U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

www.cnn.com

The Justice Department announced Friday it is revising a decades-old definition of rape to expand the kinds of offenses that constitute the crime and for the first time, include men as victims.

(visit the link for the full news article)

With the many unneeded laws that we see being passed in recent years, it's rather refreshing to see something actually meaningful happening within our government.

For once, some common sense and understanding has entered our legal system. We can only hope that things like this have a great effect on our legal system in general.

These are the types of issues that our government should be addressing.

This is a very good news story addressing the importance and the changes being made.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by isyeye

Dear isyeye,

Nice to see you again. I'm sorry to report that I'm feeling a little crabby in general today. My comment is directed to you, it's just my mood escaping.

No new law has been passed, this will have almost no effect on our legal system. This is largely pressure group politics to give one group more importance and funding and will just tend to confuse the issue. Besides, the definition is poor.

The only thing happening is that the Justice Department will lump more kinds of sexual assault under the category "rape" when it comes to reporting statistics. No punishments will be changed, rape is almost entirely a state crime, the state laws will control, the Feds have nothing to do with it.

What this does do is increase the number of actions that can be called "rape" in reports. This will raise funding for "Rape Victims" groups.

MODS PLEASE SNIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF OFFENSIVE This also creates the possibility of accidental rape. If a man and a woman are together and the man slips into another opening accidentally, that would be rape under the definition given in the source article. Also under the definition, a man could rape a woman using oral sex, but a woman could not rape a man using oral sex..

As I say, isyeye, I'm feeling crabby today. I apologize to you and any reader.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


No apology required my friend

While no new law has been passed yet, this is an important step to help stop violent crime in our country. I've re-read the article again, but I do not see a few of the things you mentioned in the article...I may have missed it...If you have some additional resources on this topic, please share with us, because this is an important issue.

Yes, states do generally have the power over issues such as these, however, this may help get all the states "on the same page" so to speak.

Finally, after all the abuse from preachers.

Its about time the DOJ at least makes an attempt to do something.

Hopefully the justice system will take notice.

What used to be 9 charges of child abuse are now 9 charges of child abuse, AND 9 charges of rape.

reply to post by charles1952


Actually it would not. The requirements to qualify for rape / sexual assault are specific.

I would agree with the thought it wont affect many people. Generally speaking rape is a local / state crime, prosecuted under state law. Local / state arent empowered to enforce federal law and im sure the FBI is up to its neckties and pocket protectors in crimes that would make taking up local rape cases an no go.

reply to post by isyeye

Dear isyeye,

Your kindness and patience are legendary. May blessings shower upon your family for generations.

You're quite right, my first effort was unsatisfactory, please let me try again.

Within the Department of Justice there is the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here is their website: Bureau of Justice Statistics Not surprisingly they collect statistics. One way they do that is the National Crime Victimization Survey. (Please note the word "Survey.") BJS contacts a sample of individuals around the country and asks them if they have been a victim of crime. Information from these interviews are collected in Washington and turned into reports.

Other groups conduct similar surveys. One such suvey is the National Violence Against Women Survey. The BJS has noticed that the different surveys give significantly different results. Perhaps, they thought to themselves, the different surveys have different definitions for rape. So after a study, Project summary the Bureau of Justice Statistics has come up with a different definition they will use when taking the survey in the future.

(P.S. This will also affect the reporting of crimes from police departments, but again, it's just a report and a new definition for what gets included in the "rape column." )

That's it, sorry. No extra protection for anyone, no new charges, nothing new in the courtrooms.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

After reading the article, I mostly agree with your analysis. It seems to just be a statistical thing that won't have any immediate effect on crimes charged at state levels, but only will affect reporting.

A possible indirect effect is that with bigger numbers reported, there could be later effects on funding of various related initiatives, but that won't be immediate and it would be quite speculative to suggest.

The only thing I'm not sure of in your analysis is the sexist interpretation or oral rape; while it's possible you're correct, I'm not sure about that. It's probably too graphic to discuss in a family forum like this so we'll just have to leave that one.

Now, any kind of nonconsensual penetration, no matter the gender of the attacker or victim, will constitute rape -- meaning that attacks on men will be counted.

From the article linked above.

That should have been the policy this whole time. It's insane that only now in 2012 do we start counting instances of men being rapped or sexually abused.

Understandably as a reporting metric, it probably won't help right away, considering the amount of men who do not report sexual abuse for whatever reasons.

All crime legislation should be written this way, it's only way to have real equality, is if you classify all crimes, regardless of gender as the same.

~Keeper

reply to post by isyeye


You guys should watch this one closely, the "Rape" definition have been broadened so many times in recent years in Sweden that now any sex act is considered rape, as long as one of the people invovled change their mind afterwards (when sobering up for example) and tells someone they "regret it", it does not even have to be the police being told this, this person getting the knowledge can in turn then proceed to tell the police and they are obligated to incarcerate and try to get a guilty verdict as soon as possible. It all happens automatically, even if the supposed "victim" does not want to prosecute, it is the obligation of the prosecutor to proceed.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by isyeye

 

You guys should watch this one closely, the "Rape" definition have been broadened so many times in recent years in Sweden that now any sex act is considered rape, as long as one of the people invovled change their mind afterwards (when sobering up for example) and tells someone they "regret it", it does not even have to be the police being told this, this person getting the knowledge can in turn then proceed to tell the police and they are obligated to incarcerate and try to get a guilty verdict as soon as possible. It all happens automatically, even if the supposed "victim" does not want to prosecute, it is the obligation of the prosecutor to proceed.

I just read through the Swedish law, and it doesn't seem that bad.

I'm wondering if judges are being overly broad in its application.

webapps01.un.org...

reply to post by isyeye


The definition is still archaic, since it involves the concept of penetration. I assume that rape mainly applies to male perps, and women using objects or digits. However, there are other forms of forced sexual behaviours. This article specifically mentions boys being raped now counting as rape.

What if the perp is a female, and it doesn't involve penetration? What if the perp is a female and the victim is a female and it doesn't involve penetration? It would seem this is not rape under the law.

The definitions between rape and sexual assault around funding is a disturbing idea, and ripe for political misuse.