This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Is it okay to kill your rapist?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DiddyDec
There is in the cases of "too drunk" to consent where both parties are too drunk to consent.
If both parties are too drunk to consent, arguably it isn't rape. It almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court, so.
Rape is not a crime that can be committed "accidentally" as it were - rape is a crime that always requires the knowledge that B does not consent to penetration by A.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I find it bizarre that someone could ever consider a rape to be non-violent. Could you explain how a rape could be non-violent, please? A peaceful rape, as it were? A gentle rape? Please, feel free to explain how rape is anything other than violent.
And no, I have absolutely no idea what they could mean by a non-violent rape.
And no, I have absolutely no idea what they could mean by a non-violent rape.
You're taking the extreme. Pick up a law book and educate yourself. Read up on rape by deception, rape by the use of drugs. Then find the definition of 'violent'. Rape is always a horrendous matter, but it doesn't always occur violently. Use your logic, I implore you.
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
The question is not whether it is okay to kill someone in self-defence, but rather, whether the act of defending oneself is proportionate and reasonably necessary in that situation.
Compare two situations:
1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B pushes A away and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B pushing A away is actually an act of assault, but this is an act of self-defence because it the act is both reasonable and necessary.
2. 1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B stabs A using a knife which is nearby and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B stabbing A using a knife would likely result in a charge of GBH. B can try to use the defence of self-defence, but it is unclear whether this would succeed as it may be a stretch to say that given the circumstance of being non-(physically) violently raped by someone, stabbing someone would not be considered a proportionate and reasonably necessary act, considering that there are other ways to remove the threat/act of rape which B is faced such as in situation 1.
Compare two situations:
1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B pushes A away and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B pushing A away is actually an act of assault, but this is an act of self-defence because it the act is both reasonable and necessary.
2. 1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B stabs A using a knife which is nearby and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B stabbing A using a knife would likely result in a charge of GBH. B can try to use the defence of self-defence, but it is unclear whether this would succeed as it may be a stretch to say that given the circumstance of being non-(physically) violently raped by someone, stabbing someone would not be considered a proportionate and reasonably necessary act, considering that there are other ways to remove the threat/act of rape which B is faced such as in situation 1.
I don't know why you've just tried to explain criminal law to someone with a law degree and doing a law postgraduate degree...this isn't relevant to my post, at all. All I said was that I don't understand why people would rather be raped/die knowing that they had not killed someone, as opposed to attacking/killing their rapist/attacker if they had the chance.
Original post by the bear
ermm presumably we only have the perp's account of what happened. it is not unknown for people to make stuff up.
Well the rapist was very infamous for regularly taking advantage of the female members of his church....
Original post by DiceTheSlice
As you are a law student, why aren't you able to debate this?
At least I wished you did. From your initial post, you seemed like you knew what you were saying... until the booptee guy quoted you.
At least I wished you did. From your initial post, you seemed like you knew what you were saying... until the booptee guy quoted you.
I am able to debate it, I am simply choosing not to.
As a self-defence, yes; as a revenge, no.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
If both parties are too drunk to consent, arguably it isn't rape. It almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court, so.
Rape is not a crime that can be committed "accidentally" as it were - rape is a crime that always requires the knowledge that B does not consent to penetration by A.
Rape is not a crime that can be committed "accidentally" as it were - rape is a crime that always requires the knowledge that B does not consent to penetration by A.
R v Bree. Mr Bree was convicted of rape.
Until overturned.
Original post by High Stakes
You're taking the extreme. Pick up a law book and educate yourself. Read up on rape by deception, rape by the use of drugs. Then find the definition of 'violent'. Rape is always a horrendous matter, but it doesn't always occur violently. Use your logic, I implore you.
Well since you implore me, I guess I'll just have to agree with you.
You heard the sarcasm, right?
I don't know why so many men (because so far only men have found what I said to be so objectionable as to argue with me - I wonder why?) wish to debate with me when I have stated I will not.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
May I ask if you can please quote where I said killing a rapist is always justified?
To quote:
Snufkin:
Depends. If this was a violent rape then stabbing someone is an understandable reaction (although it still wouldn't be moral). If she wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger then clearly she overreacted and should be punished.
ChocoCoatedLemons:
I can't believe that's something I just read with my own eyes in 2015. JFC.
Your statement here implies two things:
1. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist if she is subject to violent rape; and
2. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist even she "wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger"
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I find it bizarre that someone could ever consider a rape to be non-violent. Could you explain how a rape could be non-violent, please? A peaceful rape, as it were? A gentle rape? Please, feel free to explain how rape is anything other than violent.
And no, I have absolutely no idea what they could mean by a non-violent rape.
And no, I have absolutely no idea what they could mean by a non-violent rape.
The problem here is that you're taking 'violent' to mean 'bad'. You're taking the word as having heavy moral import and getting all offended when someone uses it differently, whereas really, as a third year law student, you ought to be able to distinguish between different usages of the same word for the purposes of analysis.
What is clearly meant when someone says a rape is 'non-violent' is that no physical violence was involved. No beating, although perhaps a threat of one in the event that the victim does not submit.
The poster who started this off was saying that in such cases the use of fatal force in self-defence is not justified. I disagree with that position. If you disagree with it too, why don't you say that, rather than getting bogged down in sterile arguments over definitions?
Original post by DiddyDec
R v Bree. Mr Bree was convicted of rape.
Until overturned.
