Rape Logic

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

"Mr. Anderson, you allege that on the night of 14 December 2010, the defendant robbed you on the corner of 24th St. and Broadway Ave. Am I correct in this?"

"Yes. He robbed me. Took my wallet."

"He took your wallet, Mr. Anderson? You mean, surely, that he tore your pants off and physically removed your wallet with his own hands?"

"Well no, it wasn't quite like that..."

"Well what was it like, Mr. Anderson?"

"He told me to give him his wallet and threatened me."

"And did you hand over your wallet, Mr. Anderson?"

"Well... well yes I did."

"So you willingly removed your own wallet and transferred possession of said wallet to the defendant?"

"No, he robbed me! He said he had a gun!"

"Did he, Mr. Anderson? Did he really say that?"

"Yes!"

"My client denies any such thing. What do you have to say?"

"He said he had a gun, and to give him his wallet."

"And did the defendant touch or harm you in any way?"

"Well... no... nothing happened like that... I was afraid!"

"Did you tell him that?"

"What? No! What kind of question is that?"

"So here we are left to believe only your word, Mr. Anderson? Your word that you freely handed over your wallet to the defendant, with no signs of violence, no evidence of any untoward actions, and yet you insist on wasting our time with this?"

"I was robbed!"

"That is precisely the issue under question, Mr. Anderson. Simply repeating yourself doesn't help. Mr. Anderson... were you drinking on the night of 14 December 2010?"

"Well yes... I was coming home from a pub I was at with my friends."

"Really, Mr. Anderson. How much did you drink?"

"Well I don't know really... a few beers, a couple shots... there was a birthday..."

"Ah, so it would be safe to say that you were suffering from, let us say, impaired faculties?"

"I know what happened to me!"

"Do you, Mr. Anderson? I can have an expert testify before the court that even moderate alcohol consumption greatly affects memory."

"This is insane!"

"No, Mr. Anderson, this is Conservative Court."

Comments

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

I take it from your last line that you think conservatives don't take rape seriously as a crime. Why do you believe this? I am conservative, and I certainly don't blame the victims of rape.

Is it because of the "forcible" rape brouhaha? Because it's my understanding that was just an attempt to separate the statutory cases from the ones where the victim was truly unwilling.

I'm not trying to engage in wank here. I am really interested in references to conservative policies or leaders who advocate blaming the victim in rape cases. Because I don't know anyone who thinks like this except a few ignorant lowlifes who need to be bitchslapped.

This looks like a straw man to me.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I take it from your last line that you think conservatives don't take rape seriously as a crime.
Oh I'm sure they do take it seriously as a crime. It's just, you know, denying there is a crime in the first place that gets in the way.

But not really, I just put the last line in there to piss off bogey and jeff.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

only girls should own horses. cissy

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Girls should own boy horses and boys should own girl horses.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

You may be having ponies in mind. Or unicorns.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how to respond to the idea that having a horse isn't a "manly" thing. I mean... does not compute... history check in progress...

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I wouldnt try in this case ;)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm on a horse, bitches!!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yeah but he doesn't have a triangular hat on his head. FAIL.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

So you purposely made your argument just to troll?

And you're proud of that?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I didn't make an argument, and I purposely put the last line in there to piss you and jeff off.

I am neither proud nor unproud of that.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You either have the rules in your heart or not, Mr. Dumbledore.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Nah, the rules in my heart are much too strict :P

(by the way, I was just "funnin" with him)

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Gee, don't bring the spoilers!

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Is it because of the "forcible" rape brouhaha? Because it's my understanding that was just an attempt to separate the statutory cases from the ones where the victim was truly unwilling.

This right here is why there is a "brouhaha". Do you think statutory rape is not forced?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No it is not. That is the whole reason why they created crime of statutory rape, because the victim in this case was not actually forced and actually "consented", it is just that they lacked the ability to provide consent.

If you forcibly rape a 14 year old, you go to jail for rape, if you have sex with a 14 year old who is entirely willing and very enthusiastic about it occurring, you go to jail for statutory rape.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Both are still rape and should be treated as such.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

First degree murder and second degree murder are both murder, but they are treated differently under the law.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

So you are saying that having sex with someone that you have a long term committed relationship with, 1 day before they reach the age of consent (whatever that happens to be in a given location) is exactly the same crime as brutally abusing someone in the most intimate way possible?

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that statutory rape does not involve force or threats. For instance, if a girl is 15 and has sex with a guy who is 26, that is statutory rape, even though both parties are perfectly willing and nobody is traumatized (except maybe her parents and a few million religious fundamentalists). So no, statutory rape is not forced. The reason it's a crime is because society wants to protect those below the age of consent from older people who might want to prey on them sexually, seduce or coerce them into sex when they are not old enough to be considered able to consent lawfully. Thus it's "statutory," that is, defined by statute or law.

The anti-abortion folks are trying to separate out the people who willingly have sex from those who do so against their will, and then punish the former if they get pregnant. It's perfectly illogical IMO. Either the baby deserves the right to life or it doesn't. The behavior of its parents shouldn't be part of the equation.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The anti-abortion folks are trying to separate out the people who willingly have sex from those who do so against their will, and then punish the former if they get pregnant.

Incorrect. The law in question only addressed federal funding for the abortion. There is no punishing of anyone involved.