Former boyfriend used Craigslist to arrange woman's rape, police say (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-rape-craigslist11-2010jan11,0,1128043.story)
Quote
A Wyoming man is accused of posing online as his former girlfriend and soliciting someone to act out a violent sexual fantasy.
The advertisement appeared on Craigslist in early December.
"Need a real aggressive man with no concern for women," read the posting on the Internet classified advertising forum. Its purported author was a Casper, Wyo., woman, whose photo also was posted.
One week later, a man accepted the offer, forcing his way into the woman's home, tying her up and raping her at knifepoint.
"I'll show you aggressive," he allegedly said, according to court testimony.
In fact, authorities say, the woman had nothing to do with the ad. Instead, they say, a former boyfriend had posted it, soliciting her assault.
Such an incident would have been impossible -- or at least much less likely -- 20 years ago, Natrona County Dist. Atty. Mike Blonigen said. "It's probably only possible in our modern age," he said.
For Craigslist, the San Francisco-based website used by millions to sell and barter goods and services, the incident comes after a year punctuated by legal battles over its adult advertisements, as well as the highly publicized Boston slaying of a woman who advertised erotic services on the site.
Last year, Thomas Dart, the sheriff in Cook County, Ill., filed a federal lawsuit accusing the site of facilitating prostitution and urging the court to view it as a public nuisance. State attorneys general also pressured the company to eliminate what they called a "blatant Internet brothel."
Though Craigslist prevailed in the Illinois lawsuit, the website eliminated its erotic services section, replacing it with "adult services" and pledging to review every ad posted there to prevent flagrant prostitution and pornography.
Craigslist also has made headlines for cases of impersonation, including one last year in which a Long Island, N.Y., mother allegedly posted an ad seeking sex and directing men to the mother of her 9-year-old daughter's rival.
The Wyoming case began to unfold Dec. 5. Jebidiah James Stipe, 27, a Carbon, Wyo., native and Marine stationed at Twentynine Palms, Calif., allegedly posed as his ex-girlfriend and placed the ad seeking an aggressive man.
Two days later, she spotted it and contacted the Natrona County Sheriff's Office, as well as Craigslist, which took down the ad.
But Ty Oliver McDowell, 26, from Bar Nunn, Wyo., had allegedly already seen it.
McDowell, an employee of the Wyoming Medical Center's radiology department, e-mailed the address listed in the ad, according to an affidavit in the case.
McDowell later told authorities that he and the woman exchanged instant messages, and she described what she wanted -- "humiliation, physical abuse, sexual abuse," according to investigators -- and gave him her home address.
In fact, authorities say, McDowell was communicating with Stipe.
On Dec. 11, McDowell allegedly went to the woman's home and forced his way inside. He bound, blindfolded and gagged the 25-year-old woman, then raped her as he pressed a knife to her throat, the affidavit said.
Detectives said he told them he thought he was fulfilling her rape fantasy.
McDowell was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Stipe was also arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault.
A maintenance mechanic who enlisted in the Marines in 2001, Stipe was in the process of being ejected for an undisclosed pattern of misconduct at the time of his arrest, a Marine Corps spokeswoman said.
Documents related to Stipe's arrest have been sealed. But as for the alleged rapist, Blonigen said his state of mind would be central to the case. Though jurors must weigh what McDowell believed to be true, they also must consider how a reasonable, objective person would view the situation, he said.
Blonigen said that although Craigslist officials had cooperated with the investigation, the fact that they published sexually suggestive ads also facilitated the crime.
"If I were king, I'd like to see them not run these personal ads," he said. "This is a debate we've had for a long time: . . . Do we censor the Internet?"
Craigslist did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal law protects Internet sites from liability for their users' actions, said M. Ryan Calo, residential fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.
"The idea was that these website platforms were truly communities assembled of random users, with no editorial control over what users were doing. Craigslist is like a hotel with millions of rooms, but it doesn't have the ability to figure out what's happening in those rooms," Calo said.
A crime committed through a social networking site is no different than one perpetrated through a newspaper's printed classifieds, he said. Yet Internet-based crimes do make it easier for police to track down suspects because they leave a cyber-trail, Calo said.
But Steve Patterson, a spokesman for the Cook County sheriff who sued Craigslist, said the website wasn't blameless. By hosting an adult services forum, "they create this specific place for criminal activity to take place," he said.
As a "good corporate citizen," Craigslist should not involve itself in such business, he said.
Authorities have not said which section of the website published the posting, but Patterson noted that Craigslist had pledged to monitor adult ads.
He said it was unclear whether or how thoroughly it was doing so, and added that the Wyoming incident suggested a lack of monitoring.
"If a woman is putting an ad online saying she'd like to be raped, I'd hope it would be stopped," he said.
Granted, the guy is a moron. Fulfilling someone's rape fantasy without ever meeting her first is just plain dumb. And the woman was raped, there's no doubt about it. But isn't he also a victim of the former boyfriend here? He's the one who misled the guy after all.
Still, what a moron...
If the guy was truly deceived - arguably, he's not guilty. Well, guilty of being an idiot.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 03:13:49 PM
If the guy was truly deceived - arguably, he's not guilty. Well, guilty of being an idiot.
I dunno. The guy had the intent to commit the acts that end up meeting the crime; as to consent, I think his belief will be found to be unreasonable without further verification.
If they found the ex-boyfriend and accused him of complicity, that means they got the e-mail/messenger exchanges. Couldn't that be used for the defense of the rapist?
Jesus, you can't even rape someone without consent these days.
Is it not statutory rape if the woman claims to be of age and looks it (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: viper37 on January 12, 2010, 03:19:33 PM
If they found the ex-boyfriend and accused him of complicity, that means they got the e-mail/messenger exchanges. Couldn't that be used for the defense of the rapist?
I don't think so. The issue is the victim's consent, which was 1) clearly not present and 2) could not reasonably been implied from her actions.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2010, 03:39:37 PM
Is it not statutory rape if the woman claims to be of age and looks it (non-rhetorical)?
It is. Statutory rape is a crime of strict liability (about the only one left). Even if she has a fake id (or a real one with the wrong birthdate), it's still statutory rape.
Ah, ok, thanks.
Since it wasn't gay Mart will call for his blood.
Anyone heard from PDH lately? :shutup:
Quote"If I were king, I'd like to see them not run these personal ads," he said. "This is a debate we've had for a long time: . . . Do we censor the Internet?"
What a retarded sentence. :lol:
I think this scenario was the subject of a CSI episode, IIRC the guy who got duped also got shot in that episode. The one with the Navy CSI I think.
I guess the makers of CSI are also culpable for giving the guy the idea.
Ok so first of all, the second part of the article about craigslist being prevented from posting this kind of ads is totally retarded. The website was used for illegal purposes, but the usage was on its face value legal - "consensual rape fantasy" is legal, and that's what the ad advertised for. The crime which the website was used for was not rape but identity theft - if we argued that any website where identity theft is possible should be closed down, we wouldn't have any.
Now to the case at hand, I don't think, arguably, anyone is guilty of rape here. The ex-boyfriend is guilty of identity theft and possible defamation, but unless it can be proven that he could reasonably expect such an outcome (rather than simply causing his ex some embarrassment), I don't think he can be charged with aiding and abetting rape.
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.
Quote from: ulmont on January 12, 2010, 03:42:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 12, 2010, 03:19:33 PM
If they found the ex-boyfriend and accused him of complicity, that means they got the e-mail/messenger exchanges. Couldn't that be used for the defense of the rapist?
I don't think so. The issue is the victim's consent, which was 1) clearly not present and 2) could not reasonably been implied from her actions.
He lacks the mens rea though due to acting in error, unless it can be inferred indirectly, on account of culpable negligence on his part. I guess there is a need for some "rape fantasy standard of diligence", though.
Any reasonable jury is going to give a guilty verdict. You rape a stranger and your excuse is that an anonymous email account said it was okay? Even if you didn't figure out that it wasn't a game at the time of the act, that is unbelievably reckless.
Quote from: ulmont on January 12, 2010, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 03:13:49 PM
If the guy was truly deceived - arguably, he's not guilty. Well, guilty of being an idiot.
I dunno. The guy had the intent to commit the acts that end up meeting the crime; as to consent, I think his belief will be found to be unreasonable without further verification.
Without more details, can't say. The issue isn't whether he acted reasonably (clearly he acted stupidly, if not criminally) but whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the mental element necessary for conviction. Obviously if he was being "willfully blind" he's guilty, but if it can be shown with convincing evidence that the nasty ex convinced him that "she" was really into BDSM and was arranging this scenario for
herself then how can he be guilty?
Say the email exchanges say "I may struggle and scream, but that's all just part of my fantasy. If it really gets too much, I'll say the "safe word', which is "Googleplex". If I say that, please stop. If I don't, just assume that everything I do is part of the act".
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 03:49:27 PM
Anyone heard from PDH lately? :shutup:
Casper = Wyoming's mullet capital, the home of meth, the promised land.
Laramie = University, cultured (theater, symphony), gay bashing.
Far different places. I have no trouble believing someone from Casper did this...
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
He lacks the mens rea
He lacked the specific intent to rape. He had the general intent to have sexual intercourse, by force if necessary, with the victim. I believe that general intent is sufficient.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:24:18 PM
Without more details, can't say. The issue isn't whether he acted reasonably (clearly he acted stupidly, if not criminally) but whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the mental element necessary for conviction. Obviously if he was being "willfully blind" he's guilty, but if it can be shown with convincing evidence that the nasty ex convinced him that "she" was really into BDSM and was arranging this scenario for herself then how can he be guilty?
Say the email exchanges say "I may struggle and scream, but that's all just part of my fantasy. If it really gets too much, I'll say the "safe word', which is "Googleplex". If I say that, please stop. If I don't, just assume that everything I do is part of the act".
The test in Canada:
Quote273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
(a) the accused's belief arose from the accused's
(i) self-induced intoxication, or
(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or
(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
Now it's a slightly interestign legal point, because there does exist a defence of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'. However under Canadian law the accused would need to show he took 'reasonable steps to ascertain she was consenting'. I have trouble imagining any trier of fact would think he did.
Quote from: ulmont on January 12, 2010, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
He lacks the mens rea
He lacked the specific intent to rape. He had the general intent to have sexual intercourse, by force if necessary, with the victim. I believe that general intent is sufficient.
The Crown would have to prove that he intended to touch her for a sexual purpose. Whether or not she consented (and whether or not he took reasonable steps to ascertain that consent)is part of the
actus reus, not the
mens rea.
This was an NCIS episode.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:24:18 PM
Without more details, can't say. The issue isn't whether he acted reasonably (clearly he acted stupidly, if not criminally) but whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the mental element necessary for conviction. Obviously if he was being "willfully blind" he's guilty, but if it can be shown with convincing evidence that the nasty ex convinced him that "she" was really into BDSM and was arranging this scenario for herself then how can he be guilty?
Say the email exchanges say "I may struggle and scream, but that's all just part of my fantasy. If it really gets too much, I'll say the "safe word', which is "Googleplex". If I say that, please stop. If I don't, just assume that everything I do is part of the act".
The test in Canada:
Quote273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
(a) the accused's belief arose from the accused's
(i) self-induced intoxication, or
(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or
(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
Now it's a slightly interestign legal point, because there does exist a defence of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'. However under Canadian law the accused would need to show he took 'reasonable steps to ascertain she was consenting'. I have trouble imagining any trier of fact would think he did.
I'm not so sure it's such a slam-dunk. The key here are the "circumstances known to the accused at the time". Here, the circumstances are that of an alleged BDSM encounter arranged through the Internet (which is admittedly already unwise). We have a person *deliberately attempting to impersonate someone elses' identity*, and (presumably) deliberately attempting to fool the accused into
believing consent existed. Is it "unreasonable" for a person to fall for someone's deliberate attempt to mislead them? It may be stupid, but I don't think it is obviously
unreasonable.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:53:31 PM
I'm not so sure it's such a slam-dunk. The key here are the "circumstances known to the accused at the time". Here, the circumstances are that of an alleged BDSM encounter arranged through the Internet (which is admittedly already unwise). We have a person *deliberately attempting to impersonate someone elses' identity*, and (presumably) deliberately attempting to fool the accused into believing consent existed. Is it "unreasonable" for a person to fall for someone's deliberate attempt to mislead them? It may be stupid, but I don't think it is obviously unreasonable.
The thing about the word 'reasonable' is that brings in an objective standard - would the reasonable person think that the steps taken were sufficient. As I said it's going to be fact specific, but I seriously doubt any jury or judge would think so.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:53:31 PM
Is it "unreasonable" for a person to fall for someone's deliberate attempt to mislead them?
That depends. Is the deliberate attempt in the form of an anonymous email account and craigslist posting? If so, yes.
No way a jury acquits when there is a rape victim in the room.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 04:56:42 PM
The thing about the word 'reasonable' is that brings in an objective standard - would the reasonable person think that the steps taken were sufficient. As I said it's going to be fact specific, but I seriously doubt any jury or judge would think so.
The objective standard sure, but the objective standard of someone into BDSM. The average person on the chapham bus or whatever probably disapproves of BDSM to begin with, but it ain't illegal.
Way I look at it, the section is designed to eliminate defences which amount to lame post-facto attempts to claim the person didn't know the other did not give consent. They eliminate common situations where a person, through their
own acts or willfullness, deliberately overlook a lack of consent (or as good as).
Look for example at 273.2(a)(i). It eliminates
self-induced intoxication as a defence. This means that if I spike
someone elses' drink without their knowledge, they can use that fact as a defense (assuming they didn't know of it).
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".
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:16:29 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2010, 05:00:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:53:31 PM
Is it "unreasonable" for a person to fall for someone's deliberate attempt to mislead them?
That depends. Is the deliberate attempt in the form of an anonymous email account and craigslist posting? If so, yes.
No way a jury acquits when there is a rape victim in the room.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:16:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:24:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 05:31:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2010, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:24:07 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
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.
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. :bowler:
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:42:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 12, 2010, 05:47:35 PM
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. :bowler:
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2010, 05:44:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
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".
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:04:01 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2010, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:42:14 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
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:
Quote
[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.
beeb raped the fun out of this thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2010, 06:15:10 PM
beeb raped the fun out of this thread.
Captain Buzzkill strikes again! :yeah:
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?
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:16:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:56:09 PM
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).
Quote from: viper37 on January 12, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
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)).
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 06:02:31 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 06:23:27 PM
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):
QuoteSection 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
QuoteTwo 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
Quotesee OCGA ยง 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
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 06:03:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
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:
Quote
[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.
QuoteTwo 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?
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Fireblade on January 12, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Quote
QuoteTwo 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.
FB's age of consent is 2 bottles of wine.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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!
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 12, 2010, 07:07:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
You don't have to be racist.
The prison buttrape phobia works a lot better with a brother.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2010, 07:18:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
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.
The law here isn't of particular support without the facts. Stating that "there are some occcasions which require immediate, in-person consent" is
meaningless stripped of context. It is merely an assertion that "oh, and I think this is one of those occasions". It doesn't provide any sort of test that can be applied to different facts.
Again, I see no support for the proposition that it is reasonable to consent to the most intimate medical or financial propositions via electronic means, but completely unreasonable,
as a matter of general principle, to consent to sexual ones.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 07:37:09 PM
Again, I see no support for the proposition that it is reasonable to consent to the most intimate medical or financial propositions via electronic means, but completely unreasonable, as a matter of general principle, to consent to sexual ones.
:frusty:
s. 273.2 is the support for the proposition that ascertaining consent in sexual matters is held to a different standard. And that it a definitive statement of law. The fact that you keep bringing up financial documents is just not helpful.
And you're right that unless there's a case with identical facts I can't make a conclusive statement. I've never said a conclusive statement. But what I have said is "I would suggest ... that it is inherently unreasonable for the accused to rely on purely electronic consent for such an extreme and violent fantasy."
And by the way you keep getting your language confused/wrong. It's not that the complainant can't consent. Of course they can. They can consent in any means that they want to. The question is the accused, and what they can rely upon to determine consent.
So far you seem to keep arguing the possibility that it might be allowed. I agree that in the absence of any case directly on point it can't be ruled out. But are you actually arguing that you think a court might find in favour of this guy? Or are you just playing devil's advocate here?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2010, 04:51:12 PM
This was an NCIS episode.
I knew this sounded familiar.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2010, 05:00:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 04:53:31 PM
Is it "unreasonable" for a person to fall for someone's deliberate attempt to mislead them?
That depends. Is the deliberate attempt in the form of an anonymous email account and craigslist posting? If so, yes.
No way a jury acquits when there is a rape victim in the room.
I think it depends on how much contact there was, if all he saw was the add and that's it than yeah, he's guilty. But if like Marty speculated there were a lot of emails going back and forth that planned things out in detail, then I think there could be reasonable doubt.
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
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.
Actually, that's easy. I always have them say "I thought you were the dishwasher repairman" when I break down their door. This code-phrase indicates both their consent and that their husband is not home (though the lack of gunfire has already indicated the latter).
In court, this precaution works like a charm.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 12, 2010, 07:37:09 PM
Again, I see no support for the proposition that it is reasonable to consent to the most intimate medical or financial propositions via electronic means, but completely unreasonable, as a matter of general principle, to consent to sexual ones.
:frusty:
s. 273.2 is the support for the proposition that ascertaining consent in sexual matters is held to a different standard. And that it a definitive statement of law. The fact that you keep bringing up financial documents is just not helpful.
And you're right that unless there's a case with identical facts I can't make a conclusive statement. I've never said a conclusive statement. But what I have said is "I would suggest ... that it is inherently unreasonable for the accused to rely on purely electronic consent for such an extreme and violent fantasy."
And by the way you keep getting your language confused/wrong. It's not that the complainant can't consent. Of course they can. They can consent in any means that they want to. The question is the accused, and what they can rely upon to determine consent.
So far you seem to keep arguing the possibility that it might be allowed. I agree that in the absence of any case directly on point it can't be ruled out. But are you actually arguing that you think a court might find in favour of this guy? Or are you just playing devil's advocate here?
Naturally for the purpose of this discussion the issue is whether the accused can rely on their consent; I fail to see the relevance for our purposes between that and "can consent".
The problem with the legal standard mentioned in the statute is that it provides no guidance as to what is "reasonable". The case you cited does, based on its fact situation; the particular bit you quoted merely states that
on these facts, consent in person at the time would be required (the obvious inference is that on different facts it would not be). The point of mentioning other types of transactions is that they could, possibly, provide some actual guidance as to the level of security and procedure considered "reasonable'
in other situations and for other purposes - the issue being, if electronic consent is considered "reasonable" for X, why would it not be for Y? Of course such an analysis is "helpful", or at least, the courts do it all the time.
As for whether this guy would succeed in court, that depends on a lot of things - the exact nature of the charges brought against him, the exact details of the communications, the law in place in his state (which is of course not Canadian law) etc. My only point was that it was not
of necessity a "slam dunk". There could be a "reasonable doubt" as to his guilt, if he's able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trier of fact that he was, in point of fact, a dupe and not an accomplice.
To the extent you agree with that, then the puzzle is what exactly you are arguing about.
:huh:
Wow...just... wow... :huh:
Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2010, 10:52:33 AM
:huh:
Wow...just... wow... :huh:
Was it a reaction to the article or Mathus's post?
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2010, 09:33:44 AM
Naturally for the purpose of this discussion the issue is whether the accused can rely on their consent; I fail to see the relevance for our purposes between that and "can consent".
It's a criminal law thing. Ever since R v Ewanchuck, which very pointedly threw out the defence of 'implied consent', you have to be careful about your language in talking about consent. First you look at whether there was factual consent, and if there was, then it's the end of the story. The thing is, if it
was this woman's fantasy to be raped, even if she didn't tell anyone, and it was someone else who set it up without telling her, if she wanted it (and says so afterwards) then no crime took place. If she didn't want it, then you must go to the defence of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
Quote
The problem with the legal standard mentioned in the statute is that it provides no guidance as to what is "reasonable". The case you cited does, based on its fact situation; the particular bit you quoted merely states that on these facts, consent in person at the time would be required (the obvious inference is that on different facts it would not be). The point of mentioning other types of transactions is that they could, possibly, provide some actual guidance as to the level of security and procedure considered "reasonable' in other situations and for other purposes - the issue being, if electronic consent is considered "reasonable" for X, why would it not be for Y? Of course such an analysis is "helpful", or at least, the courts do it all the time.
But sex. is. different. You never hear an argument about 'honest but mistaken belief in consent' in a fraud case. The law is very clear that you need to be more careful in ascertaining consent before engaging in sex than in any other activity. The courts will make analogies between similar circumstances, and will not between obviously different circumstances.
