A teenage boy, John Z., is convicted of rape when a teenage girl, Laura T., mentioned "I have to go home" instead of resisting or said "No" during their sex act.

Rape is a despicable crime.  However to follow this California Supreme Court's ruling is to turn every consensual sex into potential rape cases.

The legal pendulum has swung too far left.  There are more and more thought police on both the left and the right that are devoid of common sense.

I fear for the inevitable intense backlash and the further collapse of confidence in the US legal system which is the foundation of this wonderful democracy.

-- Modified on 1/14/2003 3:36:37 PM

I saw an article in the newpaper about the same case & could hardly believe it.  Who the hell appointed these stupid F'n judges anyway?  BTW, the article said he continued for about a minute & a half, but no matter the court never said what would have constituted stopping quickly enough.  Amazing!!  Sadly, I beleive these idiot judges have a lifetime appointment.

the court with her delay tactic and gross disrespect to the California electorate regarding the death penalty.

-- Modified on 1/15/2003 3:34:31 AM

There is a sexual harassment case in Berkeley's Boalt Hall, in which a male Dean just recently resigned because of a sexual encounter with a female student. Without arguing the merits of the case, one of the important points raised by the student's attorney was that the Dean was a known sexual harasser, in part because he frequently stared at women's bodies. I've actually heard this argument before from women friends.

So does this mean that women can have you keel-hauled if, in their minds, you look at them for too long? And is 1, 5 or 10 seconds too long? Inquiring minds want to know.

-- Modified on 1/14/2003 4:53:17 PM

It might be more HOW he looked at her/them than for how long...

I would want to consult a less biased source than was linked to (Fox News, i.e. a nest a rabid rightists) before getting fully up in arms on this one.  But if the case is as they report, it raises the interesting possibility that a woman could be charged with raping a man, if the position were "cowgirl" and the man decided that the sex wasn't good and he wanted out.

And so each woman can decide, using her own arbitrary scale, whether any given man is looking at her for too long and/or improperly. And further, in a he-said, she-said world where the woman is always right, a man's entire career and life can be ruined.

IMHO, this is where I would draw the line.

Same case, NY Times as the source...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08RAPE.html

[When staff at the NY Times die, they fly in circles in Heaven.  Why?  Complete lack of right wing.]

-Hoot.

hence they fail to properly emphasize the absurd nature of the ruling.  I bet many people miss this coverage in NYTimes.  I surely did, even though I spent 30 to 60 minutes everyday reading articles in www.nytimes.com.

It is all about getting info from different source. (FNC, NYT, WashingtonPost, WashingtonTimes, WSJ, LA Times, MSNBC, Blogs - InstaPundit, AndrewSullivan.com, etc)

You mention and cite the article but have you bothered to read the California Supreme Court's unanimous and well reasoned decision. Our highest court is not exactly a bastion of liberalism. Given the fact that until very recently, rape victims were the ones who were put on trial and otherwise subjected to tremendous indignities it is about time that the pendulum swung the other way. The rule is simple and easy to follow. If a woman says stop, you stop; period, no ands, ifs or buts. Should there be any doubt concerning whether the woman is consenting to intercourse, you had best stop and make certain you have her unambiguous consent before proceeding or you do so at your peril. Rape is a despicable act of violence and this new ruling recognizes this while setting a brightline standard that even a horny moron can and must follow.

Do you really want judges issuing judicial opinions based on what they think the majority of the voters want rather than what they believe the law provides? Isn't bad enough that our other two branches of government operate on this principle. As it turns out, Justice Bird's viewpoints on the unfairness of the death penalty have been repeatedly vindicated in numerous States during the past several years. I suggest you think more about your viewpoints before posting your visceral reactions to current events. Unpopular views should be cherished. This is the underpinning of our democracy.

Get your facts straight. There was significant evidence suggesting that at the very least the Dean had engaged in numerous instances of poor judgment and inappropriate acts with students over whose careers he had considerable influence. Despite the fact that he was extremely popular and highly regarded by the faculty and the law school student body, he voluntarily resigned almost immediately after the charges against him became public. I am so tired of the half truths and misinformation that regularly appear on this site concerning current events. If you want to engage in political discourse it is incumbent upon you to get the facts right.

the dissent by a female Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

Here is part of the dissent: "The majority finds Laura's 'actions and words' clearly communicated withdrawal of consent in a fashion 'no reasonable person in defendant's position' could have mistaken," Brown wrote. "But Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted. And none of her statements are unequivocal."

