Forum Overview :: Tansin A. Darcos's Alter Ego :: Wrong.

[quote name="Horrible Gelatinous Blob"]Keep in mind this is all traditional stuff. Local laws and statutes vary, and generally the most egregious examples of loopholes (like the first hypo) have been legislated out of existence. [quote name="Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS)"][quote name="Horrible Gelatinous Blob"]Here's a hypo for you: an eighteen year old high school student is about to graduate as valedictorian of her class with a full scholarship to her local state school. A week before commencement, the principal calls her into his office and tells her that he knows that she's in the country illegally. However, he says that he will not turn her in if she agrees to have sex with him, meaning that she will still graduate and can attend college. Feeling like she has no choice with the spectre of expulsion, arrest, and deportation looming over her, she gives in. Rape or not rape?[/quote] Oh it's rape, there's no doubt about that. It's "threat of force," e.g. that the government will use force to remove her from the country. If nothing else, it's probably also extortion even if it didn't fit the exact definition of the statute for rape.[/quote] Under the traditional definitions, this is not rape. The principal did not commit a wrongful act at any point (legally, not morally): she is over 18, he did not threaten to wrongfully withhold her diploma, he has no legal duty to inform the authorities about her immigration status, nor is he required to keep it confidential. Your interpretation of force is way too broad. When reading a statute, if the definition isn't included, go with the plain meaning. Here, the plain meaning of "force" is clearly "physical force with the intent to cause pain or injury," not the more nebulous "any kind of action that might be possibly unwelcome at some point in the hypothetical future." Almost any "threat" that doesn't include a wrongful act can easily be recast as an offer. "Have sex with me or I'll call ICE" versus "I won't call ICE if you'll have sex with me." The form is different but the substance is the same. Compare this to another hypo: a widow with three children is thrown out of her home. A kind male friend offers to take her in and she accepts. Three months later, he asks her to have sex with him and she does so, afraid that he will kick her and her children out if she refuses. Rape? What if he explicitly says "I'll continue to let you stay here if you have sex with me"? Is it rape then? PS: Extortion is traditionally a crime that involves property. No property involved, no extortion. [quote name="Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS)"]I have some familiarity over this because I remember reading a court case before the California Supreme Court, <i class="large">Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles</i>, <a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=199125654Cal3d202_1249.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006"> 54 Cal.3d 202 (1991), 814 P.2d 1341, 285 Cal. Rptr. 99</a>. Cop pulls over a woman for a traffic offense, and gives her a choice, screw him or go to jail (he wasn't even going to write her a ticket). So she ends up basically with no choice as he rapes her. She sues the city, and gets a judgement for something like $100,000. The judgement was upheld on technical grounds, basically the city's lawyers asked for a bad jury instruction that almost guaranteed they'd find for her, but, then on appeal. they can't then demand the jury's decision be thrown out because they selected a faulty set of instructions. [/quote] I know I told you this before, but that's a tort case. Different standard of proof, different rules of evidence, different legislation to guide the decision, different precedent to follow, different social goals to achieve. It's not comparable and trying to apply anything in its holding to a criminal context is dumb.[/quote]