5 second delay = rape?

[Kilarin]

A Maryland rape case:

First court case declared him innocent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03225.html

The higher court declared him guilty:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/ ... full.story

First off, these sound like rather reprehensible guys to me. The set up seems designed to have pressured the woman.

BUT, that said, she does admit that she explicitly consented to the sex. Her own testimony states that the defendant said, \"I don't want to rape you\".

BUT, it started hurting, and she asked him to stop. Now I STRONGLY support the idea that a woman (or a guy for that matter) should be able to say \"stop\" whenever they want.

The issue here is that the guy DID stop, it just took him \"five or so seconds\". They parted friends, later she talked to her Mom and decided to charge him with rape.

They've convicted him of 1st degree rape. The same charge he would have gotten if he had caught this girl in a dark alley, threatened her with a gun, and taken her against her will.

So what do you think? I'm glad that the law has changed to state that consent can be withdrawn after it has been given, but when you look at the facts of this case, it does NOT seem to me like justice has been done.

[snoopy]

Really, the question is what a reasonable time of response is.

I'd say that in terms of literal reaction time, someone could stop easily within 2 seconds. I'd say that even considers comprehension time.

So, I think it's reasonable to say that he chose not to immediately stop.

I'm not sure about having to stop, immediately, if someone changes their mind in the midst of the act.... it seems like something that could be easily abused. At the same time, it could save people from physical injury. I'd tend to not support claims of emotional injury, because it's my opinion that the emotional damage is done the moment you let him in, or even before that.... which she consented to. (I'd claim a delayed realization of the emotional damage being the reason for the change of heart)

I guess I'd say the moral of the story is that casual sex is a damaging thing... people may not be aware of the way that they are damaging themselves, but I believe that everyone involved is always damaged by it.

[flip]

I believe a woman has every right to stop whenever she wants to. If she says stop, and then is pushed down until the man finishes, that is clearly rape.

This does not seem to be the case here. 5 seconds???? They have to be kidding. That's just enough time to realize \"dang, she's serious\". After realizing she was serious about him stopping, he did. That is clearly not rape, nor any type of sexual assault at all. She consented, then objected. He stopped. It's outrageous that that kid is in jail. They should try cases by the merits of that individual case and quit trying to compensate for every scenario imaginable.

[Foil]

I understand what you're saying, Kilarin, but I really don't agree, at least in this particular case.

Sure, the way the story reads at first glance is that the girl "just changed her mind" and it "just took him a few seconds to stop", but after looking a bit closer, that's not the impression I get at all.

Here's what jumped out at me:

The woman testified that she didn't feel that she could turn him down.

That to me makes all the difference in the world. It doesn't sound to me like a scenario where it was completely consensual; it sounds much more like the guy is heavily pressuring her, even if it's wasn't physically forcible at first.

Plus, sex is not a freight train. Even at its peak, it doesn't take "five or ten seconds" to willfully stop, especially when the other person is expressing pain. To ignore when the other person tells you to stop, even for a short time, is a conscious decision.

...he kept going for five or 10 seconds.

Even from a guy's perspective, that's considerably more than enough time to hear the word "stop" and stop. From her perspective, my guess would be that it felt considerably longer.

--------

Now, granted, we can't really make a qualified decision from a couple of second-hand articles and news reports. But I have to think that there was at least some reason for the verdict (that at some point this guy was forcing himself on her with the full knowledge that she didn't want it).

[Ford Prefect]

You have to be pretty callous to continue sex when your partner expresses pain or otherwise stops enjoying it. Not worth a prison term though.

[flip]

First we have to remember these were kids. I remember doing some heavy pressuring myself when I was young. Most young girls have to be convinced. I'm not condoning it, just a fact. I think it says a whole lot, that while these kids were going at it, very passionately, that when she told him to stop, he did, without finishing. That in no way sounds like a rapist to me. A rapist would have continued and satisfied himself.

The woman testified that she didn't feel that she could turn him down.

You can't really make an argument with this. This had gotten way out of her hands at this point and of course ANYONE will say what they need justify going to court and taking away the freedom of another. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that as an independant and objective observer, I could'nt put much substance into that one statement. The fact to me, that he did stop without continuing to force himself, absolves him of guilt. His carnal nature said keep going, his heart said stop. He did the right thing.

