Rape fantasy turned bad

[alfred russel]

I'm not arguing that it is 'automatically okay". I sure hope it doesn't sound like I'm arguing that it is "automatically okay".

If it isn't "automatically okay," then when is it not okay? I would think the very first place it would not be okay is from an anonymous internet account with the subject matter being a very violent crime (if the consent is invalid).

[Barrister]

After Ulmont's comment, it got me thinking to case involving teenage prostitutes.
If a man sleeps with a juvenile prostitutes, without asking her for some sort of ID to verify her age, he will be guilty of hiring a juvenile prostitute and condemned as such, even if he never asked specifically for a minor.

I could see in this case the judge saying that it was up to the rapist to first meet the woman in person to make sure everything was as she said.

I meant to comment on Ulmont's comment.

At least in Canada, he's wrong.  Statutory rape is not a strict liability offence.  Here it is a defence that the accused believed the victim was of legal age if he "took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant" (s. 150.1(4)).

[alfred russel]

I suspect it would be pretty hard to get someone to voluntarily agree to be the guy who is obvioulsy and without question guilty of criminal conduct. 

I doubt it. Didn't we once have a member posting here from Iran or Saudi Arabia or somewhere similar? For all practical purposes, a person from Iran and probably Saudi Arabia is immune.

[ulmont]

I meant to comment on Ulmont's comment.

At least in Canada, he's wrong.  Statutory rape is not a strict liability offence.

Most states do things differently.  A quick selection from Google Scholar, all in the last 10 years (Utah, Arkansas, Georgia):

Section 76-5-401 does impose strict liability for the crime of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. Consequently, the State does not need to prove that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse with a fourteen or fifteen-year-old when he violated the statute.

State v. Martinez, 52 P.3d 1276 (Utah 2002)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16371318243321153493&&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=2000

Two more recent cases, while not directly addressing the issue of strict liability, have reaffirmed that knowledge of the victim's age is not an element of statutory rape.

Short v. State, 79 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2002)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11548526104644892289&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=2000

see OCGA § 16-6-3(a) (the statutory rape statute, which is a strict liability statute criminalizing unforced sexual intercourse with an underage victim).

Melton v. State, 639 SE 2d 411 (Ga. App. 2006)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5782325270147953598&+georgia&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=2000

[Malthus]

That's circular reasoning though. You can't determine the content of "reasonable steps" from the mere fact that they are required.

Why is obtaining consent electonically "unreasonable" for this purpose, when it is evidently considered perfectly reasonable for other purposes?

Your argument seems to be that it is perfectly okay to use electronic consent for decisions involving money even though it is unreasonable because the definition of fraud doesn't expressly contain a requirement that the consent be "reasonable". This is too stong, given that the government itself is perfectly happy to use electronic consent.

You said yourself 'sex might be different, but I'm not sure why that would be so'.

Sex *is* different.  I've shown you the provision why that is.  It's not terribly helpful therefore to compare the case to electronic banking, because the law says that sex should be treated differently from electronic banking.

I really didn't spend a lot of time on this, but I did check my annotated criminal code.  This might be of some assistance:

[27]           Finally, it is argued that if s. 213.2(b) was applicable in the circumstances of this case, the trial judge erred in holding that the accused has failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

[28]           As to the first ground of alleged error, I agree that s. 213.2(b) of the Criminal Code does not restrict the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent to those accused who at the time of the alleged offence first "determined unequivocally" that the complainant was consenting. What the section does require is that the accused meet an evidentiary burden of establishing that he took:

... reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to [him] ... to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

[29]           However, that does not conclude the matter, for s. 213.2(b) clearly creates a proportionate relationship between what will be required in the way of reasonable steps by an accused to ascertain that the complainant was consenting and "the circumstances known to him" at the time. Those circumstances will be as many and as varied as the cases in which the issue can arise, and it seems to me that the section clearly contemplates that there may be cases in which they are such that nothing short of an unequivocal indication of consent from the complainant, at the time of the alleged offence, will suffice to meet the threshold test which it establishes as a prerequisite to a defence of honest but mistaken belief. On reading his reasons for judgment as a whole, I am not persuaded that the trial judge intended to say anything more than that this was one such case.

R. v. R.G., 1994 CanLII 8752 (BC C.A.)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1994/1994canlii8752/1994canlii8752.html

Given these circumstances (which are a supposed request to be violently raped) I would think that nothing shot of unequivocal, in-person indication of consent would be required.

That may be so, but your case doesn't stand for the proposition. The cited case has a guy having a violent fight with his ex and then having sex with her as she lay there crying. The "circumstances known to him at the time" were that his ex was fighting with him. Obviously, when you are beating on your ex (nonconsentually!), passively lying there crying isn't enough to establish "consent" afterwards.

Here, the guy is (allegedly) under a miaspprehension regarding the "circumstances". He thinks the circumstances are that a fetishist is arranging a deliberate "rape fantasy". Obviously, it would kill the "fantasy" if they met and hashed out the details (or so presumably the person fooling him is alleging ... ).

