Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Kheldarson]

However, I'd be willing to bet that investigating the theft of Kheldarson's lawnmover took longer than that.

You'd be wrong. Unless we count the time it took the cop to get out to our house.

There is a balance that can be struck between shaming and kid gloves. And a large part of it is in police training. Detectives who investigate rape/sexual assault must be trained in how to question and handle victims in shock. And be trained to function like all victims are in some form of shock. Because one of the biggest reasons for shaming is that the victims don't act right. Too calm. Too together. Not freaking out.

If we have investigators who are trained to be compassionate rather than judging, a lot of those credibility questions wouldn't come off as judging. Particularly if we hit the accused with similar questions.

[Canarr]

There may be no ultimate right answer, but we still need to start off from a better base. Which would be to treat the victims better. They shouldn't feel like they'll be disbelieved or shamed for bringing their story forward.

Basically, I agree with you; shaming questions, like "What did you wear?" and "How many people have you slept with?" don't belong in an investigation about assault.

However, since - more often than not - there is no evidence in sexual assault cases, only the accuser's statements, it is imperative to establish their credibility, and that can only be done through serious questioning. Otherwise, you get cases like the Jian Ghomeshi trial, where apparently the complainants were treated with kid gloves by the authorities, praised in the media - and destroyed in the courtroom:

Add to that the new culture around believing victims of sexual assault that discouraged them from being challenged outside the courtroom. The new normal, in some quarters, is to not question women, to not disbelieve them. As well-intentioned as the aim is, the witnesses appeared to go into the trial not having been tested. The first witness’s police interview, the court would learn, lasted only 35 minutes.

The fact the complainant has a huge responsibility in court—as well as agency—appeared something the witnesses didn’t seem to take seriously, even though anyone who has watched a legal procedural on TV ought to know you can’t lie on the stand about anything, or try to be cute or funny, that the law is serious business filled with procedural potholes.

The sense of sisterly solidarity outside the court undermined the women within. That two of the complainants had exchanged more than 5,000 Facebook or text messages within a year in which they vowed to “sink the prick”—in reference to Ghomeshi—gave rise to a case of possible collusion, thereby forcing the Crown to abandon an application to argue a “similar fact” case that would have required the judge to look at the three cases together, thus bolstering them collectively.

35 minutes of police interview to determine whether or not a complainant is telling the truth? I'd be willing to bet that investigating the theft of Kheldarson's lawnmover took longer than that.

[Kheldarson]

it doesn't help that it is a serious crime- with serious consequences for someone convicted. As such, in some ways, there's no right answer. Either rapists will get away with it, or people will be wrongfully convicted of rape- which in some ways, can be as devastating as for someone raped (death threats, for example, aren't unheard of in cases where rape allegations have become widely known about.)

There may be no ultimate right answer, but we still need to start off from a better base. Which would be to treat the victims better. They shouldn't feel like they'll be disbelieved or shamed for bringing their story forward.

Even if we still have rapists going free, it'll be a great start to stopping rape because more people will be speaking out against their rapists. Because, remember, statistically speaking you are more likely to know your rapist than not.

[s_stabeler]

it doesn't help that it is a serious crime- with serious consequences for someone convicted. As such, in some ways, there's no right answer. Either rapists will get away with it, or people will be wrongfully convicted of rape- which in some ways, can be as devastating as for someone raped (death threats, for example, aren't unheard of in cases where rape allegations have become widely known about.)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

@NecCat - I agree that's the problem.

When the only choices are to presume innocence of the alleged perpetrator or to presume guilt of the alleged victim and require full proof either way, it's a huge problem.

Other crimes like theft or murder don't hold a secondary question of "did theft or murder actually occur?" Someone is dead. A vase is missing. But you can prove sexual contact occurred and that still doesn't necessarily prove rape.

That sort of dynamic is pretty much why I don't think judicial equality can ever exist for that charge.

[Canarr]

One word: "Entrapment". And don't tell me it couldn't happen.

Additionally, as s_stabler points out, what is "clear withdrawal of consent"? Take the phrase "Don't Stop". Written out, its meaning is clear.

