| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:18:51 PM | It was in the news that last week, a Maryland high court has ruled that a man can be charged with rape if in the MIDDLE of intercourse a woman withdraws her consent and the man does not IMMEDIATELY stop, even if it was consensual in the beginning.
source story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041604310.html
Now I am all for either party being able to change their mind in the middle (although I doubt a male EVER would LOL). But the merits of this case revolve around a 5-10 second window after she said "stop".
I don't know about the rest of you guys but if I am in the middle of something it takes me 5-10 seconds for something like that to process in my head.
So my question to you fine fishermen and fisherwomen, is this, does this law provide a due protection for female rights OR does it make it nearly impossible for a man to defend himself in a court of law against a charge of rape since there is no evidence other than a he said, she said situation?
More importantly could this allow for cases of entrapment by bitter jilted lovers? | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:31:33 PM | it happened to a friend of mine here in Canada .
they were together for 4 years and right in the middle of the job she told him to stop
he was almost done and didn't want to stop ,he said she straggle for a while to scape but he
thought she was playing a game .after he was done ,he stay in bed and she went to the
kitchen and a very few minutes a cop pointed his gun to him and took him away. he was
charged with rapping her and spent a few day behind bars,to bad. after a few days he got out
of jail, she got a very bad beating while he was a work, she still is trying to find who beat her
up and he found a very nice girl ,she still is looking for dates
good morning pof | |
|
| |
| |
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/21/2008 11:15:04 PM | Without knowing her reasoning for wanting him to stop would certainly hinder me from expressing an opinion on this case.
More info is needed, like:
-was she in pain or in some kind of discomfort?
-did she think the condom had broke?
-did she suddenly remember that she had forgotten her birth control for a few days? | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:02:46 AM | I am not familiar with the case OP was referring to. I am basically in favor of a people being able to "withdraw" consent at virtually any point... I have never personally experienced "questionable" consent or a "change of mind" about consent. (I suspect that "withdrawing consent" during intercourse would be bound to put serious strains on the relationship - but not as much strain as being thrown in jail for rape)
Without a reasonable explanation for the "change of heart" I would recommend getting a running head start... | |
|
| |
| |
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:56:25 AM | It might be best if you quote at least the summary of the case in here so people have an idea what you are speaking of... there are circumstances in this case which would differ from other cases... and may influence different opinions than the ones already given... as it reads...:
Seven judges agreed that a woman has the right to revoke consent, but reached that conclusion in different ways. Yesterday's ruling returns the 2004 rape case of Maouloud Baby to Montgomery County for a new trial.
Baby's case drew the attention of the state's highest court - and of national and state women's groups - when the Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned his convictions for first-degree rape and other sex offenses in October 2006.
The case stems from a December 2003 incident in which he and a friend, both high school students, had sex with a community college student in an isolated school parking lot.
Baby, then 16, and Michael Wilson, 15, groped the woman and made sexual advances to her, according to police. First, Wilson had sex with the woman while Baby was outside the car. Then, police said, Baby told her it was his turn.
"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."
The victim testified in Montgomery County court that she agreed to sex "as long as he stops when I tell him to." As he began, she told him to stop because he was hurting her, but he kept going for five or 10 seconds, she said.
Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Baby denied any wrongdoing but was convicted of first-degree rape and other crimes and sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but five suspended.
There was an initial Consent... but the woman explicitly told him to stop because he was hurting her, something she never gave him consent to do, so there was no longer an agreement to consent.. so hence the extra 5-10 seconds (which essentially could damage her) gave him 15 years behind bars.
The only other thing which was never addressed was the 'boy' was only 15 and has grounds for statutory rape against the woman as she was a college student. Perhaps she should have been tried for having sex with minors (which is rape) and she would have also been facing time in jail. oh well maybe that will still be addressed??
| |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 1:49:42 AM | Why did the 15 yo Wilson even agree to pleed guilty to 2nd degree rape when he had CONSENT before and during their sexual escapade with a significantly older woman? Surely he isn't culpable for not listening to the others have sonsentual sex to see if the adult would ever withdrawl consent! It seems clear that they didn't intend to rape her. it seems clear that he didn't hold her down while "baby" had sex with her.
This is a case of prosecutorial stupidity. To even charge these teens with 1st degree rape shows that the prosecutor used pooor(unfair) judgement. Clearly the "crime" didn't fit the time. A 16 yo WITH consent to have sex gets 15 YEARS in PRISON for not stopping within 10 SECONDS (out of what 3-60 minutes???)of hearing "Stop" from a college student!
I wonder if it was time for election that the prosecutor decided to persue this case. I wonder if the prosecutor knew the family of this woman OR had issue with the familes of the boys. ..Or.......whatever...it seems probable that the prosecutor had some type of prejudice against the defendants and/OR for the woman.
