JMU Punishes Sexual Assault With Expulsion -- After Graduation

[Sabine Grant]

I am the one surprised here that you would expect that when it comes to sexual crimes involving juvenile and legal adult, intent is required. Also surprised that you would think that intent is required for pedophiles who engage in sexual intimacy with pre pubescent children when their claim is often cited that they view it as an "act of love". Equally surprised that you would think that intent is required to convict an individual engaging in sexual intimacy with a mentally disabled person. Equally surprised that speaking of intent, you keep dismissing the reality that as the dominant party he DISMISSED the non dominant party's right to discontinue the rape fantasy activities at ANY time as he did not apply the condition actual BDSM adepts will abide to, which is to insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey/communicate at any time their WILL to stop the said activities.

We aren't talking about juvenile/adult situations (which are strict liability in many states), but adult/adult situations.

And in this situation we are talking about a case where they were stupid and set up a situation where there was no means of communicating "STOP!" So long as his actions were consistent with their prior play I see no way he could know that he didn't have consent.

Is it your assumption that in BDSM situations the dominant party should be exempted from the responsibility to enable the non dominant party to communicate "stop" at any given time during the activities? While that dominant party is then assuming that the non dominant party would NEVER want to stop the said activities? Leaving the non dominant party's will and self determination to chose to stop the said activities out of the entire situation.

 

[Sabine Grant]

You are wrong, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly by multiple people that you are wrong. He "knew" no such thing. He may have assumed he had consent, but assuming consent when he didn't is still rape. It does not matter what she may or may not have agreed to last week, or with a previous boyfriend - every instance of sexual encounters stands alone in terms of whether there was consent or not.

And I will point out yet again, the ONLY way you can be so insistent that this man did not rape his wife is to assume that the woman is purposely lying - subjecting herself to the trauma and humiliation of the investigation and trial in order to purposely lie under oath. What evidence do you have that this woman is a lying liar who lied?

I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist.

I will assume that such bizarre statement is the product of poor wording on your part. Rather what you meant to communicate is that it is entirely possible for a party accused of rape to have mistaken the plaintiff inability to communicate her lack of consent for meaning she consented. However in this specific BDSM scenario, let me remind you that the dominant party did not take the precaution to insure the non dominant party would remain able to communicate her will to stop the activities at any time. Which comes down to a dismissal of the possibility that she had the right at any time to end the said activities.

Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.

Given that she was gagged, it tends to render her unable to verbalize any safe word. A dominant party who acknowledges the right for the non dominant party to convey/communicate her will to stop the said activities at ANY time if relying on a safe word would not render her unable to verbalize/vocalize the said safe word. I am not sure why such reasoning is not sinking in with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Laws normally require criminal intent. Why so you think rape is different?

Because you are factually wrong (again) and you need to take Laughing Dog's advice to do a little research about criminal intent before continuing to make a fool of yourself on this specific topic.

I'm not the one making a fool of myself.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not interested in the unsourced synopsis, I am interested in the video.

lol, called it!

Of course he's interested in the video. We have multiple claims about what's in the video that are not consistent with the police actions. When the police don't arrest despite having the crime on tape it's likely there wasn't a crime in the first place.

It is actually likely that local law enforcement does not bother with placing under arrest those 3 males who were groping and attempting to undress a female. Actually likely that Prosecutors would not file charges against them at a criminal level. However and despite of your claim "only for academic matters" which was duly corrected by me, school institutions Administrators whether they be public education or private have a JUSTIFIED invested interest in applying disciplinary measures to members of the student body whose conduct is unbecoming of the established and expected code of conduct applied to all members of the student body. Keeping in mind that such Administrators are responsible for the safety and well being of the student body. I am rather certain that students engaging in groping and attempting to undress a fellow student without her consent falls under a conduct which the vast majority of school/college administrators will address rather than adopting your disconnected thinking of "only for academic matters".

 

[fromderinside]

There's way too much lather here by both sides. The stupid ones were nearing graduation. They acted as children. The institution punished them appropriately, they're frat boys ferchrissake, with exclusion from university forever after graduation.

What do you want? Expulsion? What good would that do? They'd go elsewhere and get their degrees. Pyrrhic victory that don'cha think?

Excluding them from university makes their degrees there useless for schmoozing forever after. Their names are on a list of persons not welcome there and that has consequences whenever their names come up at university.

Way to go.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist. Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.

the bolded is you making shit up again. You have no idea whatsoever if they "had a safe word" or not because he hit her over the head, bound and gagged her!

She was raped, now you acknowledge, yet you are still excusing her rapist. Moreover, "criminal" intent has nothing to do with it. His act was rape because he did not have consent.

And finally, contrary to your claim up there, the jury found him not guilty because in that time period they didn't believe a man could rape his wife. It had nothing to do with your fantasy scenario of misunderstanding about safe words.

IMO the cultural mentality of the time did play a role in influencing the Jury's reasoning and resulting non guilty verdict. Married women have a very difficult time being viewed as legitimate victims. The assumption is often made among religious circles that she is to submit to her husband's will in view of her being declared the "weaker vessel" in the Bible. Similarly, accusations of rape coming from women with a pre existing sexual relationship with the accused party are viewed as suspicious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I note that it contradicts itself in the next paragraphs when it specifically lists drunken driving and statutory rapes as "strict liability". And I also notice that in its section on rape, it does not mention "intent" as necessary. And, I also know from observation, that saying "I thought no means yes" does not stop prosecutions nor convictions. So, I'd say that Wikipedia entry is incorrect on rape.

It's not contradicting itself. Most crimes are not strict liability, it's listing a few exceptions. (Wrongly, in the case of DUI--"I wasn't aware I was drinking alcohol" *IS* a defense against DUI.)

eta: And, in fact, this site (http://apublicdefender.com/2012/09/17/general-intent-specifically/ )agrees:

Rape is generally a general intent crime. In other words, the State doesn’t have to prove that the defendant intended to rape the victim, but just that he raped the victim. In other words, the State has to prove that the defendant didn’t accidentally have sex with the victim without her consent.

Which is talking about actions needed to prove rape. It's not talking about whether he believed it was consensual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not denying she considered herself raped. I've taken it as a given that she did.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's legally possible to have a rape victim without a rapist. Given their stupidity in not having a safe word he had no way of knowing he was crossing the line. No criminal intent, the jury was right to say not guilty.

the bolded is you making shit up again. You have no idea whatsoever if they "had a safe word" or not because he hit her over the head, bound and gagged her!

She was raped, now you acknowledge, yet you are still excusing her rapist. Moreover, "criminal" intent has nothing to do with it. His act was rape because he did not have consent.

And finally, contrary to your claim up there, the jury found him not guilty because in that time period they didn't believe a man could rape his wife. It had nothing to do with your fantasy scenario of misunderstanding about safe words.

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

 

[ksen]

p. sure most women believe "no" is a safe word . . . or should be.

 

[thebeave]

You clearly don't understand the concept of safeword.

 

[Arctish]

the bolded is you making shit up again. You have no idea whatsoever if they "had a safe word" or not because he hit her over the head, bound and gagged her!

She was raped, now you acknowledge, yet you are still excusing her rapist. Moreover, "criminal" intent has nothing to do with it. His act was rape because he did not have consent.

And finally, contrary to your claim up there, the jury found him not guilty because in that time period they didn't believe a man could rape his wife. It had nothing to do with your fantasy scenario of misunderstanding about safe words.

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Posts discussing false accusations were moved to a new thread where such topic will be contained to :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1458-The-impact-of-false-accusations

 

[Loren Pechtel]

p. sure most women believe "no" is a safe word . . . or should be.

You clearly do not understand rape fantasy games.

- - - Updated - - -

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

It's not a red herring--because the issue here is rape fantasy vs rape.

 

[RavenSky]

You clearly do not understand rape fantasy games.

- - - Updated - - -

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

It's not a red herring--because the issue here is rape fantasy vs rape.

The issue is that he did not have consent, and therefore he raped her... violently.

 

[Arctish]

You clearly do not understand rape fantasy games.

You clearly do not understand that your ideas about a rape fantasy game are your own creation.

If the Crawfords never did anything that called for a safe word, then they never needed one, and their not having one is perfectly understandable and also quite ordinary.


- - - Updated - - -

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

It's not a red herring--because the issue here is rape fantasy vs rape.

No, the issue is rape.

