999 users online (203 members and 796 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,158

    New definition of rape to include men

    Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet. There has been a new American definition of rape to include men as victims. I would think that mention of gender is irrelevant in these crimes but anyway I hope this will be helpful.

    The new definition is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    Sorry this is from a Canadian news source but that's were I got the info.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...clude-men?bn=1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by matou View Post
    Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet. There has been a new American definition of rape to include men as victims. I would think that mention of gender is irrelevant in these crimes but anyway I hope this will be helpful.

    The new definition is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    Sorry this is from a Canadian news source but that's were I got the info.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...clude-men?bn=1
    This is so oddly worded. I assume this must be the federal definition, right? Rape is also against the law in every state and each state must have its own definition.

    I find the wording odd: "no matter how slight". Taken literally, one might legally "rape" an infant while cleaning him or her during a diaper change.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    This is so oddly worded. I assume this must be the federal definition, right? Rape is also against the law in every state and each state must have its own definition.

    I find the wording odd: "no matter how slight". Taken literally, one might legally "rape" an infant while cleaning him or her during a diaper change.
    It's from the Obama admin so I guess it's federal. I suppose with the diaper scenario, it would necessitate a doctor to decide if penetration occurred, even if it's slight. I've wiped my daughter pretty hard and dug right in but I doubt that I came close to penetration (eww).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Around here somewhere
    Posts
    12,690
    But as with any crime, wouldn't there have to be intent? A doctor doing a pelvic exam, a doctor doing a prostate exam, or even a diaper change would qualify under the way this is worded. But if there is no intent, then I would assume that there would be no crime.

    After five kids, I've never wiped one hard enough that it could be considered penetration, no matter how slight, so I wouldn't really be concerned. But someone that doesn't know what they are doing could be an entirely different story. I'm sure there will be changes and exceptions added before it becomes official.
    JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,796
    While I agree with making the statue more gender ambiguous, I didn't think the previous statutes really concentrated on the gender. Though I must confess I haven't read the laws.

    I do feel that many times males will decline prosecution, because they fear social stigma, and that even LE will doubt a male claim of rape. Esp if it is female vs. male. That won't change with a statute change.
    Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........

    Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?


    "Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by not_my_kids View Post
    But as with any crime, wouldn't there have to be intent? A doctor doing a pelvic exam, a doctor doing a prostate exam, or even a diaper change would qualify under the way this is worded. But if there is no intent, then I would assume that there would be no crime.

    After five kids, I've never wiped one hard enough that it could be considered penetration, no matter how slight, so I wouldn't really be concerned. But someone that doesn't know what they are doing could be an entirely different story. I'm sure there will be changes and exceptions added before it becomes official.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think "intent" is required of all laws. One can break traffic laws without intending to do so, obviously; but perhaps different rules apply there.

    I'm not actually worried that OB-GYNs will be prosecuted en masse. I just find it odd when laws are worded so poorly. (In my view, of course. It's entirely possible the law is quite clear to prosecutors, defense lawyers, and LE.)



Similar Threads

  1. surveys should include accident
    By t123 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2010, 11:44 AM
  2. definition of a moron
    By busybee in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 12:28 PM