if Kobe Bryan ignored her pleas to stop, should he be guilty of rape?

[SweetErika]

I'd like to be able to agree with you, but I haven't found that to be a hard and fast rule especially for those in the 15 to 25 range. People have sex for a variety of reasons and particularly when it comes to youngish females there is a lot of baggage that often accompanies the sex act.

Plenty of people consent to things that they later wish they hadn't. People change their minds all the time or circumstances change and feelings along with them. The problem, however, is when people change their minds long after it's too late for anyone to change the event.

-B

Of course people change their minds...I thought that one night stand in college was probably not a great idea after the fact, but I didn't accuse anyone of rape because I didn't object at the time. If Kobe Bryant's accuser did not say "no/stop" and simply changed her mind after the event, it wasn't rape, and she should face the consequences for a false accusation. If she did protest DURING, it was rape, even if she consented to it originally, and he should be punished accordingly.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sweet and bb,

Sweet:

//That's why the facts are an important component legally.//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bb:

The facts are the only important component legally. If the facts don't support a rape charge then there shouldn't be one regardless of how either party feels about the incident. Emotional trauma can be determined in a civil suit for damages, but the decision of whether or not a crime has been committed should be based on nothing except the coldest, hardest facts that can be found.

The issue of 'hard fact' is not so clear as one might hope; the facts about human actions are not like the hard fact of the weight of a stone, the color of a crystal, or the melting point of a metal.

Intent is part of most crimes. The intent that makes something a crime is called 'mens rea.' {rendered as 'criminal intent'; roughly, 'guilty mind'}.

In the case at hand, John Z, a 17 yr old persisted in intercourse, after she said she had to go home. That is an agreed 'hard' fact.
{I shall concentrate on it, for purposes of this discussion; I realize there are others.}

Does this constitute an assault; was the intent to 'apply force'? What sorts of holding, clutching, etc. during sex constitute force?

As I believe was said, "I've got to go home" can be read as
"I'm in on this, but hurry it up!!".

While I agree with bb's 'objective' approach, I'm aware of the difficulties of analysis, interpretation, and application. One such test applied in courtrooms is "Would the normal person hearing--in this case-- 'I've got to go home' reasonably infer that he was being asked to stop?"

As another poster stated, probably many pro stars--esp. those required to be very aggressive-- are incapable of 'hearing' (processing) the words "I don't want sex with you" and arriving at the usual meaning.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

The issue of 'hard fact' is not so clear as one might hope; the facts about human actions are not like the hard fact of the weight of a stone, the color of a crystal, or the melting point of a metal.

You're projecting from my argument a bit. The issue I was discussing was whether or not how raped a victim feels is a reliable basis on whether to decide if a crime has been committed. That may have little, if any, basis in fact as my earlier examples pointed out. The feelings of the victim are not stable foundation for the construction of law. I'm well aware that the facts of a criminal investigation are not as immutable as hard science, but even facts that are open to interpretation have some basis in objectivity whereas the emotions of those involved generally do not.

Intent is part of most crimes. The intent that makes something a crime is called 'mens rea.' {rendered as 'criminal intent'; roughly, 'guilty mind'}.

Agreed, but we weren't discussing the mind of the alleged rapist but that of the alleged victim.

In the case at hand, John Z, a 17 yr old persisted in intercourse, after she said she had to go home. That is an agreed 'hard' fact.

Yes. It is. What she said is not in question. Whether he heard it is not in question. What she meant and whether he could reasonably be expected to determine that accurately was the lynchpin of the case. Facts may be interpreted in any number of ways -- fact isn't synonymous with "truth". A fact doesn't mean anything by itself, but arguing about the meaning of a dialogue between two parties is a legitimate exercise while arguing that the feelings of one party should determine the execution of law is folly.

As another poster stated, probably many pro stars--esp. those required to be very aggressive-- are incapable of 'hearing' (processing) the words "I don't want sex with you" and arriving at the usual meaning.

See, that's a total crock as far as I'm concerned. One might as easily and convincingly argue that professional atheletes are more disciplined than 95% of the population --- able to endure more in the way of strain, pain and abstinence than those of us who lapse on our gym attendance and give in to cravings for MacDonald's -- and should therefore be held MORE accountable for their misdeeds since they have more power to control themselves. ;->

Edited to add: Not that anyone has argued that star atheletes should be held less culpable because of the suggested comprehension problems.

-B

 

[Pure]

Note to bb.

//See, that's a total crock//

[that pro athletes can't quite comprehend 'I don't want sex.']


