DescentBB

Thanks for the replies.

Kilarin wrote:

BigSlideHimself wrote: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.

This is actually the only reason I posted. Yes I did see a reference here and there to the lack of knowledge on the case, but for the most part, I was struck by the animus of some of the posters here. With so little known, how can people call eachother idiots, or be so certain in the 'correct' outcome? Discussion doesn't require intimate knowledge of the case, it doesn't require any knowledge at all. I was just hoping to slow things down a bit, give eachother the benefit of the doubt.

Kilarin wrote:

BigSlideHimself wrote:Similarly, the USE OF FORCE element is rarely in issue

That seems really odd considering the definition of the crime.

Yes it does. Let me explain. There's various definitions for rape among the states, but the general defintion is:

1) Vaginal intercourse (in some states other appendages can apply)
2) Without valid consent
3) With force or the threat of force

Most states differ from that somewhat but it'll do for our purposes

Now, the 3rd element is a tricky one. What is force? If someone tells you no, but you have sex with them, is that force? What if they didn't fight back, is it still force? Many states adopt the rule that ANY sex without consent impliedly satisfies the Force requirement. In other states, there needs to be some showing of force/threat of force but the threshold is so low in light of the consent requirement that it constructively is the same as the NO FORCE rule.

Therefore FORCE will be impliedly proved by CONSENT, and unless there's bruising, a weapon, a witness FORCE won't be a hot topic.

As for the politics at play. Honestly I had to go back and reread my posts to understand why someone thought I said politics didn't factor in.

There's 2 issues here. 1) The new interpretation of the law. 2) The application of the law to the boys.

1) No I don't think the court changed the law to get the boys. Rather, it was a case that allowed them to examine a longstanding rationale in their state and change it if necessary. Did politics play into this? You bet your ass. But not in a way I think you would guess. POLICY is a huge component of any new law, as it should be.

2) This is what I was referencing in my first post. I don't believe the trial judge or the jury were swayed by politics. Yes they could have been, but my baseline belief until I see at least something backing it up is they took the law they were given and applied it.

I'm not sure of the grievance here. Are you saying the jury was influenced by politics?

Kilarin, what's your email? I'll send you the case later today. If I didn't respond to some of your points than just assume I agree.

Y'know, all this brings up one major question...




Is 'accidentally'using the wrong hole now considered rape?

BSH, I'd like to get a copy as well, if you would; thank you!

And thank you also for bringing in a more informed legal perspective. I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the ramifications of policy, and my knowledge of the case, is limited. (That's part of the reason I tend to put more faith in the validity of the jury's verdict, rather than the articles' interpretation.) You're definitely right, this thread had turned into \"debate about the color yellow between blind folk\" in some ways.

Ok BSH, you have spelled out what I and most here already knew….

Please give your opinion now…

Does continuing on for 5 or so seconds after being told to stop = rape?

Spidey wrote:Ok BSH, you have spelled out what I and most here already knew….

Please give your opinion now…

Does continuing on for 5 or so seconds after being told to stop = rape?

Lawyerly answer: it depends.

I could conjure plenty of situations where I would imagine it would be rape, and plenty of situations where it wouldn't be.

That leads to the larger issue - at least to me - in this court's holding. That is: limiting the discretion of juries.


If this thread illustrates anything, it is that reasonable minds can differ. This rape case is a question of reasonableness: is it reasonable that the DF would continue after consent was reverted?

Reasonableness is a question for juries. Our trial system exists in a dichotomy: Courts/judges determine questions of law, and juries determine questions of fact. By interpreting the rape statute to include not only revocable consent, but COMPULSORY findings of rape upon the revocation, makes this dichotomy a little less distinct.

So to answer your question another way: I don't believe it is the court's job to determine whether 5 seconds extra is rape, it's the jury's. If I get around to reading the case I'll post a more informed opinion.

I'm not sure of the grievance here. Are you saying the jury was influenced by politics?

Considering the first trial, tried under the old law ended in a mistrial, I think its very possible. Did they change the law just to convict these kids? I doubt that very seriously. Yet, seeing as how the first trial seemed to directly affect the issue being discussed in a higher court and ultimately the law being changed, then yes I think they used this particular case to set a new standard.

Sorry for the necro post. But BigSlideHimself provided me with a link to the case file, and I'd like to post it here so anyone who is interested can take a look.

It puts a different spin on the case when you have more details about what was going on.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/ ... /14a07.pdf

Big thanks to BigSlideHimself for finding this.

I hav'nt read more than a few pages through. In time I will read altogether. Bummer it's not the real transcripts, but rather someone else's surmising. Nothing like hearing straight from the horses mouth.

x2 Thank you, BigSlide!

I'll be reading this sometime this weekend. Should be interesting to see how all the perspectives in this thread compare/contrast with the court's opinion.

I haven't actually read this particular case, but I read a recent law review covering the various rape laws among the states. The most controversial aspect of a rape case - to me - is what rape shield laws allow/disallow. The evidence that is excluded - that could potentially exonerate a given DF - would blow your minds.