5 second delay = rape?

[Foil]

if it becomes a matter of divining what really happened from clues in the report, I could take a stab, but I'm really not interested.

No backtracking; you already stated what you believe 'really happened':

suffice to say that if a girl doesn't want to be taken advantage of, she shouldn't put herself in that kind of situation in the first place.
...
McD's afterwards, a hug, and a phone number pretty much sealed the case for me.

[CUDA]

I'm just having a hard time buying the Rape angle

She drove them to the parking lot
She consented to the sex
She went out with them afterwards to Mc D's and exchanged ph#'s

it seemed to me that it was AFTER she talked to her Mother that her concept of what happened changed. is it possible that Mom might have found out what she did and she was scared? maybe she tore during intercouse (the reason why she asked the guy to stop)and was bleeding, she got home and started asked Mom for advise and in a panic instead of admitting that she had sex with two guys of her free will, told her mom that she was forced into it. IE Rape. now this is PURE speculation on my part. just a possible senario as to what happened.
On the other hand maybe it was pure Rape end of story. I dont know, but her own admissions just dont add up

[Bet51987]

McD's afterwards, a hug, and a phone number pretty much sealed the case for me.

Me too.

And let's not forget that when they were all initially at McDonalds, the boys asked the girl in question, who was also with a female friend, that they should all hook up in a hotel. The girls said no but that was a big clue as to what the boys wanted.

Later when it was just her and the two boys, she willingly drove to a secluded spot and willingly got in the back seat with both of them.. Hello!!! What did she think was going to happen.

He never raped her.

Bee

[Foil]

She drove them to the parking lot

I'm not sure this really proves much, as it happened before the events, and as the article says, they knew each other socially. (Note that rapists often know their victims socially.)

She consented to the sex

It's not consent when it's under coercion, as she testified that it was.

She went out with them afterwards to Mc D's and exchanged ph#'s

As I've pointed out, and as was pointed out in the article, rape victims often shut down, agree to anything, and sometimes even don't react for a while. It's called self-preservation.

---------

Maybe I'm wrong, but from my perspective (as someone who knows at least two rape/molestation victims) the above fits the information from the articles better than the other interpretation.

Plus, and this is the clincher for me: the jury, who knows much more about this case than we do, came to the same conclusion.

[Foil]

The girls said no...

...But she changed her mind? ... And then changed it again? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Sounds much more like these guys were pressuring her from the very beginning, and at some point (when they got her alone) that pressure became full-fledged force.

[Spidey]

Plus, and this is the clincher for me: the jury, who knows much more about this case than we do, came to the same conclusion.

Yea, and we all know juries are always right.

...But she changed her mind? ... And then changed it again? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Sounds much more like these guys were pressuring her from the very beginning, and at some point (when they got her alone) that pressure became full-fledged force.

Then she has to be stupid. Ok I know what these guys want, so I’ll drive them to a secluded spot anyway…yea right.

[Foil]

...willingly drove to a secluded spot and willingly got in the back seat...

...I know what these guys want, so I’ll drive them to a secluded spot anyway...

Who said it was 'willingly'? If they were coercing her (as I tend to believe), there's nothing 'willing' about it.

Plus, and this is the clincher for me: the jury, who knows much more about this case than we do, came to the same conclusion.

Yea, and we all know juries are always right.

[Sarcasm noted.] No, of course they're not always right. But given a good statistical sample, I'd be willing to bet they'd be right more often than a group of forum-goers whose only source is second-hand, through newspaper articles.

[Bet51987]

...willingly drove to a secluded spot and willingly got in the back seat...

...I know what these guys want, so I’ll drive them to a secluded spot anyway...

Who said it was 'willingly'? If they were coercing her (as I tend to believe), there's nothing 'willing' about it.

Whether she was talked into it or not, the fact still remains that she did nothing to keep herself from being placed into that position. She had control. If she was genuinely in fear of getting raped, she COULD have driven her car over someones lawn and up their front porch all the while blowing the horn. She could have stopped where other people were and simply got out and asked for help. She COULD have done a lot of things....but she didn't. That's why I call it "willingly". Geez, in middle school we were taught what to do to stay safe and she's in college.

I think she was talked into having a little fun and did but when the second boy was unintentionally hurting her she said stop and he did...five seconds or not.

Bee

[Spidey]

Yea, I think if those girls thought they were in danger they would have never split up.