QuoteAs for whether this guy would succeed in court, that depends on a lot of things - the exact nature of the charges brought against him, the exact details of the communications, the law in place in his state (which is of course not Canadian law) etc. My only point was that it was not of necessity a "slam dunk". There could be a "reasonable doubt" as to his guilt, if he's able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trier of fact that he was, in point of fact, a dupe and not an accomplice.
To the extent you agree with that, then the puzzle is what exactly you are arguing about.
It's not a slam dunk, but it's pretty close to it. That's based only on my own experience in running sex assault trials of course (probably a couple dozen over the last 6 years), since there's an absence of definitive caselaw.
Do you really think this guy, assuming Canadian law, has any significant chance of beating this charge?
I like the thread title. I'm wondering how a rape fantasy could turn 'good'?
Quote from: Martinus on January 13, 2010, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 13, 2010, 10:52:33 AM
:huh:
Wow...just... wow... :huh:
Was it a reaction to the article or Mathus's post?
Reaction to the article.
Just amazing what stupidity a couple of dumb asses can conjure up.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2010, 11:58:41 AM
It's a criminal law thing. Ever since R v Ewanchuck, which very pointedly threw out the defence of 'implied consent', you have to be careful about your language in talking about consent. First you look at whether there was factual consent, and if there was, then it's the end of the story. The thing is, if it was this woman's fantasy to be raped, even if she didn't tell anyone, and it was someone else who set it up without telling her, if she wanted it (and says so afterwards) then no crime took place. If she didn't want it, then you must go to the defence of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
Yes, we agree on that much.
QuoteBut sex. is. different. You never hear an argument about 'honest but mistaken belief in consent' in a fraud case. The law is very clear that you need to be more careful in ascertaining consent before engaging in sex than in any other activity. The courts will make analogies between similar circumstances, and will not between obviously different circumstances.
You are simply wrong on the first point. Certainly, you will hear arguments about honest but mistaken beliefs consent in *civil* fraud cases. Consider the legal concept of "knowing assistance" in the breach of a trust and "knowing receipt" of trust monies. These cases often turn on whether the person alleged to have assisted in or received trust funds had an honest (but mistaken) belief that the beneficiaries had consented to the transaction.
"Sex is different" is a mere assertion. Why should it be? Are you claiming I need
more careful formalities to obtain consent for sex than for a trustee to transfer trust funds? One usually does not bring lawyers and notarized statements to a bar ... or at least, I didn't when I was dating. :D
QuoteIt's not a slam dunk, but it's pretty close to it. That's based only on my own experience in running sex assault trials of course (probably a couple dozen over the last 6 years), since there's an absence of definitive caselaw.
Do you really think this guy, assuming Canadian law, has any significant chance of beating this charge?
I think he has a chance. Of course he'll be unsympathetic to a jury, so not a good chance.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
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.
going back to Malthus' comment about signing contract over the internet got me thinking: this kind of internet transaction is only valid after your identity has been established. With Telus Mobility, when I sign an electronic form, I first had to register with my Telus account #, my name, adress, company, etc, and then I can use this to electronically sign the form. So, Telus really took steps to verify my identity, with information they had on file previously.
If you buy something from the internet, be it a book or a porn flick, you need to "register" on the site, provide your adress and have it matched with the credit card you pay, as a way to establish your real identity.
In our case, I doubt the guy could prove he took several steps to identify the woman and make sure he was really speaking to her (say, calling the woman, checking the phone # and adress, make sure he's speaking to girl, etc, etc,).
Might not be a slam dunk, but I have a hard time seeing this guy walking out free. Maybe a reduced sentence from the judge instead of the harsher one, but no way he walks free.
It seems improbable that the steps he took to get her consent will be considered to meet a "reasonable" standard.
Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2010, 02:08:30 PM
It seems improbable that the steps he took to get her consent will be considered to meet a "reasonable" standard.
I think that this is the way to word it. It isn't impossible, because we don't know the facts, but it certainly seems improbable.
I was a CSI episode about this, I think
Quote from: Queequeg on January 13, 2010, 12:05:04 PM
I like the thread title. I'm wondering how a rape fantasy could turn 'good'?
For once, use your imagination and consider that people outside your head might see things differently than you do. :lol:
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on January 13, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
I was a CSI episode about this, I think
You were a CSI episode? The Singularity is upon us!!!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2010, 09:08:11 PM
You were a CSI episode? The Singularity is upon us!!!
That was clever, Tim. :lol: