Hypothetical moral question on rape

[Doulton]

A while back I saw an episode of some crime programme, (Cold Case or CSI or something, I don't remember which) and it raised an interesting conundrum.

A woman is raped. Then a website is found on which she said she had a rape fantasy, and encourages strangers to come to her house and help her live it out. She gives her address as well as details for how she wants it done, including of course that she will be in character throughout and give every pretence that she wants to resist. It then turns out that she wasn't responsible for the website; it was some guy who had it out for her.
Now the man who carried out the rape genuinely believed that she had written the request herself, and that he was fulfilling her fantasy.
Assume she kicked and screamed and did her very best to fight him off, but was overpowered and violently forced. (I think on the programme she actually died, but for the sake of this question I'm going to leave that out)

Needless to say the man who made the website should be sodomised with a hot poker, but what about the guy who actually did the deed? To what degree can or should this man be held accountable for the act?

 

[great lover]

A while back I saw an episode of some crime programme, (Cold Case or CSI or something, I don't remember which) and it raised an interesting conundrum.

A woman is raped. Then a website is found on which she said she had a rape fantasy, and encourages strangers to come to her house and help her live it out. She gives her address as well as details for how she wants it done, including of course that she will be in character throughout and give every pretence that she wants to resist. It then turns out that she wasn't responsible for the website; it was some guy who had it out for her.
Now the man who carried out the rape genuinely believed that she had written the request herself, and that he was fulfilling her fantasy.
Assume she kicked and screamed and did her very best to fight him off, but was overpowered and violently forced. (I think on the programme she actually died, but for the sake of this question I'm going to leave that out)

Needless to say the man who made the website should be sodomised with a hot poker, but what about the guy who actually did the deed? To what degree can or should this man be held accountable for the act?

The man who did this deed should be hanged to death.

 

[doll_parts85]

I don't think he should get in trouble if that happened...the person who made the website should get charged with the rape...

 

[mirrors2]

What are the standard charges for coercing someone to do something?

That is, if I coerce someone into committing murder, how do the charges get leveled at me?

 

[pleasantville]

Unless he gets some type of actual face to face agreement then he is liable for whatever he did. This is like someone putting up a sign that says to do something wrong (ie. steal a car). If somone performs this act it is still stealing.

 

[LittleJade]

I think anyone who went ahead with a violent fantasy, without even ONCE stopping to consider safety or a safe word, should be charged with negligent homocide.

And the asshole who set up the site, should be charge with intent.

 

[mirrors2]

I think anyone who went ahead with a violent fantasy, without even ONCE stopping to consider safety or a safe word, should be charged with negligent homocide.

And the asshole who set up the site, should be charge with intent.

I thought "intent.." didn't give penalties nearly as strict as the act itself. It sorta seems like it wouldn't be enough, in this case.

 

[LittleJade]

I thought "intent.." didn't give penalties nearly as strict as the act itself. It sorta seems like it wouldn't be enough, in this case.

There's always street justice, on top of intent.

He'd quickly turn into someone's bitch on the inside.

 

[DéjàNu]

dont know who could be crazy enough to follow throught with something like this after seeing it on a website..... anyway he is crazy enough to put him in jail for a long time

 

[dg]

Too vague. Anything on the internet can be falsified and no one without actual visual evidence or logging software pre-installed on the person making the website could say otherwise. The person who did the deed raped someone regardless of if they "wanted" it or not and should be punished as such.

 

[Doulton]

What are the standard charges for coercing someone to do something?
That is, if I coerce someone into committing murder, how do the charges get leveled at me?

This concerns the man who made the website, who I think we can all agree should be punished severly. It's the man who committed the crime that poses the more difficult question.

Unless he gets some type of actual face to face agreement then he is liable for whatever he did. This is like someone putting up a sign that says to do something wrong (ie. steal a car). If somone performs this act it is still stealing.

But if the crime is something performed against a person with their permission then it may not be a crime. If I posted a sign asking you to steal my car, and that sign was genuine, then it wouldn't be a crime at all; it would be me giving you my car.
If he thought she was acting, and in truth consented to the act, then he didn't think he was committing a crime. Should that not be taken into account at least to a small degree?

 

[dolf]

A while back I saw an episode of some crime programme, (Cold Case or CSI or something, I don't remember which) and it raised an interesting conundrum.

still rape.
it's the man's moral and legal duty to obtain consent.
legally and morally, a woman can withdraw consent at any time.

the man who made the site would be guilty of sexual assault at the very least? rape by proxy... he used a stranger as a weapon.

 

[Doulton]

Too vague. Anything on the internet can be falsified and no one without actual visual evidence or logging software pre-installed on the person making the website could say otherwise.

I agree; it'd be mind-numbingly fucking stupid to just take the site at face value. But this is a hypothetical, and for the sake of argument, I'm asking you to assume that we know he really did believe it was real, and that she wanted it.

