Guilty of rape by deception

[Ziggy Stardust]

Keeping in mind there were (2?) years in between the "rape" and the charges, sex was had within hours (an article claimed minutes) and the woman saying she was looking for a "serious romantic relationship", something smells funny.

 

[Hehehe]

BTW, how long did the Jewish woman and the Arab man date? I mean if they had dated for a long time, you'd think the woman would have found out?

EDIT:

sex was had within hours (an article claimed minutes)

...

If the religion of the partner really matters so much then maybe she shouldn't have opened her legs on the first date.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

15 minutes.

One article said they had sex withing minutes. Counting for sensationalism, they may have been dating a couple of hours at most.

 

[Disgustipated]

I only wish I was that guy. I've never met a woman who would have sex with me within minutes. Good job dude :

This whole thread is hilarious. That anyone would even defend the woman is preposterous. It's a funny world we live in. It keeps me entertained.

 

[Mise]

Frankly, I'm just a little disturbed at all the people who think they have a right to lie in order to get some.

No, you don't, anymore than you have a right to lie to get into any other form of contracts, verbal or otherwise. If you knowingly or deliberately mislead or allow your partner to misled about what they consider the important facts of the contract, in ANY form of agreement (including consent to sex), then yes, the consent is and should be void. There's no "but" or "if" about it - consent requires information, and deliberately depriving someone of information that would have affected their judgment nullify that consent. This is the case in just about any form of law governing agreements between people.

Now, there are caveats to that. In many forms of contract law, for example, the victim of the lie has an obligation to reasonability - if the lie was so obvious no one in their right mind would take it seriously ("I'm the president of the US!"), or you were mistaken about an easily verifiable fact (I thought he was a green man from Mars!), the fault is yours, not mine. Similarly, the lie has to be about something that would actually have affected consent - the alleged victim has to give sufficient proof that the lie (or missing information) actually had an effect on their consent. Sometime this proof is easily made (the HIV/AIDS line, probably also infertility/birth control), other times, not so much ("He told me the picture with his neighbor's dog was actually of his dog!")

Finally, there has to be an actual deception - either someone knowingly failing to inform a partner of something the partner had a reasonable expectation of being informed of ("I'm married", "I have AIDS"), or through deliberately lying.

Now, in the SPECIFIC case here, it's hard to say anything definite without the full body of evidence, and just some media notes and the testimony of the accused man (a biased source if ever there was one), but what we have does raise significant concerns about how the law was applied to this particular case, or possibly about lack of important safeguards in the wording of the Israeli law.

But the basic principles underlying the law - that vitiated consent is not consent, that therefore sex with vitiated consent is sex without consent - are necessary to life in a civilized society.

Ya, but it's not rape. Call it breach of contract if you want, but it's not rape. Rape means "forced sex". Regardless of the exact wording of rape laws, that's what rape means, and taking that meaning and turning it into a glorified white lie is stupid, irresponsible, and offensive to victims of actual, forced rape.

 

[Evie]

It’s strange that there are no statements in the media that he said he was Jewish just that he used a Jewish nick name. I would have thought that the right wing Israeli press would have printed it.

Oda Nobunaga I assume that you are Canadian and not related to Oda Nobunaga
You use it as a nick name.
A women comes up to you in the street and you say your name is Oda Nobunaga
You have sex with the women 10 minutes later and leave before she gets dressed.
She goes to the police and you are accused of rape by deception because she believes in Shinto and thought you were descended from Japanese nobility when in fact you are of French descent.

As I said: there is either something missing in the evidence we've seen in the press, or something fishy in how the trial judge handled this case, or something missing in the Israeli law, because "He has a Jewish nickname!" definitely should not count as deception, even if the woman manage to prove she would never have had sex with an Arab. Deception imply a deliberate decision to hide or misrepresent the truth, after all.

(If a woman on the street approached me about being "Oda Nobunaga", I'd be bewildered because I only use it as my nickname on a single website, and here only because we need to ask admins to change our usernames last I heard and it's too much of a hassle. I outgrew my Japanese history fan phase years ago. Beyond that, I'd want to make it clear what my real name is, because "Ohhh, Oda" would be one massive mood-killer, thank you very much)

Mise - it's sex without consent. Whatever you end up calling sex without consent in general is your business; but in most modern societies it is, in fact, the legal definition of the term "rape". As far as I'm concerned, it works well enough.