[Foil]

Whether she was talked into it or not, the fact still remains that she did nothing to keep herself from being placed into that position. She had control. If she was genuinely in fear of getting raped, she COULD have [suggestions for alerting help]

One of the women I know who was raped/molested by a group of guys when she was younger tried to alert help. You know what happened? The neighbor who saw what was happening... pulled up a chair to watch.

I think you'd be surprised how many rape victims aren't as assertive in their resistance as maybe they should be. Like the girl testified, and many victims do, they 'shut down'.

[Kilarin]

If a spouse knew they were hurting the other, but intentionally kept forcing themselves on their spouse for five or ten seconds... is that "okay"

Nope. Not ok at all. And I don't think it was "ok" in this case. I just don't think it was rape.
To explain why I think it was not ok, consider the reverse situation. If they had been involved in oral sex and the woman had started using her teeth to hard and they guy said, "STOP! That HURTS!", he would have expected the situation to stop immediately, not 5 or so seconds later.

It doesn't matter if it was for a few seconds, or a few minutes... it's wrong.

I agree, but I still see a very important dividing line. Consider the following three cases:

1: No consent was ever granted.

2: Consent was granted, and then withdrawn, but the other partner refused to stop.

3: Consent was granted, and then withdrawn. The other partner does stop, but not instantly.

In case One, no one is going to question that it was rape and hopefully will be willing to support SEVERE punishment for the rapist.

In case two, we USED to have a lot of people who were perfectly willing to say that once a woman had consented to sex, they could not change their minds and the man had license to continue however he wished, for as long as he wished, until he was done. And it appears that we still DO have a FEW Neanderthals who feel that way. But thank goodness most of the public has recognized how horrible this position is and are trying to change the law so that case two is always defined as rape, and they should be willing to support the same severe punishments as in case one.

But case three presents a problem. Because now there is going to be a lot of disagreement on exactly how fast compliance should have been before it counts as non-compliance.

I think your previous "stop sign" analogy doesn't work quite as well in this case, since it doesn't deal with consent having been granted, and then withdrawn. I think an analogy that is legally in the same area as this case would be Trespassing.

It gives us a perfect (although less emotionally charged) mirror of the 3 rape cases I mentioned above.

1: Someone who breaks into property that has a large "No Trespassing" sign posted.

2: Someone who is granted permission to be on a certain property, then refuses to leave when that permission is withdrawn.

3: Someone who is granted permission to be on a certain property, then permission was withdrawn and they were asked to leave, and they do leave, but not instantly.

Case One and Two are quite clear. But case 3 is a bit murky. While technically the moment the owner says "Get off my land!" anyone who does not turn around and leave instantly is guilty of trespass, when the delay is very short, there is a lot of room for debate about whether the delay was reasonable or not. The person MAY have been honestly confused or befuddled by the sudden command. But even if they understood it, even it they stood up and shouted, "How DARE you! You can't DO this to me!" if they left within a short period of time, I don't think any court in the country would convict them of criminal trespass for the short delay. And if we DID count such a delay as criminal trespass, it would devalue the crime, and therefore result in lesser penalties for serious criminal trespass.

The first minor is also being charged. Why? she consented and did not tell him to stop, so why is he now being charged?

The first minor was charged with second degree rape, and a brief GOOGLE on that topic indicates that second degree rape usually just means sex with a minor below the age of 16. It doesn't make sense the he was charged and not her, but it does not sound like the charge involves an issue of force. It's an age related crime.

Plus, and this is the clincher for me: the jury, who knows much more about this case than we do, came to the same conclusion.

But they didn't.

I lean towards the view that coercion was involved, but there are plenty of elements in the story that could support the boys story as true. Without further evidence, it could have been either, or both. It's just as wrong to automatically take the woman's side as it is to automatically take the guys side. And, it doesn't really matter because the jury didn't find that coercion was involved. They judged that the sex was consensual until she said "STOP" during the second event. I'm not saying that the jury was right or wrong about that, I don't know, but I DO disagree with the higher court ruling that the "5 or so" seconds after that constitute the crime of criminal rape the same as if the guys had held her at gunpoint and raped her.

Feel free to throw one of those "Thorne, you can't mean..." bits after me if it amuses you.

No, I think you were clear enough, and I don't really think we have much more to say to each other on that topic.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, I think Foil's got a point. There's a subtlety to some of these things. It certainly isn't always as outright violent or obvious as in the movies. A lot of things playing together, emotionally and otherwise.

