levi501 said:
Well hypothetically lets says both participants are extremely honest and the guy says before a jury, "yes she told me to stop, but I pulled out after making one extra motion because it felt so good. It probably took 4 seconds total."
In this scenario should he be convicted of rape and sent to jail?
Nobody is going to feel like that guy ought to be convicted of rape (though I wouldn't admire him for what he did). But here's the problem, levi -- where are you going to draw the line?
Right now, the line is drawn, legally, at
any continued penetration after withdrawal of consent. This works, because although a man is at least going to stay in for the length of his reaction time, a very short continuation of sex will be easy to slide past in a court of law. A longer continuation, not so easy -- and the man is likely to be convicted. You aren't
expected to admit to rape because of 1 or 2 seconds, because that could just as easily be reaction time as anything else. If you admit to rape anyway, then you have a seriously misplaced sense of duty, I think. Also, consider whether a jury would convict in your scenario -- personally, I doubt they would, though he'd probably get a lesser charge.
But say we do what you're saying and change the line to 4 seconds. If you remain inside for more than 4 seconds, you're a rapist -- so what about the guy who keeps going for 5 seconds? Is he a rapist? He only pushed the envelope by 1 second, so come on, how is it fair to convict him? Besides, the woman is going to have a lot harder time proving he went over 4 seconds, than simply proving he didn't immediately stop, so he'll probably get off anyway. So that's why we don't raise the allowable time to keep screwing after she says "No."
This is how the justice system works. We make black-and-white rules because we simply can't make laws on a case-by-case basis. Then, we expect the natural elasticity of the justice system to give some leeway, so that in extraordinary cases, the defendant will have a chance to avoid conviction based on the specific circumstances. Have you ever wondered why we have juries instead of putting the evidence into a computer and clicking "Judge?" It's so the jury can hear all the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion based on the circumstances. Juries allow our justice system to account for "grey areas."
In general, a person who
just barely commits a crime won't appear guilty, and you could challenge any law on that basis. For example, if you kill somebody while driving drunk, you get convicted of manslaughter. If you injure a person while driving drunk, you get convicted of attempted manslaughter. So think about the following scenario:
A man who never, ever drives drunk -- in fact, he only drinks at home when he knows he won't be going out -- is sitting at home drinking. He looks out the window and notices that it's starting to hail, so he decides to drive his car up the driveway and under an awning in front of his house.
Unbeknownst to him, there's a guy trying to pry open the basement window and break into his house, and when he drives up the driveway, the man's feet are sticking out and he runs over his little toe. When the thief screams, this wicked DUI calls the police. They show up, find beer bottles on his porch, and make him use the breathalyzer. Since his BAC is barely .08%, they haul him in and charge him with attempted manslaughter. He is convicted and serves two years.
Fair, or unfair? Do you think that on that basis we should change the minimum BAC for intoxication to, say, .1%?
That is a definite. If she feels she made a mistake in the first place, that's fine w/me. No way I would try to go round two with her again. Gotta play it safe at all times.
