Resonant Information - Law - Comments

read the opinion before defending this man

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:31:03 -0400

If you read the opinion, particularly pgs. 5 and 6, you'll see that the whole situation involved force and coercion, and there was not really consent in the first place, because 'forced consent' is not consent.

From the opinion:

After Jewel acquiesced to the boys’ insistence that they stay
ten more minutes, she found herself on her back with appellant
removing her jeans and Mike sitting on her chest, attempting to
place his penis in her mouth. After she told them to stop, the
pair moved her around so that her body was up in appellant’s lap as
he held her arms and Mike tried to insert his penis in her, but
briefly inserted it into her rectum by mistake. After Mike again
tried to insert his penis in the complainant’s vagina, appellant
inserted his fingers in her vagina. After appellant exited the
car, Mike inserted his fingers, then his penis into her vagina.
Mike then got out of the car and appellant got in. Appellant
told Jewel that it was his turn and, according to the complainant,
the following transpired:
Q. [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And what else did he
say?
A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds and
he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I
didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want
to rape you.
* * *
Q. So when Maouloud said I don’t want to rape you, did
you respond?
A. Yes. I said that as long as he stops when I tell him
to, then -
Q. Now, that he could?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. Did you feel like you had a choice?
A. Not really. I don’t know. Something just clicked
off and I just did whatever they said.
* * *
Q. Now when you told [appellant] if I say stop,
something like that, you have to stop. What did he do
after you spoke those words?
A. Well he got on top of me and he tried to put it in
and it hurt. So I said stop and that’s when he kept
pushing it in and I was pushing his knees to get off me.

5 seconds is not rape

Anonymous — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:45:52 -0500

I agree with you, but to answer your question about whether the boy was impaired, he was. The opinion states that the boys had smoked pot. Another thing to point out in this case is that yes the boy was 16, but the girl was 18. In addition to being older than the boys, the girl made a choice to go with these boys. There was another girl with these three who decided not to continue hanging out with them when they went for a ride.

In regards to some comments that this case provides that women can not withdraw consent after penetration. That is incorrect. Of course a woman can withdraw consent and a man should comply. The question is what is the crime if he doesn't? I personally think it is wrong to place this type of activity in the same criminal category as a situation wherein there was never consent. Obviously when there is never consent, the perpetrator has intent to rape, this is not always so in these "post-penetration" cases. The 16 year old boy in this case clearly made a decision to not rape. I feel for him and his family. I think that women need to take some responsibility for their actions as well. This girl was an adult, she knew what was going on. She even gave the boy her phone number and hugged them goodbye when she dropped them off. As for the examples someone else gave about a women who consented then found out that the partner had a disease, shouldn't that be discussed prior to consenting to sex.

As a woman, I agree with the views in the Battle case. If I consent to sex then want him to stop and he doesn't, that is a crime, but it is not the same crime as if I had never consented. The harm is not the same.

Give me a break

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:29:58 -0500

How silly. Stops after 5 seconds and gets 5 years in the slammer? WTF is this world coming to? The pendulum has swung too far again.

What is rape?

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:41:38 -0500

I have been reading many articles on-line about this case. While I agree that the Maryland law needs revision, I am very troubled by the idea that what this boy did would be considered 'rape'. I'm speaking specifically of it taking him five seconds or less to comply with her withdrawal of consent. The boy was sixteen at the time. I have not read whether or not he was impaired by alcohol or drugs. Were his youth and inexperience even considered?!

As a fifty-year-old woman, I can think back to several "sweaty groping sessions" that I went through during my late high school and college years where the gentleman in question had a lot to put up with from me. I wanted to but I didn't want to. Yes. No. Maybe. I was inexperienced and he was inexperienced. If I said, "No, stop, don't do that" and he didn't INSTANTLY obey, I would no more consider that 'rape' than if he didn't INSTANTLY obey me when I wanted him to turn down the radio or stop tickling me. Kids wrestling around in the backs of cars--especially CONSENTING kids--do not instantly obey one another. That's not how the games of youthful exuberance are played. When does tickling your girlfriend for five seconds after she said 'stop, stop' become 'assault'? When does playfully tackling a buddy on the playground become 'battery'? I am very troubled by the idea that five seconds or less of hopeful persistence--followed by disappointed compliance--would land a sixteen year old boy in jail for FIVE YEARS and completely ruin his life.

We use the term "fog of war". I think that the term "fog of sex" also applies. Five seconds or less is a fairly responsive time for a steamed up 16-year-old youth to reign himself back in after a girl says yes and then no.

The second boy is a no-brainer: she said no, he forced her. That's rape, end of discussion. But the boy who had permission, had consent and then allegedly took a few seconds to stop? I can't believe that he was even prosecuted. Frankly, I'm appalled.

