E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
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."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Stealth virus raids your bank account
- Cops: Woman wore mustache to rob neighbors
- Teen runaway mistakenly deported to Colombia
- Virgina first-grader dies from allergic reaction at school
- Hundreds gather for funeral for 3 girls killed in fire
- Texas police defend shooting of 8th-grade student
NBC News' Pete Williams and Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
If only there were occasions where I had to force women off my "Richard."
Be careful what you wish for.
I thought this was the job of the courts, not the "administration."
This Administration thinks IT MAKES THE LAWS!! He thinks he is a KING!
Butt that said it was needed but maybe he should let congress pass the laws LIKE THE LAW (constitution) says.
Broaden it more to include what he's doing to the economy and our children while you're at it.
Oh, come on, AKRandy. The Justice Department trying to protect women, children and the mentally challenged makes Obama "King"? That's a pretty big stretch. and what is the difference between Obama and Bush on this front, again? You've heard of signing statements, right?
And the ruling is a major "about time". I've known too many women who were assaulted, went to court, and were brutalized a second time by the defense only to see their case dismissed because they didn't scream loud enough or because they were at a frat party.
No means no. Stop means stop.
I don't honestly understand what this accomplished. It doesn't change anything in state or local laws (where rape is almost always prosecuted) and according to the article, most of them already use the broader definitions anyway. Just seems like a bit of "cherry picking" to make Obama and this administration look good swing public perception there way. I mean, who can argue with broadening the definition of the word "rape", even if doing so accomplishes NOTHING?! I suspect we can look forward to more of these new "imperial declarations" as the administration finds ways to paint themselves in the best possible light.
What's the matter Randy, don't like the new definitions? Feeling guilty about something?
Obama is the anti-Constitution king, he said so back in 2001, when he said "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties".
Fact is, the only politician who feels the Constitution is negative would be a totalitarian dictator, because that was the reason our founding fathers wrote it!!!
People will stretch to criticize this President. The administration did the right thing. Rape is a hideous crime that too many people get away with. As a woman I applaud the change.
SeekingSanity, yes rape IS hideous and all the states and localities that prosecute it have laws against it. All the administration is doing is grandstanding to get people like you to say things like "I applaud the change". Bottom line is, this "change" doesn't really change anything.
You Obama haters are pathetic. The administration has simply put forward a BETTER definition of rape. How dare you make it a partisian issue or "imperial declarations" simply because it came during his administration. You're hatred of Obama has clouded your judgement so bad, that you can't see the purpose behind this at all can you? Had this been ANYONE else, you would have hailed it as a "LANDMARK". Do you think a rape victim really cares where it comes from?
You people make me sick.
I don't understand, how do some of you turn this story around into a smear campaign towards the president?? You guys are miserable!
When the president does something right the right makes it wrong. This old law was older then dirt. All laws need to be taken off the books when they no longer apply. I heard on the radio yesterday that in Michigan a woman can not cut her hair with out her husbands approval. Man my wife is going to flip out when she hears that one. But these new Teapublicans would love a law like that. Some Gomer down south wants a woman to be charged with murder if she miscarriages. She has to prove it was natural. These Southern Gentlemen think rape is there right, and beating women as well. But let one woman fight back and see what happens to her.
Your 'joke', #1 and #2, makes it clear why it took 75 years to make a more rational law about rape.
I knew before I read the comments that a good thing would be criticized by Obama haters. Pathetic.
Rape is a Federal Offense? If so our Constitution is a fraud as it defines the rights of the States and the Federal Government. It becomes even more of a joke. And, since when has the President had the power, by edict, to change the law? What happened to Congress? Obama has repeatedly over stepped his bounds as President" and appointed himself "dictator". See his "illegal continuation of the war in Libya", his untouchable "czars", his unconstitutional "appointments" and by "executive order" his spending of government money to buy votes for his reelection (the "give-away" programs).
The "Founding Fathers" specifically agreed that "Mr. President" was appropriate to avoid such words as "you Majesty", "your excellence" or something of the kind. We might as well forget about that idea!!!
P.S., should read #1.1, not #2.