[flip]

Well my point is this, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anyone here. I think there is more than a reasonable doubt as to what happened.Going by what were given that is. Getting 15 years and serving 5 is a miscarriage of justice. I think it says alot that the first case was a mistrial, and given the law of the land, you shouldn't be given time over a \"he said she said\" deal. If there is a reasonable doubt, and there is, then they should have been acquitted on that basis alone.

[Spidey]

There is one thing still bugging me about this, and that’s the use of the word Coercion. I didn’t see anywhere in her testimony any kind of thing that could be considered as such.

Coercion
1. forcing of somebody to do something: the use of force or threats to make somebody do something against his or her will
2. force used to compel somebody: force or threats used to make somebody do something against his or her will

If they did indeed “Coerce” her to have sex, then the entire 5 second thing is totally irrelevant, and they are indeed guilty of 1st degree rape. (but I thought the entire point was to establish that a woman can say no after consent is given)

[Foil]

There is one thing still bugging me about this, and that’s the use of the word Coercion. I didn’t see anywhere in her testimony any kind of thing that could be considered as such.

It's right here:

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

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

Per that testimony, it was against her will.

-----------

Now, both Kilarin and Spidey have made the point that the five seconds wouldn't be a big factor if it was coercion from the beginning (as I've stated I believe). I agree.

Kilarin has also said that the Jury found that it was consent at first, and then the consent was withdrawn (as opposed to no real consent from the beginning). The articles interpret it that way, but I'm not convinced that's the way the jury saw it.

[Edit: After re-reading, if the first article is correct about the way the jury asked the question to the judge... then it appears I'm wrong about the way I understood the jury's decision. Hm.]

[Spidey]

I understand what she said, but what did the boys say or do to make her feel that way. What she says there doesn’t prove any Coercion.

[Foil]

I understand what she said, but what did the boys say or do to make her feel that way. What she says there doesn’t prove any Coercion.

True. But on the other hand, what they said doesn't prove consent, either.

As flip pointed out a few posts back, it's a "their word vs. hers" situation. Apparently the jury felt it was enough, though.

[CDN_Merlin]

The case stems from an encounter among teenagers Dec. 13, 2003. Baby and a classmate, Michael Wilson, then students at Watkins Mill High School in Montgomery Village, drove to a residential area with an 18-year-old woman who attended Montgomery College. Baby and Wilson, who was 15, knew the woman socially. She is not being identified because The Washington Post generally does not identify victims of sexual crimes.

After reading it again, I'm sorry but she raped them first. She was 18 at the time and they were 15-16. She's trying to get out of the rape herself by sayign she was raped. She didn't tell h er mom, it was a friends mom. She ruined the lives of 2 boys because she dind't want to admit responsibility for her own stupid actions.

[Foil]

After reading it again, I'm sorry but she raped them first. She was 18 at the time and they were 15-16. She's trying to get out of the rape herself by sayign she was raped. She didn't tell h er mom, it was a friends mom. She ruined the lives of 2 boys because she dind't want to admit responsibility for her own stupid actions.

What makes you so inclined to believe their story over hers?

(I've already said why I'm inclined to believe hers.)

And the point about telling a friend's mother: do you know whether her own mother was even alive, or anywhere nearby? She's a college student, possibly a long way from home. [Plus, from the experience of one of the women I know who was attacked... her own parents didn't even believe her.]

[CDN_Merlin]

She drove them, then afterwards, they went to McDs and exchanged numbers. A rape victim wouldn't do that. And I know family memebers that have been raped by force. This is not anywhere near that. She should be guilty herself.

[Lothar]

I lean towards the view that coercion was involved, but there are plenty of elements in the story that could support the boys story as true. Without further evidence, it could have been either, or both.

From what I understand, the situation is as follows:

- 2 guys and 2 girls meet. Guys suggest meeting at a hotel, girls obviously understand the intent and turn them down.
- 1 girl leaves, the other girl drives the 2 guys to somewhere secluded, possibly feeling coerced but obviously understanding the intent.
- the girl gives a verbal "OK" to guy #1 for sex, again possibly feeling coerced. They have sex.
- the girl gives a verbal "OK" to guy #2, also possibly coerced. They start having sex.
- girl tells guy #2 to stop. Guy #2 takes "about five seconds" to stop; presumably there was no stopwatch involved.
- girl takes guys to McDonalds, gives a hug, exchanges phone numbers.
- girl reports rape, guys get charged.