However, "Don't stop" is different than "Don't, stop."

No, I don't think Entrapment would happen. At least not in the legal definition of the word. Think about it: it would require a police agency to set up a sting operation where they actually need to order their officers to start having sex with people, in order to withdraw consent - all to maybe(!) catch people who would take long enough to stop that a prosecutor would want to bring it to trial. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

While I'm not sure about US law, under German law, the legal term "immediately" means "without any negligent delay". How long that is, depends on the issue, of course; but I doubt that you could successfully mount a prosecution on the question whether Party A absolutely needed 6 seconds to stop, or if they could've done it in 4 instead. As long as you don't go the "keep going for the minute I need to finish" route TheHuckster mentioned, but stop as soon as you heard and understood the "Stop!" request, it shouldn't be a problem.

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, it's doing a hard shutdown- that is, pressing the power button for 5 seconds or pulling the power cord- that generally does the damage IIRC, not just pulling the power cord. Still, it's not something i'd like to do just to shut it down quickly.

[Kheldarson]

So many CompSci majors just cringed at those words.

Love you, dear.

[KabeRinnaul]

Or you just pull the plug

So many CompSci majors just cringed at those words.

[Kheldarson]

Heck, even if I wanted my computer to abruptly shut down, I still have to hold the button down for 5 seconds.

Or you just pull the plug

[TheHuckster]

As immediately as humanly possible. The law does make allowances for us not being machines, you know.

Heck, even if I wanted my computer to abruptly shut down, I still have to hold the button down for 5 seconds.

[Kheldarson]

In a way, yes. If a man is having sex with a woman, and she changes her mind midway through, and tells him to stop, he must do so immediately. Right? If he doesn't, then at that point it's rape, even if he continues for 2 or 3 more seconds. She can then say she was raped, when the sex was initially consensual. Correct? That's MY understanding. I'm talking about regular sex, not BDSM or those sorts of sexual encounters.

As immediately as humanly possible. The law does make allowances for us not being machines, you know.

So, you know, if hubs and I are going at it, and something he does ends up hurting, I tell him stop or ow or wait. If he's mid-move, I'm not going to be upset if he can't stop right away. I will be upset if he keeps going after that point.

And it doesn't matter if it's regular sex or otherwise. If someone withdraws their consent, however that is done in context of your encounter, you stop as soon as possible.

And if you have any questions about whether or not your partner will be an unequivocal yes throughout, or doubt your ability to stop if they ask you to, maybe you shouldn't have sex.

[NecCat]

TheHuckster - thank you, you put it much better than I did

[TheHuckster]

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but at least in "normal" sexual situations, when something unexpected happens, my normal reaction is to pause. It doesn't even have to be my partner saying "stop." It could even be her sneezing or coughing, or some crashing sound outside. Anything that really isn't expected.

I mean, I know surprises during sex can be great, but not those kinds of surprises.

I will say that I've actually had the situation where I had a partner tell me to stop in the middle. It was just natural for me to heed her direction and stop. I did immediately ask if she wanted me to pull out, since I wasn't sure if the reason she was telling me to stop was because she wanted me to change my position or motions, and she told me that, yes, she wanted me to pull out. I pulled out, and that was that. No harm, no foul. The total time between her saying stop and me pulling out was probably 5 seconds, including the quick clarification.

What people are talking about here is not whether someone delayed their halt by a couple seconds, but whether they intently respected their partner's wishes to stop, and didn't say, "Well, I'm like a minute away from coming, so I'm going to continue like a pig" or "Hey, you said you were alright with this in the start. That means you have no control now." Those are two completely different things.

[NecCat]

MY understanding is that no one is going to question if it took you 2 seconds or 3 seconds to disengage after someone told you to stop, and try to gauge whether 2 seconds is considered the same as immediately. The law generally deals with things real people can accomplish, it doesn't usually try to trap people with impossible standards that no one could meet. If someone tells you to stop, you stop. Depending on what you're doing and general reaction time I would think that could legitimately take as long as four seconds even.