Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court says rape begins when woman says stop
Associated Press / SFGate

Posted on 01/06/2003 6:33:57 PM PST by 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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-255 next last
To: SarahW
She never said no. They both said the sex was consensual. Her: "I should be going now." could well be taken as a "Hurry up and finish."

As for "no" always meaning "no", nonsense. "No" is often but a part of the dance.

61 posted on 01/06/2003 7:50:16 PM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
PLEASE ACCEPT MY APPOLOGIES FOR FAILING TO EDIT--- HERE IS WHAT i MEANT TO SAY

You would like to believe it was as you say, if you take it that he was the insistent aggressor and she was yelling and screqaming and pushing him away. Create the scene that way if you want. But you are willfully inisisting on failing to apply what you must know about human nature ---even your own experience. Why it is that you have placed yourself in that place, on that rather limited choice of all the various ways it could have happened? The answer as to why you want to be in that position is itself interesting---but it does show that your chief interest is not the truth--or being fair.

Don't you have exeperience about how people, men and women, do complex things and then may wish it to be a certain different way after the fact. This is the alleged "date rape" scenario. She apparently entered into a certain sexual relation with this person, when it "goes beyond what I[she] hoped it to be, maybe what I [she] hoped before the event; OR maybe what I [she] now hopes after the event since I [she] now have regrets and now "believe" that it was he who insisted on it happening --and that I [she] was really innocent.

Do you really think that a just and fair legal fact-finding and analysis can be applied to such a situation? The older jurisprudence refused to be drawn into this quagmire--for very good reasons. Now, the contemporary mind--prejudiced by and for feminists--leaps into this quicksand and truth and justice are the victims.

62 posted on 01/06/2003 7:53:19 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: friendly
"Put some ice on it, babe.. Oh and vote democrat." (The Juanita Loophole)

During the 90 seconds it took the boy to stop, the woman said "I should be going now", and "I need to go home". If she really wanted the boy to stop, she sure had an odd way of showing it. I can neither see nor imagine any reason that she would be unable to say something like "Stop it. Stop It! STOP IT!" And if she'd said such a thing and he'd continued for any significant period of time after the third utterance I'd have no problem with a rape conviction. No such utterance on her part has been claimed, however, and the fact that she had the presence of mind to make both of her utterances suggests she should have had the presence of mind to say "STOP" if that was her actual intention.

63 posted on 01/06/2003 7:56:11 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
This was a kid and the sex was consentual, how do we know the kid heard her say stop (if she ever did)?
Did he say she said stop or is this a he-said she-said issue?

If a female gets mad after sex for any reason, it seems too easy for her to go back and claim rape.

How can you charge a crime after the genie got let out of the bottle by consent?

Seems to much gray area in this case.
64 posted on 01/06/2003 8:00:06 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
During the 90 seconds it took the boy to stop

I wonder, does she always keep a stopwatch in one hand while having sex?

65 posted on 01/06/2003 8:02:06 PM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
how could a girl FORCE a guy to....you know....I mean, how wimpy must a guy be.

I see, so you think that a male getting raped is wimpy... it's his own fault... no crime here... he should be happy he got some. Sounds like blaming the victim and condoning taking advantage of the weak to me. You're all class. It's also nice to know that you think that justice actually does depend on a person's physical attributes. Were your ancestors big fans of slavery and Jim Crow laws?

66 posted on 01/06/2003 8:02:43 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
ROFL
67 posted on 01/06/2003 8:03:08 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...

Maybe the girl was paid to frame the guy.
Maybe she was mad at him because he looked at some other girl earlier in the evening.
Maybe she already had her "O" and was now bored.

Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...

68 posted on 01/06/2003 8:03:33 PM PST by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
The courts have become insanely biased against boys, men, husbands, fathers, and men in general.
69 posted on 01/06/2003 8:03:50 PM PST by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: supercat
be able to come up with a more emphatic statement than "I should be going now", or "I need to go home"?

She said.....I should be going now"

He heard....."I'm about to c*m"

She said...."I should be going now"

He heard...."That's it. You're hitting the spot."

