Never move to California

[Bramble]

http://www.wthr.com/story/20499504/j...ictims-in-rape


"A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse, ruling that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases."

What. The. F**k?!

[lordlundar]

It's interesting. In India, there's an outcry and change to protect women from being raped and sexually assaulted that is gaining considerable steam there and the country is showing real signs of progressive change.

Meanwhile in America, which loves to pride itself on being progressive, we see just the opposite, of the very laws made to protect women from rape and sexual assault being quashed.

Did I say interesting? I mean disgusting.

[Andara Bledin]

The issue at hand isn't whether or not she would be protected by that old law, but whether the jury convicted based on that law (which would be incorrect, even if the guy deserves it) or based on the fact that initiating sex with someone who is asleep is rape.

The prosecution basically muddied up the case, and so the appeals court has no choice but to send it back for a re-trial.

It's also worth noting that the court specifically addresses the fact that there's that gaping loophole in the law, urging that it be examined.

The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.

Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Fraudulently-induced consent is essentially coerced consent - similar to getting someone to agree to sex via threats. The law has fairly consistently ruled that coerced consent is not consent at all.

It's also worthwhile to note that remanding a trial back down to a lower court isn't strictly the same as overturning the conviction, especially with regard to the accused - he hasn't been cleared of the charges at all. More along the lines of, "Go back and do it right this time, ya fucked it up the first time around."

[s_stabeler]

Yeah, the re-trial is probably a slam-dunk conviction, the biggest problem will be making sure they use the right law this time.

sucks that the victim will need to go through a trial again, but at least the rapist isn't getting off scot-free.