California Supreme Court says rape begins when woman says stop

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

Monday, January 6, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/01/06/national2027EST0776.DTL

(01-06) 17:27 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

The California Supreme Court defined rape Monday as continued sexual intercourse by a man after his female partner demands that it stop.

The 7-0 decision reverses a 1985 ruling by a lower court.

"This opinion is significant. It appears the California Supreme Court has clearly rejected an opportunity to revisit past barriers to rape convictions," said Douglas Beloof, an attorney with the National Crime Victim Law Institute.

The 2000 case involved two 17-year-olds who had sex in a bedroom during a party. The boy testified that the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded. She testified the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she called it off.

The boy was convicted of rape and served about six months in a juvenile facility. The high court affirmed that conviction Monday.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty. She wrote that the girl never clearly said stop, instead saying "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."

Brown also wondered how much time a man has to stop once a woman says stop.

"Ten seconds? Thirty?" she wrote.

©2003 Associated Press

[Born in a Rage]

And just HOW is the court to evaluate that set of circumstances?

I'm sure it's not always easy to evaluate that type of situation. Obviously, a woman doesn't have to be physically beat up in order to be a rape victim...just the force of being held down, the fear of getting beat up and/or killed, the verbal threats...all of these things need to be taken into consideration and are all part of this crime. If someone beats someone up, it doesn't necessarily mean they raped the person. If someone is not beat up it doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been raped.

No other witnesses, no physical evidence of force, all just on the "state of mind" of the women?

Lots of people have been tried and convicted of crimes in which there were NO witnesses at all. In a rape case there is always a witness, the victim.

[Born in a Rage]

Are you kidding? If I was 17 (again)...and having consentual sex...and the girl said "I should be going now" and "I need to go home." ...I would take it to mean "hurry up and finish"! Not Stop it you jerk!

There are different ways to say things in which it will convey a certain message. If a person were crying while they said "I need to go home now" or if they were pushing a person away while they said "I need to go home NOW!".....I think any reasonable person would be able to distinguish the difference between that tone and a soft sensual "I need to go home now, baby", while stroking the other persons hair and inbetween oooh's and ahhh's, wouldn't you agree?

[Born in a Rage]

Even if she doesn't say she changed her mind?

Oh come on AJ! Give me a break, do you really think that if this girl tapped this boy gently on the shoulder and said, "Excuse me, I've changed my mind...thanks", that this boy would have immediately stopped. ummmm, don't think so.

[Born in a Rage]

Thanks for putting this into context. She was definitely a rape victim.

[Yeti]

Is it me or does this utterly defy logic, biology, and justice?

And he will probably be on a sex-offender list for the rest of his life.

[Yeti]

The boy takes his time to stop and that constitutes rape?

Changes the definition of rape from "forcible insertion of the penis" to "failure to remove a penis with suffucient rapidity after being given a hint."

[Born in a Rage]

Bottom line. Women if you want to avoid this situation don't put yourself in the position for it to happen. It's YOUR responsibility. Don't be in the back seat, don't be in his house, don't go to his hotel room or dorm room, don't be in the bedroom at a party because that implies YES in any rational world.

Excuse me but NO. Being in a persons car, house or bedroom doesn't "imply" yes. No...a victim is a victim and it is the rapists fault, the rapists responsibility. Going into someones bedroom at a party doesn't mean they want to have sex anymore than someone walking into your kitchen means they want to cook you an apple pie. Get it?

[Yeti]

Does this mean that if the boy has an orgasam and the girl insists that he continue for a little while, she is guilty of rape?

I didn't realize I had been raped so many times by women.

She was on top, I said "Leg cramp!" and she just kept on.

It was horrible. That monster!

[Born in a Rage]

And he will probably be on a sex-offender list for the rest of his life.

I hope so.

[Born in a Rage]

Judging by all of the 'jokes' on this thread about a crime as serious a rape and the endless people trying to excuse the rapist and blame the victim....it's no wonder why there are so many rape victims in this country and so many women who are afraid to report the crime. Yep, God Bless America and pass the buck.

[Mr. K]

wait.. was the act concensual and insertion already accomplished before this woman said "I need to go home now"???

This is not rape then it is torture- by the girl.

These judges are too stupid for their own good.

I am of a mind that no absolutely means no, but to ruin a persons life on THIS set of circumstances is un-believable.

A vague No AFTER the act has begun makes the guy a criminal?

Once the penis is inserted without protest from the woman, consensual sex has begun. Come on people, this boy can go to JAIL for this... If they want to making failing to stop DURING the sex act a crime, then let them try to make that a crime, but call it a new name, not rape.

[Yeti]

The fact you can equate the two is morally bankrupt.

I agree, and have posted much the same on this forum in the past regarding 'date rape.' In an attempt to vilify men, feminazi types are actually trivializing the trauma and real horror through which some women have had to live.

I have the same gripe with people who use the word 'pedophile' about a 20 or 30 year old who has sex with a 16 year old. If you think about the mind who has sex with a seven year old, and compare that to the mind who has sex with the 16 year old, are they really anything alike?

Likewise the mind of the guy who takes a minute to stop after a 'hint.' Is that really remotely the same mind as the guy with the knife?

In both the 'rape' and 'pedophile' situation, most of us will agree that it was 'bad,' but 'bad' like farting in a closed area, or cheating on your wife, or not keeping a promise to call.

If he had promised her an affectionate, romantic love-making session, then used her insensitively and told her to get the hell out, it would have been a much meaner thing to do. But not a crime.

[A.J.Armitage]

You didn't answer the question.

[Born in a Rage]

Yes, I did. The point is that a person doesn't have to exactly say "I've changed my mind" in order for another person to know that they changed their mind. You know that and you know I was answering your question, just like this boy knew the girl was telling him to stop.

[A.J.Armitage]

No, you didn't, and you still haven't. What you said went way past the one particular case. I asked an obvious, reasonable question. If you're going to be announcing sweeping principles, be ready to defend them.

You know that and you know I was answering your question

I know you didn't answer the question, and so do you.

[muggs]

I'm a woman and I agree with you.

[Born in a Rage]

Did.

[doug from upland]

No matter what decisions are rendered by any court in the land, the most famous American rapist is still unpunished.

[PISANO]

Defying logic is this scenario: Consensual sex begins, the woman has a moment of conscience and says 'stop'. The man stops, then she has 2nd thoughts after all she was feeling pretty good.......action resumes....then she thinks better of her actions again and says, 'stop'......he does..........then again and again until he delays stopping by say 15 sec.............well you get the picture. The ruling shows that 7 justices have their heads up their respective a...s!