Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
It's just amazing the contortions some people go through to distract and handwave away from the victims of a predator.
I can understand concern but not why you are discussing transpersons in the specific context of a sexual predator that (considering the reports being made) will likely still be arrested even without "rape by fraud".
As to why I'm discussing transpeople here, it's becasue every time we use one horrific crime to justify expanding the reach of criminal law, it gets used to go after vulnerable minorities. I read the article to be advocating for a rape by deception law to deal with situations like this. If passed, it won't be used just for situations like this, it will be used to jail some poor transwoman for not telling her partner she was assigned male at birth. Hell, even if you somehow manage to limit the law to a sex work context as the article suggests, something I'm not at all convinced is plausible, you're still going to end up jailing some poor tans sex worker for raping a john by not telling him that she was assigned male at birth. Is that an outcome you are comfortable with? Because I am not. And that's why I bring it up.
And if this asshole can be prosecuted without the need for a new law, that makes the article's advocacy for a rape by deception statute worse, not better.
Preemptively downplaying the actions of a sexual predator because of a law that doesn't exist seems inappropriate?
Do you know how this law is implemented in the rest of the US, specifically in a manner more suited to protecting human rights?
A potential law could protect trans-sex workers as well, but again, none is in place and it'd be best to discuss that with an actual lawyer if that was your concern pro or con.
That he's assaulted people through legal AND illegal means doesn't make the need for criminal action on assault through (monetary, not identity) fraud.
The need to specify and protect and carefully word something doesn't mean that he's not violating persons or justify his behavior into something that should remain legal. Again, nobody's calling for an overbroad and poorly interpreted law.
I think that is exactly what is happening here. First because anytime you write a criminal law with one particular heinous act in mind, that's what you end up with. And second because that is what the judge quoted in the article is calling for.
The judge is arguing for importing a sense of materiality (it sounds like from contract law) to divide between what deception renders consent invalid and what deception does not. But the problem is, what is material to my consent may or may not be material to your consent. If a john is transphobic, then his willingness to engage in sex with a particular sex worker will depend on if that sex worker is trans or not, that will be a material condition of his consent (if the john knows the sex worker is trans he will not consent to sex with her, if she is cis he will, so if she is trans and he thinks he has consented to sex with her, a law that defines rape by deception in terms or material conditions, as the article suggests, will make her a rapist.) And, since some johns are transphobic, a trans sex worker would be required to disclose that fact to every john or risk running afoul of the law.
It's isn't. The vast majority of states don't recognize rape by deception for just this reason. Most recognize fraud in fact (where defendant obtains consent for one act and then performs another) as grounds for rape, but not fraud in inducement (where defendant obtains consent for one act by way of a deception and then performs that act).
A few states, as the article notes, do recognize it, but only in such narrow circumstances as to be, largely, meaningless. For example, California, until 2013 outlawed sex where consent was obtained by pretending the sex was medically necessary and sex where consent was obtained by pretending to the the husband of the woman who was the victim. After the Morales case (link here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/118880298/Rap…) the legislature expanded it to cover any situation where one party obtained the other's consent by pretending to be any person known to the victim, not just the victim's husband. Even then, the law in California which is (to my knowledge) the broadest in the US, wouldn't cover situations like the ones described by the article.
A broad crime of rape by deception simply isn't recognized in the US. You can write the law so narrowly as to catch the last heinous deception you heard about in which case you do nothing to stop the next one you haven't yet heard of (For example, California now outlaws sex "Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief."which gets Morales next time he tries the same thing, though he ended up being jailed on retrial as his victim was asleep at the time he started raping her and that is and should be criminal). Or you write it super broadly as New Jersey almost did and outlaw all fraud unless a judge finds it to be de minimus (http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/06/04…), that catches the next asshole unlike the narrow law of California, but it also catches a whole lot of other people as well.
There simply aren't versions of this law which are narrow enough not to catch people it ought not catch, and which are broad enough to catch everyone they should. And given the choice between not jailing some people we should jail for rape, especially when we can jail them for other crimes, and jailing some people we shouldn't jail for rape; I'd argue we should err on the side of not incarcerating people who have done nothing that would warrant incarceration.