Now it may be the case that it is legally impossible to consent to a "rape fantasy" of this sort, but the case cited doesn't even remotely stand for that.

[Fireblade]

Two more recent cases, while not directly addressing the issue of strict liability, have reaffirmed that knowledge of the victim's age is not an element of statutory rape.

Short v. State, 79 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2002)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11548526104644892289&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=2000
[/quote]

So, uh, what does this mean?

[Barrister]

That may be so, but your case doesn't stand for the proposition. The cited case has a guy having a violent fight with his ex and then having sex with her as she lay there crying. The "circumstances known to him at the time" were that his ex was fighting with him. Obviously, when you are beating on your ex (nonconsentually!), passively lying there crying isn't enough to establish "consent" afterwards.

Here, the guy is (allegedly) under a miaspprehension regarding the "circumstances". He thinks the circumstances are that a fetishist is arranging a deliberate "rape fantasy". Obviously, it would kill the "fantasy" if they met and hashed out the details (or so presumably the person fooling him is alleging ... ).

Now it may be the case that it is legally impossible to consent to a "rape fantasy" of this sort, but the case cited doesn't even remotely stand for that.

Clearly you're not going to find a case that has identical facts to this.   

But the case does stand for the proposition that in some circumstances (and when that is will depend on the individual facts) "nothing short of an unequivocal indication of consent from the complainant, at the time of the alleged offence, will suffice".

I'm suggesting that this is one of those circumstances.

[ulmont]

Two more recent cases, while not directly addressing the issue of strict liability, have reaffirmed that knowledge of the victim's age is not an element of statutory rape.

Short v. State, 79 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2002)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11548526104644892289&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_ylo=2000

So, uh, what does this mean?

It means "she looked 16*" doesn't work in the US, at least in most states.

* Or whatever your age of consent is.

[Habbaku]

FB's age of consent is 2 bottles of wine.

[Malthus]

That may be so, but your case doesn't stand for the proposition. The cited case has a guy having a violent fight with his ex and then having sex with her as she lay there crying. The "circumstances known to him at the time" were that his ex was fighting with him. Obviously, when you are beating on your ex (nonconsentually!), passively lying there crying isn't enough to establish "consent" afterwards.

Here, the guy is (allegedly) under a miaspprehension regarding the "circumstances". He thinks the circumstances are that a fetishist is arranging a deliberate "rape fantasy". Obviously, it would kill the "fantasy" if they met and hashed out the details (or so presumably the person fooling him is alleging ... ).

Now it may be the case that it is legally impossible to consent to a "rape fantasy" of this sort, but the case cited doesn't even remotely stand for that.

Clearly you're not going to find a case that has identical facts to this.   

But the case does stand for the proposition that in some circumstances (and when that is will depend on the individual facts) "nothing short of an unequivocal indication of consent from the complainant, at the time of the alleged offence, will suffice".

I'm suggesting that this is one of those circumstances.

Perhaps, though again I'd argue that "having sex with your unresisting ex after beating her up" is not analogous to "having sex with someone you thought was a rape fetishist because her ex scammed you".

Sure, ex post it is obvious the guy should have done more due dilligence in this case. But your suggested test basically means that it is impossible to legally consent to a "fantasy" scenario of this sort, because electronic means of identification are so unreliable.

[DisturbedPervert]

The ex girlfriend should place a counter ad.  27 year old white male seeking large black male(s) for violent anal rape fantasy.  Please contact ASAP and make my dreams come true!

[garbon]

The ex girlfriend should place a counter ad.  27 year old white male seeking large black male(s) for violent anal rape fantasy.  Please contact ASAP and make my dreams come true!

You don't have to be racist.

[Barrister]

Perhaps, though again I'd argue that "having sex with your unresisting ex after beating her up" is not analogous to "having sex with someone you thought was a rape fetishist because her ex scammed you".

Sure, ex post it is obvious the guy should have done more due dilligence in this case. But your suggested test basically means that it is impossible to legally consent to a "fantasy" scenario of this sort, because electronic means of identification are so unreliable.

Malthus, you should know this.  Sometimes you rely on a case because it's facts are similar to the ones at bar.  But sometimes you rely on a case because of a statement of law contained in the case.  This is the latter.

And yes, I would suggest that it is impossible to consent to such an extreme fantasy by purely eletronic means.  Or rather, because the onus is on the accused not the complainant, not that it is impossible for the complainant to consent by such means, but that it is inherently unreasonable for the accused to rely on purely electronic consent for such an extreme and violent fantasy.

[Admiral Yi]

You don't have to be racist.

The prison buttrape phobia works a lot better with a brother.

[Ed Anger]

You don't have to be racist.

The prison buttrape phobia works a lot better with a brother.

Needs more Morgan Freeman.

I wish I could tell you that Andy fought the good fight, and the Sisters let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but prison is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - prison life consists of routine, and then more routine. Every so often, Andy would show up with fresh bruises. The Sisters kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Andy - that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have got the best of him.