Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rape by proxy

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:12:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://articles.latimes.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:25:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
He's her ex?

Either way I doubt it's win. I posted this to see what ya'll think about how to deal with this legally.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:28:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:25:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He's her ex?

Either way I doubt it's win. I posted this to see what ya'll think about how to deal with this legally.

Oh. Well, there are very few ways to prevent this from happening, other than ban sites like Craigslist (A country that gives up a little liberty to gain a little security blah blah blah) but I'm sure the police could nail him with enough stuff to give him a pretty long stretch in prison.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:29:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The arrangement was consensual. But you can't consent to forced entry, burglary, and rape -- just like you can't consent to murder. Both guys will get jail time.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:32:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:29:48 PM, Nags wrote:
The arrangement was consensual.

I hope you don't meet the deal struck on Craigslist

But you can't consent to forced entry, burglary, and rape -- just like you can't consent to murder. Both guys will get jail time.

Obviously, because consent changes the very meaning e.g. Rape -> Consensual Violent Sex, Burglary -> Charity, etc.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:41:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd consider only the ex-boyfriend who posted the fraudulent ad to be liable. Although personally if I see something like this on the internet I want a written contract signed in person by the person to be "Raped."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:41:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'd consider only the ex-boyfriend who posted the fraudulent ad to be liable. Although personally if I see something like this on the internet I want a written contract signed in person by the person to be "Raped."

Agreed, if a terrorist sends a bomb to a house, the man delivering it shouldn't be prosecuted.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:47:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Execute the two men, simples!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:48:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:32:45 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I hope you don't meet the deal struck on Craigslist

To the guy who raped the girl, yes it was consensual. I don't know wtf you were reading.

Obviously, because consent changes the very meaning e.g. Rape -> Consensual Violent Sex

The woman was raped against her will. It doesn't matter if she consented or not. You can't consent to murder either.

Burglary -> Charity, etc.

It's illegal to let someone break into your house and steal stuff, especially when there's no signed contract.

Besides, the woman (I assume) said stop or no at some point, which means she no longer consented (even though she didn't consent in the first place).
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:50:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:48:31 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/14/2010 12:32:45 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I hope you don't meet the deal struck on Craigslist

To the guy who raped the girl, yes it was consensual. I don't know wtf you were reading.

I thought you meant between the guy and girl. Nvm.


Obviously, because consent changes the very meaning e.g. Rape -> Consensual Violent Sex

The woman was raped against her will. It doesn't matter if she consented or not. You can't consent to murder either.

But when you consent, the meaning changes. You can't consent to rape, because if you do it's sex.


Burglary -> Charity, etc.

It's illegal to let someone break into your house and steal stuff, especially when there's no signed contract.

But if you say it's a-okay to take that and that it's charity.


Besides, the woman (I assume) said stop or no at some point, which means she no longer consented (even though she didn't consent in the first place).

I do believe the ad implied she "wanted" a full blown seal fantasy.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 12:59:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:50:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
But when you consent, the meaning changes. You can't consent to rape, because if you do it's sex.

Right. But you can say to stop. I'm sure the girl screamed stop or no. But the guy didn't stop. =Rape.

But if you say it's a-okay to take that and that it's charity.

I don't recall their being anything about burglary. I remember forced entry, not burglary. You can't give someone permission to break into your house.

I do believe the ad implied she "wanted" a full blown seal fantasy.

No = No. Doesn't matter the circumstances.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:02:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The woman was raped against her will. It doesn't matter if she consented or not. You can't consent to murder either.
Why not? Her body, her life. Are you in favor of outlawing BDSM in all its forms?

It's illegal to let someone break into your house and steal stuff, especially when there's no signed contract.
Why? It's your house.

Besides, the woman (I assume) said stop or no at some point, which means she no longer consented
The (Fraudulent) communications specifically said that she would protest and it meant nothing. That's why people use safewords like cupcake, it defeats the whole point of the scene if no is taken to mean no.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:02:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 12:59:43 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/14/2010 12:50:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
But if you say it's a-okay to take that and that it's charity.

I don't recall their being anything about burglary. I remember forced entry, not burglary. You can't give someone permission to break into your house.

Right it changes the meaning if you consent ,as they're technically invited in via breaking down the door.

I do believe the ad implied she "wanted" a full blown seal fantasy.

No = No. Doesn't matter the circumstances.

So, if the girl really did post on Craigslist saying she wanted this guy to break down her door, tie her up and "rape" her, and she wanted 100% realism and said no, would it be rape, even if it wasn't meant?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't recall their being anything about burglary. I remember forced entry, not burglary. You can't give someone permission to break into your house.

Why not? It's your house.

Are you saying the discovery channel show "it takes a thief" is illegal?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:07:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:02:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Why not? Her body, her life.

Not according to the current laws.

Are you in favor of outlawing BDSM in all its forms?

No.

Why? It's your house.

I don't know why. The State isn't rational.

The (Fraudulent) communications specifically said that she would protest and it meant nothing. That's why people use safewords like cupcake, it defeats the whole point of the scene if no is taken to mean no.

Regardless, it's still holding someone against their will.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:03:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't recall their being anything about burglary. I remember forced entry, not burglary. You can't give someone permission to break into your house.

Why not? It's your house.

Are you saying the discovery channel show "it takes a thief" is illegal?

You forgot to quote this part.

especially when there's no signed contract.

There are indeed contracts on that show.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:11:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:02:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Right it changes the meaning if you consent ,as they're technically invited in via breaking down the door.

You can't invite someone to break into my house. If I called up a random person right now and told them to break into my house, it would still be illegal for them to break into my house.

So, if the girl really did post on Craigslist saying she wanted this guy to break down her door, tie her up and "rape" her, and she wanted 100% realism and said no, would it be rape, even if it wasn't meant?

The guy would need a really good lawyer, but I think the woman would have the law on her side 99 times out of 100.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:14:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:07:33 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/14/2010 1:02:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Why not? Her body, her life.

Not according to the current laws

Are you in favor of outlawing BDSM in all its forms?

No.
So you're making a legal argument detached from what the laws should be.

The (Fraudulent) communications specifically said that she would protest and it meant nothing. That's why people use safewords like cupcake, it defeats the whole point of the scene if no is taken to mean no.

Regardless, it's still holding someone against their will.
Not really, at least not in the hypothetical event the communications were non-fraudulent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 1:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:14:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So you're making a legal argument detached from what the laws should be.

Correct.

Personally though, I think the guy who impersonated her should be imprisoned but the guy who did the "raping" should be exempt.

Not really, at least not in the hypothetical event the communications were non-fraudulent.

If the communications were non-fraudulent and the woman decided mid-way through that she didn't want to do BDSM anymore, and the guy continued, that would be rape.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:12:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 1:11:03 PM, Nags wrote:
You can't invite someone to break into my house. If I called up a random person right now and told them to break into my house, it would still be illegal for them to break into my house.

Not at all. If you invite someone to break into your house then they become invited and are no longer "breaking in." They are entering a property to which they were invited. It ceases to be "breaking in" when you invited them.

If they happen to break something on their way in it was because you requested/consented.

------

On the original question. I agree with Ragnar on this one. Only the ex boyfriend should be held responsible. The "rapist" thought he was engaging in consensual sex. Unless they can somehow prove that the "rapist" knew that she was not consenting then he should not be held responsible.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:19:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:12:04 PM, JBlake wrote:
Not at all. If you invite someone to break into your house then they become invited and are no longer "breaking in." They are entering a property to which they were invited. It ceases to be "breaking in" when you invited them.

If they happen to break something on their way in it was because you requested/consented.

Nope. I can't call a random guy in the phonebook and tell him to break into my house. It's still forced entry, which is illegal.