Can a man find a prosecutor to charge a woman with rape because she didn't stop within a few seconds of him withdrawing consent by saying "stop"? " She slamed down to hard and continued to ride for 5-10 seconds after I said 'STOP"! mSo what that we'd been engaged in sex for 15 minutes and she was cumming! I said stop and she kept going for maybe 5-10 seconds"longer(I'll never admit that I was actually upset about something else and use the very serious charge of rape to get back at her...nobody would ever know )
 Rape is a VERY serious issue today...this case makes it political, social and or civil....when RAPE ...real RAPE is nothing short of Criminal. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 2:04:40 AM | | Pretty absurd ruling and I doubt it withstand higher appellate review. There are lots of stupid ruling on the books. But just because they're on the books doesn't make them right. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 2:25:27 AM |
"Then, police said, Baby told her it was his turn.
"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."
I'm under the impression you can't legally give consent while under duress. He threatened to rape her before she ever consented. So, one could logically conclude her consent was coerced. Also, what's the legal consent age in Maryland? In Texas, it's 17, in Prague it's 15. (I know it's a different country, I'm just giving it as an example.) I wonder if it's 16 in Maryland, as that's a state issue and not a federal issue.
Being a survivor of a b/f who thought he couldn't rape his g/f, I am all for the stop whenever I say stop. Rape is about control and power not about sex. It doesn't matter if she changes her mind mid-stroke, no means you're done. Pull-out and pack up, if you don't like it, but if you don't stop, then you are a rapist. Plain and simple.
vvvvvv IMO, that's a moot point. Women don't say 'stop' then passively lay there waiting for him to get up. Stop is usually accompanied by resistance. The act of trying to push him off then he overpowers her, forcing himself inside. So it doesn't matter if their brains don't register the word, their brains register that resistance immediately and they fight to, again, overpower that resistance. Hence, the rape part of the equation, which happens the instant they enter after she's expressed a desire for the sex to end. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 2:39:35 AM | My question to the guys is, in the heat of the moment. If your partner says stop or no. How long does it take to register in your brain so that you are able to stop????
Sil | |
|
TLC_
|
Joined: 1/26/2008
Msg: 14 | |
| |
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 3:06:46 AM |
eon blue wrote:
So my question to you fine fishermen and fisherwomen, is this, does this law provide a due protection for female rights OR does it make it nearly impossible for a man to defend himself in a court of law against a charge of rape since there is no evidence other than a he said, she said situation?
More importantly could this allow for cases of entrapment by bitter jilted lovers?
I'd say it would do all of the above.
I don't particularly care for the fact that the law seems biased toward the female. I know rape happens far more frequently to women than men, but it does happen and it's discriminatory not to include the same provision for men. | |
|
| |
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 3:18:39 AM | This is only significant from the point of view that until this ruling, Maryland was one of the few states that didn't allow withdrawn consent. Withdrawn consent is allowed in most states. The only issue is what is a "reasonable time" to comply.
In California, the person withdrawing consent doesn't even have to say stop, if their behaviors should make it "reasonably clear" they have withdrawn consent. In that case, "I should go home now" along with lack of bodily response was accepted as reasonable withdrawn consent. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 4:41:23 AM | ^^^^^ Ahhh, the plot thickens. I did not know Maryland didn't allow for withdrawl of consent. *SMH* So it was a caveat emptor (hahaha--inside joke, sorry) once consent was granted. Sheesh.
To directly answer the OP's question, I think sour-graping or revenge from a jilted lover could happen with or without this law on the books. Take the Kobe Bryant and the girl with countless semen in her panties. No, it didn't happen in Maryland but the point is, one can consent and then claim none was given. This law doesn't make it any easier or more difficult to prove either way, IMHO. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/22/2008 3:30:19 PM | Certainly consent under duress is not considered legal consent.
In fact, many states say if a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they can not legally give consent in their condition.
So, a girl goes to a frat party, gets plastered, a guy comes up, asks if she wants to have sex, she says yes. Well guess what, she can argue that she was too far gone to legally give consent. In other words, that yes didn't count, and he can be tried for rape.
Different states have different ages for the age of consent, and also exceptions when the couple involved is close in age. So if the age of consent is 16, and a 15 yo has sex with a 17 yo, that's not considered statutory rape because they are close in age. But if a 20 yo has sex with a 15 yo, that could be considered statutory rape. The 20 yo can not argue it was consensual, because the law would say a 15 yo can not give consent to a 20 yo.
I haven't seen any cases of withdrawn consent when both parties were considered adults, every case I've seen so far one or both were minors. | |
|
| Maryland Rape ruling, any thoughts?
Posted: 4/23/2008 7:22:15 PM | My thoughts are: Why oh why, when a woman has had alldayandallnightandallafternoon to say "no" would she wait till she'd consented to sex, her and her partner are all hot, bothered,naked, and bumping uglies to suddenly decide that sex is such a bad idea?
This specific situation has never happened to me, maybe my partners always just knew what they wanted by the time we got to this point, or maybe I'm just one of the fortunate ones. | |
|
Home
login 
