North Carolina rape law: you can't withdraw consent

JCornelius · Jun 24, 2017

Apparently, by state law, after the initial "yes", any escalation by the other person is justified because of that "yes", even if you repeatedly ask them to stop.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/north-carolina-rape-legal-loophole-consent-state-v-way

Almost as ridiculous as the 1990's Italian ruling that only got overturned ten years back, that if the victim was wearing jeans, it could not have been rape. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...omen-wearing-tight-jeans-cannot-be-raped.html

efreysson · Jun 24, 2017

What. The. Hell.

This "not withdrawing consent" is... something I've never been able to wrap my head around. If a friend has promised to go to the movies with me, but changes his mind, I do not then have the right to smack him in the head and drag him into the theatre with me.

regdog · Jun 24, 2017

efreysson said:
What. The. Hell.

This "not withdrawing consent" is... something I've never been able to wrap my head around. If a friend has promised to go to the movies with me, but changes his mind, I do not then have the right to smack him in the head and drag him into the theatre with me.

Smack "him" no, smack "her" probably. I think it's pretty obvious, women have no rights, not even to their own bodies.

blacbird · Jun 24, 2017

What exactly is wrong with this state?

caw

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

efreysson said:
What. The. Hell.

This "not withdrawing consent" is... something I've never been able to wrap my head around. If a friend has promised to go to the movies with me, but changes his mind, I do not then have the right to smack him in the head and drag him into the theatre with me.

You don't? Uh oh....

It's better though; he doesn't eat your popcorn or talk during the movie and you can use him to save good seats...

Seriously -- it's stuck in committee why, exactly? The ruling was from '79, which is not exactly the dark ages either. If it was some ruling from the 1800s, or close, that some defense atty glommed onto, I could understand it. I don't get that it was '79 and that they can't seem to get the bill to amend to a vote.

Catherine · Jun 24, 2017

This reminds me of a video presented in my daughter's health class. It's titled Tea Consent (clean) by Blue Seat Studios.

They say that if you offer someone tea and they change their mind when you bring them the tea, you don't make them drink the tea. Simple, right? You don't make someone drink tea if they don't want to drink tea. Why is this concept so hard for law makers to understand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGoWLWS4-kU

CJSimone · Jun 24, 2017

JCornelius said:
Apparently, by state law, after the initial "yes", any escalation by the other person is justified because of that "yes", even if you repeatedly ask them to stop.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/north-carolina-rape-legal-loophole-consent-state-v-way

Almost as ridiculous as the 1990's Italian ruling that only got overturned ten years back, that if the victim was wearing jeans, it could not have been rape. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...omen-wearing-tight-jeans-cannot-be-raped.html

I hadn't heard this one. I knew they don't change a lot of ridiculous laws because they use them to throw more charges at criminals, but you'd think they'd be more vigilant about changing laws that only hurt victims. Apparently this NC law came up in court cases and still hasn't been overturned yet.

There are some recently created laws that are messed up, and I wonder how long before people get it and change them.

Roxxsmom · Jun 24, 2017

efreysson said:
What. The. Hell.

This "not withdrawing consent" is... something I've never been able to wrap my head around. If a friend has promised to go to the movies with me, but changes his mind, I do not then have the right to smack him in the head and drag him into the theatre with me.

But what if he's gone to the movies with you before and liked it?

What if he's wearing a special outfit that suggests he wants to go to the movies or has movie passes on his person?

What if he goes to movies with lots of other people?

What if his lips are saying no, but his eyes are saying yes? Men put up a token resistance to certain kinds of movies all the time, but most will finally break down and go if you force them. That's part of the fun. What's a girl to do if she wants to see the latest romantic comedy? Women have moviegoing needs!

Seriously, I'm beyond frustrated that laws like that still exist. Sex is the most intimate thing people can do together and carries certain risks, especially for the female partner. The standard for consent should be even higher, if anything, than it is for other everyday activities.

rugcat · Jun 24, 2017

I'm guessing that the rationale behind the law is that once a man has acheived penetration, his animal instincts take over and he's no longer in control or capable of stopping.

efreysson · Jun 24, 2017

rugcat said:
I'm guessing that the rationale behind the law is that once a man has acheived penetration, his animal instincts take over and he's no longer in control or capable of stopping.

That's another rape thing I don't get. This bizarre assumption that men are feral beasts who can't control themselves. How any man with a drop of self-respect is going to claim that, I do not understand.

Roxxsmom · Jun 24, 2017

efreysson said:
That's another rape thing I don't get. This bizarre assumption that men are feral beasts who can't control themselves. How any man with a drop of self-respect is going to claim that, I do not understand.

I don't either, yet I've had men tell me this, unblinkingly, with what feels like pride.

The logical conclusion, if this were true, is that men should be the gender that is cloistered and constrained, kept from positions of power and responsibility. Let them play sports as an outlet for their youthful energy (and for entertainment purposes) if they must, but lock them up in dorms when they're not playing or at practices.

Not wanting to womansplain male experience to men, of course, but I've had too many men tell me that they're not all like this, met and read books by too many men who clearly do think of other things besides getting laid by any means, to believe the ones who insist that it's so.

rugcat · Jun 24, 2017

Don't forget, this is North Carolina. The few men who are actually able to control themselves are busy scheming of ways to claim they are transgender so they can get into women's bathrooms and ogle the ladies.

ULTRAGOTHA · Jun 24, 2017

This is actually false. It's based on a misreading of an old court case based on an outdated law.

North Carolina has a lot of horrible law, but this isn't it. Consent can be withdrawn at any time for any (or no) reason.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/877871112738275329

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/860991403937148930

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

Well, if a guy on twitter says...

That second link, the thing he's highlighting contradicts him -- it specifically says consent can be withdrawn but that applies ordinarily to basically an intercessory period between sexual acts. As in the original article, if that's not the case, then consent would stand.

ULTRAGOTHA · Jun 24, 2017

T Greg Douchette is a practicing lawyer in North Carolina. Who gave a link to current NC law in his posts.

Are you referring to the orange screen print with "It is true that consent can be withdrawn" highlighted?

That's an excerpt from the case, not the law. The case that was based on the old law. The case that now has no precedent due to the law having changed.

NC seems also to be one of the states that automatically terminates custody rights to children of rape by the rapist. More states should do that.

§ 14-27.21. First-degree forcible rape.
(a) A person is guilty of first-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person by force and against the will of the other person, and does any of the following:
(1) Employs or displays a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon.
(2) Inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another person.
(3) The person commits the offense aided and abetted by one or more other persons.
(b) Any person who commits an offense defined in this section is guilty of a Class B1 felony.
(c) Upon conviction, a person convicted under this section has no rights to custody of or rights of inheritance from any child born as a result of the commission of the rape, nor shall the person have any rights related to the child under Chapter 48 or Subchapter 1 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 4; 1981, c. 63; c. 106, ss. 1, 2; c. 179, s. 14; 1983, c. 175, ss. 4, 10; c. 720, s. 4; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 22, s. 2; 2004-128, s. 7; 2015-181, s. 3(a), (b).)

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

I don't see a specificity as to consent in that statute. There's nothing in there I see specific to the caselaw.

He also claims jury instructions "are law."

Note the author of the article saying she verified with the DA and etc.

ULTRAGOTHA · Jun 24, 2017

§ 14-27.21. First-degree forcible rape.
(a) A person is guilty of first-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person by force and against the will of the other person, and does any of the following:
(1) Employs or displays a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon.
(2) Inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another person.
(3) The person commits the offense aided and abetted by one or more other persons.
(b) Any person who commits an offense defined in this section is guilty of a Class B1 felony.
(c) Upon conviction, a person convicted under this section has no rights to custody of or rights of inheritance from any child born as a result of the commission of the rape, nor shall the person have any rights related to the child under Chapter 48 or Subchapter 1 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 4; 1981, c. 63; c. 106, ss. 1, 2; c. 179, s. 14; 1983, c. 175, ss. 4, 10; c. 720, s. 4; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 22, s. 2; 2004-128, s. 7; 2015-181, s. 3(a), (b).)

§ 14-27.22. Second-degree forcible rape.
(a) A person is guilty of second-degree forcible rape if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:
(1) By force and against the will of the other person; or
(2) Who is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know the other person is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
(b) Any person who commits the offense defined in this section is guilty of a Class C felony.
(c) Upon conviction, a person convicted under this section has no rights to custody of or rights of inheritance from any child conceived during the commission of the rape, nor shall the person have any rights related to the child under Chapter 48 or Subchapter 1 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 5; 1981, cc. 63, 179; 1993, c. 539, s. 1130; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2002-159, s. 2(b); 2004-128, s. 8; 2015-181, s. 4(a), (b).)

Jury instructions often cite the law. It's even rather difficult to simplify them so the jury can actually understand them (see Bill Cosby rape mistrial).

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

That's quite vague and does not specify any definition of consent or removal of such, as is noted in the caselaw.

Yes, jury instructions cite the law, but jury instruction doesn't become law.

Roxxsmom · Jun 24, 2017

ULTRAGOTHA said:
NC seems also to be one of the states that automatically terminates custody rights to children of rape by the rapist. More states should do that.

It blows my mind that any state would give a rapist parental rights.

Though the problem is, few rapes are reported, let alone convicted, so I guess the rationale is that a woman who doesn't want the dad to have custody could simply claim he raped her? I can see the issues surrounding rights when the rapist wasn't reported or convicted, even if few women claim to be raped when they weren't. But don't some states even give convicted rapists parental rights?

Jason · Jun 24, 2017

I've been scrolling through the Statutes for NC and it seems there have been several revisions since 1979, specifically regarding rape.

The first set look like they went into effect in 1980...

Then they were revamped again in 2015...

I don't see any statute from the entire set that says consent cannot be withdrawn, so I am confused regarding the tempest here. This was a court case back in 1979, right? And the laws in 1979 were such that the court determined consent cannot be withdrawn? What bearing does that have today? It looks like the conditions for that particular case no longer exist. Can someone with a deeper knowledge of the chain of events and a legal mind explain this to me?

FYI - here's the statutes: NC Statutes

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

Jason said:
I've been scrolling through the Statutes for NC and it seems there have been several revisions since 1979, specifically regarding rape.

The first set look like they went into effect in 1980...

Then they were revamped again in 2015...

I don't see any statute from the entire set that says consent cannot be withdrawn, so I am confused regarding the tempest here. This was a court case back in 1979, right? And the laws in 1979 were such that the court determined consent cannot be withdrawn? What bearing does that have today? It looks like the conditions for that particular case no longer exist. Can someone with a deeper knowledge of the chain of events and a legal mind explain this to me?

FYI - here's the statutes: NC Statutes

I haven't seen any statute cited that specifically addresses the removal of consent, or that consent applies to a specific act and etc.

Thus, it seems to me (and apparently to the DA), that the caselaw stands, as no black letter law has overridden it. I don't know if a specific case has addressed the issue in that court or higher, which would supercede the '79 case, but the twitter guy just seems to be saying there have been revised statutes (that don't seem to address it?) and that jury instruction is law (which is not true).

JCornelius · Jun 24, 2017

rugcat said:
I'm guessing that the rationale behind the law is that once a man has acheived penetration, his animal instincts take over and he's no longer in control or capable of stopping.

I think some of them apes really do believe they have no control over themselves at certain "manly" pastimes--that's what makes them manly, to an extent. The way getting so drunk you start fights and then don't remember them is manly.

I remember reading a book by I think a tail-end-of-second-wave feminist researcher, who hanged out in violent bars and did a lot of talking with the patrons for whom brawling every weekend is a way of life and showing up for work with a tooth missing or a swollen eye and abraded knuckles is a badge of honor.

When she summarized their grunts and squeaks into some coherent concepts, it turned out that when they shift into brawling mode, stress disappears. For that moment, awash in adrenaline, helped along by booze, tomorrow and yesterday disappear, work and family disappear, financial problems disappear, mortality itself disappears. At this moment of what they romanticize as "unleashing the beast" or whatever, they feel like immortal giants. And it's a fix they try to get again and again.

There's extreme sports, there's being a mercenary soldier, (or secretly submitting to extreme sex and then pretending you never do)--many ways to get a similar fix of adrenaline-charged temporary immortality--but the banal low-functioning ape has very few options: a) kick ass of another male in drunk brawl; b) wind self up to abuse some wife and kid; c) overpower through Sheer Animal Magnetism some female Pretending She Doesn't Want It.

*EDIT* went a bit overboard in the next bit here, and am gonna pretend I never said certain things

Jason · Jun 24, 2017

cornflake said:
I haven't seen any statute cited that specifically addresses the removal of consent, or that consent applies to a specific act and etc.

Thus, it seems to me (and apparently to the DA), that the caselaw stands, as no black letter law has overridden it. I don't know if a specific case has addressed the issue in that court or higher, which would supercede the '79 case, but the twitter guy just seems to be saying there have been revised statutes (that don't seem to address it?) and that jury instruction is law (which is not true).

Oh gotcha - so there was a law, but nothing explicit anymore. So, case law stands as precedent for any future case, which to date has not happened to give the courts standing to define it explicitly. And that's why the legislator is trying to make the proposed change - before there's another case. But it's getting bogged down in committee...

Did I suss it out finally?

Sorry, so confused here...

blacbird · Jun 24, 2017

Jury instruction may not be law, but it's also not negligible. Theoretically, shouldn't a judge's jury instruction be based on law, or at least reflect it?

caw

cornflake · Jun 24, 2017

Jason said:
Oh gotcha - so there was a law, but nothing explicit anymore. So, case law stands as precedent for any future case, which to date has not happened to give the courts standing to define it explicitly. And that's why the legislator is trying to make the proposed change - before there's another case. But it's getting bogged down in committee...

Did I suss it out finally?

Sorry, so confused here...

As far as I can tell, basically, yeah.

The caselaw hasn't been overridden by anything, because no case has come up or been taken or no one deciding a case thought to explicitly state something that'd overturn Shay, and no statute addresses it so that stands and the bill that would address it can't get to the floor, yeah.

Crow -

Sure, but he's claiming jury instruction basically is somehow codified into law. He argues somewhere in the thread of one of the twits that the law is thus because that's how some jury instructions are given. If he was saying juries are instructed thus, hence it must be based on law, it'd make more sense, even though he can't cite that law, but he seems to be saying the reverse, juries are (or have been) instructed thus, hence it is the law, because juries have been told it in instructions.

North Carolina rape law: you can't withdraw consent

Closer than ever

The Scavengers

practical experience, FTW

Beastly Fido

Lost in the Fog

Closer than ever

Beastly Fido

Lost in the Fog

Merovingian Superhero

practical experience, FTW

Merovingian Superhero

practical experience, FTW

Merovingian Superhero

practical experience, FTW

Beastly Fido

Ideas bounce around in my head

practical experience, FTW

Ideas bounce around in my head

practical experience, FTW