What is rape?
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
The Obama administration on Friday broadened the definition of the crime of rape to include more forms of sexual assaults such as rape of men and oral or anal sex, the first major revision to the definition in more than 80 years.
The new definition will include any gender of the victim and attacker and also assaults in which a victim cannot give consent because the individual has been incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, is under the age of consent, or is mentally or physically incapable of consent, the Justice Department said.
Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent in the new definition, NBC reported.
"This long-awaited change to the definition of rape is a victory for women and men across the country whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years," Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement.
While reports of rape to authorities are likely to rise, the Justice Department said that will only reflect more accurate reporting rather than the number of actual attacks increasing.
"This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
A rape every 6.2. minutes, data show
Based on reports from law enforcement authorities, the FBI estimated in 2010 that there were almost 85,000 forcible rapes under the old definition, the latest raw data available, and that one occurs in the United States every 6.2 minutes.
Preliminary FBI statistics show that the forcible rape rate declined 5.1 percent in the first half of 2011 compared to the same period of the previous year.
The administration said this expansive definition more accurately tracks rapes but will not change state or federal laws used to prosecute rape, most of which already incorporate the more expansive definitions, NBC reported Friday.
"All victims of these horrendous crimes deserve justice and should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
For years, interest groups have been pushing for a change in the definition of forcible rape, which since 1927 was defined as the carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will. That included penetration of a woman's vagina, but excluded oral or anal penetration and the rape of men.
The new definition is: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
The new definition will include any gender of the victim and attacker and also assaults in which a victim cannot give consent because the individual has been incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, is under the age of consent, or is mentally or physically incapable of consent, the Justice Department said.
Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent in the new definition, NBC reported.
"This long-awaited change to the definition of rape is a victory for women and men across the country whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years," Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement.
While reports of rape to authorities are likely to rise, the Justice Department said that will only reflect more accurate reporting rather than the number of actual attacks increasing.
"This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
A rape every 6.2. minutes, data show
Based on reports from law enforcement authorities, the FBI estimated in 2010 that there were almost 85,000 forcible rapes under the old definition, the latest raw data available, and that one occurs in the United States every 6.2 minutes.
Preliminary FBI statistics show that the forcible rape rate declined 5.1 percent in the first half of 2011 compared to the same period of the previous year.
The administration said this expansive definition more accurately tracks rapes but will not change state or federal laws used to prosecute rape, most of which already incorporate the more expansive definitions, NBC reported Friday.
"All victims of these horrendous crimes deserve justice and should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
For years, interest groups have been pushing for a change in the definition of forcible rape, which since 1927 was defined as the carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will. That included penetration of a woman's vagina, but excluded oral or anal penetration and the rape of men.
The new definition is: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
25 comments
I mostly agree, but I'm concerned about the "I was drunk, I didn't mean yes......" getting someone convicted.
so what's the problem?
"...in the right prison..." So you think getting butt fucked makes it the right prison? Man, that would be way wrong for me!
The below pretty much sums it up right at the beginning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOn1dFmF…
In theory, consent can cover a continuum that ranges from passive consent (failing to express any objection, assuming of course that the person is capable of expressing an objection) to formalized active consent (signing a legal document that grants consent). It will become even more complicated when you also have to determine if consent was freely given and if the person is capable of consenting (this is where intoxication and even mental capacity may become an issue).
For example, it might be possible to get someone to consent to sex by threatening to kill or injure that person unless they "consented" to sex and followed through with the sex-- and sex under those conditions would probably qualify for rape. Of course, that would be an example of "consent" that was not freely given--it was coerced by threats of bodily harm.
Now consider several other examples of possible "coercion"-- would it be coercive to pay someone a million dollars to have sex? Before you say "sign me up" or "no, you can't coerce a person with money" ask why not-- what if the person being offered the million dollars was impoverished, had no skills (other than sex) and had bills to pay or a child to feed. Does that begin to feel more "coercive" in that it would be difficult or impossible for the person to say no to the offer of money for sex. Said another way, it is may be possible to coerce with "positive" means, not just negative means.
If that it is possible to coerce consent with positive means, then it opens the question of what other strategies might be used to "coerce" consent? If you agree that the million dollars for sex borders on "coercive" then is there a price point (say $100?) where it doesn't feel so coercive? Does the label "coercion" still apply if we're talking about paying a person minimum wage for performing some other type of service besides sex, say working at a fast food restaurant.
Finally, is it possible to coerce consent with means other than money or threats of physical harm. For example, what if a person offers marriage (or physical and emotional support) in exchange for sex or if a person threatens to file for divorce unless there is implicit or explicit consent for sex? Is consent truly given in either of these examples?
The point is that "consent" is the key to the new definition and this is not a simple concept especially when you have to consider the full range of ways that a person can be motivated to consent and whether the person was truly capable of consenting or refusing to consent.
In my opinion, the revised definition is still an appropriate update. But, as I said above, the devil is in the details and case law will be needed to clarify the definition of consent. This revision should make for interesting discussions about how we define rape and consent.
Now if we could just open the door for the decriminalization of prostitution? But that's for another discussion thread.
I suppose you could press charges if you wished. The $64,000,000 question is DO YOU WANT TO?!?
Would be nice if the "feds" used OUR money for something meaningful, rather than some meaningless often "doctored" statistics!