Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

It's only rape if you say no? She TOLD him under what conditions he could have sex, he agreed. And then he lied. Sorry, no.

Actually, legally speaking, it's not really a debatable question. The legal rules for how fraud affects rape are generally universally accepted and well understood; it's called fraud in the factum vs. fraud in the inducement.

Fraud only vitiates consent in rape cases when the fraud relates directly to the thing done, in other words, fraud in the factum. Fraud in the inducement is fraud relating to a "collateral" matter - whether he was wearing a condom or had herpes would assuredly be considered collateral.

 

[darthbob]

whoa, speaking honestly, we live...really close.

185th, relatively speaking, isn't a good indicator of where someone lives. If it helps, I'm somewhat down the street from the Evergreen 13 theater and Tanasbourne Shopping Center if that provides a better frame of reference.

Small world, eh?

 

[Karsticles]

I like this. People with STDs should be held responsible for what they spread.

 

[VertPin]

Sounds like a trap....

hey...you can know the truth once you bring wendys frosty ;D

Spoiler

ok i dont want to derail the topic lol

 

[pigeon]

Actually, legally speaking, it's not really a debatable question. The legal rules for how fraud affects rape are generally universally accepted and well understood; it's called fraud in the factum vs. fraud in the inducement.

Fraud only vitiates consent in rape cases when the fraud relates directly to the thing done, in other words, fraud in the factum. Fraud in the inducement is fraud relating to a "collateral" matter - whether he was wearing a condom or had herpes would assuredly be considered collateral.

For the record, although this is probably accurate in the specific, this is much more vague than you make it sound. Plenty of states reject this distinction in rape cases (Tennesee), and others specifically void consent for sex obtained by deception -- however, Oregon doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

[KHarvey16]

Actually, legally speaking, it's not really a debatable question. The legal rules for how fraud affects rape are generally universally accepted and well understood; it's called fraud in the factum vs. fraud in the inducement.

Fraud only vitiates consent in rape cases when the fraud relates directly to the thing done, in other words, fraud in the factum. Fraud in the inducement is fraud relating to a "collateral" matter - whether he was wearing a condom or had herpes would assuredly be considered collateral.

I believe it would be fraud in the factum. She consented to sex with a condom specifically, not sex without a condom.

 

[Htown]

The woman, who filed the case under a pseudonym, testified that she asked her date to wear a condom and he said OK, but the next thing she knew he wasn't wearing a condom and it was too late. Afterward, as they were lying in bed and talking about the chemistry between them, she said he broke the news to her: He had herpes. She kicked him out of her house.

You guys really want to blame her on this?

 

[the chris]

Sounds to me like she's sore about the whole thing.

 

[Mr Swine]

So old dick is best dick for women at that age? :/

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Regardless of the verdict, the damages awarded are ridiculous. 20% of the adult population has genital herpes. While it's a shitty situation for her I don't see anything that makes her case so special that it deserves a nearly million dollar windfall.

 

[Angry Grimace]

For the record, although this is probably accurate in the specific, this is much more vague than you make it sound. Plenty of states reject this distinction in rape cases (Tennesee), and others specifically void consent for sex obtained by deception -- however, Oregon doesn't appear to be one of them.

It depends how you define "deception." I don't claim to know the random common law of every state though.

I believe it would be fraud in the factum. She consented to sex with a condom specifically, not sex without a condom.

No that is fraud in the inducement. The fact that the inducement is related to the transaction doesn't make it fraud in the factum. The most common example of fraud in the factum vs. the inducement (i.e. the one I was given in law school) is that if a person tells a girl that having sex with him will cure some disease she has (this was an actual case, btw), it is fraud in the inducement. If you tell the girl you're giving her a pelvic exam and have sex with her, that is fraud in the factum. If she knows you're having sex with her and consents, it's not rape by definition. There are of course different rules from state to state, none of which is germane to the current discussion.

 

[KHarvey16]

No that is fraud in the inducement. The fact that the inducement is related to the transaction doesn't make it fraud in the factum. The most common example of fraud in the factum vs. the inducement (i.e. the one I was given in law school) is that if a person tells a girl that having sex with him will cure some disease she has (this was an actual case, btw), it is fraud in the inducement. If you tell the girl you're giving her a pelvic exam and have sex with her, that is fraud in the factum. If she knows you're having sex with her and consents, it's not rape by definition. There are of course different rules from state to state, none of which is germane to the current discussion.

But she consented to sex with a condom. She did not consent to sex without one. The "contract" she "signed" did not represent what she was given. Fraud in the inducement implies that something other than the act was misrepresented, but here it was precisely the act that was misrepresented.

 

[someday]

I'm fine with this. The guy is scum. He knows he has herpes, lies about wearing a condom, then tells her immediately afterwards when it's too late. She was perfectly clear in her terms and he just did whatever the hell he wanted. His lawyer sounds like an ass as well.

 

[Angry Grimace]

But she consented to sex with a condom. She did not consent to sex without one. The "contract" she "signed" did not represent what she was given. Fraud in the inducement implies that something other than the act was misrepresented, but here it was precisely the act that was misrepresented.

The condom is a collateral matter because the act itself is sex, not the particular details of how its performed; if that argument had merit, you could argue that it was non consensual if the guy accidentally ejaculated in her when he was supposed to pull out and/or if she simply didn't end up enjoying it. If those sound ridiculous it's because they are, but legal rules don't just have vague rules that let the judge decide on an ad hoc basis whether or not its rape or not. In fact, in many jurisdictions, it's an incoherent claim to say its rape because the man didn't use a condom because the request to wear a condom is an admission of consent.

The point is that you cannot withdraw consent later if you understood the nature of the act; a condom does not change the nature of the act in most jurisdictions. I'm sure there are different laws in different states though.

 

[Femmeworth]

Edit: Never mind. :x

 

[KHarvey16]

The condom is a collateral matter because the act itself is sex, not the particular details of how its performed; if that argument had merit, you could argue that it was non consensual if the guy accidentally ejaculated in her when he was supposed to pull out and/or if she simply didn't end up enjoying it. If those sound ridiculous it's because they are, but legal rules don't just have vague rules that let the judge decide on an ad hoc basis whether or not its rape or not. In fact, in many jurisdictions, it's an incoherent claim to say its rape because the man didn't use a condom because the request to wear a condom is an admission of consent.

The point is that you cannot withdraw consent later if you understood the nature of the act; a condom does not change the nature of the act in most jurisdictions. I'm sure there are different laws in different states though.

Ultimately it's up to a jury. Rapists have attempted to use the victim's request they wear a condom as evidence of consent, but they were still convicted because the jury didn't buy it.

A jury, and a judge, should be capable of noting the difference between an agreement to wear a condom and an agreement to pull out. The latter is far more prone to accidents and the act of putting a condom on is an explicit action taken prior to intercourse. I don't see why recognizing the distinction cannot be left to judges and juries.

Whether sex is protected or unprotected should absolutely change the nature of the act. Where this is explicitly codified in law it should be changed(is it?). Where it is defined through precedent it should be moved away from.

 

[TheNatural]

Lillegreen is the attorney?

I already hate him:



Get out of here with that crap.

Coffee ... laced with herpes?