There is no struggle.  There is no utterance of STOP or NO.  Just remember, a male teenager's life is forever ruined because of a mixed signal by a female teenager.

give dissenting opinions their due respect and treat individuals and situations with open mind.  Unpopular views are not always wrong, nor are they always right.  I don’t think they should be cherished just for the sake that they are unpopular.  After all, this is not about just being different as in the case of Art.

I only brought up the article in this forum because it is related to Sex and the interaction between male and female.  I wanted other members to beware of the new standard of what constitutes rape in the State of California, which is a very serious matter.  Unlike others, I rarely use this forum to bring up politics and decry the faults of current or previous administrations.

The Bill of Rights and other amendments of US Constitution are generally used to provide protection to minority and unpopular views.  They are used to balance the inherit power of the majority in a democracy.  However, this can only work if the minority is in a morally superior or equivalent position compare to the majority (e.g. Civil right).  That is why child pornography and pedophiliac are not protected because their arguments are morally inferior compared to the view held by the majority; hence no protection under the 1st amendment. (I used 2 extreme cases to illustrate my points)

Most people in US still have a high regard for the US Constitution.  That is why it is still effective.  If most of the citizens in this country lost faith in the Constitution, it will be changed or discarded, just like those in other countries.  Minority (it is about opinions or factions, not necessary about racial or ethnic groups) is protected in this society only because the majority recognizes the justice and morality of doing so.  Once the minority loses its moral high grounds, it is hard to stop the majority to reassert their superior power (in numbers) in a democracy.

If I understand correctly, under US Constitution, federal judges including Supreme Court Justices (this part might create a Constitutional crisis), can be impeached by Congress.  The rejection of Justice Rose Bird is done using the provisions of the Constitution of State of California.  One can argue whether that provision should be amended, just like whether death penalty should be enacted.  US governments, state and federal, work under the principle of checks and balances.  This is the way California chose to provide checks and balances to the CA judicial branch.

The problem many people, including myself, had with Rose Bird is that instead of upholding the law and viewed each case individually, she made up her mind before the fact about the denial of death penalty and used every which way to delay all cases.  It is similar to the blanket pardons and clemencies by Illinois Gov. Ryan.

There are merits in the argument about the unfairness of the death penalty applied in individual cases.  However, a pre-determined blanket rejections and clemencies of all death penalties before getting all the facts is just plain wrong.  I guess these powerful women and men all forgot how brutal the crimes could be and how much they affected the survivors: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52026-2003Jan13.html

*** modified in order to use the proper word 'clemency' for the act of commuting the death sentence ***

-- Modified on 1/15/2003 10:36:33 AM

This case trivializes the heinous crime of forced rape.  To charge a 17 year old boy - who had been given the go ahead for consensual sex - for failing to pull out for four minutes with the same crime with the same penalties as a deranged thug who puts a gun to a woman's head and forces her to have sex is insane.  There needs to be a much more reasoned look at this crime.  There are degrees, just as the law allows in assaults and homicide.  What this kid did is the equivalent of stealing a candy bar - undoubtedly bad, but not worthy of jail time.  

Feminists should really look at this issue long and hard.  If they don't come down against silly cases like this one, it weakens society's resolve to fight the real problem.  Similarly, women occasionally fabricate rape ex post facto - to cover up consensual sex, to soothe buyer's remorse, or to "get" a partner where love turns to hate.  These women should be charged with a crime if their ruse is uncovered because it is unfair and because it is an insult to the women who have endured real rape.  Whether this behavior is rare or common, don't tell me that it never happens.

BofP

Actually, the problem is the law itself as much as the court's interpretation of it.  I find your comment about the pendulum swinging the other way to be EXTREMELY troubling.  Do you really think that past injustices are cause for commiting further injustices against a different target group?  Do you really think that it's ok for a 17 year old boy to go to jail because his sex partner, who had already given unambiguous consent to a three-way session, changes her mind, but fails to give an unambiguous retraction of her consent?  Do you really think men should go to jail, labled a violent sex offender, AUTOMATICALLY - just because a woman says so?  That is the standard of evidence in most date rape and spousal rape cases BTW.  Isn't it possible that at least a small portion of these women are lying?  Which is worse, some date rapists going free or some innocent men going to jail for sex crimes?

BofP

My friends in the medical professions tell me that they have to be extremely careful with female patients who try to set them up then use their position as a "trusting, defenseless" woman in the coercive hands of a manipulative... etc. etc. etc. to leverage settlements from the doc's insurer.