[Foil]

Flip, it doesn't matter whether they're kids or whether he eventually decided to do the right thing. She said stop, and for what I consider to be a very excessive amount of time, he didn't.

Yes, I know that heavy pressuring is common among teenagers, but you seem to be implying that that somehow makes it 'acceptable'. I'm sorry, but that's bull****. I personally know two girls who were pressured/molested/raped as teenagers, it should be anything but 'okay'.

This had gotten way out of her hands...

It should never have been "out of her hands". The fact that she no longer had any control is what defines it as forcible.

---------------

...ANYONE will say what they need justify going to court...

Interesting. Why is it that you have a problem her statement that she felt coerced, but you have no problem whatsoever with his statement that he stopped as soon as he could?

[flip]

Well I don't have a political agenda. She DID admittably consent, then changed her mind. In THIS particular case, I think the fact that they were both young and that he did stop after a short 5 seconds ( took me longer to write this) are enough for me not to vilify a 16 year old kid for the rest of his life.

[flip]

Also when I said IT had gotten way out of her hands, I of course was talking about the trial.

[CDN_Merlin]

I think this case is a joke. 15 years for 5 seconds? This is his life. You can't take back this time. Some murders get off with less time. I think it's time we changed some laws.

Now onto this case... I dont' think it's rape. Like Flip said, 5 seconds is about the time it takes to realize she's serious.

Also, no one mentioned anything about \"when in stressful situation, people can't judge time accuratly.\" I would suspect her 5 seconds is really 1-2 seconds to everyone else and serving 15 years is retarded.

[snoopy]

The woman testified that she didn't feel that she could turn him down.

You can't really make an argument with this. This had gotten way out of her hands at this point and of course ANYONE will say what they need justify going to court and taking away the freedom of another. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that as an independent and objective observer, I could'nt put much substance into that one statement. The fact to me, that he did stop without continuing to force himself, absolves him of guilt. His carnal nature said keep going, his heart said stop. He did the right thing.

I agree that I don't think this statement carries much weight. He told her he didn't want to rape her- that, in my mind, was an external expression of him giving her an out. Even if she felt pressured, evidently she was given the verbal and physical option to say "no." That's evidence that she did have some level of control, even if it was just a token action on his part, (which it probably was) the evidence says that her feelings on the matter, and the reality didn't match. Now, the question of what he would have done if she hadn't consented is a speculative matter, but the fact that he did stop (after a delay) when she asked seems to indicate that he would have respected her declining it in the first place.

There's also the aspect that she expressed her permission conditionally, and changed her mind upon that same condition. Should the guy have been expected to stop voluntarily when he sensed that she might be in pain? Yes, but I don't think he should be convicted over it. Should he have known that the request to stop was probably coming, considering the fact that the pain was probably evident, and that she had expressed that very conditional consent? I'd say yes- so I don't think it's a valid argument to say that it took him the full 5 seconds to realize that she was serious- she prepped him upon giving consent, and probably was showing signs of pain before she asked him to stop.

[Foil]

... a short 5 seconds ( took me longer to write this)...

"Short" five seconds!? (By the way, the second article said five to ten.)

Try using a stopwatch, see how many times you can hear and react to the words "no" and/or "stop" in ten seconds. It's a lot longer than you would think.

[edit: last question removed after I went back and re-read flip's post.]

[CDN_Merlin]

and probably was showing signs of pain before she asked him to stop.

Sometimes a womens expressons of pain look like pleasure. But I could be wrong.

[Foil]

I don't think this statement [that she was unable to turn him down] carries much weight. He told her he didn't want to rape her- that, in my mind, was an external expression of him giving her an out. Even if she felt pressured, evidently she was given the verbal and physical option to say "no." That's evidence that she did have some level of control...

That's the dispute at the heart of the matter.

If you believe his side (that he asked her and she willingly consented), then it was consensual.

If you believe her side (that she couldn't turn him down), then it was forcible.

---------------

From my personal experience (guys who force their way around while claiming to be caring and responsive, and women I know who have been through the trauma), I tend to believe the girl.

[Edit: It seems reasonable to expect that there would be a debate here with people on both sides. But what disturbs me is that it's so overwhelmingly common in rape cases for the public to believe the man's story over the woman's story. It's a phenomenon that isn't matched in any other type of criminal case that I know of.]

[Kilarin]

the second article said five to ten

The quote from the defendant is "Five or so seconds". I think the second report simply interpreted that as five to ten.

