Stanford student gets six months for rape

[mjr]

You object to the ability to withdraw consent during previously mutually consentual sex because police officers will have sex with people, then withdraw consent part way through so they can arrest partners who don't stop? (That wasn't sarcasm, I'm legitimately curious what you meant).

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 for your second scenario, that actually happened to me. He said "....don't.....stop.. ". So I stopped and he said "No, I said don't stop!", so I resumed what I was doing. It was hardly a difficult, traumatic or life changing moment. Certainly not one worth specific legislation.

Ok...but did you stop and dismount immediately?

[NecCat]

That said, legally speaking that's all true because of the presumption of innocence under the law (which is universal.) The idea that someone could play a legal game by the withdraw of consent actually becomes very real if people default to what some people are vocally demanding at this point and that is believing the victim (which by extension actually means the presumption of guilt). d

I think that's the biggest problem with rape cases. In other types of crimes no one usually doubts the victim. No one tries to claim the guy who had his car stolen or wife killed is making it up, just because they are trying to claim the accused isn't guilty. 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. I agree with s_stabler: lawyers probably really hate defending accused rapists.

[NecCat]

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."

You object to the ability to withdraw consent during previously mutually consentual sex because police officers will have sex with people, then withdraw consent part way through so they can arrest partners who don't stop? (That wasn't sarcasm, I'm legitimately curious what you meant).

As for your second scenario, that actually happened to me. He said "....don't.....stop.. ". So I stopped and he said "No, I said don't stop!", so I resumed what I was doing. It was hardly a difficult, traumatic or life changing moment. Certainly not one worth specific legislation.

[s_stabeler]

or- to answer a question raised by Keldarson earlier in the thread about why investigators and defence attorneys ask the questions they do: rape is, in some respects, an odd crime, in that
ultimately, it is inherently he said-she-said about the issue of consent. (that is, ultimately, only the victim and the alleged rapist know exactly what happened.) As such, the victim is always a key witness. In any crime, it's the defence attorney's job to discredit the credibility of the witness- to make it look like the victim is at best misremembering what happened. The problem is, those very same arguments are close to those used to blame the victim for being raped.

All in all, I have no doubt lawyers roundly hate rape cases. Why? because it's all but impossible to look good defending an alleged rapist. In murder cases, you can prove the accused couldn't have killed the victim. In rape, either you fail to defend your client, or you look like scum for attacking the victim.

[mjr]

@mjr: What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

You are always allowed to change your mind about any kind of activity you're engaged in; just have to let the other party know about it.

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."

[s_stabeler]

That, and it's rarely made clear in such cases about how obvious a withdrawal of consent can be, so if you're already wondering about games being played about withdrawing consent, then it's not a big step from there to wondering about fictitious claims of withdrawal of consent mid-act, which would be hard, at least, to disprove.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

I think the problem is it's such a specifically hypothetical one. Mid-progress consent withdrawl is such a unique thing that it can actually conjure up a game of mid-coital red-light/green-light and it throws people off. In practice you're generally talking about one party getting physically hurt, bored, or emotionally running into something while it's happening. In the current legal environment it would make no sense to play "you did/did not rape me" games with it which is what I think people envision the problem is.

That said, legally speaking that's all true because of the presumption of innocence under the law (which is universal.) The idea that someone could play a legal game by the withdraw of consent actually becomes very real if people default to what some people are vocally demanding at this point and that is believing the victim (which by extension actually means the presumption of guilt). It's very hard to prove a negative and were that the legal environment, THEN I think you would worry about bizarre game playing because sociopaths do exist (although though most are men, not all are.)

Re: the Judge - I think the more practiceable take away from this case should be (I understand whether or not the recall fails, that guy has to get reelected and probably won't) is that perhaps Judges that have too much in common with the accused or the defendant should be forced to recuse themselves. As much as I love the ideals of the enlightenment, we're now pretty conclusively proving through statistics that tribal impulses are too big a thing. I'm not sure if that's because people don't actually internalize those ideals or because you can't get away from impulse, but regardless of reason the numbers don't hold up to scrutiny.

[Canarr]

If the investigators were to keep it to the relevant facts (and there is movement towards better questions and training) and with the idea that these women are in shock (because cops have been shown to change their behavior when a victim doesn't act "right"), then that would go a long way towards making rape easier to report, prosecute, and, hopefully, something that happens less often because it's harder for rapists to get away with due to their victims being shut down via victim-blaming in the investigation.

I agree with you that there is certainly a lot of room for improvement in the handling of rape investigations by law enforcement.

One obvious first step in the US, I'd say, would be to change the legal definition of rape again - since, right now, it requires being penetrated in some way to fultill the definition. That means being made to penetrate someone else - like, a woman having sex with a man without his consent - is... something else, but not rape.

Consent can be withdrawn at any point. Of you continue after somebody has told you no, then it is rape.

How would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

Edit: Just to add a little more to this. Try looking at it another way. It gives every party an *advantage* to have the option to withdraw consent at whatever point they may feel uncomfortable. That's a good thing. A very good thing.

@mjr: What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

You are always allowed to change your mind about any kind of activity you're engaged in; just have to let the other party know about it.

[Akasa]

how would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

thank you!!!!!!

[Lachrymose]

Which can really put someone at a disadvantage, knowing that the other party can withdraw consent at any time.

How would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

Edit: Just to add a little more to this. Try looking at it another way. It gives every party an *advantage* to have the option to withdraw consent at whatever point they may feel uncomfortable. That's a good thing. A very good thing.

[Kheldarson]

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

Consent can be withdrawn at any point. Of you continue after somebody has told you no, then it is rape.

Great video on consent: https://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ

And I'd argue that the fact that the other party can withdraw consent at any time is only an issue if you don’t really care about your partner. Even hardcore BDSM scenes have safe words so the sub or dom can withdraw consent if things get too rough. And they know to stop immediately if it's called.

If you're not in a position to care about whether or not your partner is happy and fully consenting to what's going on, maybe you shouldn't be having sex.

[s_stabeler]

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

It depends- at least, i'm pretty sure it does. Basically, if you have reason to believe your partner has told you to stop, you stop.

as for the kid blaming party culture- I think he was more referring to the fact that the culture encouraged him to drink.

To be honest, the vibe I get from the kid's statement is what the judge seems to think- that he wishes he could make it that he had never raped the girl- meaning he does in fact feel remorse for the crime- and he blames the culture that led him to drink to the point he did something that stupid for how he got into the situation, and wants to help prevent other kids making the mistakes he did. (by he blames the culture, what i mean is he raped the women because he was too drunk to think straight- the culture was why he drank so much. He wants to help make up for the crime by, essentially, using what happened as a warning about what can happen if you drink too much. Him going on about how it sucks for him was an- admittedly badly worded- attempt to show he does feel remorse for what he did.

[BrenDAnn]

This morning's news: USA Swimming has now banned Brock Turner for competing. For life. That, in itself, is more punishment than he's already had, and I greatly applaud it! Link here.

[Akasa]

I saw this on FB:

Rape culture is victim shaming because she was too drunk, then defending the male because his actions were influenced by alcohol.

[mjr]

The issue with rape is one of consent.

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

However, If person A consents to sex with person B, and the act commences, and then person A decides that they no longer want to have sex with this person during the act, can they withdraw consent during the act?

My understanding is that a person can withdraw consent at any time, and the other person must cease immediately, or it's considered rape.

Again, I am not sure if this is a law or what. My understanding is that it is (though I forget where).

Which can really put someone at a disadvantage, knowing that the other party can withdraw consent at any time.