Loren Pechtel

That's a very different picture that the news report that started this thread. That reporter should be fired!

auto-da-fe

I agree with Loren on this. The way this case was initially portrayed, this girl simply said something like "I have to go home", which in and of itself, is rather vague. The term "I have to go home" could easily be contstrued to mean "Hurry up and get off already so I can go", which is a common enough statement from women (sorry, maybe that is just in my experience :~).

However, reading the opinion posted above from the court, this seems like a fairly cut and dry case. It was plainly obvious that the girl, at the very least, retracted her initial consent to the sex. Even the initial consent, IMO, looks as though it was coerced from her.

Pug846, you make some good points when refereing to this case, but when you mention "studies done by respected organizations", it makes me hesitate. You do not qualify "respected organizations" for one. Respected by whom? The religious right? The "Femnazis" as UMoC puts it? That makes all the difference in the world, as any study is about this subject is going to be obviously tainted by the bias of the organization producing the study. I also find it hard to believe that you don't think there are false accusations about rape (be it in Cali or Indy)

This is just a sarcastic quip that does little to nothing to further your arguement. UMoC didn't say anything near what you made it out to be.

You are completely correct about how the appeal process works though, so kudos to you for that.

Derec

No, but how about California courts actually relying on reasonable doubt standards?

Quote:

Feminist propaganda… or studies done by respected organizations.

Which ones?

Quote:

Actually, if you are a college student, go talk to your health center and ask how many women come in who show signs of being raped, but don’t want to report it for whatever reason.

I suspect they would tell me not very many.

Quote:

I’m sure you’ll assume these women are all lying,

Some of them sure do. Also I would like to point out that the defendent should not have to prove that the girl is lying but that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Me claiming that his guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt (based on the facts from your text) does not me that I accuse the girl of lying.
When there are two conflicting testimonies and no further evidence there should be an acquital.

Quote:

so ask how many come in a year that have shown signs of being drugged and raped, but refuse to report it.

Does "getting drunk" qualify?

Quote:

Because the case is on appeal and in every criminal case, the light is viewed most favorably to uphold the conviction.

And why is that?

Quote:

(The purposes of the appellate courts is not to make findings of fact, but rule what the law is.) The story is not only from Laura, but from other witnesses, including the other kid that pleaded guilty.

No other witnesses were mentioned. Also the court said that their disbelief of defendent's version of events was because it conflicted with the story told by the accuser. Not because there were other witnesses confirming her story.

Quote:

I’m not sure how you can read the above and believe the case wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because the court admitted that in case of he said she said they err on the side of her.

Quote:

Yeah, those crazy California courts; using the same standard of review as every other state in the union and required by the Constitution.

If you will look into their rape laws you will find a substantially lower proof standard than in most other states. Yes, those crazy California courts.

Quote:

The purposes of the appellate courts is not to retry the case at every level. The appellant must rule on whether the trial court erred on some matter of law. The appellate court does not put witnesses on the stand nor does it gather more facts.

It is not needed. They have the testimonies. If there were those two testimonies and no further evidence/witnesses the appelate court should have acquitted. Not because of some new facts but because the lower court did not uphold the "reasonable doubt" standard. However the appelate court said that if the accuser says something this automatically invalidates anything that the accused might said that contradicts that. I.e. accuser's story is taken for the gospel.

Quote:

Since this was a bench trial, the judge was the trier of fact. He or she is the one that faced the witnesses, heard them testify, etc. He or she was well within his or her discretion to believe the girl beyond a reasonable doubt.

Based on ther accusation alone? Please, that is the standard of "reasonable doubt" they used at the Volksgerichtshof.

Quote:

(But that’s right, since you’re so familiar with the case, I’m sure you are in a better position than the judge to know who was lying. It was the dumb bitch, right? I’m sure she was asking for it.)

Who said that? Again, this is a criminal court. The defence does not have to prove that the girl lied, the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to prove that the defendent is lying. Everything else is a perversion of justice.

Quote:

So, the California Supreme court upheld the judge’s ruling that a rational trier of fact could find that the girl was telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

By that legal "standard" you would convict many innocent men of rape.

Quote:

The standard, given the context of what the court did rule on, is silly. If the girl uses force to stop the guy, the guy shouldn’t have a reasonable amount of time to keep going at it.

Sure he should have a reasonable amount of time to stop.
However I think we both agree that minute and a half is not reasonable in this case.

Quote:

This isn’t a case where the girl whispers, please stop, and the guy just keeps going. But when the girl actively tries to stop the sex, but the guy refuses.

Yes under this scenario it would be rape.
However that does not change the fact that even if the girl starts resisting the guy can't stop immediately. A reasonable time should be given, like a few seconds.