70 posted on 01/06/2003 8:05:16 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: friendly
They should convict her of corrupting a minor if they got him for rape.
71 posted on 01/06/2003 8:07:55 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
Perhaps she was trying to physically remove him too.

If the girl was trying physically to stop the boy's actions and he overrode her efforts, that would be grounds for a rape charge whether or not she said anything; were that the case, though, it would almost certainly have been mentioned.

Also, I just have a really hard time with the notion that a girl who was being raped would say "I need to go home". It sounds much more like something that might be said by a girl who was having second thoughts about whether she should be having sex, but that is very different. Further, in most other contexts, a statement like "I need to go home" means "I'm in an extreme hurry; wrap things up quickly." And I don't doubt the guy was trying to do precisely that (though I'll admit I find it a bit odd that a 17-year-old would take 90 seconds... thought they were faster than that).

72 posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:53 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
But sex is not rape. Changing one's mind in the middle of consensual sex is not the same as being pulled into a dark alley.

No, it's not the same, but as soon as the intercourse becomes non-consenual - the woman changes her mind for whatever reason...it is rape. The boy who committed this crime got 6 months at a juvey hall. A rapist who pulls a woman into an alley and rapes her would get a harsher sentence. Nobody has the right to violate a person, even if they consented at first. There have been cases of rapists raping prostitutes, husbands raping wives - rape occurs when someone starts or continues intercourse against someone elses will and that is the bottom line.

If someone steals a wallet, it is a theft - a crime. If someone robs a bank, it is a theft - a crime. Both victims are entitled to go to court to see that justice is served.

Also, just because someone claims they were 'ignorant' while committing a crime - such as 'not understanding' that the girl wanted him to stop or that 'they didn't know it was against the law to trespass on that private property' it doesn't mean that they are not guilty. Ignorance is not an excuse to break the law.

73 posted on 01/06/2003 8:11:38 PM PST by Born in a Rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Add to that fact that you can say ANYTHING to a guy during sex, and will take him at least 90 seconds for it to sink in.

"Honey, the curtains are on fire."
Oh, yeah, baby, oh yeah, on fire, oh yeah!
"Now the cat's throwing up on your Babe Ruth rookie card" (worth thousands)
whatever does it for ya, honey. oh yeah! Go kitty go!

Also add in the fact that they went through ALL of the motions, all of the build-up , all of the conversation, permission, and desires to get where they were. A minor comment of "I gotta be going soon", after all the build-up plus some time in the act itself... minus any physical efforts to stop him... minus any screaming in pain or for help... 90 seconds seems rather quick to me.

74 posted on 01/06/2003 8:11:44 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
THE REAL TREAGEDY IS THAT OUR LEGISLATURES PASS LAWS TILTING RAPE LITIGATIONS IN THIS DIRECTION--JUST BECAUSWE THEY HAVE BEEN CONVINCED OR PRESSURED TO DO SO BY SOME RADICAL FEMINIST LAWYERS GROUP WHO PLAY AS "DOING SOMETHING FOR THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS [VOTES].

THIS IS PART OF A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM OF HOW OUR SOCIETY GETS PUSHED IN BAD DIRECTIONS UNDER FALSE FLAGS OF FLIMSY LANGUAGE.

75 posted on 01/06/2003 8:13:07 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
My guess is that maybe the parents did not like the kid, and got the daughter to pursue charges... either that, or she's getting back at him for some other event in their relationship (flirting with her sister, etc)
76 posted on 01/06/2003 8:13:18 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I guess maybye means means no... :p
77 posted on 01/06/2003 8:13:19 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
Liberals have apparently never heard the old maxim, "Hard cases make bad law"
78 posted on 01/06/2003 8:14:10 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Born in a Rage
Have you thought about anything that was posted in response to you? You have to make an effort here.
79 posted on 01/06/2003 8:14:54 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SarahW
"No" is always "no".

Sure it is ... right up until the initiation of the act itself. After that point "no" means ... well, you figure it out.

80 posted on 01/06/2003 8:16:50 PM PST by Ipse Dixit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-255 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson