Rape fantasy turned bad

[alfred russel]

They corresponded. Whether or not that correspondence was convincing or not is a matter of the facts. It is true a jury will not like this guy - his lawyer's task would be to convince the jury he's a dupe and to focus the anger on the real perp - the scheming ex.

She didn't correspond with anyone. He only corresponded with an anonymous account. Unless those two facts change, then it was not convincing.

[Malthus]

It is considerd reasonable to consent through electronic means for all sorts of things these days. There is even legislation on the use of "electronic signatures" for the purpose of signing government documents. The existance of fraud doesn't make relying on such consents unreasonable.

It may of course be the case that sex is a special case, but it isn't immediately obvious as to why.

s. 273.2 is why.  Consent is a defense to a lot of criminal charges.  Assault, theft, fraud, etc, all have an element of lack of consent to them.  It is only charges under s. 271, 272 and 273 (which are sex assault, sex assault with a weapon, and aggravated sex assault respectively) which contain the obligation to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

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. 

[Malthus]

They corresponded. Whether or not that correspondence was convincing or not is a matter of the facts. It is true a jury will not like this guy - his lawyer's task would be to convince the jury he's a dupe and to focus the anger on the real perp - the scheming ex.

She didn't correspond with anyone. He only corresponded with an anonymous account. Unless those two facts change, then it was not convincing.

Of course *she* didn't correspond with anyone. It was her ex who corresponded *pretending* to be her.

Given that it was her ex, he probably knew enough details to make it a convincing deception.

In effect, the guy doing the raping was defrauded. Plenty of folks get defrauded through internet scams using anonymous accounts. Are they all being 'unreasonable' for not seeing through their deceptions?

[alfred russel]

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.

The fact that electronic consent can suffice in some instances concerning money doesn't mean electronic consent is automatically okay. If I send your investment advisor an email from a yahoo! account saying that I am you and he is free to take all of your money and spend it on extravagent parties, if he does so I am sure you would want to pursue criminal penalties against your advisor.

[Capetan Mihali]

It's always best to get notarized permission before raping someone.  Sure it's a hassle, and the courier service isn't cheap, but it ensure quality, hassle-free rape for everyone involved.   

[alfred russel]

Are they all being 'unreasonable' for not seeing through their deceptions?

In my point of view? Yes, as evidenced through the vast majority of citizens not sending their savings to Nigeria. But of course, they aren't out raping people, just harming themselves.

Think of the implications of what you are arguing. All I need to do in order to get away with rape is have someone else post a craigslist advertisement and have some BS correspondence. How hard would that be?

[Savonarola]

It's always best to get notarized permission before raping someone.  Sure it's a hassle, and the courier service isn't cheap, but it ensure quality, hassle-free rape for everyone involved.   

[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.

The fact that electronic consent can suffice in some instances concerning money doesn't mean electronic consent is automatically okay. If I send your investment advisor an email from a yahoo! account saying that I am you and he is free to take all of your money and spend it on extravagent parties, if he does so I am sure you would want to pursue criminal penalties against your advisor.

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".

[viper37]

As for the "rapist" himself, it would depend on a number of additional facts we don't have, that would show whether, considering the woman's behaviour he should be considered criminally negligent in not realising this is not a rape fantasy (now, that's tricky, since normally he would have agreed a "safe word" with her I presume, but since she was not a party to any previous negotiations, she would not know of it). However, if he can successfully show that he was not criminally negligent in that, he should be acquitted on account of lack of mens rea on his part. Of course, this may be difficult, when faced with some puritan jury.

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.

[Malthus]

Are they all being 'unreasonable' for not seeing through their deceptions?

In my point of view? Yes, as evidenced through the vast majority of citizens not sending their savings to Nigeria. But of course, they aren't out raping people, just harming themselves.

Think of the implications of what you are arguing. All I need to do in order to get away with rape is have someone else post a craigslist advertisement and have some BS correspondence. How hard would that be?

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. 

[Barrister]

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.

[Ed Anger]

beeb raped the fun out of this thread.

[Barrister]

beeb raped the fun out of this thread.

Captain Buzzkill strikes again!

[Darth Wagtaros]

This reminds me of that chick who posted a Craigslist ad saying that this guy's house was gonna be forclosed and everything in it and in the yard was up for grabs.

WTF is up with these people who think that an interweb ad is real? 

[dps]

These are highly unusual circumstances, where one person is in effect using another, through deception and identity theft, to commit a crime against a third person. The issue is whether the deception was so lame and the attempts of the guy so minimal to see through it as to be "unreasonable", "wilfully blind" or "reckless".

No, I think the question is whether any consent given throughly purely electronic means (emails, text messages, etc.) could ever be considered reasonable.

I agree with Malthus in that I don't see any inherent reason that such consent should be considered invalid per se from a theoretical PoV, though of course from a legal PoV what Wyoming law says about it will be the important (though I suspect that Wyoming law doesn't specifically address the issue--and I don't see that Canadian law actually does eithe, since I don't see any particular reason--again, in theroy--that reasonable steps to ascertain consent can't be taken electronically). 

In practice, though, I have to agree with alfred russel--put a rape victim who pretty clearly didn't actually give consent in the courtroom, and I have a hard time seeing a jury acquitting.