Quote:

Again, the holding was: we conclude that the offense of forcible rape occurs when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expresses an objection and attempts to stop the act and the defendant forcibly continues despite the objection.

No problem with that. The problem is with prosecution obtaining a conviction based on accusation alone.

Quote:

So, do you agree with that standard? If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim attempted to stop the act, but the defendant forcibly continues despite the objection, then it should be rape?

Yes, if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Her saying that it was a rape is not proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
As a matter of fact, if the above scenario was true he got off too lightly.

The problems I and several other have with this law is

- proving it beyond reeasonable doubt. "He said she said" should not be enough
- very high potential for abuse - "revenge"-type false rape allegations
- reasonable time to quit and reasonable expression of non-consent should be given (both met by the above scenario if it is true.)

UMoC

Loren Pechtel

Yeah. I have no problem with calling it rape based on that detailed description of the situation.

However, as originally portrayed I can't call it rape. If she is going to change her mind mid act she should be *very* clear about it, it's not what he's expecting and something unclear is likely to be mis-interpreted.

I also can't call it rape if he doesn't react to her words instantly, as the red herring implied.

fatherphil

i have formal sex all the time. we have a legal document and i am further constrained by the whims of my partner. consequently there are times when no sex takes place even though one of us would like it to.

pug846

UMoC said:

Could you actually show me one case where the California courts don’t rely on the reasonable doubt standards?

Because the purposes of appellate courts is not to retry the case all over again; you get a trial at the trial court. If you are convicted, you are no longer entitled to the same protections you would otherwise be provided with.

I actually have looked at different rape laws, and I have no idea what you mean by “substantially lower proof standards.” Every court in America has the same standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I don’t know what to make of your statement.

First, while you might disagree with the trial court’s application of the “reasonable doubt” standard, that does not mean they didn’t apply it. This is why I sarcastically remarked last post that perhaps all trials should be held at your house: your disagreement is not whether the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is being used, it clearly is, but whether the standard has been met. You believe it was not met in this case, while the trial court clearly did.

Second, the appellate court did not say anything the accuser says immediately invalidates anything the accused might have said unless you take their quote out of context. It is not the job of the appellate court to weigh the evidence beyond deciding whether the evidence is sufficient that a rational trier of fact could convict. Since they don’t have the witnesses in front of them, they have to assume that the trial court believed what the accuser said and not believe what the accused said. This is standard operating procedure for every single appellate court in America. It is not unique to California.

Thirdly, your standard that anytime there is conflicting testimony in a rape case means there should be an acquittal would basically mean you could rape anyone you wanted as long as you made sure no one saw you. If one party testifies, no they didn’t do it and then starts laughing, then I don’t have a problem with the trial judge believing one person over another. I wasn’t there, I don’t know what evidence was presented and what was or wasn’t corroborated. However, I don’t have a problem with a judge finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the alleged victim; while this won’t always be the case, or perhaps very often be the case, it would be a rigid, irrational rule to hold that you can never be convicted of a crime when the only evidence is testimony from an alleged victim.

I’ll quote it again, because it doesn’t seem you have actually read the holding as of yet:

[W]e conclude that the offense of forcible rape occurs when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expresses an objection and attempts to stop the act and the defendant forcibly continues despite the objection.

So, no, if a girl expresses an objection, attempts to stop the act, but the “defendant forcibly continues despite the objection,” then he does not get a “reasonable amount of time” to forcibly continue to have sex with the girl. If I was having sex with a girl and she expressed an objection that I should have reasonably and in good faith understood and tries to stop having sex with me, I don’t think I should have a second more to keep going at it. I should stop.

So, I hope we agree that the standard is perfectly acceptable, even if we don’t agree whether there was sufficient evidence to convict in this case. If that’s the case, we can agree to disagree because I don’t feel like debating whether an evidentiary standard was met.

In regards to studies done on rape being vastly underreported: I don’t feel like having a debate back and forth about the validity of any study because I’m not up for it, but if you are really interested, I highly recommend you talk to the health officials at your school. They have no reason to lie or exaggerate and since you’re so comfortable that rape is not underreported, then if nothing else, the discussion should just confirm what you believe you already know.

MegaDave said:

Please quote me where I say there aren’t false accusations of rape? You might have to look for a while because I said no such thing. Just because rape is underreported does not mean there aren’t also false accusation, there clearly are.

Bad Kitty

There was a dissenting opinion in this John Z rape case:


I think she raises some excellent points.

Dr Rick

What a coincidence! I too followed the exact same rule when I was single, and never, ever violated it.

Of course, by another happy coincidence, I always felt as if I was in an "extremely stable relationship" with whichever woman I was with at any given moment...

On a more serious note, the John Z case sure reads like a rape to me; the victim indicated that she didn't want to continue, and the perpetrator used physical force. That's bad.