Legally, is this rape?

Question

Jack and Jill are making out. Moment by moment, they get bolder with each other. They rip each other's clothes off or at least get the ones in the way, out of the way. Jack crawls on top and penetrates Jill.

Five minutes later, Jill is very passionate. Groping etc...A few minutes after that, she tells Jack no. Jack is on a sex high and the word doesn't register. Maybe she pushes him, but she's already been rough. He doesn't hurt her, he doesn't force her, but now she's said no and he's unaware and finishes.

Answer 1

No.

For several reasons

1) Jack has no "Mens Rea", meaning criminal intent.

In order for something to be a crime you have to understand it is a crime and have the intent to commit the crime.

For example, lets say the wife wants me to repaint the living room. So I haul everything in the living room out and put it on the lawn. Well, little did I know that today was "heavy trash pick up day" and before I know it, the Picasso that the wife's grandfather left her in his will has vanished into the mouth of a garbage truck! I run, I chase it, but the garbage man drives off with the painting, and most of our furniture.

Has the garbage man stolen the painting? No. He has TAKEN the painting, but he had no intent to steal it or take it unlawfuly. He thought he had permission to take the painting, and therefore he had no mens rea, and no crime has taken place.

Similarly, if a person ACCIDENTALLY causes the death of another person that person is NOT guilty of murder, but of manslaughter.

B) Jack has Jills consent, There is clear intent on Jack's part to have sex, but there is not even a hit that Jack intends to force Jill to have sex with him. On the contrary, Jack has Jills active participation as an expression of her intent to have sex with Jack.

Rape is defined as. the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation

Jack penetrated Jill WITH her consent. No force or threat of force is involved. On the contrary Jill is "very passionate" Jill does not change her mind until "a few minutes after" "five minutes later". According to the fact pattern you laid out Jill had consenutal sex with Jack, but changed her mind either half way through, (or perhaps afterwards).

There is no force used, there is no criminal intent, and while there is clear consent at the begining of the act, there is only a rather debatable withdrawl of consent towards the end of the act, which may or may not have been heard, or even understood.

Feminist theory aside, there is no rape here.

Answer 2

Obviously the definition of rape is different in each state. Not knowing which state your from, I'll take some general rules and put them up here.

the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation.

to have sexual intercourse with a female without her consent through force, violence, threat or intimidation.

Whether there is rape depends on whether the jury finds that a person in the accused's circumstances could "reasonably" have believed the other party consented. (e.g., Wm. Kennedy Smith trial)

An accused's reasonable belief that the victim was consenting to an act of sexual intercourse is a defense to a charge of forcible rape.

While the law does not require proof of resistance, the lack of resistance is a fact that a jury can take into account in deciding whether the accused reasonably believed the intercourse was consensual.



Based upon these laws and guidelines, and with the details of the story-I'd think that it would be highly unlikely to get a conviction against Jack in this case. The reasons are:

1. Jill did initially consent to sex, and had penetrative sex for more than 5 minutes.

2. Jill "may have" pushed Jack, and "may not have" pushed Jack. Her physical demeanor during the entire encounter was "rough" and may have included pushing before and after she said "no".

3. Jill says "no" only once.

4. Jill acknowledged that Jack was unaware that she said "no".

5. Jill didn't make any further attempts to clarify, to repeat, or to ensure in any way that Jack understood that she said "no".

6. Jack didn't use force, intimidation, threats, or violence at any time during the encounter.

Answer 3

that's the most scary question i have study so a procedures. If a 9 year old is "raping" yet another 9 year old, it sounds like, first there has been sexual abuse going on already to the "rapist". He, i'm assuming, is appearing out what he's universal with. what's happening is worrying and there should be a baby shielding branch called. both little ones favor to be helped in the present day. The rapist's own molester should be got here across because I doubt that it has stopped, or different little ones are being molested also. Please do some thing right away because it received't carry about case you ignore about it.

Answer 4

yes but that word has a whole lot attached to it that is much more violent than what you describe. No drugs, no knife, no gun? Why does Jill want to use this word? Is she a minor (in which case it doesn't matter if she said yes...it's still rape)?

Yes..but she's not very smart. If you walk down the street holding out handfulls of money, you're much more likely to be robbed. If you call the cops, they will ask, "What were you doing holding your money out there if you wanted to keep it safe?"

Yes..but I don't think Jill has anything to gain by using the term rape, and more to lose.

Answer 5

I have a male friend that has gotten himself into this situation with a gal that has a few problems upstairs -- not the least of which that her mental proximity to being a kid at her chronological age is disturbing. It was an accusation of rape, actually.

Still, setting that aside for the moment, this is a judicial nightmare. Jill initially wanted to copulate with Jack but then changed her mind with the expectation that Jack is going to slam on the brakes to honor that negation. Well, we see how that has fared.

What I would do is jail Jack for a week and place him on probation that has one condition -- distance from Jill. I would also encourage Jack to relocate to another city and build a life there. Then if Jack refuses or gets himself into this situation again, then nail him for rape as there is something clearly wrong with Jack that gets him into this situation again and again. I would also have Jill jailed for a year because there is something wrong with that gal. Really, I would have Jack chalk this one up to experience.

Answer 6

In MD, that would not be considered rape because Jill already consented to the penetration by Jack. I would cite the relevant case in MD's Court of Appeals except I don't know it off-hand.

Jack could be prosecuted for assault with bodily fluids but that wouldn't carry the same consequences as rape.

If other states define the above scenario as rape, this answer only defines how MD views it.

Answer 7

This is a case where Jack's guilty till proven innocent.
They were going at it for 10 minutes according to the story and so it wasn't really rape when it started.
But as soon as she said no he should of stopped.
But even then it still could be considered rape since there was actual penetration and he would have to prove she consented to it.

Answer 8

Strange question, but in the eyes of the law it is probably considered rape. If a woman willingly engages in sex and the man doesn't stop in 2 seconds flat that should not be a crime. If he continues for minutes and she continues to say stop then that is a problem. Women should know their sexual partners very well before being intimate with them. And, unfortunately, in today's world a woman can say just about anything and the legal system is on her side. There is a double standard here. Remember, be a good girl, know your partner well, and hopefully be in a long term relationship before engaging in anything.

Answer 9

Yes, but in the situation you describe, it would be very hard for Jill to prove in court.

Answer 10

By its technical legal definition it is rape since consent was withdrawn. As a practical matter I would not want to be the DA trying to prosecute that case.