|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:00:26 GMT
www.newser.com/story/160378/california-rape-law-only-for-married-women-court.htmlCalifornia Rape Law Only for Married Women: Court IF ATTACKER IMPERSONATES BOYFRIEND, IT'S NOT RAPE: RULING By Matt Cantor, Newser Staff Posted Jan 4, 2013 6:40 AM CST | Updated Jan 6, 2013 7:00 PM CST STORY COMMENTS (53) (NEWSER) – If an attacker has sex with a California woman by pretending to be her husband, that's rape. But if she's not married and he's impersonating her boyfriend, it's a different story, according to a state appeals court. Judges unanimously overturned the conviction of Julio Morales, who had sex with a woman after her boyfriend left her bedroom late one night in February 2009. When she realized the man was not her boyfriend, she screamed and fought him, the Los Angeles Times reports. But the appeals court found that, because of the wording of an 1872 law, his behavior may not have been grounds for a rape conviction: "Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," the court opinion said, noting that judges made the decision "reluctantly." Prosecutors had argued two theories, that Morales tricked the victim and that sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law. It was unclear which theory the jury based its conviction on, and a new conviction would have to be based on Morales knowingly having sex with a sleeping person, the Times notes. A new trial has been ordered, USA Today reports.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:56:12 GMT
That was rape.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:03:11 GMT
You and I both agree on that, Gibby.
It's rape whether it's the bloke pretending to be her husband or her boyfriend.
The law is mad and he should have been found guilty of rape.
Only in America, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:06:08 GMT
Hang on - why is it rape? She was quite willing to have sex with him, she was just mistaken about who he was. Eh, but it brings back memories of the case that has entertained law students for decades: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Collins
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:16:59 GMT
Well, no, actually, she wasn't willing too have sex with HIM. She was willing to have sex with her boyfriend and as soon as she realised it WASN'T her boyfriend she objected and refused.
How can that NOT be rape?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:32:18 GMT
So did he continue to have sex after she refused? If so, that was clearly rape.
I'm not sure that what happened before then, but if she mistakenly thought he was her boyfriend and was willing to have sex with him, that might well not be rape. That was the case in Collins.
There is plenty of case law to say that it isn't rape if a man impersonates someone else and the woman agrees to have sex under a misapprehension. For example, he says he is a famous boxer; she has heard of him and has sex. He turns out to be someone else but it isn't rape.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 19:14:16 GMT
So did he continue to have sex after she refused? If so, that was clearly rape. I'm not sure that what happened before then, but if she mistakenly thought he was her boyfriend and was willing to have sex with him, that might well not be rape. That was the case in Collins. There is plenty of case law to say that it isn't rape if a man impersonates someone else and the woman agrees to have sex under a misapprehension. For example, he says he is a famous boxer; she has heard of him and has sex. He turns out to be someone else but it isn't rape. the example of the boxer Is Not the same as what happened here at all ! She did not consent to sex with this man.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 20:03:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 20:47:55 GMT
firstly , who the hell would want to sleep with the originals of either of them let alone a "looky- likely" secondly, she was in her bed when this rapist got in with her, he then proceded to have sex with her , she never consented . the scenario you describe, they consented to sex with that person , doesn't matter his name was different.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 15, 2013 20:54:00 GMT
I agree with every word you have said, Gibby.
By any rational assessment this was clearly an act of rape.
Whether he pretended to be her boyfriend rather than her husband ought to make not the slightest difference in the eyes of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 20:54:05 GMT
Yes, she did consent : that's the whole point!
There is some doubt over whether she was asleep when he started having sex, but so far as I can tell, that doubt wasn't the issue here; it was whether her consent was valid when he wasn't the person she thought he was. The court decided that yes, it was.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 15, 2013 20:56:25 GMT
No, she consented to have sex with her boyfriend; as soon as she realised it was NOT her boyfriend she refused to continue.
That makes it clearly a case of rape.
And as in any event the man was there under false pretences at the very least he is guilty of attempted rape.
I simply cannot see how any other interpretation of his actions is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 21:06:15 GMT
So why is that different to the person who consents to have sex with a man because she thinks he is (oh, I don't know...) Tom Cruse, but he turns out not to be?
Suppose a man walks into a room and the woman in bed says "Oh, come to bed darling!" He doesn't know that she thinks he is someone else, but by your definition he is a rapist, because her invitation wasn't intended for him. See the problem?
Julio Morales never said who he was, though he perhaps foolishly admitted that he knew she would not have agreed to sex with anyone other than her boyfriend. But a conviction shouldn't depend on that.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 15, 2013 22:31:23 GMT
Yikes......I see your point Sky.....but I still think I would have to go with rape........I think some more details are needed......as to whether she had been drinking....were the lights on.....was she asleep when he started....etc.......I would think I would notice pretty quick that it wasn't my hubby.....but let's just say........you are sound asleep.......possibly not facing the person.....and they start touching you.....it might take a little while to figure it out.......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 13:25:40 GMT
So why is that different to the person who consents to have sex with a man because she thinks he is (oh, I don't know...) Tom Cruse, but he turns out not to be? Suppose a man walks into a room and the woman in bed says "Oh, come to bed darling!" He doesn't know that she thinks he is someone else, but by your definition he is a rapist, because her invitation wasn't intended for him. See the problem? Julio Morales never said who he was, though he perhaps foolishly admitted that he knew she would not have agreed to sex with anyone other than her boyfriend. But a conviction shouldn't depend on that. no thats not my definition of rape , that would not be rape the Tom Cruise example.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 13:57:19 GMT
So do you distinguish this from the Tom Cruse example? Do you think what Morales did was rape?
To make this clear; a Tom Cruse lookalike pretends he is the actor. A woman falls for it and has sex with him. It isn't rape.
Julio Morales gets into bed with a woman knowing that she may think he is her boyfriend. That is rape?
There may be a fine difference, but I'm struggling with it.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 16, 2013 20:49:02 GMT
To me the crucial point and the aspect of the case that makes the difference is consent.
In the Tom Cruise example the woman honestly believed that the man was the actor and had entirely consensual sex with him. Even if she then discovers her mistake the man is still not guilty of rape because the woman did NOT object to having consensual sex with him.
In the other example the woman realised that the man was NOT her boyfriend and demanded that he stop. She was clearly NOT consenting to have sex with a man other than her boyfriend and therefore the man's actions DID constitute an act of rape.
If she had only discovered her mistake AFTER the activity had taken place it would be a different matter but because it was BEFORE the man clearly IS guilty of rape.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 20:57:18 GMT
No, I don't think it was like that, Mike, otherwise it would clearly have been rape. So far as I can see, they did have sex, she consenting because she thought he was her boyfriend. When she discovered he wasn't, she screamed and he left.
However, in the Tom Cruise scenario, she consented to have sex with the man she had sex with, even if she thought he was someone of a different identity. Here, she was consenting to have sex with a different man...though the difference is fine, and I'm not sure I'd want to have to try to distinguishe the two situations before an appeal judge.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 16, 2013 21:16:00 GMT
But even if you take that line, Skylark, what struck Donna as absurd (and strikes me as so also) is that if the man had been impersonating her HUSBAND then he WOULD have been found guilty of rape but because he was only impersonating her boyfriend the court found him innocent.
The FACTS of the case are the same whoever the person being impersonated and therefore either BOTH cases are equvalent to rape or NEITHER.
It simply CANNOT be fair for one to be rape and the other not.
That is my objection to this ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 21:22:50 GMT
Yes, that is odd and I'm trying to get my head around that too.
There may be something historical behind it. It is still the case that if a married woman gives birth, her husband is deemed to be the father. She can register his name on the birth certificate and he will have to take positive steps if he wishes to prove he is not the biological father.
In the same way, the courts may in the past have assumed that a married woman would not choose to have sex with anyone other than her husband, so another man impersonating him is a rapist.
In contrast, an unmarried woman may choose to have sex with anyone, so how would a man know he had not chosen him?
guesswork on my part, of course.
|
|