A lot seems to be hinging on the "about five seconds" statement. As Foil says, there isn't "inertia" to overcome (unless you're actually finishing at that moment.) Stopping should be pretty much instantaneous once he realizes she's hurting. But we're talking about a teenage kid, not a married guy with tons of experience. I know how to read my wife's body language; I often become aware something is hurting my wife at the same time she does. How long does it take a 16 year old virgin to process the same information? When she said "stop", did she say it clearly or kinda mumble "stmph"? We're not talking about him continuing for 5 minutes over her repeated screams and then finally deciding that what he's doing is wrong; we're talking about "about five seconds". This is a situation in which five seconds could legitimately have been how long he took to understand she wanted him to stop.

This SHOULD make us default to innocent until proven guilty. There are plenty of elements in the story that support both sides, and nothing strong enough to prove malicious intent or use of force. This isn't a case of "believing the guys over the girl" or "believing she asked for it", it's merely a case of recognizing that the evidence is too mixed/uncertain to warrant a conviction. I wouldn't feel comfortable convicting somebody based on this evidence, and I'm surprised anyone else would.

I would feel comfortable ordering both guys AND the girl into counseling, but not convicting either party of rape or any other crime.

[Spidey]

After reading it again, I'm sorry but she raped them first. She was 18 at the time and they were 15-16. She's trying to get out of the rape herself by sayign she was raped. She didn't tell h er mom, it was a friends mom. She ruined the lives of 2 boys because she dind't want to admit responsibility for her own stupid actions.

What makes you so inclined to believe their story over hers?

(I've already said why I'm inclined to believe hers.)

And the point about telling a friend's mother: do you know whether her own mother was even alive, or anywhere nearby? She's a college student, possibly a long way from home. [Plus, from the experience of one of the women I know who was attacked... her own parents didn't even believe her.]

The ages in this case are the facts…not his or her stories. (I think that’s the important part of what he said)

[CDN_Merlin]

If she was on top, and he told her to stop, you think she could get off within 5 seconds? What would of happened to her? Would she be charged for rape?

[Spidey]

Women cannot get off in 5 seconds, I think that’s only possible for a man.

[TIGERassault]

By the way, am I the only one that gets the impression that in reality, the five seconds wasn't the real reason behind the sentence?
I mean, look at it this way: a girl who had sex illegally now went to the courts on claims of rape, thereby exclaiming that she had illegal sex to law authorities, where she would've gotten away with it otherwise. As this is the Supreme Court, they can't just let her walk out without punishment, but they don't want to punish her either because she had to confess to having illegal sex for her case, and the crime was pretty ridiculous in the first place. So to avoid having to punish her, they take up her case and proclaim the teenager to have raped her.
As to why the girl herself decided to proclaim it as rape, I put that down to general bastardry.

[Foil]

By the way, am I the only one that gets the impression that in reality, the five seconds wasn't the real reason behind the sentence?

Yes. People here are correct that it doesn't make sense for a jury to reach a verdict of 'guilty of rape' based on "five seconds".

So, what was the real reason the jury reached that decision?

1. A Supreme Court conspiracy (as Tiger suggested) with a trumped-up charge?
- [I find this very difficult to believe.]

2. The jury really didn't know what they were doing?
- [More plausible, but I would trust an informed jury far more than the group here, who only knows the facts of the case via second-hand information.]

3. Because the jury felt it was coercion/forcible the whole time she was alone with them?
- [This is the one I tend to believe.]

Here's why:
- Her testimony that she said "no" when her friend was there
- Her testimony that she couldn't turn them down when they had her alone
- Her testimony that she had to tell him not to hurt her
- Her testimony that she 'shut down' and agreed to everything (which is a very common rape trauma symptom, and explains the McD's scene afterward)
- The boys' testimony that he felt he needed to say 'I don't want to rape you' (clearly, he knew he was being forcible or coercive, even if he felt bad about it)

[Wings]

Or she had a very good lawyer.

[Lothar]

3. Because the jury felt it was coercion/forcible the whole time she was alone with them?
- [This is the one I tend to believe.]

"Coercion" can cover a whole spectrum, from "implied threat of force" to "kinda pressured me into doing something I was mostly but not entirely willing to do." Furthermore, it's possible for one party to feel like they're in the first situation while the other feels like they're in the second. I simply don't think it's valid to convict someone on "coercion" if there wasn't INTENT to imply a threat or force someone into something, and I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to think the boys felt like they had crossed that line.