Bruce-308647, either you are functionally illiterate, or else your 'elevator just does not reach the higher floors'.
This change certainly DOES do something, contrary to what the whiners are saying above. This will give federal recognition of all forms of rape, not just the limited previous definition. Does it change the number of prosecutions? Nom because most of that is done at the state level. But what this will do is give a clearer picture of just how big the problem of sexual assualt is on a national basis.
Honestly though, that prospect is more than a little frightening if there were already 85,000 cases in 2010 based just on the previous narrow definition.
The statute of limitations has not run out. Maybe they can arrest former president G.W. Bush and his administration for what they did to the country and our children.
And Gil-2872519, who is overstepping their bounds? Laws are passed/changed all of the time without going through all of the processes. For example, the state of California routinely passes hundreds of laws every January that no one ever hears about, except for the few that the television/radio decide to review.
Bruce-308647
Oh, you mean like passing legislation reaffirming that 'In God We Trust' is our motto??? Gimme a break, bruce. At least this expansion of the definition of rape actually DOES something USEFUL! Jeezus.....
To all you left wingers that only want to read half of what I said.
Here the the other part>"But with that said it was needed."
I just would like to see him follow the law for once!
AKRandy, your ignorance is astounding. The Justice Dept redefined rape for reporting purposes. This redefinition changes no laws. In fact, as some have already stated, rape laws are written, passed, and enforced by the states, not the federal government.
All you lefties don't leisten. AKRandy is saying that the Congress is supposd to pass the law, courts interpret it, and the President ratifies it. You ignore the Constitution when it doesn't fit your beliefs.
President OBAMA is following the law. If any of you Obama haters actually paid attention in an 8th Grade Civics Class, you would know something about Executive Order. However, since your hatred of Obama not only clouds your judgement on this issue, let me give you the background now:
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
<-- read it an WEEP! oh, and if you still think that the President should have left his to Congress, we need to go and arrest Bush immediately. He 'deployed' our military to Iraq WITHOUT a declaration of war from Congress.
Do I somewhat agree with the Obama haters that he has usurped power during his presidency? Yes. But in every account, it seems he has had the best interest of the American people in mind(except for Libya, but as many of the right wingers seem to have goldfish brains, neither did Bush get Congressional approval before starting us down the road to Middle East dominence!) This is only a good thing, and I'm sick of hearing from the nut jobs out there every time the president does anything, even when it's in the BEST INTEREST OF AMERICA!
Signed,
A True Independent who wants to see political parties dissolved for the betterment of America!
Congress alone has the power to define criminal laws; this administration believes it is a kingdom, he pushed the Dodd-Frank consumer law; giving authority to the Federal reserve banks to enforce all consumer protection laws, he signed the defense authorization bill, allowing imprisonment of American citizens for life without a trial, he is re-writing the immigration laws; America had better wake up to what is really going on, we are losing our freedoms and our country.
Saxon, go see my previous comment.. Obama can do this by "executive order". via the department of Justice. If you don't like it, write your Congressperson immediately. Ask that person to introduce a bill in Congress that
1. Further defines the presidential executive order
2. Overturn the presidential executive order by introducing another bill
3. Go to the US Supreme Court.
Signed - An American who is awake and educated.
@ Saxon, take a social studies class please the statement "congress alone has the power to define criminal laws" is not a factual statement.
You can't deny the truth:
Obama is the anti-Constitution king, he said so back in 2001, when he said "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties".
Fact is, the only politician who feels the Constitution is negative would be a totalitarian dictator, because that was the reason our founding fathers wrote it!!!
Just because you heard it on a dubbed conservative media audio file doesn't make it true.
It's About Time: Obama can do anything by "executive order" just as I can punch you in the mouth. What you can do does not make it legal. Just because Congress can't undo it for 6 or 12 months doesn't validate its legality. Yes - you passed 8th grade but you flunked "Constitutional Law" 101.