The fact there was no pre-arranged safe word doesn't make Crawford's rape of his wife not a rape. It means her lack of consent could not have been made any clearer then by her saying "no", which she did.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not contradicting itself. Most crimes are not strict liability, it's listing a few exceptions. (Wrongly, in the case of DUI--"I wasn't aware I was drinking alcohol" *IS* a defense against DUI.)

eta: And, in fact, this site (http://apublicdefender.com/2012/09/17/general-intent-specifically/ )agrees:

Rape is generally a general intent crime. In other words, the State doesn’t have to prove that the defendant intended to rape the victim, but just that he raped the victim. In other words, the State has to prove that the defendant didn’t accidentally have sex with the victim without her consent.

Which is talking about actions needed to prove rape. It's not talking about whether he believed it was consensual.

The quote explicitly states the state does not need to prove intent, just that it was nonconsenual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You clearly do not understand rape fantasy games.

- - - Updated - - -

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

It's not a red herring--because the issue here is rape fantasy vs rape.

The issue is that he did not have consent, and therefore he raped her... violently.

And how was he supposed to know that?

By their games no did not mean no. They had no safeword--she lacked any means of communicating that she really meant no.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not contradicting itself. Most crimes are not strict liability, it's listing a few exceptions. (Wrongly, in the case of DUI--"I wasn't aware I was drinking alcohol" *IS* a defense against DUI.)

eta: And, in fact, this site (http://apublicdefender.com/2012/09/17/general-intent-specifically/ )agrees:

Rape is generally a general intent crime. In other words, the State doesn’t have to prove that the defendant intended to rape the victim, but just that he raped the victim. In other words, the State has to prove that the defendant didn’t accidentally have sex with the victim without her consent.

Which is talking about actions needed to prove rape. It's not talking about whether he believed it was consensual.

The quote explicitly states the state does not need to prove intent, just that it was nonconsenual.

But it's not a strict liability crime, thus the defense has the option of showing there was no criminal mindset.

 

[RavenSky]

The issue is that he did not have consent, and therefore he raped her... violently.

And how was he supposed to know that?

By their games no did not mean no. They had no safeword--she lacked any means of communicating that she really meant no.

She said "no". You have absolutely zero idea what their "games" actually meant, nor whether they usually had a "safe-word" or not. Just because you repeat otherwise over and over does not make your statements actual facts in the case.

She said "no". He admits he heard her say "no" but he disregarded that, hit her over the head, tied her down, gagged her, duct taped her eyes, then violently raped her.

Even if you want to pretend he simply made a big boo-boo, he still raped her.

 

[Arctish]

You clearly do not understand rape fantasy games.

- - - Updated - - -

Think about the situation rather than blindly convict him.

They agree she said "no". If they had a safeword this would be irrelevant, she would have said he didn't stop when she used the safeword. Thus I can conclude they did not have a safeword.

The safe word discussion is a red herring. There is no safe word in a rape.

It's not a red herring--because the issue here is rape fantasy vs rape.

The issue is that he did not have consent, and therefore he raped her... violently.

And how was he supposed to know that?

He heard her say no.

By their games no did not mean no.

What game is that? The one you created yourself out of speculation and unsupported assertion?

Please provide evidence they knew about this game of yours in which no does not mean no.

They had no safeword--she lacked any means of communicating that she really meant no.

^^ This is a conclusion you have drawn based on a scenario you created.

They had no safe word. So what? If they never felt the need to have a safe word most likely they never did anything that required one. Even if they did things where having a safe word was a good idea, they didn't have one, so the only word that counted was the word "no".

 

[Rhea]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Oh, yeah, the old, "I didn't rape her! My penis just fell into her vagina" defense.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Rape requires intent. If he reasonably believes he has consent he has not committed rape no matter what she says.

Oh, yeah, the old, "I didn't rape her! My penis just fell into her vagina" defense.

Ty Oliver McDowell tried that defense. Unlike Loren, he actually had evidence of a rape fantasy. The problem was, the rape fantasy was the creation of the victim's estranged boyfriend. Nonetheless, the jury agreed with the prosecution that it takes a rapist to carry out a revenge rape.

BTW McDowell and his victim didn't have a safe word. That doesn't mean she was being stupid. It means her saying "no" meant "no".

 

[laughing dog]

But it's not a strict liability crime, thus the defense has the option of showing there was no criminal mindset.

Of course the defense has that option but it is irrelevant. Rape is non-consensual sex, not "I thought she said yes when she said no" sex. I find reason and the analysis of a public defender much more convincing that the repetiiton of wishful thinking and rape apologia.