DISQUS

Can we get drinking songs next? Not that sea shanties aren't wonderful, but it would be cool to have both.

Also, Broce, thank you for being so calm throughout this. You haven't resorted to name-calling, straw men, or trying to inflate the conversation into a referendum on my "deep investment in the rape culture".

Broce - I disagree. Which seems to be where most of the contention is.

J.Goff - I had started out respecting your willingness to engage in debate. You've disappointed repeatedly. As far as I'm concerned, the truth is equally that she was forcibly penetrated against her will and that she was raped. I have no problem with her expressing the truth, just with expressing it in a certain way.

Mr Furious (not Todd) and kate217 - This looks like a good stopping point, as you both seem to have come to the conclusion that my reaction to the words involved is, perhaps, unusual. Maybe it is, and maybe that's why I see the judge's decision as reasonable. In any case, I think we understand each other's arguments pretty fully. Thank you for the discussion.

Unless there's anything else you want to clear up, I need to go to bed.

No, J.Goff. The discussion was about this specific case and this specific ruling. And for that, the number is 58%.

Lu - I incorrectly made that argument very early on. In fact, the word "rape" was disallowed because of the likelihood of it prejudicing the jury.

No, we moved past that about two hours ago, CE. The whole point is that the word rape is prejudicial.

So your argument now is that he should have also disallowed "sex", but disallowing "rape" is ok?

CE - we are making no progress. Even if the law is sexist, the judge can't help that.

SKM, the witnesses are free to say he committed a crime. Just not to use the terms "rape" or "sexual assault" which have been ruled prejudicial.

Also, the victim is not forced to use the same framing. The prosecution is free to frame it as "forcible penetration".

As for the sexism issue, the law itself may be a sexist issue; the judge's decision, bound by that law, is not.

Raging Hippie - It's not that forcible penetration is no big deal, it's that, due to our culture, it has less of an emotional impact. The crime is still a terrible one.

J.Goff, you last spoke of "convictions", not of jail time. And I'm not including unreported rapes in this number, because this one was reported. For the circumstances we have here - report, arrest, prosecution - 58% are convicted, correct?

CE - the point that the law agrees with me does make me right, in this limited case. That isn't to say that the law itself is correct, but that the judge, who is bound by existing law made the right decision.

"Penile penetration" is fine with me, and the prosecution will be using it ad nauseam.

Also, hoping to lay this one to rest finally, the "shrill" comment was not in regards to the rational arguments put forward in the discussion, but to things like bettyboondoggle's straw-man arguments.

Good point, Broce - My point is, "sex" has never implied consent to me, but rather the basic fact of sexual contact.

kate217 - but that's not the case we're dealing with here. Here, it was reported, there was an arrest, and there is a prosecution.

bettyboondoggle, the straw men to which I refer are of statements like "No you see it is because it's a woman saying it and we all know chicks never say anything logical or rational - they're always so emotional."

Mr Furious (not Todd) - Fine. There are many other ways to say it. "He penetrated me without my consent." "He inserted his penis into my vagina, even though I screamed 'no'." "He forced me into sex." "I didn't have a choice - he was sticking it in despite my objections." "I was completely helpless - I tried to stop him from penetrating me, but I couldn't."

Broce - the issue isn't whether the witness is saying the person is guilty, it's whether the witness is saying something which attaches undue weight to the idea - such as the emotional "baggage" (for lack of a better word) that comes with the term "rape" (as compared to the relatively "baggage-free" "forcible penetration").

J.Goff, according to that graphic linked above, in cases in which an arrest is made and there is a prosecution, such as this one, there is a 58% conviction rate. Is that the number you refer to?

CE, obviously our differences stem from our different definitions of "sex". I call sex any penetration of a penis into a vagina. You limit it to consensual penetration. The law, though, agrees with me. This isn't sexism, it's the fact that we need to have a general term for penile penetration.

You don't bother to answer the question - why is using this specific word so important, if not for its emotional impact? It is important to avoid because of its emotional impact, and the likelihood that it will make the jury assume guilt. But what's your argument?

CE - and if there is no consent, it's trivial to ask "Was the sex consensual?"

The important point here is not the emotional impact of the words. It's the actual facts of what happened. The relevant questions are "Did penetration occur?" and "Was it consensual?" There are many ways of conveying the answers to those questions without using the word "rape", and thus without introducing emotion into the courtroom. Why is it so important to use that word when others can also convey the factual elements of the case?

Broce, it's also reasonable to say "the man penetrated me, without my consent."

madaha, it's been nice talking with you. I'll leave you with this point: in a trial, both sides try to represent the bare-bones facts of a case in different ways. Even if the defense can say "I had sex with her", it is trivial for the cross-examining attorney to ask "did she agree to let you have sex with her?" That illuminates all the necessary facts of the case - at least in the guilt phase of the trial. A fair trial is one in which the facts are considered, not the emotions.

J.Goff, I can't reiterate this enough "He had sex with me without my consent" CANNOT be misconstrued to mean that it was consensual.

madaha - I'm still unconvinced that "sex" isn't a reasonable compromise. And the prosecution will use "penetration" as much as possible. The jury will get the message.

bettyboondoggle, can you please stop employing straw men? I'm not asserting any of the things you seem to be attributing to me.

Astraea, I certainly did not intend to misconstrue what you said, but I quoted you directly.

What is admissible is the action: the penis penetrated the vagina. Also admissible is the victim's consent: absent. Anything much further than that is irrelevant to guilt. Those are the only facts that matter, legally. Did he penetrate? Did she consent?

bettyboondoggle, anyone who hears a woman say "He penetrated me against my will" will have very little doubt about her certainty.

Facts are allowed in criminal guilt phase trials. Not emotional pleas.

Astraea made a fundamental point in saying "That action is penetration. What is happening between the two people involved is either sex or rape, as everyone else has said."

The action is the only admissible fact. The emotions associated with the action, horrific though they may be, are not relevant to the guilt of the defendant. Therefore, they are excluded as unduly prejudicial.

Here's the definition of what the defendant is being tried for: (thanks to Raging Hippie for finding this)
a) Any person who subjects another person to sexual penetration

How is any confusion introduced by excluding the word rape, and requiring the woman to say "He penetrated me forcibly, against my will" ? The jury knows the exact wording of the law. When someone says "He forcibly penetrated me, against my will" is there any doubt whatsoever that the person "subject[ed] another person to sexual penetration" ? Any at all?

J.Goff, is there a way you can describe the facts of the case without using words that are incredibly charged with emotion? The word "rape" makes me boil inside. The word "sex" doesn't.

Also, it's been brought up in this discussion that "sex" isn't an appropriate descriptor of what happened. What should we call it when a penis penetrates a vagina? What is the most general term for that action?

Raging Hippie - Sorry, I actually had brought up that point earlier in the discussion.

<quote>
It's because, to people like Picklegnome, who are deeply needful of the rape culture as it exists, rape is sex. It's one of the core beliefs that perpetuate the rape culture. Better every rapist go free than have one rapist in jail "because he thought she was asking for it."
</quote>

You go too far, J.Goff.