Replies

I posted the "FACTS" portion of the Supreme Court decision in order to clear up the poor reporting in the newspaper article that started this thread. However, the language employed by the justices tended to murky up the water more. The following is an example.

Your quote from the decision: "Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina.."

Then you asked: "So why'd the question of her saying something that might or might not have meant stop "during" the sex act, ever come up. She said stop before it began.."

Both the article and the Court's decision are about "John Z." and not about "Juan" (another participant in that evening's drama). Notice in your court quote, that the defendant (John Z.) had left the room and that the non-consensual act of intercourse described in that quote was committed by Juan.

Here is what Laura said, on cross-examination, about the intercourse with John Z.:

"...Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, 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. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down."

Notice the absence of any "no" or "stop" prior to or immediately after penetration, in fact, not for the first eight minutes. Note too, she states that she was on top of the boy engaging in intercourse for "four to five minutes", but claims she was unable to pull out. If you don't find that claim credible (and I don't), then how much else did she falsely testify to?

So the issue on appeal for John Z. (not Juan, who copped a plea before trial) boils down to:

After more than eight minutes of intercourse, when Laura finally said to John Z. that "she needed to go home", did she effectively communicate the end of consent with her words?
Does the refusal to immediately honor a retraction of consent during the midst of intercourse, amount to rape?

If we accept Laura's testimony as reported by the Supreme Court, then the answer to the first question is, yes. But remember, Laura's truthfulness is in serious doubt here, as I outlined above. More over, in such a case (a demand to cease during intercourse), there is ZERO evidence that such a demand was ever made, other than the complainant's own word.

As to the second question, while I feel that John Z. was a royal jerk for not stopping, in no way do I feel that his failure amounted to rape. Think back to why we even have a crime called "rape", rather than simply charging the perpetrator with the crime of assault and battery. There is one hell of a big difference between the heinous act of forcible penetration and "Oops, I've changed my mind".

Regards,

Boot Hill