Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) wrote:

Horrible Gelatinous Blob wrote:

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?

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.

Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) wrote:

I have some familiarity over this because I remember reading a court case before the California Supreme Court, Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202 (1991), 814 P.2d 1341, 285 Cal. Rptr. 99. 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.