When rape isn't rape
Posted at 1:11 PM on January 4, 2013
by Bob Collins
(4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice
A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend. Has the man committed rape?
That's the beginning of a controversial decision from an appeals court in California this week that has people calling for a change in an old law.
Julio Morales had been convicted of rape and sentenced to three years in state prison.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals in Los Angeles answered the question it raised above. No, it's not rape.
It said the California law on rape of an unconscious woman says the woman "is unconscious or asleep or not aware that the act is occurring or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her."
But the woman in this case was awake; she just thought it was her boyfriend, and besides, Morales didn't pretend to be her boyfriend.
The court, however, didn't really need any of that because it said it was constrained by an 1872 law defining rape:
In light of the continued existence of a separate provision that expressly makes sexual intercourse by impersonation a rape, albeit only when the victim is married and the perpetrator impersonates the victim‟s spouse, we are compelled to interpret section 261, subdivision (a)(4), in a way that does not render subdivision (a)(5) superfluous. Therefore, we reluctantly hold that a person who accomplishes sexual intercourse by impersonating someone other than a married victim‟s spouse is not guilty of the crime of rape of an unconscious person under section 261, subdivision (a)(4).
"Judicial activism" has become a bad phrase. A woman in California, however, could've used a little in this case.
Comments (4)
See! I was RIGHT!!! This is too such a thing as Legitimate Rape!
Sounds like an instance where a stupid - and in this case very old - clause in the law was overlooked or never noticed in the first place.
I'm curious how & when she learned it wasn't her boyfriend.
// I'm curious how & when she learned it wasn't her boyfriend.
It's in the court opinion.
| January 2013 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- The stuff we throw away (5x8 - 5/24/13)
- Sunday liquor sales: The little bill that can't
- The concealed carry muzzle
- There's Texas and then there's everywhere else
- Tornado damage via satellite
- Sabrina's best day ever
- Postcards from the security state (5x8 - 5/23/13)
- God and the Oklahoma tornado
- Enough with the Hiroshima atomic bomb comparisons
- Justices fume over MN Supreme Court ruling in sexual harassment case
Categories
- Arts
- Aviation
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Mary and Bob
- Media
- News
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- War
- Weather
- You Should Meet...
Services
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock