@hawkeye10,
Quote:again indicating that you dont understand definitions...Washington law revolves around the voicing of agreement, or the absence of voicing agreement, not the voicing of disagreement. That was the OLD law. The old law said that the had to resist trough words or actions if she wanted to claim rape, but the feminists told us that we were expecting to much out of our victims so we changed the law.
You don't realize what a fool you are making of yourself.
Washington sexual assault law definitely does not revolve around the the voicing of agreement (consent). No sexual assault laws revolve around the voicing of agreement (consent), you idiot, because if you have agreement (consent) you don't have rape. The rape laws are
all worded to reflect lack of consent--and they must be worded that way, otherwise the act is not criminal.
"Consent" is included in the sexual assault laws of Washington only in a definitions section. "Consent" is not included, let alone required, in the wording of any of the statutes that define the three degrees of rape--only non consent is mentioned.
Are you under the misguided impression that when someone is charged with rape in the 3rd degree in your state that they are not charged with violating that statute
exactly as it is written? If so, you are totally ignorant of even basic principles of criminal procedure.
And rape in the 3rd degree occurs only when the sexual intercourse occurs despite
a clearly stated or expressed lack of consent by the victim.
The statute says
nothing about the voicing of agreement. In fact, it specifically says agreement (consent} was
not indicated
and lack of consent was clearly expressed, either by words or behavior.
Again, you are confusing a defendant's defense at trial, that the sex "was consensual" with the violation of the law he is actually charged with. Obviously, if the defendant
chooses, as a defense, to claim the sex was "consensual" that's what his defense attorney has to try to prove. But the defendant, who is charged with rape in the 3rd degree, is actually charged with ignoring the victim's
clearly expressed lack of consent and that's what the prosecutor will try to prove--that she protested, clearly expressed lack of consent, and he penetrated her anyway--and the victim will describe on the witness stand how she expressed her lack of consent.
You are also confusing what you are calling "old law" and "new law". The laws were never significantly changed. 1st degree and 2nd degree rape required "forcible compulsion" in the past--they still require "forcible compulsion"----the intercourse was achieved by force, against the will of the victim, who may well have been indicating, through words or behavior, lack of consent. And degree of force might have been indicated through injury to the victim. But resistance on the part of the victim was not required--if the victim was forced at gunpoint, or knife point, she might not have resisted, except maybe verbally, and the law would not require a victim to resist under such conditions.
What was added to the laws, was the rape in the 3rd degree statute--which does not require force. That was the only significant difference that separates rape in the 3rd degree from 1st and 2nd degree rape. Rape in the 3rd degree is a "No means no" statute--a "date rape" statute--the victim has only to clearly indicate her lack of consent verbally or behaviorally, and sexual intercourse occurring with such a lack of consent is rape. The crime itself is defined by the perpetrator's ignoring the victim's expressed lack of consent.
Trying to prove that the sexual intercourse occured "with consent" is obviously not part of the rape law--it is a defense strategy at trial to support a plea of not guilty. The law does not require the defendant to use that defense--that's a choice that the defendant makes. And, if the defendant chooses that defense, he has to prove it.
The law in Washington
does not require anyone to get affirmative consent prior to intercourse--what it says is that if consent has not been given, and the victim clearly expresses lack of consent, then the act of sexual intercourse is rape. That is a "No means no" law--she doesn't have to say "Yes", but, if she says, "NO", the act is rape. She
must express her lack of consent verbally or behaviorally--she cannot do nothing and claim rape under that statute. Simply saying, "NO" indicates her "resistance" and her lack of consent.
You have a "No means no" law--but you are too stupid, and too obsessed with your paranoia about "feminists" to realize that. You have the kind of law you say you want--a "No means no" law. Once she says, "No", the act of intercourse is considered "rape". Her "No" has the force of law behind it. That's a "No means no" law, and that's Washington's rape in the 3rd degree.
Your ignorance is astounding. You have the kind of law you say you want and you don't even realize it. You are misinterpreting the laws of your state. They mean exactly what they say. And nowhere, in those laws, does it say a man must obtain affirmative consent--what he must do, however, is pay attention to clearly expressed lack of consent.
If you realized what a fool you have made of yourself in these posts you'd probably be mortified. Fortunately, for you, you are too dumb and too deluded to realize you have misinterpreted a ONE SENTENCE rape law. Gotta be pretty dumb not to realize that a law means exactly what it says--nothing more, and nothing less. And, obviously you are that dumb.
And everyone reading this thread already knows that.
I can't thank you enough, Hawkeye--you just proved only an idiot would object to the rape laws of your state.
You really look like a jerk now--you can't understand the rape laws of your own state.
And the way that egg on your face is dripping is gross.
