Guilty of rape by deception

[Mansa Musa]

This is fair. The woman's consent was only vitiated by fraud. Therefore, there was a lack of clear legal consent.

 

[Silurian]

by Silurian

From Haaretz

Quote:
According to Kashur, he was exiting a grocery store in downtown Jerusalem around midday when a woman in her late 20s began to talk to him. "I would say she set upon me. She was interested in my motorcycle and so we talked. I didn't pretend. I said my name is Dudu because that's how everybody knows me. My wife even calls me that."

I have not found anywhere that says he said he was Jewish just that he uses a Jewish name.

So his offence was to have a Jewish nick name

 

[Ayn Rand]

She thought he was Jewish because he gave a Jewish name.

She should have spent more than a few minutes getting to know him before she had sex with him


I don't see how she is religious when her sexual morals are worse than most self-respecting atheists.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Presumably she had to be quick in case he rode off on his motorbike.

 

[nonconformist]

By the sounds of it, *she's* the motorbike

 

[ParadigmShifter]

But she ended up putting the wrong kind of petrol in her tank.

 

[Behind The Mask]

This thread needs an 'O SNAP!' button

 

[Mark1031]

Yes, there's common sense required. Obviously not all technical breaches are worth prosecuting. But you have to realise when this type of issue would kick in.

If a person lies and then gets laid, there's a sexual assault if the person who consented feels molested after finding out the truth. That's when the law is active.

People who're arguing against such a principle are saying "no, you should be able to lie and defraud someone to get laid, even about things that would result in them feeling molested afterward." I know people like to think that sexual activity is animalistic and should abide by the laws of the jungle: but that's just not the way we're moving and is not the way the law sees it. We see sexual consent as important. We see the concept of 'consent' as important. It's going to be defended, and it's going to continue to be clarified the way I'm describing it.

The way contract law works is clear in the case law. The way consent works is clear in the case law. And sexual assault laws are going to continue moving this way, because it helps people who once would have been victims. You cannot lie to get consent. Sexual activity requires consent.

Whether it is on the books or not, this type of law is both unwise and unjust IMO. In this particular case it is glaring because of the racist basis for the charge but in general this is the type of law that goes too far into personal interaction and because of “prosecutor discretion” is nothing but racist abuse waiting to happen. It reminds me of this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon. Moreover it infantilizes women and devalues real cases of rape and abuse.

El Mac do you consider this type of law just and/or wise for society?

 

[dannyshenanigan]

I could be in big trouble then. My first name is Daniel; I have a German last name that sounds like it could be Jewish; I'm circumcised; I kind of have a "Jewish" nose; and I may have been in certain situations where I have not explicitly stated that I am a gentile.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In fact, I do believe there is a passage in the NT that tells a Christian woman to stay with her unbelieving husband so that he be saved by her faith and virtue.

Didn't know that. I like it.

 

[MobBoss]

Didn't know that. I like it.

Glad I could be of assistance.

 

[innonimatu]

Been a christian a pretty long time and I havent heard that one. In fact, I do believe there is a passage in the NT that tells a christian woman to stay with her unbelieving husband so that he be saved by her faith and virtue.

Not if he dumps her. And the the catholic church used that rule quite "flexibly" when it was politically convenient.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Using deception to get sex is despicable, no matter how common it may be. The punishment here does seem overly harsh though.

Also, I don't like the term rape being used for salutatory rape, such less this. Frankly, I'd rather go back to an older, more etymologically conservative meaning of rape denoting forceful abduction. It ought not refer to sex crimes at all, although forced sex often does involve at least brief kidnapping which would count as rape.

 

[Grisu]

Mise, rape requires a lack of consent, violence doesn't enter into it.

I think a lot of confusion in this thread (at least for me) comes from the unprecise translation of the word rape. (which is why I consider statutory rape to be a strange label)

In my mind I automatically translate rape to its german counterpart "Vergewaltigung". And here violence is indeed required to be considered that (heck, 'Gewalt' is even part of the word)

 

[Silurian]

I would think a large proportion of rapes do not involve violence.
Drink, fear of violence etc.

This man was found guilty of being an arab.

From Haaratz

No longer a youth, Sabbar/Dudu worked as a deliveryman for a lawyer's office, rode his scooter around Jerusalem and delivered documents, affidavits and sworn testimonies, swearing to everyone that he was Dudu. Two years ago he met a woman by chance. Nice to meet you, my name is Dudu. He claims that she came on to him, but let's leave the details aside. Soon enough they went where they went and what happened happened, all by consent of the parties concerned. One fine day, a month and a half after an afternoon quickie, he was summoned to the police on suspicion of rape.

His temporary lover discovered that her Dudu wasn't a Dudu after all, that the Jew is (gasp! ) an Arab, and so she filed a complaint against the impostor. Her body was violated by an Arab. From then on Kashur was placed under house arrest for two years, an electronic cuff on his ankle. This week his sentence was pronounced: 18 months in jail.

Judge Zvi Segal waxed dramatic to the point of absurdity: "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls." Sophisticated offenders? It is doubtful that Dudu even knew he was one. Sweet talk? He says that even his wife calls him Dudu.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why is the punishment 18 months in jail, anyway? The punishment for raping a woman under Jewish Law is a compensation of 50 shekels of silver to the father. (Current silver price of $17.72 per ounce) That's ~$354 in current silver prices, or 1,367 Israeli shekels. In addition, the woman must be married immediately.

isnt adultary punished by stoneing (sp) ?

 

[El_Machinae]

Whether it is on the books or not, this type of law is both unwise and unjust IMO. In this particular case it is glaring because of the racist basis for the charge but in general this is the type of law that goes too far into personal interaction and because of “prosecutor discretion” is nothing but racist abuse waiting to happen. It reminds me of this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon. Moreover it infantilizes women and devalues real cases of rape and abuse.

El Mac do you consider this type of law just and/or wise for society?

Well, this specific case is sensationalised and under-reported. As well, it deals with Israeli law and religious issues. I'm not going to comment on it specifically.

But I do endorse the principle of the 'sex requires consent' and 'consent requires the truth'. Before these principles, a person could refuse to pay a hooker and get off scott-free. Now he's not only committed fraud, but also sexual assault. Before these principles, a person could intentionally impregnate someone (through deception) and suffer no consequences. Now it's sexual assault.

The main difference, where the contract law stops being a model, is that we assume that consent can be withdrawn at any time. So, buyer beware. If you pay a person's tuition and hope to get laid, it's not a violation of the contract (through special exemption) if the sex is withheld.

People are pissed that they cannot deceive, seduce, and then leave a victim that feels molested when they learn the truth. Yeah, boo hoo. These interpretations are progress. They're as much progress as the idea that you can't drug someone to rape them, or that raping your wife is possible, or that threatening ruin or beatings to get sex is rape. We live in a world where people gang-rape as a right-of-passage. We live in a world where women are drugged and then filmed and then the porn is sold in the Western world. We need as much progress as possible in this field.

I don't think that this devalues rape any more than gay marriage devalues marriage. It's not like this interpretation creates greater acceptance of using force to get sex. In fact, it decreases it.

 

[Grisu]

I would think a large proportion of rapes do not involve violence.

I'd say that threat of violence does constitute violence in itself, but I guess that's just a matter of definition.

But I do endorse the principle of the 'sex requires consent' and 'consent requires the truth'. Before these principles, a person could refuse to pay a hooker and get off scott-free. Now he's not only committed fraud, but also sexual assault. Before these principles, a person could intentionally impregnate someone (through deception) and suffer no consequences. Now it's sexual assault.

I don't think anybody's doubting the premise that 'sex requires consent' but the latter 'consent requires truth'. With this principle anybody who ever told (even a white lie) to a woman prior to bedding her could be charged with rape. And almost every adulterous partner would be considered a rapist.

The keypoint is just that we seem to disagree how much truth is needed for consent to be able to be given.

People are pissed that they cannot deceive, seduce, and then leave a victim that feels molested when they learn the truth. Yeah, boo hoo.

as mentioned above, I don't think that's the main disagreement. People just don't believe it should be considered rape.

 

[El_Machinae]

even a white lie

I hate to do a weird logic-spin, but it's a true one. If it was a white lie, then you won't be charged. You'll only be charged if there's a victim who feels like they're a victim. If the person is victimised, it wasn't a white lie.

That said, a white lie can void any other contract. A 'white lie' about your car purchase can void the contract.

I don't mind push-back against overapplication of the principle, btw. I understand that. I'll get my hackles up when the pushback entails blaming the victims. My problem is that I've heard most of the objections from molesters already, so I'm tired of them and I cannot unassociate them from those people.

 

[Mise]

Chart shows height distribution of US men vs the claimed height on dating website OKCupid:

People also lie about their incomes:

Get this, right - old people tend to put up pictures of themselves taken when they were much younger!!!

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5586987/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-online-dating