- Her testimony that she said "no" when her friend was there... that she couldn't turn them down when they had her alone
- Her testimony that she 'shut down' and agreed to everything (which is a very common rape trauma symptom, and explains the McD's scene afterward)

If the boys were telepathic, I'd convict based on this. But seeing as they probably aren't, I don't see how you expect a 15 or 16 year old boy to recognize that the girl "shut down" and agreed to everything because she felt like she "couldn't turn them down" because she felt threatened. I don't see how they're expected to be able to see the difference between that and genuine agreement.

- Her testimony that she had to tell him not to hurt her
- The boys' testimony that he felt he needed to say 'I don't want to rape you' (clearly, he knew he was being forcible or coercive, even if he felt bad about it)

The first time usually hurts. If we're talking about an inexperienced girl, "don't hurt me" or "stop if I say it hurts" is expected.

As for the last point, that could be a statement that he "knew" he was being coercive, or that could just be a statement that he was worried maybe she didn't really want to do it, and he wanted to make sure she was OK with it.

It comes down to INTENT -- did the boys intend to have sex with the girl without consent? Or did they feel like she was perfectly willing? It seems to me like it's perfectly plausible that they felt they had consent, stopped when it was withdrawn, and had no reason to think they'd done anything wrong. That seems to fall well short of the standard for "proven guilty"...

(It was still stupid of them to get into that situation, but I just don't see the evidence being strong enough to warrant a rape conviction.)

[Drakona]

The girls said no...

...But she changed her mind? ... And then changed it again? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Sounds much more like these guys were pressuring her from the very beginning, and at some point (when they got her alone) that pressure became full-fledged force.

Nah. Romance is emotional and impulsive. Especially among women. Especially, especially among teenage girls. It's pretty common for a girl in a romantic setting to give a "no . . . well, maybe . . . well, maybe not" kind of response. I've done it plenty myself. Sounds to me like she didn't know what she wanted, or had conflicting emotions. I can relate.

There is one thing still bugging me about this, and that’s the use of the word Coercion. I didn’t see anywhere in her testimony any kind of thing that could be considered as such.

It's right here:

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

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

Per that testimony, it was against her will.

Not hardly. Per that testimony, she was acting on emotion--but acting. Maybe she was upset; maybe she wasn't sure what she wanted; maybe she just wanted to get a strange experience over with. Again, I can relate. The sexual is fraught with emotion that's hard to decipher. Sometimes you don't know what you want. Sometimes you're upset and you don't know why. Sometimes you think you want something and it's exactly the opposite of what you want. Women are not the most emotionally rational creatures to begin with, and my subjective experience is that sex makes it ten times worse.

That doesn't absolve anyone of responsiblity. Adults are responsible for their actions regaurdless of their emotional state. The woman in the story was acting--perhaps emotionally--but acting still. There's a world of difference between "I just went along with what they said" and "I was totally helpless so I shut down and pretended I wasn't there." Acting on impulse is not the same as a psychological defense to coercion.

There's nothing in the story to indicate any sort of physical coercion. On the contrary, the woman was in control throughout the encounter, from agreeing to drive away from a public place to asking the boys to stop at the end. She may have had weird, unfamiliar, and conflicting emotions running through her at the time, but that doesn't negate her control over the encounter. If there had been implied physical threats, the case should have mentioned them. But on the contrary, the story goes out of its way to point out that the boys repeatedly asked permission and--the crux of the matter--stopped when asked. The best she could come up with to support rape charge was a subjective "they took a while to stop". That's not coercion. That's nothing even close.

It bothers me to see a case that I read as a miscarriage of justice--and that's what I see here. Everyone involved was behaving foolishly, but there's no way I can interpret the situation as anything resembling rape. The article seems to be more concerned with the legal precedent of being able to withdraw consent once it's given, and what a big advance that is for womens rights. I'd not be surprised if that's what the folks at the courtroom were focused on, too. That's a good thing to clarify, but it's hard for me to get excited about that when the point is built on an unjust decision.

But what really scares me about the story is that it illustrates how possible it is to prosecute based on a feeling. If consent can be considered invalid because someone said yes, but didn't feel like they could say no, then it doesn't exist. Sex is an emotional and confusing experience. No one understands quite what they're feeling, and people act irrationally. It's scary if that is considered to absolve them of responsibility, and it's downright terrifying if that is considered to make them incapable of giving consent.