I think in Eric Berne's book from the seventies, "Games People Play", this was called Rapo... the man is aroused and given all the go ahead signals, then the woman unravels a great psychodrama about how she was so horrified and disgusted by this awful man's inapropriate behavior.


 The precedents set by decisions such as the ones referenced here have absolutely modified my own behavior. If I'm starting out with a woman (in the civilian, dating sense) and she gives me any reason to believe she doesn't want to continue, I will under no circumstances try to call, write, e-mail, bump into, or communicate in any form unless she contacts me directly and makes it unmistakably clear that she wishes to continue.

 This is a purely self protective calculation. Having been once falsely accused, interrogated, and cleared before the procedural wheels started turning, I can tell you that once you're caught up in the gears of the system, it won't spit you out until it has had it way with you...

 All in all, I'm much more comfortable seeing providers at this point in my life.

No, I said I wasn't arguing the merits of the case. I was specifically referring to one element raised by the defense attorney, which centered on the Dean staring "inappropriately" at women's bodies.

As far as I can tell, furthermore, the "facts" of this case have not been revealed, except in varying newspaper accounts of unreliable accuracy. Since it hasn't been tried in court, there is no trial record for us to see.

It seems to me that you're all set to condemn the Dean, without even hearing his side of the story. Possibly because he's a man and accused of sexual harassment, you feel he has no defense and is already guilty. And also, you feel that I should not post on this topic, because I'm ill-informed and disagree with you. Hmm, how democratic of you.

-- Modified on 1/15/2003 7:21:57 AM

Women's rights nazis have been going too far for a long time.  There was the case several years back where a girl changed her mind *afterwards* (i.e. had consentual sex, then decided it was a mistake after they were done), and the boy was charged with rape.  Because she changed her mind.  Now this, going along the same line.

Do feminists not realize that they are hurting their own cause by trivializing rape to such a degree?  They are putting normal men, doing normal things, into the same category as the aforementioned gun-toting thug.  This can only come back to bite them in the ass.

By the way, I had a girl I worked with try to charge me with sexual harassment.  She came to work half-naked every day, and sat on my desk, talking endlessly about the men in her life,  occasionally rubbing her (quite ample) boobs, and ignoring repeated requests to go away.  When she didn't get the attention she wanted she filed against me.  Luckily everyone saw through her scam but this could have ended my career before it even started.

Too many psycho bitches in the world today.  That's a bit part of why I pay for it.

....I was confusing State justices with those with Federal appointments, which I do believe are for life.

As for the rest of the issues that have now been brought up in this thread, I'll leave those for others to debate.  My comments were only made as my feelings applied to this particular case, the results of which I still find to be absurd.

-- Modified on 1/15/2003 11:06:09 AM

and have fun.

suggestion:  The moment she says anything evenly remotely suggesting no, stop instantly.  When she gives you a funny look, let her know that you weren't absolutely sure that she wanted you to continue.  If enough men respond to her this way, she'll learn to stop playing games.

People should just be honest.

But the upside is we do have the best justice system and government money can buy.

The facts listed in the Fox article make it quite evident the girl Laura did not want to have sex with the boys right from the start. It is no wonder that the judges came to the decision the did. If a female pushes you away and tells you she does not want sex , she does not want sex, period!

Not to cross swords with you for I'm not defending rape & don't believe I said anything that could be construed as that.  But I have read as many of the 'facts' that appeared in the article as I could.  

One set of 'facts' indicate she willingly & while sober, engaged in sex with 2 boys which she apparently enjoyed.  I assume John Z was one of them.  Those 'facts' also say she never specifically told him to stop, but that she merely said she had to go home.  Which meant...immediately? pretty quickly? in a couple of minutes?  

The other set of 'facts' say that she was more demonstrative about it & attempted to push him away.  I don't know what really happened any more than anyone else, but the first set of 'facts' is what I heard more prominently mentioned & if those are true, I stand by my opinion.

It probably was a consideration at one point, but what I didn't hear anything about is why he wasn't simply charged with statutory rape.  She was 17yr & the age of consent in CA is 18yr regardless of consentual circumstances.

I'm a layman myself, but it seems that would have been a more appropriate penalty.  I don't know if there has been any sentancing imposed, but if he's going to be treated as the ordinary rapist who uses coercion, force, weapons, drugs etc..or the same as a pedophile or forced to register as a sex offender; then I do feel that a travesty of justice, regardless of the existing law, has taken place.