@Prohibition, your derp is showing...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
According to your quotation, he doesn't feel the Constitution is negative, he is saying it supports people's rights to do whatever they are able to do without restrictions. In case Stanford's article is a bit too high-brow for you, here's the typical idea of an authoritative (*snicker*) reference these days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
ItsAboutTime-3704531.... You state "Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies." You go on to further say " The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Both your statements above show the EO's can be used to direct how congressional laws are enforced and implemented. EO's however cannot establish a new law as the constitution clearly gives that power to Congress and the Executive Branch has no authority over Congress. I do not disagree with what the President did in this case, but again I firmly disagree with how he did it. By changing the definition of rape, he is essentially changing what may be considered illegal and is thus creating a new law. While you may agree with what he did, as I do, what if he signed an EO saying that anyone that hugs someone else has comitted rape. I know its an extraoridnary example but under your reasoning, the President would have just made it law that you cannot hug another person or be charged with rape. That is in effect changing the law as written and creating a new one. He could have simply asked congress to pass simple one page bill redefining what the Federal authorities would consider rape and it would have easily passed.
It is about time equality means all and reaches all. Believe it or not there are many forms of rape. Women ashamed of coming forward and men afraid of being laughed at. Ever heard of good night Cinderella... Good for President Obama for redefining the meaning of rape. BTW, no laws were changed. Rape was merely redefined. King, really!!! Sounds more like hatred, racism and sour grapes. President Obama is doing a hell of a job digging us out of the cr@p king george and clooney dick left us in. Why exactly are they not in jail yet for war crimes and too big to fail trickle down economics....
Right. Let's have the "can't even pass the salt" Congress with it's "Weeper of the house" leader pass laws. Funny!
-_-
_Peter Jacobs: Let's use an EO to redefine murder so as to include shoplifting. Why not?
Jasmine: Love it or leave it. We have a constitution -- dictators are not welcome.
The great Republican president Richard Nixon said,
WOW Gil. Did you read before posting.... Shoplifting is not murder. If someone died during a shoplifting spree then it wouldn't just be shoplifting. BTW an EO can be challenged in court at any time.
Peter Jacobs: I think your losing it - you didn't bother to read mine at 69.32. Are you talking about the felony murder rule? Shoplifting is not a felony and I think you know what I meant. Go to law school or at least read the "Cliff Notes" on Constitutional Law.
PS: I think I said what if the POTUS redefined "murder" to include "shoplifting" would that be OK. Think about that for 24 hours with your 8th grade education.l
Gil-2875219: First as so many have pointed out and my earliest post in this entire chain did, is that Obama changed the definition of Rape. Plain and simple. If he did do something else by executive order as it relates to this topic, then YES, it is LEGAL until declared illegal or unconstitutional. e.g., 1948 - Truman passes and executive order in which the federal government takes over the factories because of a strike. His order was LEGAL until the US Supreme Court declared it otherwise. Hmm.. guess I didn't fail constituional law now did I? Here is more information for you to get more familar with law: http::// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/executive order.
U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.
STLMike - If the President issues and executive order, IT IS LEGAL and even over rides Congress. (see link above) If Congress doesn't like the executive order, they can pass a bill that changes the executive order. I do agree, it's better for the President and Congress to work together to pass laws in this country. The presidential abuse of executive order has been challenged many times by Congress and the US Supreme Court. Just ask our Former President Bush about his laws right after 911.
So there can be no doubt. This is what I read.
'Let's use an EO to redefine murder so as to include shoplifting. Why not?'
Do you know me Gil... You sure do sound like you do since you know my level of education and all... BTW, I left personal attacks back in the 8th grade... Read the COH contract you signed my dear attorney... There is absolutely no way President Obama could justify including shoplifting into the definition of murder or murder into shoplifting. If a murder happened during the act of armed robbery then it would still be murder, felony-murder. I doubt shoplifting would include weapons. But if it did, it would be armed robbery, a felony.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
In the future, treat me with respect and I will return the favor. OK...
OK, everyone CALM DOWN! Didn't you read the article? This change affects only the statistics keeping and reporting by the Justice Department. The article explictly stated that no laws are being changed (and that most laws already use the more expansive definition). The Obama administration has NOT usurped the courts or violated any precious states rights.
