If I did the time, can I do the crime?

[cantata]

If I'm not mistaken, penetration using a body part or any foreign object, without consent, is considered rape. So, it is possible to rape a person regardless of gender.

I wondered about that, too.

I don't see why it needs to be a penis to be considered rape.

I think it's good that laws and attitudes are changing; the difficulty of convicting women of sexual assault crimes is born of some very sexist ideas about what men and women are capable of, and what experiences might be traumatic for them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I wondered about that, too.

I don't see why it needs to be a penis to be considered rape.

I think it's good that laws and attitudes are changing; the difficulty of convicting women of sexual assault crimes is born of some very sexist ideas about what men and women are capable of, and what experiences might be traumatic for them.

Speaking the normal 'rape' people think of, which is a forced version of 'normal sex', aka vaginal sex, it is evident that a woman cannot rape a man. She would have to be a bit more creative.

So, if a woman forced vaginal sex on a man, would you personally consider that rape, or just sexual assault?

Also, if the force penetration is in the rear, isn't it sodomy, not rape?

 

[God-free]

Speaking the normal 'rape' people think of, which is a forced version of 'normal sex', aka vaginal sex, it is evident that a woman cannot rape a man. She would have to be a bit more creative.

A woman could rape a man (forced normal sex) if she used drugs or alcohol and/or was able to subdue or bind him somehow.

So, if a woman forced vaginal sex on a man, would you personally consider that rape, or just sexual assault?

Yes! Definitely rape!

Also, if the force penetration is in the rear, isn't it sodomy, not rape?

In this case it could be considered rape and sodomy or either. But, this is only my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.

As for non-consentual, non-penetrative sexual contact... I think this falls under the category of sexual assault.

~Barbara

EDIT: I think it's very possible for a person (man or woman) to be the perpetrator or the victim of rape and/or sexual assault. "No means no" applies to everyone.

 

[wanderingone]

I wondered about that, too.

I don't see why it needs to be a penis to be considered rape.

I think it's good that laws and attitudes are changing; the difficulty of convicting women of sexual assault crimes is born of some very sexist ideas about what men and women are capable of, and what experiences might be traumatic for them.

The laws vary from state to state, and have fortunately been changing because it's true that there have been times a rape victim's attacker could not be charged with rape because they had used objects, or because the victim was not female.

 

[wanderingone]

<yanks back in>
Only by other men though, being that rape, as compared to sexual assault, requires penetration using a body part.
<allows to leave>

Rape defnitions are changing, and men can be raped by women.

 

[CCGirl]

So, this is the basic question. If you were found guilty, served the time, and after serving all the time, 'new evidence' or some such thing found you innocent of the crime, should you get a 'free pass' to commit that crime. Basically, if you believe that the price of committing the crime is paying the time, then if you paid the time, society holds a debt of giving you a 'free' crime.

And if not, should some form of compensation be given.

Now, if we are talking tax evasion here, I think some may agree the guy in question who never actually evaded his taxes (or even tried to) should be awarded some monetary compensation, but if we were talking rape, I would think that none here should think that the guy should get a free rape... though many will think that the person who charged him with raping her should have some penalty if it wasn't an honest mistake on her part.

Exactly how should we reimburse those who have been betrayed by society.

I remember as a child if my parents ever punished me for something I didn't do, I would go and do just that, and more. Maybe I was slightly messed up in my view, but I would feel as if my parents had thus committed a wrong and that I should go and punish them anyway possible. I think this is something like that, except between adult and society, instead of child and parents.

No, but they should receive a lot of money!

 

[Maren]

The jury? Without anyone lying, then at best they had circumstance evidence, and the jury convicted someone they 'felt' was guilty even if the evidence didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were. Then again, those people are probably long gone... so how about society in general.

This is where you are wrong. People are routinely convicted on circumstantial evidence, in fact we'd have a terrible conviction rate if it wasn't allowed. The US Supreme Court even went so far as to claim in Holland v. United States that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence".

Many groups claim that many innocent people are convinced to plead guilty. In this case, circumstantial evidence is used by the police to point out to the suspect what a jury will see (including lying about the evidence they have). Especially in cases where there is a lawyer assigned to handle a case for free or for an overworked public defender, they will often look at the evidence and see that a jury is likely to convict. Not having the time or resources to find evidence to counter the circumstantial evidence they will often advise their clients to plead guilty, even when they think they are probably innocent.

As for doing the crime after paying the penalty when you were innocent, no, that is not ethical or moral. Why should you be able to inflict harm on an innocent person just because you were not treated fairly by the system?

Though it does remind me of the movie Double Jeopardy, and that could be an interesting moral question. In this, Ashley Judd is a woman whose husband fakes his death, planting evidence that makes it appear Ashley committed the crime. She ends up being convicted for his death. After serving her time she finds that her husband is still alive under a different name and she plots to kill him. In this case, since she has already been convicted of killing him she cannot be retried for killing him. So, morally, do you feel she is justified for killing him for what he put her through?

My own thought is still no, though she should turn him in so he can pay for his crimes, and to clear her name.

