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

[goldstategop]

Yup. That should resolve all sexual assault complaints. Don't mess around with each other's bodies.

[FreeTally]

Care to comment on post 189?

If your overall point is that women share responsibility for their actions, then I agree.

Its my opinion that in the case at hand, the female didn't really say no and resist. Her story is "made up after the fact" and events and her claims dont add up to a rape.

[goldstategop]

And by the California Supreme Court's reasoning (supported by the NOW NAGs) a woman is free to decide what happened was really rape regardless of whether it began as an act of consensual sexual intercourse. So the question is why isn't Bill Clinton in a prison jumpsuit? Juanita Broaddrick's case just got stronger. However much we all abhor rape its all too clear that liberal men will get a pass for sexual assault if they support feminazi causes and the the NOW NAGs won't be too concerned if a woman's body and soul gets crushed in the process. The enforcement of rape laws in this country has left a lot to be desired and now the standards for enforcing it have turned out to be more subjective than ever. Which protects neither women who are victims of this terrible crime nor makes sure their perpetrators are ultimately held accountable if as I just pointed out, the sexual politics allows them to get off scott free. Indeed who is to say that if it happen with Clinton, it won't happen with a future liberal politician? And here our liberal advocacy organizations, state legislatures, law enforcement and the courts claim to care about women.

[FreeTally]

"...Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed,

This is the part that has me most curious. He enterred the room naked - from where? The living room? This was a party, right? What type of party was this? Where was he naked at prior to entering the room? No one seems to ask that question.

Then:

he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back."

So, let me get this straight. This female, who had already supposedly not consented to another guy having sex with her, stays in the room. Then, the other guy walks in naked, sits on the bed, asks her to lay down - and she does and has sexual contact with him. And I am supposed to believe that anything that happened that night was not consentual? Yeh, right.

This is the most obviously concocted story I have ever heard. She had lied to her parents about where she was going, and got caught because she came home late. She had also just had sex with two boys at a party, and probably realized everyone she knows would hear about it within two days. Maybe she really didn't want to do it with them, but did to be cool(the story mentions guys asking "why she wouldn't do stuff with them"). Now, to gain sympathy from her parents, get out of trouble, and to make herself not look like a slut, she says she was kind of coerced. Her parents translate it into forced and raped, and press charges. Her story is then made up the best it could be(remember, there were others present) to make it look like rape. She couldn't lie a whole lot because her story would be contrary to others. Juan was advised by his attorney to plea down, but John Z knew he wasn't guilty and took his chances. A stupid jury believed a BS story and convicted him.

That's the most likely scenario, IMHO.

[ward_of_the_state]

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

Females utterly defy logic and I am one. At the risk of catching a great deal of flack, when teenage girls push the envelope, and it occurs to them what's going to happen, it's a shock, they get scared and pull back. This is one major reason why young ladies should not have sex before marriage. They aren't emotionally prepared for it.

And guys, am I right, if a 16-year-old boy get that far along in the act, it darn near takes a club over the head to get him to stop? An ambiguous "I think I should go home now" isn't really blunt enough at that point, I'm thinking.

[Boot Hill]

FreeTally says:   "A stupid jury believed a BS story and convicted him."

It appears from the record that is was actually a stupid judge from the trial court that believed Laura. It most likely happened this way because defense counsel elected for a trail by judge rather than a trial by jury . That's a clue that something else was going on there that we still don't know about.

But since the trial court apparently believed Laura, the appeals court was bound by that finding of fact and left to only determining what the law was. And when they found that "Oops, I've changed my mind" amounted to the crime of rape, they made a serious error, imo.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[friendly]

Females utterly defy logic and I am one. At the risk of catching a great deal of flack, when teenage girls push the envelope, and it occurs to them what's going to happen, it's a shock, they get scared and pull back. This is one major reason why young ladies should not have sex before marriage. They aren't emotionally prepared for it. And guys, am I right, if a 16-year-old boy get that far along in the act, it darn near takes a club over the head to get him to stop? An ambiguous "I think I should go home now" isn't really blunt enough at that point, I'm thinking.

No flack from this former 16 y.o. boy. The reason is that you are correct on all points.

[FreeTally]

Ah, it all starts to make more sense now. Thanks for the info!

[jdub]

I haven't read all the posts, but did anyone postulate that "I need to go home now" maybe didn't mean "stop", but instead meant "hurry up and finish"?

[friendly]

That's the problem with evil PC law by corrupt, oops I meant "activist" judges. There is a bias, a deep prejudice, against this innocent teenaged boy. A boy who faces a hellish life as an identified sexual offender.

Meanwhile the PC crowd gives a pass to true sexual predetors like Clinton and various Kennedys, and demands the Boy Scouts put pedophiles in charge of young boys, and is livid that the Catholic Church now has an active campaigh to rid the priesthood of homosexuals.

[John Valentine]

You are a hopeless ideologue.

It is very clear to me that LEGAL consent to sex cannot be withdrawn during the act; that is to say that, sure, the woman can inform that man that she wants to stop, as there are very many reasons why this could be so: vaginal dryness, leg cramps, and even boredom.

And the male partner ought to comply as a matter of manners and kindness, but if he does not or cannot, this should not - must not be criminalized, or the very idea of the CRIME of rape is trivialized beyond recognition.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You guys are really something.

So you get a right to "finish" once you've started? Even when the woman either never was interested in the first place, or has been so completely turned off by you that she said "I have to go home now"?

Unbelievable.

[Kozak]

Oh you are sooo right. No we DESERVE a felony conviction and prison time for being so insensative. As this will never affect me at this point in my life I wait with baited breath to see where this Brave New World you envision leads,
Commisar Palpatine.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Yup, your "type" is the sort to grind way, as the woman is frantically trying to throw you off.

How old are you? 13?

[wimpycat]

And the male partner ought to comply as a matter of manners and kindness, but if he does not or cannot, this should not - must not be criminalized,

If he cannot stop? What man is incapable of stopping?

There's a HUGE difference between "can't" and "don't want to".

[John Valentine]

Have you ever actually HAD sex or are you purely a theorist?

[wimpycat]

Have you ever actually HAD sex or are you purely a theorist?

Ladies first, sweetheart. I asked you a question first. Are you implying that a man can't stop?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Are you invested with self control or reason?

Or are you a mouth breather.

[Kozak]

No . I'm 47, married, and too old for this ridiculous bullshit. I pity the women with real rapes as this idiocy will make it that much harder for them to get a sympathetic jury,. I rest my case Commisar.

[John Valentine]

I am implying nothing, but I am questioning your practical experience with sex.

Without a doubt, in sex there comes a time when a man cannot stop.

And I daresay that this is true for a woman as well; and that this is a fact accounts for much unnecessary personal anguish and self-doubt among female rape victims.

That neither of you seem to have learned this fact of physiology makes me questiuon your level of experience.

Maybe you are thirteen-year-old idealists or maybe feminist ideologues, I don't know, but you are definmitely proceeding from a theory of sex that does not comport with reality.