Is this REALLY Rape?

Remove all ads!

Chev, my point is that consent wouldn't have been given in the case where the guy had HIV. The woman wouldn't have agreed to have sex with the guy if he was HIV. Likewise, the assumption here is that the guys wouldn't have given consent if they knew she was 15. Can they be convicted in that case? I don't think they should...

 

Some broad points here:

1. I agree that the parents should take some heat for this as well. Simply put, even if they had IDs that said they were 18, in reality they were 15, and as such, they weren't old enough to drive. Unless they also took their parent's car without them knowing it (and there is no mention of that in the case, so I assume they didn't) then the natural conclusion to come to is someone had to DRIVE THEM TO THE CLUB.

2. It doesn't matter if she turns 16 before the case is resolved. It depends on when the act is committed. The guys don't get let go if she turns 16 before the courts decide on the case.

3. There is no statute of limitations on rape cases. For most crimes, there is a 3-year statute of limitations from when the crime is committed to when you can be charged. But for things like murder, rape, and other top level crimes, even if they can prove something 20 years later (which has happened with DNA testing) you can still be charged. As far as the civil suit goes, the parents have 3 years to bring charges. However, if the girl wanted to bring charges, they have 3 years from the point they reach legal age (18). So in theory, the girl has 5 years to bring charges.

4. To answer Baronius' question, they guys can get up to 35 years in prison. The maximum sentence for rape is 25 years, and they are also being charged with a lesser included charge of child abuse, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years. Now, for a first time offense it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 35 years, but it is possible. The punishment for rape is extremely severe in the U.S. compared to most European countries. Note that the 25 years is for normal rape. Forcible rape or raping someone while using a weapon carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

 

He meant to ask if she could drop the charges on turning 16, I think. I don't know. I know that if you can drop charges at all being an adult (18), you are allowed to drop them on turning adult. I don't know if it works the same for the age of consent and if statutory rape belongs to the charges that can be withdrawn by those who press.

Something I would like to see in Poland. Normal rape is not even technically felony here. Felony starts with 3 years minimum, while rape is 1-10. Brutal or gang is 2-12, so still not a felony. It's a technicality because 3-4 would be felony while 2-12 is not, but still... for rape NOT to be a felony doesn't sound right. It sucks, if you want an honest opinion. And it's awfully low. Armed robbery gets you more in the criminal code and the prison terms awarded make in practice even more of a difference.

 

Ah, I understand what you mean now. For most instances, yes, you can drop charges upon turning 18. I do not know however, if such would apply here. I say this because it isn't even a case where she feels the men did anything wrong to her. I think it's a case where the state says it's not OK to have sex with someone under 16 unless you're under 19.

For example, say you assault someone who is related to you. Even if the person assaulted doesn't want to press charges, the state will still proceed with the case. A person who willingly commits a violent act is considered a danger to soceity, and will be prosecuted, even if the likely result is only a term of probation. Now it is true that she can request a civil case to be dropped, but I do not know if she can do the same to the criminal case. Regardless, under the age of 18 is a minor, so she can't do it at 16 even though that's the consent age.

 

All in all both sides of this story dropped the ball. The guys for having sex with someone they just met in a bar, (yeah I know, I know, but it can be used against them) and the girls for misrepresentation and fraud.

Be proud Chev, this is a poignant illustration of why one night stands are bad and of the ensuing consequences. I understand the need for statutory rape as a means to protect young people but it's so subjective that at times it's more of a headache than it's worth it seems.

I think the message here is don't let your pants do the thinking. Hormones and urges do not stand up in court as a defence for lack of judgement. Get to know your potential partner, it could save you a world of hurt....

 

Well said Istolil!

 

So who wants a link to John Paul II's Theology of the Body?

 

Well, I'm a simple soul. They didn't force her, trick her or coerce her according to the data provided herein. They had no way of knowing she was underage (I mean, it wasn't obvious, like she was 9 years old). Since an intent to commit a crime is not evident, they should either get off scot free or get a slap on the wrist and a reminder that next time they should verify their data before having sex.

Morally speaking, though, this situation is repugnant. She is a slut. The men are incredibly sleazy. The friend, while sexually pure in this case, is a bit of a weirdo herself -- who the hell sits around watching DVDs while there friend is engaged in serial group sex? the parents are either incompetant, negligent, stupid or cursed with a daughter from the pits of the Abyss. A messy situation all around.

 

@LKD: I was inclined to think the same but I know all too well how some guys are who go to clubs. Some of them couldn't care less about the age of the girl and some take it for granted that girls lie on their age. I'm not sure if the men really didn't know. But yeah, we have to presume innocence.

@Yirimyah:

Perhaps you need to wait some more.

 

How about this case

Woman convicted of rape
In a landmark case a 23-year-old woman has been convicted by a Bergen court for the rape of a 31-year-old man.

The woman was sentenced to nine months in prison and ordered to pay NOK 40,000 (USD 6,385) to the man.

The incident occurred on Jan. 4 last year in a Bergen apartment. The man testified that he fell asleep on a sofa and woke up to find the woman performing oral sex on him.

The woman eventually admitted sexual contact but claimed that it was voluntary and that the man was willing and smiled.

The case has attracted attention and is the first time a Norwegian woman has been charged with raping a man.

(Aftenposten English Web Desk/NTB)

 

I find nothing wrong with that charge. If a woman fell asleep and woke up to man having sex with her - oral or otherwise - she could claim that she never consented and charge rape. I don't see why it should be different if the sexes were reversed.

Now I don't know the details of a case, but as a soon to be 31-year old, I know I wouldn't have a problem if I were single, invited a 23-year old over to my apartment, fell asleep, and woke up to oral sex. Actually, from a man's point of view, if you were attracted to this woman, and you were dating (again I don't know if they were or weren't) then I don't think much men would have a problem with this.

 

Still, the whole thing is quite easy to misrepresent... Anyone who wakes up with a hangover and someone from the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex next to them can claim it's a rape, even if it were their own failure for getting drunk.