I'd say that in terms of literal reaction time, someone could stop easily within 2 seconds. I'd say that even considers comprehension time.

Even from a guy's perspective, that's considerably more than enough time to hear the word "stop" and stop

I agree. He should have stopped almost instantly. Not that it's EASY to do, but it certainly can, and SHOULD be done. Those of us who are married can testify that when you get an "ouch stop!" from someone you love, you stop that instant.

It doesn't sound to me like a scenario where it was completely consensual; it sounds much more like the guy is heavily pressuring her, even if it's wasn't physically forcible at first.

Yes, like I said, I think the situation was set up deliberately to pressure the girl. But pressure does not necessarily equate to rape.

I don't feel like these guys are nice, or that they are completely innocent. BUT, my problem is in equating this with first degree rape. To me this belittles the horrifying experience of women who have actually been forced to have sex against their will because they were in fear of their lives.

Pressure or no, the guy DID give her an opportunity to say no, but she consented. When she asked him to stop, he didn't stop at once, but he DID stop. I think the guy is scum. He may even be guilty of some sort of crime. But it should NOT be the same crime as someone who holds a girl at knife point and rapes her.

<edit, sorry, everyone posting at once!>

But what disturbs me is that it's so overwhelmingly common in rape cases for the public to believe the man's story over the woman's story.

I don't believe the guys story. Not a bit. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. My concerns in this case are based strictly on the womans own testimony.

<and edited again to remove a misapplied quote>

[CDN_Merlin]

Why doens't anyone beleive the guys testimony?

[Foil]

Pressure or no, the guy DID give her an opportunity to say no...

That's according to one of the two guys.

As I read it:
Their testimony is that she could have said no, and didn't.

Her testimony is that she couldn't really say no.

(Look at it, there were two guys and only her... it's not a stretch to believe it was coercion).

[Foil]

Why doens't anyone beleive the guys testimony?

Huh??

So far, nearly everyone here is taking the guys' testimony (that they gave her a chance to say no) as gospel, and questioning hers (that she was being coerced, and couldn't really say no).

If there's an overwhelming slant to which story people tend to believe, it's the other way.

[flip]

I actually tend to believe both parties stories. She said she consented and he admits he was really trying to get in her pants. Crude but I use that so everyone here can relate . The verdict hung on the point that he took 5 seconds to stop. Also given the fact that he stopped without going ahead and satisfying himself says alot about the incident. I firmly believe that a malicious person would not have stopped, but became angry and aggressive. This is not said about him in this case.

I think alot of this is kids experimenting. She says ok I'll try it (cause I'm kinda curious too) but if it hurts and I want to stop then you have to stop. He says ok, and being young and inexperienced himself, is not gentle. She says stop and he does. The fact that he took 5 seconds shows, yes he is a selfish little 16 year old, (like the majority of 16 year olds), but ultimately did stop. Also who's to say that he didnt stop and just didnt withdraw in that amount of time. Alot of the facts are missing here, but I get the impression that he was finally getting his first piece of tail, as was she and peoples feelings got hurt. Not a criminal act.

[Kilarin]

The verdict hung on the point that he took 5 seconds to stop.

This is a key point. Like I said, I don't trust the guys in this case. If the conviction had been based upon her statement that she didn't feel she could say no, then I would feel very different. Specifically, if she had been afraid for her safety or life. Not if "she didn't feel she could say no" because she didn't want to disappoint them or look like a dweeb or whatever. BUT, if that had been the basis of the conviction, that she had felt threatened, then the other boy should have ALSO been convicted of first degree rape. Especially since he completed the act. But he was only convicted of second degree rape, which, if understand it correctly, is strictly an age based crime. (and seems very odd since he was the one under 16).

That means, it seems, that the jury found that the sex was consensual, right up until the woman said stop. And the boy was convicted of rape because it took him 5 or so seconds to stop. This may very well be a crime, he certainly should have stopped immediately, but it is NOT the same crime as someone who threatens a woman and rapes her.

[Dakatsu]

Wow, seriously? I really can only say that this is bull★■◆●.

I could see a fine, maybe, but 18 months or 15 years in prison? Five to ten seconds is definatley pushing it, but because he delayed five to ten seconds, he is going to jail for fifteen years. Realize that this kid is about sixteen, do you realize how badly his life will be screwed?

