Law blogger posts online

California has created a new standard for rape. Anyone who has gone to college in the last 10-15 years has probably been forced to go to sensitivity seminars where rape is defined by the mindset of the woman involved rather than her unambiguous statements and/or actions. The danger, of course, is that without at least an unambiguous statement (and preferably an act) the male is reduced to mind reading. And it leaves the male open to "rape by regret." How is anyone to know whether she was unwilling at the time or became convinced she was unwilling later when he turned out to be an absolute jerk who threw her out of his dorm room five minutes after the act and - after fawning over her for weeks - has not even acknowledged her existence since the event.



Rape is the worst crime imaginable short of murder. It is so vile that it long carried the death penalty (and might still except for its improper use against Black Americans). It is also usually one of the nastiest trials when the defendant pleads not guilty. Usually there are no witnesses outside the accuser and accused. She says she told him no - he says she said nothing or was actively willing. Juries and judges guess at who is telling the truth. I guess the one advantage of the California decision is that it eliminates the guess work. He can have a reasonable belief that she is willing and she can have a reasonable belief that she is not: by default she wins because her mindset carries the day. Never mind that it eliminates the necessity that he intend to overcome her will and take her by force; it makes decisions in the courtroom much simpler.



Gotta say, this makes Virginia's appellate court decision that "Can I talk to a lawyer?" is not a request for a lawyer (previously at the top of my list of hard to defend opinions) sound down right reasonable in comparison.



Caveat: I have not read the California opinion only the op-ed pieces. Hope to read it when I get to the office today.