Until overturned.
The Court of Appeal held that
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
[Consent - drunken consent is still consent]
D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.
Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).
Not guilty
Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would not have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/criminal-law/criminallawcases.php
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_52_assaults_consent.htm#Bree, R v [2007] CA
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-bree-2007
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I am able to debate it, I am simply choosing not to.
Walk the walk
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
To quote:
Snufkin:
Depends. If this was a violent rape then stabbing someone is an understandable reaction (although it still wouldn't be moral). If she wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger then clearly she overreacted and should be punished.
ChocoCoatedLemons:
I can't believe that's something I just read with my own eyes in 2015. JFC.
Your statement here implies two things:
1. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist if she is subject to violent rape; and
2. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist even she "wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger"
Snufkin:
Depends. If this was a violent rape then stabbing someone is an understandable reaction (although it still wouldn't be moral). If she wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger then clearly she overreacted and should be punished.
ChocoCoatedLemons:
I can't believe that's something I just read with my own eyes in 2015. JFC.
Your statement here implies two things:
1. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist if she is subject to violent rape; and
2. It is justifiable for a rape victim to kill her rapist even she "wasn't being hurt and her life wasn't in danger"
So you couldn't find where I said it, then?
As I said, not debating it anymore. I won't reply to you after this. Original post by DiceTheSlice
Walk the walk
you men are so funny.Original post by TimmonaPortella
The problem here is that you're taking 'violent' to mean 'bad'. You're taking the word as having heavy moral import and getting all offended when someone uses it differently, whereas really, as a third year law student, you ought to be able to distinguish between different usages of the same word for the purposes of analysis.
What is clearly meant when someone says a rape is 'non-violent' is that no physical violence was involved. No beating, although perhaps a threat of one in the event that the victim does not submit.
The poster who started this off was saying that in such cases the use of fatal force in self-defence is not justified. I disagree with that position. If you disagree with it too, why don't you say that, rather than getting bogged down in sterile arguments over definitions?
What is clearly meant when someone says a rape is 'non-violent' is that no physical violence was involved. No beating, although perhaps a threat of one in the event that the victim does not submit.
The poster who started this off was saying that in such cases the use of fatal force in self-defence is not justified. I disagree with that position. If you disagree with it too, why don't you say that, rather than getting bogged down in sterile arguments over definitions?
I have never attempted to argue any definition. As I've said many times - I have no interest in debating the point. I merely wished to express my view that the statement I responded to was absurd.
In case it didn't get through to you, despite the 5+ times I've said it - I wont be debating this, because I simply don't want to have a debate about rape.
Original post by StrawbAri
So recently in my country, a woman stabbed her rapist to death whilst he was raping her.
Apparently the rapist was a notorious pastor in the area that was well known for molesting the local women. His killer/victim allegedly came to him for spiritual guidance and he invited her to the local baptism pool for 'deliverance'. He then began to rape her and in her struggle to get free she picked up a sharp stick conveniently lying around and stabbed him to death.
The woman was arrested but released shortly after on bail. She is now considered a local hero.
The late 'pastor' left behind a wife and kids.
Do you think what she did was right? Would you do the same in her situation? Do you think it's right to kill anyone even if it's in self defense?
Edit: I am of the opinion that she did this in an act of self defense. I would probably do same in her position.
Just wanted to see other opinions
Apparently the rapist was a notorious pastor in the area that was well known for molesting the local women. His killer/victim allegedly came to him for spiritual guidance and he invited her to the local baptism pool for 'deliverance'. He then began to rape her and in her struggle to get free she picked up a sharp stick conveniently lying around and stabbed him to death.
The woman was arrested but released shortly after on bail. She is now considered a local hero.
The late 'pastor' left behind a wife and kids.
Do you think what she did was right? Would you do the same in her situation? Do you think it's right to kill anyone even if it's in self defense?
Edit: I am of the opinion that she did this in an act of self defense. I would probably do same in her position.
Just wanted to see other opinions
I personally think that she should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter on the ground of the "loss of control" defence (since convicting her of murder would be unjust). Punishment should be proportional, rapist should have been jailed, not killed! He wasn't trying to kill her, so the use of lethal force even in self defence was excessive. Few years in custody should calm her temper down.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by infairverona
I don't know why you've just tried to explain criminal law to someone with a law degree and doing a law postgraduate degree...this isn't relevant to my post, at all. All I said was that I don't understand why people would rather be raped/die knowing that they had not killed someone, as opposed to attacking/killing their rapist/attacker if they had the chance.
Furthermore, it has become apparent on this thread (not by you, of course) that knowledge of such laws is insufficient...
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
The Court of Appeal held that
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
[Consent - drunken consent is still consent]
D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.
Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).
Not guilty
Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would not have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/criminal-law/criminallawcases.php
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_52_assaults_consent.htm#Bree, R v [2007] CA
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-bree-2007
“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
[Consent - drunken consent is still consent]
D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.
Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).
Not guilty
Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would not have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/criminal-law/criminallawcases.php
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_52_assaults_consent.htm#Bree, R v [2007] CA
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-bree-2007
So that was a case of non violent rape.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
So you couldn't find where I said it, then? As I said, not debating it anymore. I won't reply to you after this.
As I said, not debating it anymore. I won't reply to you after this.Original post by DiddyDec
So that was a case of non violent rape.
.... Did you not understand the links? He was found not guilty. It wasn't rape.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
