@BillRM,
Actually, in the case in Maryland I believe that the initial rape conviction was overturned.
Quote:Yesterday a mid-level state appellate court in Maryland interpreted Maryland's common law in such a way as to preclude women from withdrawing consent to sex after penetration has occurred. The court itself admits that this ruling is predicated on ancient views of women as chattel whose value is lost upon penetration, rather than independent human beings whose suffering matters. The court took the position, however, that under the law of stare decisis (the obligation of a court to follow precedent), only the Maryland Supreme Court or the legislature could alter this outcome.
The case is Baby v. Maryland, __ A.2d ___ (Md.App. 2006). According to the young woman's testimony, the defendant asked to have sex with her and she consented on the condition that he would stop when she told him to. She testified that the penetration hurt "so I said stop and that's when he kept pushing it in and I was pushing his knees to get off me." After she told him to stop, he continued to "keep pushing it in" for about "five or so seconds."
For reasons that I won't get into in this post, the prosecution's theory in this case was that the whole situation was coerced and that her consent was not freely given in the first place.
The jury, however, asked this question during their deliberations: "If a female consents to sex initially and during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind and the man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?"
The trial court declined to answer the question other than to refer the jury back to the original jury instructions, which did not specifically address this concern. The jury convicted the defendant and the defendant appealed. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the trial court erred by failing to answer the jury's question.
The court further held that there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration. I should note that this interpretation of the law would apply regardless of whether the man kept thrusting for five seconds or ten minutes after the woman said to stop. (Sorry to be graphic, but it's necessary.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602921.html
The bolding in the above quote is mine.
I think there are confusing issues when a woman gives consent to intercourse and then withdraws it after penetration. Personally, I feel if a woman has consented to penetration then the intercourse is not rape. But suppose the woman does experience pain and asks the man to withdraw? I wouldn't put a specific time limit on it, like 6 or 7 seconds, but suppose he goes way beyond that time, and still does not withdraw, and she is experiencing intense pain? The man is acting without any consideration for his female partner, he is inflicting unwanted pain on her, and at that point he is assaulting her, but I still wouldn't regard that particular situation as rape. I think what he was doing was wrong, but not rape.
In he-said she-said situations, when there is no concrete evidence of force (like bruising), it can sometimes become very difficult to determine whether consent was given, or whether it was given for one type of sexual act, but not another. These are serious problems, and I think everyone wants to see rape laws written in such a way that the consent issue is clear and specifies how it would apply in real life situations. The laws have to be written in a way to insure that a women who does not physically resist (because she fears even more harm will come to her) an unwanted sexual act will be able to bring a rape charge (because such an unwanted assault would be rape), but also written in a way to avoid charging innocent men who may actually have had the woman's consent at the time.
It's not a matter of throwing out all the rape laws. Rape does occur, and it occurs in a very wide variety of situations, which are markedly different from each other, and when it occurs it should be prosecuted. Just because a woman hasn't been beaten, doesn't mean she wasn't raped. Common sense has to enter in, and sometimes the woman must be taken at her word that the sex was non consensual because the circumstances of the sexual encounter suggest that was the case. Much earlier in this thread, I posted the case of a woman, who I think was 93 years old, who was raped by a man who entered her home after breaking the small latch on her door. The woman, being 93 and fearful of being killed, did not resist. She also did not consent to sex and had not given him permission to enter her home. The man claimed she gave consent and that she had broken the door latch herself. The jury did not buy his story and they convicted him of rape. In that case, the facts of the situation would lead a jury to believe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the woman's version of evidents was far more plausible than the man's.
Each case has to be considered separately and each jury has to evaluate the evidence they are given. If they have doubts about whether rape occurred, given the rape law in effect, they should not convict. I don't want innocent men put in jail, even if that means some actual rapists will go free for lack of sufficient evidence. But juries are sometimes presented with some tough cases to decide, and this is the problem, and we should acknowledge it.
Obviously, we have some rape laws on the books that may need to be re-written, or clarified by the courts. No one argues that point. And we should be able to have sensible and reasonable discussions on this issue.
But we are having a hard time discussing this reasonably because of the way you have been reacting. At times you deny that what the law (and women) legitimately considers rape should even be thought of as rape, and this does seem to reflect some prejudice and negative attitudes toward women on your part. At other times you say that rape laws are part of some vast conspiracy on the part of women to ensnare men, which is absolutely ridiculous. There is no conspiracy, we need rape laws because people do get raped. But we need well written, clear laws that make sense and that everyone can understand. And these laws are not written, or voted into effect only by women, both men and women want such laws.
The additional reason we have had a hard time discussing this issue with you is because of your negative comments about women, and your insulting remarks to females posting here, including me. We get accused of being man-haters simply because we support rape laws and want the problems of women who have been raped to be understood. I haven't heard one female here express a man-hating attitude. Yet we get personally insulted by you, and you don't even feel you owe anyone an apology.
aidan has made some excellent posts. I hope you consider them.
If you genuinely want to discuss this topic, then let's do it in a reasonable manner. It means you also have to be willing to listen with somewhat of an open mind. This is a very serious topic and it affects both men and women. It is worthy of discussion in an objective, mature, adult manner.