If you honestly think this kid should go to jail for this long, then I hate to say it, but your just a plain idiot. There is no other ay to describe it.

[Foil]

I don't necessarily believe it deserved fifteen years, or was a first-degree crime. But unlike some people here, I *do* believe there is enough to warrant calling it rape.

Doesn't matter how short the time was (ten seconds or even five, is anything but \"short\"); the guy made a conscious decision to continue after he knew she wanted him to stop.

Doesn't matter that he later decided to stop. \"But officer, I stopped five seconds after I ran that red light... I did the right thing, didn't I?\"

Doesn't matter if you don't agree with me that (per her own testimony) she was coerced from the start.

Here's the point: per the testimony of both guys and the girl, this guy continued after being told to stop. Whether the penalty was too steep or not, that fits the definition of rape.

[Spidey]

Sounds like a very large load of 24carat BS to me.

[Foil]

I missed quoting this earlier, placing it here because I think it's worth seconding:

Those of us who are married can testify that when you get an "ouch stop!" from someone you love, you stop that instant.

Absolutely.

[Kilarin]

Doesn't matter if you don't agree with me that (per her own testimony) she was coerced from the start.

I actually lean towards that point of view myself. The Jury didn't find that way though. My objection is to the Jury finding.

I don't necessarily believe it deserved fifteen years, or was a first-degree crime

All but 5 years of the sentence was suspended, if I read it right.

per the testimony of both guys and the girl, this guy continued after being told to stop. Whether the penalty was too steep or not, that fits the definition of rape.

I can agree with that, but there needs to be some kind of line drawn to make a difference between this kind of infraction and predators who deliberately chase down women (or men) and forcibly have sex with them. Lumping what this boy did into the same category as what happened to, say, Kitty Genovese, belittles the seriousness of that crime in my opinion.

Or to be most specific and blunt, I want to see convicted rapist (in the traditional definition of the word) lined up and shot. When we start calling it rape when consensual sex goes on five or so seconds longer than desired, people are going to start being hesitant about the severity of the punishment.

I want this kind of case to be called something other than first degree rape so that it will be easier to get the most severe punishments possible for those who actually force someone to have sex with them against their will.

[Grendel]

15yrs based on word against word w/o witnesses or evidence = law gone wrong.

[Foil]

...there needs to be some kind of line drawn to make a difference between this kind of infraction and predators who deliberately chase down women (or men) and forcibly have sex with them.
...
I want this kind of case to be called something other than first degree rape so that it will be easier to get the most severe punishments possible for those who actually force someone to have sex with them against their will.

I can agree with that. Maybe it should fall under a lesser "degree" charge, although I still think it should be called rape.

My contention is with those here who are saying it's okay. It's not.

[Foil]

15yrs based on word against word w/o witnesses or evidence = law gone wrong.

As far as whether it was initially consensual, yes, it's just their word vs. hers. There's no way to be certain.

However, by all the accounts (her statement, as well as both of the guys' statements), he didn't stop when she said no. That part is undisputed.

[Spidey]

The court ruled that a woman has a right to say no after giving consent to sex, says nothing about whether pain is involved or not.

She said stop.
He stopped.
Case closed!

To go on about how long it took to stop is just an egregious example of splitting hairs. He Stopped!

[flip]

I don't think anyone here has said it was ok. The facts are this though. She consented, had complete sex with one, then asked the other to stop. Which he did. Thats whats in contention. There is also no denying that she also bears responsibility here. 5 seconds or her screaming \"NO ,DONT, STOP\" then yes he went to far. Still, he did stop as per her wishes. She has sex with one, then consents to the other and stops halfway through. Heck yeah she can stop when she wants, but 5 seconds is not a rape. 5 seconds of probably \"oh cmon you let him, Just let me finish, thats not fair. Fine OK I'll quit.\"

Jeez Foil, just go the whole way and cast the first stone. You ever considered doing something wrong and then a few minutes later change your mind? It only took him 5 seconds and that's disputable. The girl to remain blameless, should not have consented but resisted from the very beginning. If you can't at least agree to that, your beyond reason and obviously reacting to events outside of this particular trial.

[Spidey]

Question:

If he had gone ahead and finished up his business, would the penalty be the same?

Just curious.

[Foil]

She said stop.
He stopped.

No, he didn't. He made a conscious choice to continue, and only later chose to stop.