H hasn't said anything so we don't know anything for sure.
The only thing we know is from the victims' perspective.
Given, bestowed, allowed & permitted:
You have one fucking break.
I don't doubt your information
@127, I would be interested to hear from an actual criminal lawyer, but I think you'd end up writing a law that covers a list of more or less specific types of deception. Like an item "obtaining consent by falsely implying the promise of a commercial benefit" or something for this case. (I'm sure lawyers have had to define "commercial" before?)
The fact that all of us had sheer evil at our sides and let those moments of instinctive disgust run through us and not do anything is something we need to address--we can no longer sit back and allow predators to operate so blatantly and with such brazen audacity.
Those who know him well, know that he finds himself without any culpability and is probably, in fact, reveling in the limelight. You are not the victim Matt Hickey. You never were. You always wanted fame--and now you have it.
Also interesting that all of these "Not Good Red Herring Either" type defenders of Matt seem to have made accounts on June 2nd. Right when Matt would have gotten wind of this article and are now furiously commenting to make a trail of themselves.
I am not a fan of mob justice, but since the laws are inadequate against this type of creep, sign me up for the rail, tar and feathers, to run this guy out of town.
The whole (well reported) article made me need to take a long bath. What a sick fuck.
Also thinking - how many rapists do we all know? How depressing.
Or if a really convincing drag queen has oral sex on a man, and afterwards he finds she's not a woman, is that rape? After all, he would have never let her go down on him if he knew it was drag.
BUT, I can see how using the promise of a job to get sex is criminal. Is just think a law worded that vaguely could have bad consequences.
Don't let people "just be themselves"...okay, so we should now make every socially awkward male a suspect? Really? And I am sure NONE of the genuinely sweet, outgoing nice and popular guys in your town EVER did anything. Because funny, social men are NEVER creepers *cough*Bill Cosby*cough*
Yeah, if someone is being genuinely creepy, as in touching on someone or saying things that are just nasty, that is one thing, but if a guy just lacks social skills 9 out of 10 he just lacks social skills. There are plenty of nice people on the Autism Spectrum, for example, who should not be made to feel like rape suspects because of people like this asshole.
Man, first K Records implodes (thanks, Stranger; I'm not on FB, so I wouldn't have known for a while), then this blemish on our town.
No, wait, first Carrie Brownstein publishes a memoir in which she disses the lack of ambition in Olympia, then, almost simultaneously, stars in Old Navy ads, as if the book and two tv show and movie roles and a couple bands aren't enough.
These ladies have my sympathy, yes, but when we have enough problems dealing with the law as is for rape victims, this attempt to lump their failed business practices into the mix is frankly, disappointing.
Lots of worthy discussion to be had, in terms of vulnerability and exploitation on the part of this guy and the ladies he's conned. Just not convinced on the idea it was rape (outside of the instance involving alcohol).
same arguments, vocabulary, phrases, and word on fb is he is using/has used the name "Tyler" as an alias.
@166: I don't necessarily think they're Matt, but they're definitely sympathizers.
There are threads on Reddit where someone with similar language also claimed that they personally knew Deja S. and confirmed she does work in as a recruiter- this was before they found the woman whose photos were stolen for the account.
They're not a member of your support group for rapists, fuck off to whatever hell spawned you.
He argued with a friend of mine that she wanted "whiskey, not beer" then proceeded to give her extra tickets. I thought it was odd at the time, but all the creepier in context. It's his MO.
I see you, dude.
I have no sympathy for the con man here, and hope he can be nailed on some charge or other, but I have to agree with @167. This is fraud, not rape.
Rape has emotional resonance - we recognize that it's uniquely traumatizing - because sex, for most of us, is an intimate personal activity. It's not "just business". Even for sex workers, there is sex that is personal, and then there is sex that is business. A sex worker can be raped, but if he or she has sex as part of a business transaction, and then it turns out that they have been scammed, the offense is the scam. Trying to turn it into "rape" just bolsters the damaging right-wing narrative that rape is just sex with post-hoc regrets. It demeans the suffering of actual rape victims, who didn't have sex for business reasons that turned out to be a poor investment.