minderbender
May 7
minderbender commented on Remember the Good Old Days, When "Rape Used to Mean Rape"?.
@20 I think you are probably not reading the statute right (although again, consult a lawyer if you want legal advice, this is just speculation).
First, if there was a threat of substantial harm to the property rights of the victim, then lack of consent isn't an element of the crime (note the "or" between prong (a) and prong (b)). Consent simply isn't relevant. In theory (though of course not in practice), the defense could establish enthusiastic consent, and the prosecutor could still get a conviction.
But return to that word "substantial." I don't think threatening to break a favorite pencil is going to count as a threat of "substantial unlawful harm," so your analogy is potentially misleading.
So let's put it this way. The legislature has decided that if you threaten to harm someone's property rights in order to induce that person to have sex with you, you should be punishable for a class C felony. There doesn't need to be anything metaphysical about this. If you find a similar statute relating to pencils and jumping out windows, then it's time to get worried. But for now, just return to this simple fact: if you threaten substantial unlawful harm to someone's property to induce that person to have sex with you, you better do it somewhere other than the State of Washington.
More...
First, if there was a threat of substantial harm to the property rights of the victim, then lack of consent isn't an element of the crime (note the "or" between prong (a) and prong (b)). Consent simply isn't relevant. In theory (though of course not in practice), the defense could establish enthusiastic consent, and the prosecutor could still get a conviction.
But return to that word "substantial." I don't think threatening to break a favorite pencil is going to count as a threat of "substantial unlawful harm," so your analogy is potentially misleading.
So let's put it this way. The legislature has decided that if you threaten to harm someone's property rights in order to induce that person to have sex with you, you should be punishable for a class C felony. There doesn't need to be anything metaphysical about this. If you find a similar statute relating to pencils and jumping out windows, then it's time to get worried. But for now, just return to this simple fact: if you threaten substantial unlawful harm to someone's property to induce that person to have sex with you, you better do it somewhere other than the State of Washington.
May 7
minderbender commented on Remember the Good Old Days, When "Rape Used to Mean Rape"?.
(I should note the statute is not actually gendered in the way my previous comment might seem to indicate. The perpetrator and the victim can be any sex, and the statute will still apply. Most people traditionally think of this as "you can't rape your wife" logic, but of course the law doesn't discriminate.)
May 7
minderbender commented on Remember the Good Old Days, When "Rape Used to Mean Rape"?.
@12 you think it is a thorny question because you are misconstruing the question.
The question is whether, for the exact same conduct, a husband should be immune from prosecution but a boyfriend should not. That is the way the statute currently reads. The amendment would put all men on equal footing: if you have sex with a woman despite a clear indication of lack of consent, you will be guilty of third-degree rape, and the fact that she is your wife will not excuse the behavior.
You seem to think that the amendment will introduce hard line-drawing problems into the statute that weren't already there. That is not the case. Consent is defined this way:
"Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
So as you can see, all these tricky questions about "what did she mean when she said I'm disgusting" etc. are already baked into the statute. Nor could it be any other way. How do you suggest we define "consent" and "rape" so as to side-step these questions of what the people meant, what they understood at the time, etc.?
More...
The question is whether, for the exact same conduct, a husband should be immune from prosecution but a boyfriend should not. That is the way the statute currently reads. The amendment would put all men on equal footing: if you have sex with a woman despite a clear indication of lack of consent, you will be guilty of third-degree rape, and the fact that she is your wife will not excuse the behavior.
You seem to think that the amendment will introduce hard line-drawing problems into the statute that weren't already there. That is not the case. Consent is defined this way:
"Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
So as you can see, all these tricky questions about "what did she mean when she said I'm disgusting" etc. are already baked into the statute. Nor could it be any other way. How do you suggest we define "consent" and "rape" so as to side-step these questions of what the people meant, what they understood at the time, etc.?
May 7
minderbender commented on Remember the Good Old Days, When "Rape Used to Mean Rape"?.
@7 you would need a lawyer to answer that question but purely as speculation, maybe someone says no but then proceeds to have sex with the perpetrator, without ever giving consent. Not everyone struggles forcibly at that point. I mean, picture it. Your husband says, "Baby let's have sex." You say no. Your husband keeps going as though you had said yes. Are you really going to, like, claw his face or something? Maybe, but I think a lot of women wouldn't.
May 7
minderbender commented on Remember the Good Old Days, When "Rape Used to Mean Rape"?.
@6 it doesn't sound as though this was exactly a party-line vote.
It is pretty impressively tortured reasoning that a criminal statute will be abused because the crime will be impossible to prove.
It is pretty impressively tortured reasoning that a criminal statute will be abused because the crime will be impossible to prove.
May 2
minderbender commented on Washington Closes Troubling Marital Rape Loophole, to the Relief of Wives.
@4 please cite the basis for your conclusion. Here is the definition of second degree rape:
(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
(a) By forcible compulsion;
(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;
(c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:
(i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense;
(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
(a) By forcible compulsion;
(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;
(c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:
(i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense;
May 2
minderbender commented on Washington Closes Troubling Marital Rape Loophole, to the Relief of Wives.
"So wait - you're telling me I can rape my wife?"
Apr 24
minderbender commented on Rhode Island Has Become the 10th State to Approve Gay Marriage.
Ha, I was not wrong about Maine! Gay marriage won by popular vote last November. Now I'm remembering why election night was so sweet.
So this is great, it means gay couples can relocate throughout New England and New York with no worries. This is important for some people, whose careers or lifestyle choices may take them from one place to another. It will be huge when Illinois and California come over too.
So this is great, it means gay couples can relocate throughout New England and New York with no worries. This is important for some people, whose careers or lifestyle choices may take them from one place to another. It will be huge when Illinois and California come over too.
Apr 24
minderbender commented on Watch the Rhode Island Senate Vote on Gay Marriage.
So that was the last holdout in New England, right? There's gay marriage throughout the entire region? Or am I wrong about Maine?
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10…
"Right now, the two most prominent institutions calling for an end to the disastrous turn to short-run austerity are … Goldman Sachs and the International Monetary Fund."
In general, from what I've seen Wall Street has supported fiscal expansion. I seem to recall several banks predicting a slowdown as a result of the sequester. I don't think I've seen any bank claim that austerity is expansionary.