It's definitely a sexual assault. I don't know if there is a legal term for something that isn't rape but is still a sexual assault.
How could she have denied any consent? Is there a legal definition of whether consent is implicitly given or denied? Is there a precedent regarding it? I don't actually know so I ask as a legitimate question.
I look at it this way. It is wrong to drug somebody into coercing them into signing legal documents in the relinquishing of money, or property, or transferring either toward another party. It is wrong to coerce somebody who is not of "sound mind or body" into engaging into a contractual agreement of any kind whether one party is mentally ill, too young, or is unconscious. And since in this case the young girl was unconscious, we cannot IMO in good faith assume that she offered to the two boys consent to penetrate her while she was unable to.
If the answer is there's no legal precedent or definition regarding this, then I wouldn't go so far as to call it rape. Based on the Ohio definition of rape, even if she was asleep it doesn't explicitly count as rape (the Ohio definition neither mentions sleeping people nor says that sex without consent is included. Rather, it explicitly defines rape as sex by force).
We have different classifications of murder. Rape, being equivalent to murder in my opinion, should as well. There is a very big difference between sober person A coming to rape sober person B by force, and drunk teen A having sex with coming-in-and-out-of-conscious drunk teen B.
I think that would be a good step toward helping define what rape is, what it isn't, and that there are varying consequences in accordance to the degree of the crime. One of the women I worked with was repeatedly drugged by a local colleague of hers and was raped after she blacked out. Her coping mechanisms were/are different than my own, where I was attacked and left for dead. We both experience various degrees of PTSD with different triggers, but what I didn't experience she did, and what she didn't experience I did. The assaults took different forms, granted. But I truly hesitate to suggest that what she experienced wasn't rape.
Both situations are deplorable, but they're certainly not equal.
In my personal opinion it's not rape without a deliberate and explicitly stated denial of the act. It could still be a sexual assault of some lesser class, but I don't equate all non-consensual sex with brutal rape. That's far too broad a category IMO.
I agree. As horrific as my own experience was, it wouldn't qualify with what some women and men have experienced....gang rape and torture in addition to the rape.
It might still be theft (I can think of examples where it isn't), but I guarantee you it isn't the same crime as the person who pulls a gun on you and takes your wallet.
No, nor is it the same crime as breaking into somebody's house and burglarizing them while they are out as compared with breaking into somebody's house and assaulting them, rendering them unconscious, and then taking that person's property afterward.
Or, if somebody never signed release forms to donate a kidney, but due to medical malpractice accidentally had one of their kidneys removed and transplanted into another person, as opposed to a random stranger attacking somebody, drugging them, bringing them to a hotel room, removing their kidney, and the person waking up in a bath full of ice not fully realizing what happened.
Both are crimes, but should be treated differently. I agree. But if we are going to discern the level of intent, malice, and violence to the crime, I think like murder there ought to be 1st degree rape, 2nd degree rape, and however else we can identify the various levels of criminal intent and harm involved.
Never did I say it wasn't deplorable what they did. Simply that our reaction to the deplorable should not be to become deplorable ourselves.
It really depends. But that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.
No problem.
Not all sexual boundary crossing is rape. Suppose that person A and person B are having consensual sexual intercourse with vaginal penetration. Person B (the female) normally does not enjoy being penetrated anally and has made this clear. Amidst this session however, person A slips a finger into person B's anus.
Person A clearly crossed one of person B's sexual boundaries. Are you willing to put person A in the same category as the person who brutally rapes someone else? Because I'm not.
I'm of a different stripe where I am clear about boundaries, where there's a clear RED line that is absolutely under all circumstances never crossed with my partners, and where there's a YELLOW line (kind of like traffic lights,
), that indicates I'm uncomfortable, but be gentle and guide me through. Obviously, anything with a GREEN light is a "yes, when the mood strikes" kind of activity. I advocate with my partners this kind of clarity in our personal boundaries before engaging in sexual activity, since everybody really is so different.
When I come across anybody who isn't clear, or who even says they DON'T have any boundaries, I don't engage.
If somebody offers that they "normally" don't like anal penetration, I classify this as a YELLOW line, where more care and attention is given. But let's say that person said absolutely not under any circumstances is anal penetration to occur, that's crossing a clear boundary when consent was not given. And if the penetration was repeated and with a measure of rendering the other immobile with violence or threats of violence, then it goes from being a minor offense to a major offense.
No matter the minor offense, I don't think it ought to be dismissed.
Statistically and logically incarcerating them does no such thing. All it does it temporarily and in the present remove the threat of them doing it to people outside the prison walls.
It says nothing about what they will do to the same or some other victim.
No, it doesn't. I advocate for more rehabilitative approaches than punitive.
I'm sorry to hear that you were raped. However, I am also glad that you seem to have recovered from it.
Personally, I don't think someone should engage in sex without explicitly given consent. However, I acknowledge that such a perspective is not socially pervasive.
Agreed.
I also agree that preventing crime is best accomplished through educating people. However, I think that necessarily involves a discussion of what we value. Consistently, I see society is more willing to punish someone for something when the person didn't necessarily think that it was wrong because society doesn't want to admit that by and large it is a culture of doing the said wrong thing. We all have flaws yet we publicly crucify those with the same flaws we all share while doing nothing to fix the society.
Personally, I believe that such a thing should be fought against. In this case, that means that I am against any harsh criticism of the boys, but would be all for a harsh criticism of their environment. After all, it is impossible to say they committed their offense despite their environment. Rather, given their environment, I would have been surprised if they didn't commit the offense.
I agree we all are susceptible to our environment. But I don't think it's overtly harsh to think the boys committed a heinous crime. This is why I think, because of their age and they have an opportunity to learn, that the sentence is fair if juvenile detention is served with rehabilitative services. If they are sociopathic due to mental illness, hopefully they can be diagnosed and treated accordingly.
My opinion is I hope the rape survivor receives a lot of support and counselling to help her through the ordeal and to help her cope with life after rape.