On the original question. I agree with Ragnar on this one. Only the ex boyfriend should be held responsible. The "rapist" thought he was engaging in consensual sex. Unless they can somehow prove that the "rapist" knew that she was not consenting then he should not be held responsible.

Ha. The rapist is going to be convicted as a rapist -- unless he has the worst prosecutor in the world and best lawyer in the world. He's screwed.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:29:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:19:13 PM, Nags wrote:

Nope. I can't call a random guy in the phonebook and tell him to break into my house. It's still forced entry, which is illegal.

Not if you invite them to... You are lat out wrong on this point.
Consider this: You lock yourself out of your house. You know your neighbor to be skilled at picking locks or some other skill that will help you get into your house. I this an illegal act?

No.


Ha. The rapist is going to be convicted as a rapist -- unless he has the worst prosecutor in the world and best lawyer in the world. He's screwed.

I don't think it will be as easy as you think. This will be a complex case bringing up several unique points.

By the way, I am sure there will be dozens of really good lawyers who will jump at the chance to make their name on a case like this. We can probably take it as a given that he will have a quality lawyer.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:36:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But on a serious note, wouldn't the rapist getting off open a loophole for anyone else who wanted to do something like this? It wouldn't be that hard to send yourself someone elses details from another computer without being caught for it.
signature
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:36:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:19:13 PM, Nags wrote:
Ha. The rapist is going to be convicted as a rapist -- unless he has the worst prosecutor in the world and best lawyer in the world. He's screwed.

This case will call into question real rape fantasies like Ragnar mentioned. This WILL come up in this case. The judge and jury will be asked to consider the "rapist" by his state of mind - that he was participating in a consensual rape fantasy.

I highly doubt that he will be convicted of rape. The most likely scenario is that he agrees to plead to a much lesser crime. If it goes to court he very well could get off with nothing.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:45:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:29:56 PM, JBlake wrote:
Not if you invite them to... You are lat out wrong on this point.
Consider this: You lock yourself out of your house. You know your neighbor to be skilled at picking locks or some other skill that will help you get into your house. I this an illegal act?

No.

Correct. Because you are with the neighbor trying to get yourself into your own home. The analogy doesn't work.

I don't think it will be as easy as you think. This will be a complex case bringing up several unique points.

By the way, I am sure there will be dozens of really good lawyers who will jump at the chance to make their name on a case like this. We can probably take it as a given that he will have a quality lawyer.

Yeah, this case seems like pretty fun to argue as a lawyer anyway.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:51:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:45:26 PM, Nags wrote:
Correct. Because you are with the neighbor trying to get yourself into your own home. The analogy doesn't work.

I don't think it really matters because of the claim you are trying to make - that it is illegal to break into someone's house even if they consent to/invite you to break into their house.

Whether or not the inhabitant is there is irrelevant. What matters is their consent.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 2:56:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:51:13 PM, JBlake wrote:
I don't think it really matters because of the claim you are trying to make - that it is illegal to break into someone's house even if they consent to/invite you to break into their house.

Whether or not the inhabitant is there is irrelevant. What matters is their consent.

Forced entry isn't the same as picking a lock so a neighbor can get into his/her house.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2010 3:22:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2010 2:36:09 PM, badger wrote:
But on a serious note, wouldn't the rapist getting off open a loophole for anyone else who wanted to do something like this? It wouldn't be that hard to send yourself someone elses details from another computer without being caught for it.

In this case,you're dealing with a stranger, in other words, someone whose details it's doubtful you know yet. If you know the details, chances are you know the person well enough that impersonation is a bit more obvious.

Besides, why didn't the boyfriend just send the details "from another computer without being caught for it?" The police here demonstrated quite a bit of competence in tracking down where the details were sent from.

Also, if that competence really is the exception rather than the rule, its possible that under the no ex post fact principle you could let this guy in particular off but recommend to the legislature that they establish a stricter standard of getting consent to such activities (i.e. written contracts in person) in the future. That way you can go off the merits of the case without worrying about unfortunate precedents.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.