 

[Mise]

Mise - it's sex without consent. Whatever you end up calling sex without consent in general is your business; but in most modern societies it is, in fact, the legal definition of the term "rape". As far as I'm concerned, it works well enough.

I've explained this earlier in the thread: "consent" in the context of rape doesn't have the same meaning or connotations as "consent" in the form of a legal contract. When we talk about "consent as in rape", we use it to mean that the victim has been forced into having sex, i.e. against her will, or, in slightly different words, without her consent. But that's a different type (or level or quality etc etc) of consent to that which is required to sign a legal contract. And if you're arguing that lying to get sex is equivalent to lying to get a mortgage or lying to get a job, then you're gonna have to go with the "lesser" version of consent.

To illustrate this difference, think of it this way. There is very clearly a difference between forcing someone to give you pay you $20,000 a year, and lying at an interview in order to get a job. The former is straight up extortion, whereas the latter is, I don't know, a sackable offence? I don't even know if that's illegal or not.

 

[Silurian]

From wiki

The only other option in Israel for the marriage of a halakhic Jew (Orthodox or not) to a non-Jew, or for that matter, a Christian to a non-Christian or Muslim to a non-Muslim, is for one partner to formally convert to the other's religion, be it to Judaism (Orthodox only), a Christian denomination (such as Eastern Orthodox or Maronite) or a denomination of Islam (such as Sunni or Shia). As for persons with patrilineal Jewish descent (i.e. not recognized as Jewish according to halakha) who wish to marry a halakhic Jew (i.e. born to a Jewish mother or is Jewish by Orthodox conversion) who is Orthodox or otherwise, is also required to formally convert to Judaism (Orthodox only) or they cannot legally marry. According to a Haaretz article "Justice Ministry drafts civil marriage law for ‘refuseniks’" 300,000 people, or 150,000 couples, are affected by marriage restrictions based on the partners' disparate religious traditions or non-halakhic Jewish status.

She could not legally have married him in Israel with out one of them converting.

 

[Evie]

Something of an apple and orange comparison there - changing what is obtained (20 000$/A job) has a possible effect on the legality of the act.

For example, consider 20 000$. Threatening someone in order to get it is a criminal act: it's under extortion in the criminal code (Inducing (without justification) by threats, accusations, menaces or violence any person to do anything or cause anything to be done). Lying to get it is ALSO a criminal act; it's under fraud (Obtaining from any person any property, money, valuable security or services by means of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means).

However, in the case of a job, while threatening to get it definitely falls under "getting somebody to do something" (general statement if ever there was one), it may or may not fall under fraud (is the job assimilable to a service? Can the link between your salary and the lie be made direct enough to constitute "obtaining money on false pretense"? Honestly, I doubt either would fly).

But at the end of the day, there is no doubt that lying to get something has a definite criminal element to it.

 

[Mise]

Criminal element? Yes, perhaps. Rape? No... Like I said, call it fraud or breach of contract or "deceptive seduction" if you want, I don't care, but it's not rape. Rape means "forced sex"; the "consent" part of the legal code in relation to rape should be taken in that context. It should not be taken out of context to mean something akin to lying at an interview or lying on a mortgage application.

Whether or not you think my example was disingenuous, it would be 100x more disingenuous to fail to acknowledge the difference between forcing someone to do something, and lying to someone in order that they agree to do something. They are so obviously different things that it's amazing an example is even necessary!

 

[Mise]

Hopefully this is an apples & apples example

Forcing someone to do something: "Pete, help me carry this stuff up the stairs -- it's 10 flights, but if you don't do it I'll beat the crap out of you." In this scenario, Pete is forced by threat of violence to carry things up 10 flights of stairs. This is being forced to do something, and is analogous to rape, where a woman is forced by violence or threat of violence to have sex.

Lying to someone to get them to do something: "Hey, Pete, would you mind helping me carry this stuff up the stairs? It's only 1 flight." But actually, it's 10 flights! Pete would never have agreed to render his services had he know this beforehand -- but is he forced? No he's not forced, he was lied to. There is a difference; this is not analogous to rape, because Pete was not forced, but is analogous to the situation in the OP.

 

[Evie]

I honestly disagree with you. Yes, on a gut level, "I just lied to her about having had a vasectomy because she said she didn't want to have sex to avoid getting pregnant!" and "I told her I'd call her mortgage due if we didn't have sex" sound different, one a lot more horrible than the other...but at the end of the day, they're both of them cases of pushing her in sex she didn't want to have (That is, sex with the risk of pregnancy).

