|
Post by amyghost on Jul 19, 2018 3:06:45 GMT
This is given online by the US DOJ archives as the 'updated' legal definition of rape: www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape'Element of surprise' does not seem to enter into this definition, if I'm reading it correctly; only the inability to give consent due to incapacity, or where the victim is a minor. I suspect the North American legal definition is probably less nuanced than what appertains in some European nations' legal codes. I found that definition on the United States department of justice website. The element of surprise in the definition is, as a matter of fact, an element of the 'consent'. Force is although about consent but the effect on will is different . When there is surprise, will is not free. When there is force, there is no will. They say that force destroys will. The enumeration is made so that each separate occurence is enough to qualify the offense as rape. Now, about practical fact, about consent, the justice that applies that definition considers that any kind of intercourse can turn into rape. When one partner says no, but the other does not take it as a no, what has began willingly can be brought into justice as rape. So, well, I suppose when someone wants to know, all they need is to go to a library and search all the american jurisprudence about consent. Good day, and good luck. Till later, T Interesting argument. Although I can concur with the idea that 'surprise', per se, might rob an individual of free consent in a situation, I suspect that without a continuation in the chain of occurence (including force, though perhaps not relying on it as the only standard for demonstrating that non-consensual sex had taken place), it would not on its own be sufficient as a factor for maintaining that rape had in fact taken place, and could probably not be used as a stand-alone factor in most US trials.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 865
Likes: 279
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 20, 2018 18:38:18 GMT
I found that definition on the United States department of justice website. The element of surprise in the definition is, as a matter of fact, an element of the 'consent'. Force is although about consent but the effect on will is different . When there is surprise, will is not free. When there is force, there is no will. They say that force destroys will. The enumeration is made so that each separate occurence is enough to qualify the offense as rape. Now, about practical fact, about consent, the justice that applies that definition considers that any kind of intercourse can turn into rape. When one partner says no, but the other does not take it as a no, what has began willingly can be brought into justice as rape. So, well, I suppose when someone wants to know, all they need is to go to a library and search all the american jurisprudence about consent. Good day, and good luck. Till later, T Interesting argument. Although I can concur with the idea that 'surprise', per se, might rob an individual of free consent in a situation, I suspect that without a continuation in the chain of occurence (including force, though perhaps not relying on it as the only standard for demonstrating that non-consensual sex had taken place), it would not on its own be sufficient as a factor for maintaining that rape had in fact taken place, and could probably not be used as a stand-alone factor in most US trials. Hello, If it were a matter of tort, in this place, a contract is a proposal that was opted by someone competent and willing. Which mean than the offer must be complete so the party can refuse or accept it. Think about it : someone has got a business appointment at the hotel, and when they arrive, they are 'offered' sex. They had all the time to consider the business deal, but they have to consider the other offer without delay... In addition to the surprise change of one how the main element of the contract, the delay is constraining. The provider abuses his dominant position, maybe not in a physical way, but all the others. But it would not be surprising that American justice could be asking for all the conditions. The domestic justice here has to state according to the human rights bill, where people's right are stated equal. I'm almost sure the amendment for women equality is still not enacted in the Americain Constitution. Till later, T
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 20, 2018 21:45:49 GMT
I'm almost sure the amendment for women equality is still not enacted in the Americain Constitution.
Sadly, you'd be right about that. And until that changes, rape laws will probably be slow to follow in changes that allow for a more nuanced legal definition here.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 24, 2018 13:13:54 GMT
That being said... If they DID take him up on his demand, it is still up to them to follow through. They should not be hashtagging anything or anyone because the ball was in their court regardless. So easy to write this when you aren't in their situation feeling the pressure they were under, and not prepared for. Exactly. I'm sure there's precedence for using power to coerce people into sexual exchanges.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Aug 12, 2018 8:07:12 GMT
There would have been many actresses who agreed to this. Also many women who initiate the offer to producers, not just for lead roles, but even minor roles. Most fantasise that it will be their big break and for many it is.
This scenario is not rape but is a form of corruption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2018 20:03:46 GMT
If they accepted his offer and had consensual sex with him its not rape If they refused his offer and he forced himself on them than its rape. If this opinion offends you lets me just say that i don`t care if it offends you. You're leaving out the part where he actively attempted to destroy careers if his propositions weren't accepted, and also sprung surprises on unsuspecting actresses by changing meeting venues to his room and then showing up naked. Doesn't count as rape, does count as sexual harassment. Regardless, he's an evil creep. That is a terrible thing to do, but its not rape.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 2, 2018 6:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 2, 2018 20:57:09 GMT
Technically he IS innocent. he might have laid the trap so to speak but all these 'women' took the bait. they have to take responsibility for saying yes.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 18, 2022 1:46:59 GMT
Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer plans to argue that the imprisoned producer did not sexually assault Jennifer Siebel Newsom nearly 20 years ago but instead had “consensual sex” with California’s now-First Partner.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 28, 2022 19:30:13 GMT
Harvey Weinstein will not testify in his ongoing sexual assault and rape trial. Weinstein’s attorney, Mark Werksman, told the judge on Monday morning that his client would not be testifying. Weinstein also confirmed that it is his decision not to take the stand, telling the judge that he opted not to testify. “I want you to understand that you have an absolute right to testify,” Judge Lisa B. Lench told Weinstein in the courtroom on Monday morning. She also told Weinstein that he has the right not to testify. “Yes,” Weinstein responded, indicating to the judge that he understands his rights, but has decided not to testify. Weinstein did not testify in his New York trial in 2020, and it seemed unlikely that he would testify in this trial. Weinstein faces seven charges in this trial: five counts of sexual assault and two counts of rape. If convicted on all charges, he could face 60 years. If he is acquitted, he still would still serve the remainder of his 23-year sentence from New York where he was convicted for rape and sexual assault nearly three years ago — though his New York defense team is currently appealing that conviction, which the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has agreed to hear. After a week-long break for the jury during Thanksgiving, the trial resumed Monday morning in downtown Los Angeles in the criminal courts building. The prosecution rested before the holiday, after nearly a month of calling witnesses. The defense will begin to present their case today, which is expected to be much shorter than the prosecution; Weinstein’s defense has said they expect to rest by Wednesday of this week. variety.com/2022/film/news/harvey-weinstein-not-testifying-los-angeles-rape-trial-1235443269/
|
|