The decision to prosecute him in this circumstance shows a complete lack of common sense and dilutes the meaning of 'rape' in a manner that I fear will come back to haunt us.

Women can be convicted

Zed — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:51:19 -0500

No, the basic requirement is that the guilty party "engage in vaginal intercourse", plus a host of other requirements. See the "Maryland Criminal Law" section. A woman could meet that just as well as a man.

As an aside, however, the world hasn't changed that much. While there are male victims of rape, only about 3% of men will ever experience rape or attempted rape during their lifetimes, and the majority of those will be attacks by other men. 18% of women will experience rape or attempted rape during their lives. See Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 1998.

women and rape

Anonymous — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:44:03 -0500

...are we therefore saying that women connot be convicted of rape? well, well, well... would you look at who has ut easy, i am a woman and I think that it is unfair to look at this issue in such a way. Call me what you like but I think that it is just plain oout UNFAIR! After all take a look around th e world is changing and so are women. there are women who assult and molest male children and adults alike

women and rape

Anonymous — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:30:01 -0500

i think that it should be implemented that women should have the right to stop sexual intercourse no matter how far along the process has already gone.

Sexual consent in Maryland

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:53:50 -0500

Thanks for submitting this to the Carnival of Feminists. It's an important example. The blog is included in the 27th Carnival that is now up on our blog "Body Impolitic".

Best,

Laurie Toby Edison

Maryland statute

Zed — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:18:58 -0500

You note that, strangely, Maryland specifically excludes vaginal intercourse from its list of "sex acts," but I believe that is because it is listed separately in the statute and would therefore be redundant.

Unfortunately, it's not redundant, because the minimum requirements to trigger §3-308 require only a lack of consent, and the requirements to trigger §3-303 or §3-304 technically require substantially more.

Most troubling to me, however, is that the "sexual contact" (something that is neither vaginal intercourse nor one of the listed "sex acts", but is for the sexual pleasure of one or both parties) requires penetration by a body part that is not the penis, mouth or tongue into the genital opening (vagina) or anus. Basically, sexual contact is pretty much limited to sticking fingers or perhaps toes into a vagina or anus.

Yes, this is another problem. It's still not legal, mind you, but it would fall under the category of assault (§3-203), which perhaps even more strangely has a higher maximum penalty than the fourth-degree sexual offense for sexual contact.

Go figure.

(Also, apologies for how long it took for your comment to appear — a major problem with blogging on topics related to sexuality is that they give the antispam system a very itchy trigger finger.)

Excellent Analysis

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:31:06 -0500

I found your analysis to be thorough and pretty much agrees with my conclusions after reading the decision.

I found your links to the Maryland state law to be somewhat troubling as well. You note that, strangely, Maryland specifically excludes vaginal intercourse from its list of "sex acts," but I believe that is because it is listed separately in the statute and would therefore be redundant. Most troubling to me, however, is that the "sexual contact" (something that is neither vaginal intercourse nor one of the listed "sex acts", but is for the sexual pleasure of one or both parties) requires penetration by a body part that is not the penis, mouth or tongue into the genital opening (vagina) or anus. Basically, sexual contact is pretty much limited to sticking fingers or perhaps toes into a vagina or anus.

But don't we teach children that improper touching includes the intentional touch (not just with the hands) of a female's breast or either sex's groin area. Does this not fall under the definition of sexual contact? I would hope that case law provides for such restrictions, but it would seem to me that as long as the Maryland legislature reviews this decision and statutorily corrects the Battle decision, they should also address this gaping hole in their state law as well!

And, by the way, citizens of EVERY state should be verifying that their state legislature addresses "post-penetration rape," not just residents of the state of Maryland. According to the Babe decision, only 7 states have affirmatively stated that post-penetration rape is a crime. Excluding Maryland and North Carolina, that means that 41 states have no current case or statutory law addressing the issue.

Families of 16-year old girls should care...

Zed — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:11:23 -0400

...since the government has become so terrified that they're willing to snatch teenage girls from their homes, hold them indefinitely, not reveal any evidence they might have against them (so far, the only public evidence seems to be that they're Muslim and one of them stayed out all night, while the other was seen greeting her), and force them to prove their innocence without benefit of a lawyer.

But thankfully, it's going to be harder to do this in Montana.

Montana? Who Cares?

carpundit — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:02:02 -0400

Montana votes against Patriot. Marvelous. They'd probably secede if they could get along without the pork.

I doubt the government has many terror investigations there anyway. An Arab would stand out in Billings. Now, as for those Militiamen - they may be of interest. But I doubt they read much, so the library thing is a pretty silly concern.

The Patriot Act is a badly-named piece of legislation that fine-tuned many existing laws and helps the government investigate serious crimes, mostly terror-related. It may yet need a little fine-tuning to satisfy everyone, but the spectre of states' ordering their authorities not to comply with the feds strikes me as a little, well, 1860-ish