Federal Judge Envisions 'Rape License' for 'Right to Rape'

The Christian Post ^ | 9/15/2015 | Matt Barber

[CharlesOConnell]

https://www.google.com/search?q=rape+Judge+Richard+Posner

Judge Richard Posner advocated issuance of a "license to rape" in a 2011 book he wrote. Posner contradicts the presupposition that it's always wrong for a man to rape a woman. This idea, according to Posner in his 2011 book "Economic Analysis of the Law" (8th edition), is evidently an equally archaic tradition that, like the institution of natural marriage, needs a significant overhaul. Posner writes that perhaps it's time the government begin issuing "rape licenses" since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the "right to rape," for some men at least, "exceeds the victim's physical and emotional pain." On page 216, Posner, a Reagan appointee considered "conservative" in "progressive" circles, writes, "Rape bypasses the market in sexual relations (marital and otherwise) in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and it should therefore be forbidden." "But," continues Posner, "some rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that the woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is no market substitute … and it could be argued therefore that, for them, rape is not a purely coercive transfer and should not be punished if the pleasure to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay – though not to the victim – for the right to rape) exceeds the victim's physical and emotional pain. There are practical objections … [b]ut the fact that any sort of rape license is even thinkable … is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory. "What generates the possibility of a rape license," he persists , "is the fact that the rapist's utility is weighted the same as his victim's utility. If it were given a zero weight in the calculus of costs and benefits, a rape license could not be efficient. The only persuasive basis for such a weighting, however, would be a moral principle different from efficiency." "In a society that prizes premarital virginity and marital chastity, the cardinal harm from rape is the destruction of those goods and is not inflicted by marital rape," he writes. "… The nature of the harm to the wife raped by her husband is a little obscure," he continues. "If she is beaten or threatened, these of course are real harms inflicted by an ordinary assault and battery. Especially since the goods of virginity and of chastity are not endangered, the fact of her having intercourse one more time with a man with whom she has had intercourse many times before seems peripheral to the harm actually inflicted but is critical to making the offense rape. "Most of the reasons for not making marital rape a crime have lost force with time," he laments.

[CharlesOConnell]

Find your Congressperson (requires Zip+4)

Sent to Tom McClintock California 4th District.

[knarf]

mobius strip

[areukiddingme1]

April 15th of every year — The IRS has a Rape License...and the right to rape “MY” wallet.

[Slyfox]

This is a serious topic but what the hell?

[Darren McCarty]

Posner’s a gun grabber as well.

[MikeinMotley]

seriously? wth?

Mike

[Scoutmaster]

You read enough Posner (and you'll never find enough time to read everything he's written) and you'll find the most outrageous moral relativism/economic analysis/legal theories in the world. It's what he does and some of it is brilliant. He's primarily an academic economist far beyond the 'Freakonomics' mold. I

He's moderate to liberal as a Republican judge.

Among other topics, I've been interested in his work on whether it should be lawful to sell babies.

[Jeff Chandler]

“Consent” is an archaic social construct, part of the oppressive white, male, Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian patriarchy.

[a fool in paradise]

Planned Parenthood teaches children about BDSM and “safe words” because they want girls to know that “’no’ doesn’t ALWAYS mean ‘NO!’”.

Planned Parenthood is pro-rape. It’s good for business they are in (financially and culturally).

Planned Parenthood has repeatedly been shown to cover up known or suspected instances of rape and child abuse.

[MrB]

Well, I don’t doubt that this would be part and parcel of any “reparations” agenda.

[NRA1995]

How about rape-rape licenses?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Or lawful to barbecue babies and sell juicy hunks of them from vending carts on the streets.

[caligatrux]

I'm not sure if the author of this article was totally disingenuous or just ignorant, but this article does not convey what Posner's book is really about. It's about slamming Posner (or Reagan), or just getting readers through salacious content, and it is not an honest or informed piece about the book.

Posner's book is an examination of an economic theory versus a moral theory as a basis for legislation and law. His analysis was detailed, including "thinking about the unthinkable" as part of his discussion. His discussion about rape was generally intended to show that, even under an economic theory, laws against rape would still be efficient. There are flaws in his argument, as is shown in his discussion of marital rape, but he was not advocating "rape licenses."

I'm not trying to defend Posner. I don't know what he really believes about this stuff -- maybe he is completely amoral, or immoral. Maybe he is so set on economic theory that moral issues don't even enter his mind. But because Posner is analyzing the economic theory versus the moral theory of law, his disucssion is per se amoral.

But this article is about the book and his discussion from the book, and the article skims over the abstract theories Posner was discussing in the book to throw out phrases like "rape license" and "right to rape" without bothering to explain what the discussion was really about.

I disagree entirely with Posner on the economic theory versus the moral theory, but I don't need to scream "rape license" to combat against his intellectual theories.

[SkyDancer]

What? An endorsement on your DL? Or maybe a separate ID??

[Mrs. Don-o]

I guess I run he same risk as Samuel Johnson with his “Modest Proposal”.

[Kartographer]

No it not lawful not because of the fact they are eating babies, it is the barbecuing that makes it illegal it adds to Global Warming don’t you know.

[Slyfox]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And I suppose you’d have to throw out the soft little thigh bones and skulls and gristly stuff in hefty bags, at which point we’d have to object to the plastic.

[Kartographer]

If they are environmentally responsible they will have a compost bin or a collection bin to send the remains to burn in a environmentally friendly power generating facility.

[itsahoot]

Or lawful to barbecue babies and sell juicy hunks of them from vending carts on the streets.

Do you really know what is in that pushcart tamale vendor's products? Hmnnn?