New rape law allows change of mind

The diplomat · July 30, 2003, 10:25

----------------------
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.

Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time.

"I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history," she said.

But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent.

"To me, it's demeaning," Wendy Murphy said. "It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke."

The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

Lawmakers said they wanted to avoid the same kind of long legal battle in Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the law Friday but did not announce it until Monday.
--------------
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/30/rape.law/index.html

Is this a good idea?

I think a woman does have the right to withdraw consent. However, isn't this law going to make rape cases even more difficult to prove? How are you going to prove that the person changed their mind?

Kropotkin · July 30, 2003, 10:33

Of cource people, for whatever reason, has a right to change their minds. Overall, the treatment of cases of rape in Sweden and, I imagine, the rest of the world is medieval.

reds4ever · July 30, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Overall, the treatment of cases of rape in Sweden and, I imagine, the rest of the world is medieval.

Whats medieval is the way the man is named and villified before he's been found guilty of anything. Even if he is found 'not guilty' people still think it a case of 'no smoke without fire'

FrustratedPoet · July 30, 2003, 10:51

I can't imagine that this would be very easy to prove. Anything that reduces instances of rape and helps catch rapists is a good thing. I'm not sure this does either.

reds4ever · July 30, 2003, 10:57

Victim 'I invited him into my house, we began to have consensual sex but then I changed my my mind, but he would n't stop'

Judge (to the accused) 'Is this correct? She changed her mind'

Accused 'No Your Honour, she did not change her mind'

Jugde 'Any other evidence? No? Case dismissed'

DanielXY · July 30, 2003, 11:08

I bet you guys get now a real good time with all those "funny" girls saying during sex ...
"Oh ... I just changed my mind dont want no more. Stop right now or I charge you with rape!" ... few seconds later ... "Haha! Just joking, lets go on" *giggles* ... repeat step 1 ... wuhahaha

mrmitchell · July 30, 2003, 11:12

Women can pull away in the middle, but it shouldn't really be in the law. It only complicates rape cases.

reds4ever · July 30, 2003, 11:14

Can they change their mind AFTER sex? I bet theres been a few of mine that wish they hadn't of bothered!

mrmitchell · July 30, 2003, 11:15

"Your Honour, yes, we both consented at the beginning but when I thought about it after he left I changed my mind."

Az · July 30, 2003, 11:23

on the law: this is the correct law, but:
a) there is no way one could prove this ( unless a video camera was involved ).
b) this thing about demonizing men is correct.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 11:43

Yes, the proof would be almost impossible without verbal cues (ie, saying NO). How does the man determine she has changed her mind?

Az · July 30, 2003, 11:53

that would be no proof, actually. who would be there to record that NO?

Saint Marcus · July 30, 2003, 11:53

this is just rediculous. the "victim" should have considered it before hand. (not counting extreme situations, in which one party suddenly becomes abbusive during sex, or things of that sort).

Flubber · July 30, 2003, 12:01

This law only codifies the way it should be .. . Nobody EVER gives up their right to control their own body.

The problem of proof is real but is little different than any date rape case where the man claims consent and the physical evidence shows no force. Its ALWAYS he said-she said.

Az · July 30, 2003, 12:04

SM is looking to stir trouble, as always, I see.

C0ckney · July 30, 2003, 12:05

they need a law for blokes who go out on the lash.

'yeah your honour, she looked stunning at the club, but when i woke up the next morning, ****ing hell...'

reds4ever · July 30, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
they need a law for blokes who go out on the lash.

'yeah your honour, she looked stunning at the club, but when i woke up the next morning, ****ing hell...'

Seriously though, there are times you can't remember anything, what if you were accused and had no recollection?

Say her boyfriend found out later and that was her only 'face saver'?

Az · July 30, 2003, 12:16

BUT, I READ THE TEXT AGAIN, AND THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

Quote:

The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

He didn't stop immediately and that's called rape? that's stupid!

Saint Marcus · July 30, 2003, 12:36

course it's stupid. women

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 12:38

But it doesn't say whether or not he stopped at all until he had gotten himself off, nor how long he went after she said to stop. If it was a few seconds, yeah it's ridiculous. But if he went on for several minutes until he finally stopped, that's inexcusable.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 30, 2003, 12:39

Regardless of the legal position, any man continuing to inflict himself on a woman who has clearly stopped consenting to it should be taken outside and given a damned good kicking.

Az · July 30, 2003, 12:41

they would not have written "immediately" if he continued for a couple of minutes.

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 12:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
they would not have written "immediately" if he continued for a couple of minutes.

Tell me more about these mind reading powers of yours... will I be rich?

Sava · July 30, 2003, 12:52

I wonder if the next step is to allow women to change their minds afterwards. The sex wasn't good, so I change my mind. It was rape!

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Regardless of the legal position, any man continuing to inflict himself on a woman who has clearly stopped consenting to it should be taken outside and given a damned good kicking.

I'd give a guy a 10-15 second window for letting it sink in. If he's in a rhythm and really enjoying himself, it might take a few seconds for his brain to register (due to the lack of blood in that area during that time).

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 12:53

I think all laws should be re-written to take into account this new enlightenment.

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I wonder if the next step is to allow women to change their minds afterwards. The sex wasn't good, so I change my mind. It was rape!

So you don't think a woman (or man, for that matter) has the right to change her mind during the act?

Sprayber · July 30, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
Can they change their mind AFTER sex?

Just give it a few years.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 12:58

It's not stupid it all. Look at the reverse situation.

She consents at first, then decides to change her mind (which she's within her rights as a human being to do), but because he says, whatever and keeps going. She already consented.

Furthermore, at where would you draw the line: five seconds, ten? So it's okay to rape a person if it's not for very long? "Your honor, my client can't possibly be guilty because he came in five seconds. The only thing he's guilty of is being a lousy lover."

You cannot draw a reasonable line except at the instant of the withdrawl of consent. Anything else would very likely fail constitutional muster.

Shi Huangdi · July 30, 2003, 13:00

This seems impossible to improve, unless there was an audio or video recording of this...