 

[God-free]

Though it does remind me of the movie Double Jeopardy, and that could be an interesting moral question. In this, Ashley Judd is a woman whose husband fakes his death, planting evidence that makes it appear Ashley committed the crime. She ends up being convicted for his death. After serving her time she finds that her husband is still alive under a different name and she plots to kill him. In this case, since she has already been convicted of killing him she cannot be retried for killing him. So, morally, do you feel she is justified for killing him for what he put her through?

My own thought is still no, though she should turn him in so he can pay for his crimes, and to clear her name.

I enjoyed that movie. Although, I find it hard to believe she could kill her husband and get away with it even though she had already been tried and convicted of his murder. I completely understand why she could be angry enough to want to do it. But, going through with it? Nah! I agree with you. She would not be morally justified.

~Barbara

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think innocent people who do time should be paid well and the people who put them in prison should pay for it. From the arresting officer to the judge, they should pay the bill. That way there is incentive to let innocent people go free.

 

[God-free]

I think innocent people who do time should be paid well and the people who put them in prison should pay for it. From the arresting officer to the judge, they should pay the bill. That way there is incentive to let innocent people go free.

I agree that innocent people should recieve compensation for what they've been through and for the damage caused by the injustice. However, to hold everyone "from the arresting officer to the judge" accountable in this way would be impossible without evidence of a massive conspiracy, on their part, to intentionally convict innocent people. How many people are involved in a prosecution? Probably more than I could list here. No, this "incentive" would put a halt to our justice system, imperfect as it is, and leave us with chaos.

~Barbara

 

[Autumnleaf]

I agree that innocent people should recieve compensation for what they've been through and for the damage caused by the injustice. However, to hold everyone "from the arresting officer to the judge" accountable in this way would be impossible without evidence of a massive conspiracy, on their part, to intentionally convict innocent people. How many people are involved in a prosecution? Probably more than I could list here. No, this "incentive" would put a halt to our justice system, imperfect as it is, and leave us with chaos.

~Barbara

The way the system is set up now police and prosecutors are rewarded for locking people up regardless of guilt.

 

[God-free]

The way the system is set up now police and prosecutors are rewarded for locking people up regardless of guilt.

Are you sure about that? There are corrupt cops, lawyers and judges but I find it hard to believe that all of them are. Of all the criminal cases that have been tried, let's say, in the last fifteen to twenty years:
a) how many of those would you say ended in wrongful conviction?
b) how many wrongful convictions came as a result of the intent to convict the innocent by everyone from the arresting officer to the judge?

Is it possible you are disillusioned by our justice system due to the appearance of corruption? When we hear about a case of wrongful conviction it's usually because it's a rare occurrence and, therefore, big news.

~Barbara

 

[Autumnleaf]

Are you sure about that? There are corrupt cops, lawyers and judges but I find it hard to believe that all of them are. Of all the criminal cases that have been tried, let's say, in the last fifteen to twenty years:
a) how many of those would you say ended in wrongful conviction?
b) how many wrongful convictions came as a result of the intent to convict the innocent by everyone from the arresting officer to the judge?

Is it possible you are disillusioned by our justice system due to the appearance of corruption? When we hear about a case of wrongful conviction it's usually because it's a rare occurrence and, therefore, big news.

~Barbara

a) I don't know and wouldn't know where to begin to venture a guess.

b) Again, I don't know. I personally know lawyers and police and I know some criminal law. There is a divorce between law and morality where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. If a prosecutor can get a conviction then the evidence is clear enough to convict you whether you did it or not. When you go to court you are the defendant and the jury will see you there and they will wonder what you did wrong and why. After all, innocent people don't end up in court. Cops don't make mistakes... Its this home field advantage that prosecutors have that many people don't know about. Do they really care if you did it? Maybe, but its not their job to look at that side of the argument. They get promoted based on convictions. Police are the same way. They get promoted based on similar criteria. The assumption is that if you are innocent you will go free. How many convicted rapists and murderers have gone free because DNA evidence from decades ago has finally proven a witness lied or didn't quite remember a suspect as well as they thought they did? Our system is great but its far from perfect.

 

[God-free]

a) I don't know and wouldn't know where to begin to venture a guess.

b) Again, I don't know. I personally know lawyers and police and I know some criminal law. There is a divorce between law and morality where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. If a prosecutor can get a conviction then the evidence is clear enough to convict you whether you did it or not. When you go to court you are the defendant and the jury will see you there and they will wonder what you did wrong and why. After all, innocent people don't end up in court. Cops don't make mistakes... Its this home field advantage that prosecutors have that many people don't know about. Do they really care if you did it? Maybe, but its not their job to look at that side of the argument. They get promoted based on convictions. Police are the same way. They get promoted based on similar criteria. The assumption is that if you are innocent you will go free. How many convicted rapists and murderers have gone free because DNA evidence from decades ago has finally proven a witness lied or didn't quite remember a suspect as well as they thought they did? Our system is great but its far from perfect.

I found something this morning that might interest you. On October 10, 2007 The Brookings Institution hosted a discussion on "Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuses." Both sides of this issue are discussed. The transcript of the event is here:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2007/1010misconduct/20071010misconduct.pdf

It's 72 pages, but the print is large so it won't take too long to get through it. So far, I've only read up to page 47. It's interesting and may answer some of the questions each of us has. At the very least, we can know that 'the powers that be' are looking for ways to improve on an imperfect justice system.

~Barbara