"But, officer, I stopped five seconds after passing the stop-sign. I did the right thing, didn't I?"

To go on about how long it took to stop is just an egregious example of splitting hairs. He Stopped!

So if he had gone on for five or ten minutes before stopping, would you still argue that it's "splitting hairs, because he stopped"? What about one minute? Thirty seconds? Twenty?

[Foil]

Jeez Foil, just go the whole way and cast the first stone. You ever considered doing something wrong and then a few minutes later change your mind? It only took him 5 seconds and that's disputable. The girl to remain blameless, should not have consented but resisted from the very beginning. If you can't at least agree to that, your beyond reason and obviously reacting to events outside of this particular trial.

1. You're making the assumption that she consented from the beginning, rather than being coerced. Given the fact that it was two guys, and her testimony that she didn't think she could even say no, that's disputable at best.

2. You can certainly make the argument that "at least he stopped / he's not as bad as a rapist who doesn't stop" - I can appreciate that. But when you imply that five or ten seconds is acceptable, that's where I have to draw the line. It's not okay for someone to continue to force themself on a person after being told to stop, period.

3. How can you continue to say "only five seconds"? We're not talking about inertia here; there's no slowdown/deceleration required. You either stop, or you don't.

[CDN_Merlin]

His crime isn't like he broke into her house, tied her up, beat her and raped her. This was consensual sex that she decided she had had enough after a while. Those are two WAY different crimes. At worst, I think he should be given education on sex and sexual consent but no prison time. She should in turn be counseled for self confidence.

Question: Some say she was coerced. What if they had decided to rape her both? Then the punishment would of fit the crime. But 15 years is WAY to much for this. This is when the law fails society.

We have to protect everyone in cases like this. Problem is, the lawyers tend to paint the worst picture so the defendant gets the maximum penalty.

[flip]

I see your point. Mine is only that the kid did not deserve a sentence for this. Considering the merits of this case, charging him with rape and sentencing him to 5 years takes a very liberal assumption of the facts. she herself did not seem to consider it rape until talking to an adult afterwards.

[Spidey]

His crime isn't like he broke into her house, tied her up, beat her and raped her. This was consensual sex that she decided she had had enough after a while. Those are two WAY different crimes. At worst, I think he should be given education on sex and sexual consent but no prison time. She should in turn be counseled for self confidence.

Good idea, I was thinking along those lines.

Foil, can you remember being that age?

[Foil]

Guys, I need you to understand me here. If you'll read my posts, you'll see that I am agreeing with you that the punishment was too severe.

What I am trying to say is that it's still a form of rape, and should be prosecuted. Not stopping is wrong, no matter for how short a time.

Foil, can you remember being that age?

Yes, but how is that relevant?

Raging teenage hormones or not, [edit: immaturity or not,] what he did was wrong. He's old enough to know that, and yet chose otherwise.

[flip]

Well I went back and reread the first article. Can't believe I missed this the first time. The 2 boys were 15,16. The girl was 18. As far as I know thats sex with minors and her whole story could have been just to avoid prosecution herself.

\"Something just clicked off, and I just did whatever they said,\" she testified.

Hmm thats a real suspicious remark to me. What did they brainwash her, give her drugs. No. Sounds like maybe even a guilty conscience and a \"how do I get out of this mess\" kinda remark

[Spidey]

\"But, officer, I stopped five seconds after passing the stop-sign. I did the right thing, didn't I?\"

Bad Analogy…you have to decide at least 5 seconds before coming to a stop at a traffic signal or stop sign. (law says you have to check all directions before stopping or starting your vehicle)

Doesn’t have to do with “Raging teenage hormones”

[Foil]

"Something just clicked off, and I just did whatever they said," she testified.

Hmm thats a real suspicious remark to me. What did they brainwash her, give her drugs. No. Sounds like maybe even a guilty conscience and a "how do I get out of this mess" kinda remark

Flip, that has to be one of the most callous remarks I've seen in this thread.

There's nothing "suspicious" about it at all. Victims in situations where they are threatened by people more powerful than themselves (yes, two guys vs. a girl fits this scenario pretty damn well) often shut down and agree to anything as a method of self-preservation.

The phenomenon of victim blaming in here is really beginning to show itself here. I wouldn't be surprised if someone soon starts the usual tactic of accusing the girl of "making them do it by the way she dressed".