Rape?

[Poisonshady313]

A minor cannot give consent to a sexual relationship because at this age one has no grasp what sex is about.

Right... because between 11:59 PM and 12:00 AM of the day of a person's 17th birthday (I go with 17 because that is the age of consent in the state of NY), they are instilled with a wealth of knowledge regarding sex that they were not privy to only a minute before. :sarcastic

 

[Cypress]

It sounds like you believe Israel is treating romantic fraud the same as violent rape.
This is not the case. The guy is getting only 18 months.

It does not matter how long or how short he has to be in prison, even the use of the word rape is wrong in this context - and worse, it is an offence against all women who ever were victim of rape.
Rape is a very serious crime that inflicts a serious trauma on the victim.
Even if she was tricked, nothing like that happened to the woman in this case, to use the word [/I]rape[/I] in this case is totally wrong.

 

[Cypress]

Right... because between 11:59 PM and 12:00 AM of the day of a person's 17th birthday (I go with 17 because that is the age of consent in the state of NY), they are instilled with a wealth of knowledge regarding sex that they were not privy to only a minute before. :sarcastic

Of course it does not happen this way, it is a process.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Poisonshady, i have a couple of questions if you don't mind answering them.

1) The deceitful information she got, assumably affected her decision on wether or not she's gonna have sex with him. But, how can that be proved though? I mean how can it be proved that if she knew he was a muslim, she would've never had sex with him? Just because he lied doesn't mean he thought thats the only way he could get to have sex with her. May be he thought it would increase his chances.

If she told the court "Had I known he wasn't Jewish, I wouldn't have consented to have sex with him"... that's how you'd know. And neither of us know what conversation the two of them had when they met.

2) How did they prove that he did lie?

That's a good question.

3) I get that he plead guilty? If so, don't you think he might have did that to avoid facing the other first ridiculous charge mentioned in the article you provided? The " rape and indecent assault", which i presume have a harder punishment?

It's possible... but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't actually guilty.

4) Did she have sex with him on the first time they met?

The article makes it appear that way.

5) What is the usual term for similar cases, if there is any?

dunno.

6) Don't you think this particular case has some other influences to it. In other words, do you think if the same scenario happened but with a different kind of deceit, like he lied about being a couple of years younger than he is, or lied about having stuff that he don't, do you think it would be the same? And is there other cases on similar grounds? In other words, should it be just up to the person's expectations and special requirements, or the fact that wether or not he is willing to have sex.

It's hard to say... but I do believe there is a world of difference in a 30 year old claiming to be 27, and a non-Jewish man claiming to be Jewish in order to have sex with a Jewish girl seeking a Jewish man.

Because to me, a person who have sex with someone without even being able to determine the most basic knowledge about him, doesn't seem to have any problems with having sex, its just personal preferences.[/quote]

 

[Poisonshady313]

It does not matter how long or how short he has to be in prison, even the use of the word rape is wrong in this context - and worse, it is an offence against all women who ever were victim of rape.
Rape is a very serious crime that inflicts a serious trauma on the victim.
Even if she was tricked, nothing like that happened to the woman in this case, to use the word [/i]rape[/i] in this case is totally wrong.

So then you figure statutory rape ought not to be called rape at all?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Of course it does not happen this way, it is a process.

Then your statement that "A minor cannot give consent to a sexual relationship because at this age one has no grasp what sex is about."

isn't terribly meaningful, since it is that one minute that makes the difference between being a minor and not being a minor.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It does not matter how long or how short he has to be in prison, even the use of the word rape is wrong in this context - and worse, it is an offence against all women who ever were victim of rape.
Rape is a very serious crime that inflicts a serious trauma on the victim.
Even if she was tricked, nothing like that happened to the woman in this case, to use the word [/i]rape[/i] in this case is totally wrong.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion.

rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Unlawful is not necessarily traumatic.

Driving 55 in a 45 zone is unlawful, but not traumatic.

An 18 year old and a 16 year old having consensual sex is not traumatic, but it is unlawful... and that's why it's called rape.

The consent wasn't valid, therefore the sex was unlawful.

 

[Badran]

If she told the court "Had I known he wasn't Jewish, I wouldn't have consented to have sex with him"... that's how you'd know. And neither of us know what conversation the two of them had when they met.

Thats why i'm having a hard time knowing how they could prove it. I guess it may be only based on his plea. (I mean the part of wether or not he lied, and wether or not she wouldn't have had sex with him if he wasn't jewish).

It's hard to say... but I do believe there is a world of difference in a 30 year old claiming to be 27, and a non-Jewish man claiming to be Jewish in order to have sex with a Jewish girl seeking a Jewish man.

There is a difference, no doubt. I should have given better examples. My mind is boggled to be honest, because while (based on the proposed scenario) I do feel that she must feel pretty bad, since she wouldn't have had sex with him. But on the other hand i'm struggling to fit this within rape.

You see, whilst, indeed his lie caused her to have sex with him, still it doesn't meet the requirements. I mean they having sex is not wrong, unlike having sex with a minor (assuming all minors can't make valid decisions on the issue, which most of them don't). Also, his main fault, and the main part she would be hurt about is his lie. It would cause her to feel deceived. She did like him when she met him, she wanted to have sex with him, and she's an adult. The only violation of consent here is that her requirements wasn't really what he was, which would lead us to deceit. Because if it is rape, then it must apply to all similar cases, shouldn't it?

I mean if a woman told me she is egyptian and turns out she's not, that doesn't come anyway near her raping me. Then, the real factor here, is what is the lie. What kind of lie that is. And the one here, i believe is not one that can lead to us looking at it as rape at all.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You see, whilst, indeed his lie caused her to have sex with him, still it doesn't meet the requirements. I mean they having sex is not wrong, unlike having sex with a minor (assuming all minors can't make valid decisions on the issue, which most of them don't). Also, the his main fault, and the main part she would be hurt about is his lie. It would cause her to feel deceived. She did like him when she met him, she wanted to have sex with him, and she's an adult. The only violation of consent here is that her requirements wasn't really what he was, which would lead us to deceit. Because if it is rape, then it must apply to all similar cases, shouldn't it?

If she had sex with him because he had a pretty smile and a wonderful sense of humor, and his religion wasn't a factor whatsoever, then you might be onto something. Some people really are serious about not engaging in romantic and/or sexual relationships with people from other faiths.

 

[Badran]

If she had sex with him because he had a pretty smile and a wonderful sense of humor, and his religion wasn't a factor whatsoever, then you might be onto something. Some people really are serious about not engaging in romantic and/or sexual relationships with people from other faiths.

Yeah i see what you're saying. Looking at another reply you've made here also leads me to this; We could consider it unlawful sexual conduct or something. Because calling it rape is mainly a technicality, or in other words just applying the lack of consent part, but without putting in mind lots of factors.

Though i might feel differently about this part (i mean wether or not someone should fall under legal punishment for this), but at least i would like to clear the rape part. I mean lets assume it is indeed within the law to do charge the man, but would you agree that rape is not an accurate discerption?

That would leave us with the part about wether or not the law should have anything to do with this. My opinion basically would be that no, the law shouldn't punish someone for this for three reasons. The first being that i can't see how is it possible for such allegations to be effectively verified. The second being that i view this as a social misbehavior, a very bad one, but not a legal issue. Third, because people should be more responsible, we shouldn't just have sex with people we don't know. We'd have tons of cases over this, because any requirements could qualify. Lots of people would be in jail.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yeah i see what you're saying. Looking at another reply you've made here also leads me to this; We could consider it unlawful sexual conduct or something. Because calling it rape is mainly a technicality, or in other words just applying the lack of consent part, but without putting in mind lots of factors.

Though i might feel differently about this part (i mean wether or not someone should fall under legal punishment for this), but at least i would like to clear the rape part. I mean lets assume it is indeed within the law to do charge the man, but would you agree that rape is not an accurate discerption?

That would leave us with the part about wether or not the law should have anything to do with this. My opinion basically would be that no, the law shouldn't punish someone for this for three reasons. The first being that i can't see how is it possible for such allegations to be effectively verified. The second being that i view this as a social misbehavior, a very bad one, but not a legal issue. Third, because people should be more responsible, we shouldn't just have sex with people we don't know. We'd have tons of cases over this, because any requirements could qualify. Lots of people would be in jail.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion.

rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Just because some people choose to use the word only when applied to the most unpleasant and traumatic example of unlawful sexual intercourse doesn't change the fact that the word applies to more than that.

The lack of consent is the one factor that ties them all together... whether it's actual consent or legal consent.

Some people are incapacitated in a way that renders them unable to give valid consent. Sometimes it's physical force. Sometimes its drugs. Sometimes it's being a minor. In this case, it was a lie. A lie about a fact that essentially would have affected whether or not she would consent to have sex with him.

 

[Badran]

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion.

rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Just because some people choose to use the word only when applied to the most unpleasant and traumatic example of unlawful sexual intercourse doesn't change the fact that the word applies to more than that.

The lack of consent is the one factor that ties them all together... whether it's actual consent or legal consent.

Some people are incapacitated in a way that renders them unable to give valid consent. Sometimes it's physical force. Sometimes its drugs. Sometimes it's being a minor. In this case, it was a lie. A lie about a fact that essentially would have affected whether or not she would consent to have sex with him.

I understand that technically its not far fetched to see why its described that way. You explained it very well.

But there are a couple of problems that makes this not a very accurate description (not on your part, and not the case of this thread in particular, i'm mainly talking about the concept, using the issue of this thread):

1) That the incapacity of people while drugged, forced, and being a minor(which usually means unable to make such decisions as an adult would), is not at all the victim's fault, and there is no way around it. They are indeed helpless. Not saying that in this case its the woman's fault, however his lie is easy to verify. She shouldn't have had sex with him with only knowing him for an extremely short period (possibly one day), and not put in mind the very likely possibility that he may very well be lying. She is not anyway near incapacitated. He merely proposed a statement or information, and she had all the choices to react to that in which ever way she pleases.

2) That if lies are to be accepted as a valid argument for rape, then is it all lies? As in any kind of lie? If so i think we'd both agree that there would be lots and lots of innocent people behind bars. And, we'd also not have a hard time concluding that half the people behind these bars are not actually rapists in any sense shape or form. If not, which ones? If we discuss which ones, it would be easy i think to agree that the one of this thread does not qualify.

Rape does not only resemble violence, i understand what you're saying, but this doesn't qualify as such. So my point would be, that this judge misused or inaccurately handled this case (unless this is actually within the law), then the law makers are to blame. Though it would still leave the possibility that this is not applied in all forms, which would mean that the judge is to blame partially too, for letting other reasons interfere with his judgments (assuming this doesn't always happen).

In very much shorter words, the man lied, he was wrong. However he was misjudged and labeled with something he does not deserve, which i blame on either the judge or the law makers (and possibly both).

 

[Comicaze247]

So all of you don't believe in fraud in contracts either then? OK. I've got some land I'd like to sell you.

Oh, he signed a contract? Where'd you get that information? I'd like to see it.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

He didn't neglect to inform her that he was not Jewish... he told her he was Jewish. He didn't leave out a few details... he actively deceived her.

But did she tell him that she wouldn't have sex with him unless he was jewish? Because if she didn't, then according to him, his religion would not be a deal breaker, and thus not constitute a deception.

 

[Revoltingest]

But did she tell him that she wouldn't have sex with him unless he was jewish? Because if she didn't, then according to him, his religion would not be a deal breaker, and thus not constitute a deception.

If she did tell him that, it could be an illegal discriminatory act in a public
accommodation (which it would be if she were "popular" or a working girl).

 

[Magic Man]

Do posts like yours pass as acceptable these days? I haven't been around lately.

Whatever they are, they're certainly more acceptable than drive-bies that just insult RF and don't try to actually discuss anything. You're doing a fine job of avoiding, by the way. However, we do notice that you're doing it, so it doesn't really reflect well on you. If you'd like to stop by again for actual conversation, please do. If you'd like to stop by for drivel like you've already posted, maybe you should just stay away like you have been.

 

[Magic Man]

Consider this... a girl might "consent" to having sex with a guy when she's drunk, or if she had been roofied... but in either situation, she is considered unable to consent, and therefore what might outwardly seem like consensual sex is actually rape. (There's a reason they call roofies the "date rape" drug)

If you get yourself drunk to the point that you can't make decisions about sex correctly, then it's your fault if you have sex with someone you don't want to. Roofies are just another way of forcing someone to have sex with you. You're not holding them down with your hands. You're holding them down with drugs. It's the same thing.

Just because it isn't violent doesn't make it not rape. All that is necessary is a lack of consent.

No one's saying it has to be violent to be rape. However, if a guy tells a girl he's Jewish, and she has sex with him because she thinks he's Jewish, that's not rape in any sense of the word. If she was that upset about it, maybe she should have been a bit more careful. Maybe she should have made sure he was Jewish before going through with anything.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know... but tell me... if, in the dark of night and the haze of being half asleep, a man led your wife to believe that he was you, and she proceeded to have sex with him believing he was you, what would you make of that?

That's also a completely different situation. Of course, I would hope that most wives could tell the difference, but for one, it's different when the one being duped is married. The main point here is that there are times when this kind of thing could be considered bad enough to bring charges, but not in the case in the OP. You can make up all kinds of other hypothetical scenarios, but the one in the OP is more akin to me asking a girl out and saying I'm a pilot because she loves pilots. It's not a crime.

 

[Magic Man]

Then your statement that "A minor cannot give consent to a sexual relationship because at this age one has no grasp what sex is about."

isn't terribly meaningful, since it is that one minute that makes the difference between being a minor and not being a minor.

You're missing the point that we need to have a cut-off. Sure, many 16-year-olds could give informed consent. However, the only way to do it is to find a cut-off where most of the people under the age could not give informed consent.

 

[Mister Emu]

Oh, he signed a contract? Where'd you get that information? I'd like to see it.

Not all contracts are written.

If you get yourself drunk to the point that you can't make decisions about sex correctly, then it's your fault if you have sex with someone you don't want to.

In some(not sure how many but at least a few), that is not necessarily so. If the courts deem you sober enough and the other person drunk enough you can be charged with rape.

If she was that upset about it, maybe she should have been a bit more careful.

Blame the victim?

You can make up all kinds of other hypothetical scenarios, but the one in the OP is more akin to me asking a girl out and saying I'm a pilot because she loves pilots. It's not a crime.

Why should it not be a crime to gain sexual intercourse through outright deception when it is to gain money so?