//One might as easily and convincingly argue that professional atheletes are more disciplined than 95% of the population --- able to endure more in the way of strain, pain and abstinence than those of us who lapse on our gym attendance and give in to cravings for MacDonald's -- and should therefore be held MORE accountable for their misdeeds since they have more power to control themselves. ;->//

As to the factual question, one would have to look for figures; but some pro athletes have gotten into 'rape' problems. Any ability to endure pain, etc. apparently didn't extend to 'weaker' female persons. I have an impression about some athlete's home and date probs, but I can't give you figures. (One factor in deflating any figures might be that the men're so rich, many complainants can be bought off.)

As to 'more accountable', as you note in your last para, no one (including me) said they should be less accountable. If you note the objective test I proposed, it's what the *normal* person could reasonably conclude. "Stop, that's hurting; go away." would probably qualify as obvious withdrawal of consent.

That a given 'pro' hears this as "I won't admit i like it, and god it hurts so good, I hope to hell you don't go away"
doesnt keep him from being convicted of rape.

Your other point emphasizing that the *victim's state of mental distress is not the controlling factor, I agree with -- for rape and most crimes. The perpetrator's we agree, is. In the case of rape, the victim may never ever be aware of the crime, and it may not affect her psyche one bit because of this (e.g., she was unconscious). None of that would count toward exculpating the perpetrator.

Overall, your points are well argued.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

I don't think pro atheletes have any more trouble than the next person figuring out that a sobbing, struggling woman begging you to stop has withdrawn any consent she may have given. It's not a matter of not being able to tell she doesn't want it, it's a matter of knowing that whether she wants it or not, he's not likely to suffer any kind of legal consequences for it.


-B

 

[Pure]

I can see that, bb. Like for other rich folks, paying the consequences is not something they're familiar with.\

 

[Netzach]

Wasn't that the Mike Tyson defense line, he's trained to be animalistic and aggressive, etc etc blah blah, another way of working the stereotype of the brutal black dude, if you ask me.

 

[bridgeburner]

Very much so and not all that far removed from insisting that once men get aroused to a certain point they are nothing but animal sex machines incapable of controlling the will of the penis.

Sheesh, if only. ;->


-B

 

[nymphette]

I think Kobe is very likely guilty, but that the evidence (at least what I've heard) does not prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and so therefore, he SHOULD be found not guilty.

 

[bridgeburner]

If the evidence doesn't support his guilt, then why do you believe he's guilty?



-B

 

[Technodivinitas]

When no safeword is established, then the safewords very much include No, Stop, & Don't.

I'm not completely convinced that she did any of the above, but if she did, then the man is at least as guilty as OJ.

 

[Technodivinitas]

It's not a matter of not being able to tell she doesn't want it, it's a matter of knowing that whether she wants it or not, he's not likely to suffer any kind of legal consequences for it.
-B

I'm inclined to disagree here. It seems to me that rich, famous individuals would be at least as likely, if not more so, to realize that there would be potentially severe repercussions to such an act. I mean, they'd already be on the lookout for gold-digging chicas inclined to cry Rape falsely just for the sake of a lawsuit &/or a fat out of court settlement, let alone a situation in which they'd actually commited the crime of which they were being accused!

Of course that's not to say that the rich/famous can't be as stupid as the next guy, just that it seems that if anything, his fame and power would make him more of a target for false claims.

 

[nymphette]

If the evidence doesn't support his guilt, then why do you believe he's guilty?



-B

I thought I was pretty clear. I think the evidence points to him being guilty, but it doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

 

[bridgeburner]

Of course that's not to say that the rich/famous can't be as stupid as the next guy, just that it seems that if anything, his fame and power would make him more of a target for false claims.

One would think, but the truth is that celebrities and the wealthy get away with stuff all the time. Constantly. That's far more common than being sought out by someone with an eye to make a buck off a trumped up case.

They get reinforced with the idea that they're special, better, untouchable --- they make tons of money but are constantly being given things for free. They may be average-looking or even ugly but they're constantly being sought after for their company both in and out of bed. They are treated with deference by everyone everywhere -- including law enforcement officials.

Yes, sometimes they are targeted, but far more often they're given a pass. You hear about stars like George Michael and Hugh Grant and Halley Berry and Winona Ryder, but for the most part these stars actually did commit a crime and generally got off a lot lighter than you or I would. The fact that it was turned into a media circus is certainly not a consequence you or I would suffer, but I can guarantee that if you or I stole 5K in good from Saks we'd have done jail time.

A case like Martha Stewart's is pretty rare. More often stars get a pass and they come to depend on it. It makes more sense to think that you're going to be able to buy off your problem than that it's going to turn around and bite you in the ass. And that's how they finally get caught.


-B