 

[dg]

I agree; it'd be mind-numbingly fucking stupid to just take the site at face value. But this is a hypothetical, and for the sake of argument, I'm asking you to assume that we know he really did believe it was real, and that she wanted it.

He should still be charged based on lack of common sense. Darwin tells us so.

 

[LittleJade]

If he thought she was acting, and in truth consented to the act, then he didn't think he was committing a crime. Should that not be taken into account at least to a small degree?

No.

Acting out fantasy involves a concern for safety... so while I enjoy rough sex, and being taken on the odd occassion by my partner (as in, without really WANTING to be taken, at the outset), he always takes into consideration my safety. When he binds me, or holds me down, he doesn't do so in ways that can HARM me. Hurt, sure, harm, no.

We have a safeword. We have signs, if I am unable to speak.

Someone who is totally willing to barge in and act out a rape scene, without any thought to safety, safewords, etc, should be charged with negligent homocide. Even if he thought she was acting, there should have been concern for her safety.

 

[torchthebitch]

NCIS.

Depends on your laws relating to Intent. The guy who created the website clearly intended to incite the crime so there is no real problem there.

The guy who carries out the rape genuinely believes his actions a consensual. He does not intend to commit a crime.

Ultimately I feel that if the site builder is convicted and jailed for the rape then justice has been served. How the woman feels is another matter. I think the guy who carried out the attack may also have some sort of requirement for justice also. I'm sure he would experience some sort of trauma over the event

 

[dolf]

If he thought she was acting, and in truth consented to the act, then he didn't think he was committing a crime. Should that not be taken into account at least to a small degree?

he didn't ensure that he wasn't commiting a crime.

 

[Aestuo]

No.

Acting out fantasy involves a concern for safety... so while I enjoy rough sex, and being taken on the odd occassion by my partner (as in, without really WANTING to be taken, at the outset), he always takes into consideration my safety. When he binds me, or holds me down, he doesn't do so in ways that can HARM me. Hurt, sure, harm, no.

We have a safeword. We have signs, if I am unable to speak.

Someone who is totally willing to barge in and act out a rape scene, without any thought to safety, safewords, etc, should be charged with negligent homocide. Even if he thought she was acting, there should have been concern for her safety.

wha? how does rape = homicide?

 

[LittleJade]

wha? how does rape = homicide?

I'm sorry, I'm stuck on the opening post where he said the woman died.

Sorry- mind freeze.

 

[Aestuo]

I'm sorry, I'm stuck on the opening post where he said the woman died.

Sorry- mind freeze.

ok! that makes much more sense... had me wondering if i missed something there! (well, and wondering if you know what homicide meant heh)

 

[LittleJade]

ok! that makes much more sense... had me wondering if i missed something there! (well, and wondering if you know what homicide meant heh)

*snicker* As blonde as the wig in my av is, I'm actually not quite that dumb.

Besides, I'm a CSI junkie. If for no other reason than that, I'd have to know what homocide was.


I'm just stupid on cold meds today.

 

[John Doe]

But if the crime is something performed against a person with their permission then it may not be a crime. If I posted a sign asking you to steal my car, and that sign was genuine, then it wouldn't be a crime at all; it would be me giving you my car.

Yes, it is a crime. It doesn't matter if you protest or not or if you posted a sign. It is ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to press charges.

If he thought she was acting, and in truth consented to the act, then he didn't think he was committing a crime. Should that not be taken into account at least to a small degree?

No.

In a legal sense she did not consent. Even if the case were different in that she actually did post this information in the Internet it still does not satisfy the legal definition of consent.

Or at least it doesn't in any jurisdiction I know of.

 

[Aestuo]

*snicker* As blonde as the wig in my av is, I'm actually not quite that dumb.

Besides, I'm a CSI junkie. If for no other reason than that, I'd have to know what homocide was.


I'm just stupid on cold meds today.

heh, i didn't think you were that dumb, i've seen your other posts.....

hehe yay for CSI! I am too.

aaaah, i know the feeling! hope you are better soon

 

[The Heretic]

An adult would know that the chance of someone besides the woman putting up the site is fairly high, and would therefore make sure the woman actually wants this rape fantasy to occur.

 

[Doulton]

Well I'm reassured to see how little tolerance and forgiveness you all have for this guy; other posts I've seen on the issue of rape on this site have been quite sickening.
On an intellectual level I can actually see it being necessary to cut the guy a little slack, if we truly believe he was convinced of the instructions' authenticity.
But at the same time I find it hard to believe that a man could carry out a violent rape without being a sadistic fuck. It's not just violence after all, but getting and maintaining an erection long enough to have sex with a screaming and obviously suffering woman. That means you're getting off on it and at least on some level enjoying it. I don't think a sane, healthy mind could go through with that, no matter how much they told themselves it was just an act. (Although having said that, statistics I've seen on the proportion of men who say they would rape a woman if they knew they could get away with it suggest there is something to the mindset that I just don't get)