Feeling crimes scare me a lot, and they're so prevalent. You can get in big trouble for making people feel insulted or unwelcome, or even for failing to welcome them enthusiastically enough. The fact that you can get convicted for how other people feel is an indication to me of the erosion of justice. Good bye innocent until proven guilty, hello fiat. I'm sure juries' emotional intuitions are manipulated even more easily than their evidential intuitions.

[Foil]

"Coercion" can cover a whole spectrum, from "implied threat of force" to "kinda pressured me into doing something I was mostly but not entirely willing to do."

Agreed. To me, the testimony (both hers and theirs) points toward the former. You apparently believe it points toward the latter. We can certainly disagree; without having been on the jury with direct access to the testimony and evidence, we'll probably be stuck disagreeing.

I simply don't think it's valid to convict someone on "coercion" if there wasn't INTENT to imply a threat or force someone into something, and I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to think the boys felt like they had crossed that line.
...
It comes down to INTENT -- did the boys intend to have sex with the girl without consent?

They were being coercive enough that they had to make an "I don't want to rape you" disclaimer. That alone tells me that they knew she was feeling coerced. And yet they intentionally continued.

Romance is emotional and impulsive. Especially among women. Especially, especially among teenage girls. It's pretty common for a girl in a romantic setting to give a "no . . . well, maybe . . . well, maybe not" kind of response.
...
Per that testimony, she was acting on emotion--but acting. Maybe she was upset; maybe she wasn't sure what she wanted; maybe she just wanted to get a strange experience over with.

If she had said, "I didn't feel like continuing" or "I didn't want to do it any more", I would agree with you.

However, testimony was that she couldn't turn them down. That's not the whimsy of young romance, that's a statement of fear.

...the woman was in control throughout the encounter, from agreeing to drive away from a public place to asking the boys to stop at the end.

If the scenario was as you and Lothar (and most everyone else in here) believe, then yes, she was in control.

However, if the scenario was as I believe (that per her testimony, she was being heavily coerced), then she wasn't in control at all: the drive was under duress, and what she said to them was a plea to not hurt her rather than a change of mind.

the story goes out of its way to point out...

There's the biggest disconnect. The articles definitely go out of their way to make an issue of the five seconds ("five or so" in one article, "five or ten" according to the other).

However, as a number of people here have pointed out, that doesn't fit with the jury's findings. Think about it; who would have an informed perspective and be more likely to come to a valid decision: a reporter writing an article on the results of the trial... or the jury who got to hear all the testimony, see the evidence, and discuss it amongst themselves?

Sure, one can certainly believe that the jury got it wrong (or that it was a Supreme Court conspiracy, as Tiger suggested, lol!), but that means putting more reliance on one's own understanding via second-hand information, than on a group who was there for the trial.

[Honestly, when I first read the articles, I got the same impression as everyone else here. But then it struck me that the articles imply a completely different rational conclusion than what the jury came to, and I re-read them.]

...the boys repeatedly asked permission...

It doesn't sound like asking permission at all.

They made the disclaimer "I don't want to rape you"... but what does that imply? That they were just nice guys concerned about her feelings? Or that they knew it was something at least bordering on rape?

Think about it; if it was consensual, why would someone need to make that disclaimer? That statement is a fairly strong indicator to me that they knew they were being coercive.

...and--the crux of the matter--stopped when asked.

No, he didn't "stop when asked". He decided to stop after being asked (i.e. he decided to continue for a period of time).

Doesn't matter if it was a few seconds or a few minutes. The fact that he intentionally continued, even for a short time, says a lot.

[Spidey]

/me hands Foil his mulish title.

Here you really deserve it, not me.

[Foil]

mul·ish
of or like a mule, as being very stubborn, obstinate, or intractable

If by that you mean "sticking to my beliefs", then thank you!

[Bet51987]

If by that you mean "sticking to my beliefs", then thank you!

"Sticking to your beliefs" doesn't mean you're right and in this case, your beliefs can ruin some kids life.

Bee

[TIGERassault]

"Sticking to your beliefs" doesn't mean you're right

This needs to be said a whole lot more than it is now.

[Foil]

I don't mean "sticking to my beliefs" as in "stubbornly refusing to budge despite seeing flaws in my view". If that were the case, I would still be a young-Earth creationist, ha. I'm talking about being willing to stand for something I believe, even when it's not popular.

"Sticking to your beliefs" doesn't mean you're right and in this case, your beliefs can ruin some kids life.

