HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California Judge says non...

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:36 PM

California Judge says non-consensual sex while you're sleeping doesn't count as rape

More news from the rape culture front:

http://jezebel.com/5973087/california-court-declares-that-its-not-rape-if-the-sleeping-women-isnt-married

6 replies, 1383 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Judge says non-consensual sex while you're sleeping doesn't count as rape (Original post)
Danascot Jan 2013 OP
noiretextatique Jan 2013 #1
jberryhill Jan 2013 #2
BalancedGoat Jan 2013 #3
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #5
jberryhill Jan 2013 #6
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #4

Response to Danascot (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:39 PM

1. the law needs to be changed

California law only explicitly makes it a crime to trick someone into having sex if she believes she's having sex with her husband. That's technically true of the law. The judges said that because they couldn't be sure whether the jury had convicted Morales based on correct theory (that she was unconscious) rather than the incorrect one (he pretended to be someone else), the whole case had to be retried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danascot (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:41 PM

2. No, the judge said the perp should be tried for rape

Because that wasn't the charge under which the person was convicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danascot (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:43 PM

3. That's not what the ruling says.

Copied from a previous reply about this case.

The problem is that the jury was issued improper instructions. They were told that they could convict if they determined that the accused has initiated intercourse while the accuser was asleep. They were also told that they could also convict if they determined that the accused had pretended to be the accuser's boyfriend; regardless of whether or not they thought she was asleep when intercourse was initiated. Unfortunately, according to the appeals court, the relevant law for the second half of the instructions only applies if he had pretended to be her husband, which she does not have.

Due to the errant instructions, it is unclear which set of "facts" the jury convicted under. If it is determined the the woman was asleep when the man initiated intercourse, than that is clearly rape. Nothing in this ruling goes against that. But because of the lower threshold for conviction in the faulty instructions, the jury was not forced to come to a conclusion on that fact. So therefore the conviction is tossed and goes back to trial again.

Perhaps the law should be changed so that pretending to be an unmarried persons significant other would be considered rape just as pretending to be a woman's husband currently is. However that is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BalancedGoat (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:49 PM

5. Reading the decision? That's for chumps.

I think the OP's outrage trumps your ivory tower approach.

Who has time to read the fricking decision when there are pitchforks that need sharpening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:02 PM

6. It used to be...

...that popular press articles about court cases would miss the point unintentionally. These days it seems that a lot of what gets reported as "Court Rules Some Insane Thing" really go out of their way to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danascot (Original post)

Reply to this thread