That in one case you deceived her into thinking that you cared about her objections, but they didn't apply, and in the other were quite honest about not caring one bit about her objections, don't change much to the bottom line situation: that she didn't want to have sex with you in the circumstances, and that you callously disregarded her refusal in favor of your own whims.

Cases are not always nearly that clear-cut - neither for "forced her" nor for "deceived her". The Israeli case, from what little evidence we have, is extremely questionable. But the idea that rape must involve forcing someone...I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree. Rape is about callous disregard for the other person, not necessarily about force.

 

[warpus]

Mise - it's sex without consent. Whatever you end up calling sex without consent in general is your business; but in most modern societies it is, in fact, the legal definition of the term "rape". As far as I'm concerned, it works well enough.

*warpus meets nice lady named Susan*

"Why yes Susan, I do indeed own a boat"

*censored sexual intercourse commenses*

I do not own a boat. This is rape?

 

[Evie]

Depend how important the boat was in convincing her to have sex. In theory, the burden of proof is on her to demonstrate that she wouldn't have had sex with you if you hadn't lied about the boat.

How hard to prove it will be depend on social factors, etc - for example proving you wouldn't have had sex with someone if he hadn't lied about a vasectomy would, in most western nations, be easier than proving you wouldn't have had sex with them if they didn't lie about owning a boat.

I don't know the social factors at play in Israel, so have no idea how large a burden of proof there should be re: having sex with an arab. It's quite possible the judge fell flat on his face on that one, or quite possible (and one is tempted to say probable) that there is in fact a widespread and easily proven social taboo about Jew-Arab sex.

Of course, many legal systems (rightly) include a counterpart to this: if you can present sufficient evidence (as the defendent, this would be sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt) that you genuinely believed you had legitimate consent (eg, that you had no reasonable reason to believe your lie directly impacted her decision - she never gave you any hint she considered the boat more than a joke!), then the court is supposed to accept that as a legal defense.

Again in this case, either we are severely lacking in evidence, or the judge let anti-man or anti-arab bias influence his decision, or the Israeli version of the law lacks important safeguards.

 

[ori]

For what its worth: the guy has been released pending a desision by the Israeli High court on this matter two weeks ago:

"I have concluded that in this case the request [for release pending the High Court ruling] should be granted," Justice Asher Grunis wrote yesterday. "The circumstances, as they emerge from the amended indictment, are unusual. The possibility should not be ruled out that a higher court may reduce the petitioner's sentence."

 

[Silurian]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...1PW-AQ&usg=AFQjCNEV7t60CdEw9JnIsLbVgqvefeIfKg

Haaretz as Ori - No referance other than using Jewish nick name

 

[Evie]

Looking more and more like judge bias indeed.

 

[Bad Player]

Hi everyone!

This is not ridiculous, or, not as ridiculous as you'd think. In most of the countries that have decent sexual assault laws, misrepresenting yourself can be considered sexual assault if the victim complains.

Sex requires consent. It really does. I know that you guys know about "make sure she says yes", because it's gotta be decently advertised. And the law is not kidding when it says that sex requires consent. Consent implies fair knowledge of what's going on.

The girl thought she was sleeping with a Jew. She'd consented to sleep with a Jew. She'd not consented to sleeping with a non-Jew. Ergo, a non-Jew violated her consent.

Now, this case seems to be outrageous, but it is built upon principles that the sexual-assault-community recognises quite easily. This is the same law that prevents people from refusing to pay a hooker after services. This is the same law that prevents people from waiting until a girl is too drunk to know better. This is the same law the prevents people from lying about whether they're infertile.

Sex requires consent. It's true. It's really true. You might as well understand, and even accept, such an idea.

Where do you draw the line? If a guy pretends to be from another country and uses a fake accent to attract a woman in a bar should he be convicted of rape (e.g. using an English/Scottish/Irish accent on Aussie women)? It seems like the same thing.

 

[Evie]

If he knew, or had good reason to know, that she only wanted to have sex with a stranger? Yes. If, on the other hand, it was just a random fancy act, and he had no reason to believe consent was dependent upon the trickery, then no.

Again, the facts of this incident (which is now being appealed) should not be used to judge the concept of the law as a whole. Moronic, paternalistic and racist judges happen to the best laws.

 

[Silurian]

Even his wife used the Jewish nick name.
It is common for Israeli Arabs who work in Jewish areas to use Jewish nick names to avoid receiving racist insults and attacks.