Conversely, the others sticking up for their viewpoint could let a couple of rapists free, possibly to hurt someone else.

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

Note: Again, as I've said, I agree with people here that the sentence is too severe.

However, the point I'm "sticking by" is that five seconds of intentionally continuing is not "okay", and I think there's quite a bit here to point to a far different scenario than the consensual one the articles portray. Most notably that the girl testified she couldn't turn them down, and that their 'disclaimer' shows that the boys clearly knew they were being coercive.

If I was on the jury, and saw/heard evidence that proclaimed their innocence, or felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict them, I would of course vote the other way. But that's not what the jury found, and that's not what I see.

[BigSlideHimself]

There's alot of absolutes being tossed about in this thread.

I'm curious how many of you have read the actual case? I don't mean a 2 page news article, I mean a 20-80 page opinion that would give far more perspective than the story we're basing our opinions on.

Beyond that, how many were in the courtroom or jury box?

I've read about 500 cases, and sat in on a few dozen trials. The printed word does not do a trial justice. To sit in a trial, and then read about it the next day in the paper are worlds apart. You can't see the plaintiff/defendant's demeanor in this article, or the credibility of the witnesses, or the evidence first-hand.

But here, all we have is a news article. An article with a few facts, a few names, a few commentator's opinions, and all of the 'boring' stuff cut out.

There is not enough information on that website to make some of the statements I've seen here. You cannot judge the merit of a case, or a sentence, based on such a rudimentary understanding of what happened.

I think there is some great discussion going on here. The issue: 'when does rape become rape' is an interesting one. It's not a new issue at all actually, and has been and will be debated for a long time. Rape cases are some of the messiest and ugliest ordeals you could ever think to sit through. It's not easy. It is rare that you can be so confident in anything.

Also, a couple of things that have stood out while reading this thread.

\"This shouldn't have been 1st degree rape.\" I ask anyone who has said this - and there's been several of you - why do you say this? Do you know the definition of 1st degree rape? Well, it's different from state to state, but if you looked up Maryland's statutes, you would immediately see why this wasn't say, 2nd degree rape. 2nd degree rape is reserved for 'special' rape cases - it can be mere 'sexual contact' or sex with someone who's mentally retarded, elderly, incapacitated, unconscious, or in Wilson's (the co-defendant) case, he pleaded guilty to mitigated charges.

This was 1st degree because he took it to trial and his crime met all of the elements. To the person who said: 'They sentenced him just like he pulled a gun on her\". No, they did not. He would not only have more charges brought against him, the jury would probably sentence him longer.

Similarly, in regards to the sentencing. He was charged with several other crimes, not just the rape.

\"Some murderers get out of jail quicker than 15 years\"
Can you envision a murder less heinous than a rape?

The mind boggles at how you can call someone an idiot, or put them down for their opinion, when none here have a leg to stand on regarding this particular case. If anyone is interested I'll pull the case itself and send it to you.

We're all friends here.

[BigSlideHimself]

There's a few other points people have made that I'd like to comment on.

Someone said that all that matters is the DFs INTENT. This is far from true in a rape case. Even if the DF did not INTEND to rape the victim, the lack of CONSENT automatically makes the act of sex a USE OF FORCE. - This is the majority rule, which is different in most states. Now, certainly intent plays into it (unless it's a statutory rape case), but it's hardly ever in issue. Similarly, the USE OF FORCE element is rarely in issue. And COERCION is not an element of rape at all. Whether or not the girl was coerced might prove/disprove some of the other elements, but it is not an element of rape itself. Yes I realize that Coercion is tantamount to \"force\" or \"threats of force\" but the difference in terminology is different since you don't even have to go as far as to prove coercion.

Similarly, it seems that some people are confused about how the appeals court works. The appeals court didn't change the law and then sentence the kids with the new law. Rather, they changed the law, then sent the case back to the trial court.

If anyone thinks the jury had it at all in mind that they were on the 'cusp' of women's rights with this case, then you haven't seen the inside of a court room. I'm sure the jury received an instruction based on the new statute, but to say the jury, or even the judge, was excited about trying out this new law is to be completely ignorant about how things work.

[flip]

I know exactly how the law works. I was wild as a buck when I was younger. Nothing maliciously criminal, but alot of fights and a few DUI's. Real low blood level but debateable which is why I got arrested and went to court. Not to mention that as a young and dumb kid I had alot of disdain for the police and wasn't scared to be verbal about it.

