommon.
But it’s all good if you are islam. Morons.
North Carolina’s heritage as “The Rip Van Winkle State” has led to the survival of some very interesting legalities and illegalities that are anywhere from archaic to just plain strange. There’s a good side and a bad side to this. If this woman is being truthful, you’re seeing the bad side.
As usual, the policians have screwed this up.
She didn’t revoke consent during the act that was begun under consent. Sounds more like she agreed then changed her mind before the act began. That is a long, long way from consent.
Stupid, stupid, stupid politicians.
NC has archaic laws still in place. For instance...Missionary position is technically the only legal way to have sex. You get arrested in NC for oral sex.
Hyman Roth, that is hysterical. I never noticed your name before, was just watching Godfather II the other night.
Pretty poorly written article. The men discussed in it just seem like barbarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.