My lawyer used to be a State Representative here in GA. He has alot of friends . I never but once had to actually go into the courtroom. He would go in there first thing in the morning, come back 15 minutes later, and say you can go now. I'd hand him 200 bucks and leave. Mind you most of this because the police were always overzealous. I also got custody of my oldest daughter by walking into the judges office and handing him an affidavit written by myself and carried in there by him. This was after 3 years of trying and I owe that turn of favor to God.
The one time I had to go into court was in a totally different county. It was for a DUI. I had only drink a beer and a half but this was just when they were getting hard about it and in a rough county at that. The judge walked in , instantly recognized my lawyer. The DA and my lawyer had worked out a deal that was barely a slap on the wrist. The judge kinda looked at him incredulously, and at a barely discernable nod instantly agreed with him. I have never drank and drove again, and thank God for that favor.

My point is this: It's all cronyism and if you don't know that, then your the one that's deceived. Politics are the biggest play in the courts and I would guarantee played heavily in this case.

[Kilarin]

I'm curious how many of you have read the actual case? I don't mean a 2 page news article, I mean a 20-80 page opinion that would give far more perspective than the story we're basing our opinions on

No clue how to even get access to such a thing. Very interested to see someone come into the discussion who does have such access and a clue about the inside of the court system.

The printed word does not do a trial justice

This has been recognized by several people involved in the discussion. It was referenced several times that we simply didn't have all of the information that the Jury did. So we were having a discussion based on the best info we had.

Can you envision a murder less heinous than a rape?

In my opinion, rape is even worse than murder. But that's strictly my opinion.

Do you know the definition of 1st degree rape?

Aha! I finally found the actual maryland definitions! (I did look for them earlier)

http://www.oag.state.md.us/sexualoffend ... anding.htm

1st degree rape: Vaginal intercourse by force or threat of force, along with an aggravating factor, like causing or putting in fear of serious physical injury or disfigurement, suffocating, kidnapping, etc.

2nd degree rape: Vaginal intercourse by force or threat of force, or with mentally disabled victim, or with victim under 14 and perpetrator 4 years older.

No surprises in the 1st degree charge. But the 2nd is not what I expected. Am I reading the lawyerese correctly here? 2nd degree rape COULD be just sex with a minor when you are 4 years older. OR it could be sex with a mentally disabled victim. OR, it could be sex under threat of force.

SO, am I understanding correctly that 1st degree requires that the victim be threatened with serious damage, while if the only threat is I'm going to hold you down and force you, then it's second degree?

The fact that a 2nd degree rape charge COULD have been "under threat of force" does put a different spin on the case.

'They sentenced him just like he pulled a gun on her". No, they did not. He would not only have more charges brought against him, the jury would probably sentence him longer

But they DID sentence him to the same crime as someone who threatened to kill her. Obviously someone with a gun probably would have gotten "assault with a deadly weapon" etc, and hopefully an even stiffer penalty. BUT, as far as the rape went, it appears that the defendant was placed into the same category as a rapist holding a weapon on her.

This case just doesn't make sense.

If the younger boy was charged with 2nd degree rape because of the age difference between himself and the victim, then why was the 15 year old charged and not the 18 year old. Besides, that's only 3 years. But if the younger boy was charged with 2nd degree rape because of the element of force, then why did the 2nd boy get 1st degree, and why was the 5 second issue brought up at all?

AND, if the definition of 1st degree rape in maryland requires an "aggravating factor like causing or putting in fear of serious physical injury...", then again, why was the 2nd boy charged with 1st degree?

The mind boggles at how you can call someone an idiot, or put them down for their opinion, when none here have a leg to stand on regarding this particular case.

I haven't done either of those, and freely recognize that I don't have a CLUE whats going on in the courtroom.

Similarly, the USE OF FORCE element is rarely in issue

That seems really odd considering the definition of the crime.

If anyone is interested I'll pull the case itself and send it to you.

Can you do that? Yes, I'd be interested.

It's all cronyism and if you don't know that, then your the one that's deceived.

It is just as deceived to believe that cronyism and corruption are the standard as it is to believe they never occur.

[flip]

First let me say I totally agree BSH's first post. I as well as others have said this from the beginning. This being a debate, and seeing that one side was already being strongly expressed, I decided to debate from the other side. That way all sides are represented well.

In that is why I took issue with BSH's second post. He seems to allude that in no way \"politics\" could have been a factor when it very well could have. Was it? There is no way for any of us to know, yet it is very possible.