You are all so, so pathetic.
Obama's signing of a change in definition is so statistics can be collected nationally by federal agencies and funding can be allocated based on those statistics.
Sure, it doesn't change local laws but it will ultimately affect them.
It changes NO laws so Congress needn't get involved (so please stop bashing the President for supposedly doing Congress' job)
He did the right thing00this will give the country a more accurate idea of what is going on with regards to rape. Got a problem with it? Then, the problem is you.
Christ Almighty America has lost it's mind.
Also love how Prohibition disappears once someone calls him/her out on their bull@!$%#. Love the smell of fried lying troll in the morning.
What are you clowns on about. That law is a no brainer. Who cares who passes it.
_Peter Jacobs: I respect the 1st Amendment and the right of ALL people to express their opinion. I believe I have done so. You started the 8th grade stuff. So you are implying that you are an attorney. So what? You said "absolutely no way President Obama could justify including shoplifting into the definition of murder" . You are contradicting yourself. You lose in an Appeal Court -- the worst I got was one dissent out of three and won every other.
The Constitution is not so flexible so as the POTUS can do anything he wants. A lawyer who sees it that way should go to Iran.
I'm about as anti- Obama as you can get, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care who's admin decided to broaden to definition of rape. It's about freaking time! Of course, up until the 80's a man could not be guilty of raping his wife, because she's his "property."
I hope this also effects the men who are raped in a more positive way. You do not have to be ashamed if this has happened to you, come forth and put those that violated you behind bars!
So two people get drunk and knock boots. After they wake up and figure out what happened, the guy can claim rape just like women can now?
This is nothing but political grandstanding. This "more expansive" definition has been in use by the courts and legal system of every state for many years. This revised federal definition has absolutely no impact on the law and will not have any impact on the number of rapes reported. This is nothing more than the administration trying to grab some positive headlines with a meaningless pronouncement. Obama should try spending some time working on real problem instead of looking for ways to score political points. If he spent half as much time on the real problems of the nation instead of meaningless nonsense like this we might not be in the mess we are in. Obama is great at campaigning, unfortunately he is a complete disaster when it comes to actually getting anything meaningful accomplished.
I seriously think that a, lets say a dorky dude, (we know women don't rape ) would rape anything even a cardboard box if he could..Lets not get into the gender issue a douche is a douche.
Gil,
Our President Obama would utilize common sense as a good leader should and would. I doubt he would apply shoplifting to the idea of murder or felony-murder. I think that maybe you should step out of preemptive suffering. It wears down the mind.
With all due respect, please show me where I started the 8th grade stuff.
I have no need to imply. If I wish to share personal information I would state it as a fact. In this case there is no need.
Please show me where there is contradiction. I am sure common sense is part of making and applying laws. In this case redefining rape to include what has been missing for decades. Your comparison of shoplifting and murder with redefining rape is reaching way beyond common sense.
Gil-2872519
Skiddy, the courts cannot enforce the laws unless the laws are made and designed by the Legislative and Executive branches. This defines the laws for the courts.
It is difficult to write on these smart phones so I will repost the last part of my previous post just for you. BTW. Thanks for the entertainment while I am waiting for my next flight.
Contradiction Gil. A lawyer that sees this different than you also has a right to be in America. At least in my America.
At this point I am wondering whether I am dealing with a troll. I have seen these tactics before. You may have (and take) the last word now. I have said all there needs to be said regarding our conversation. Peace and be happy.
This country, its ideals and goals have gone to Hell -- You said it; I didn't.
Gil,that is a good fecking question.What DID happen to congress?They won't pass a damned thing these days, unless it is a raise for themselves.
And to think I was actually coming in here to make a snarky joke comment about how Obama had overstepped his bounds or something.
Good God, man y'all need to get a frickin grip.
Wow that one got some attention didn't it, Gay and straight alike I guess there are no more late night snacks on uncounsious individuals, good for all put the sick where they belong.
Anything President Obama does get attention from O-haters. There are a lot of Americans out there hating the fact that he is black, educated, and got far in life. Then there are also the paid trolls intended to disrupt anything non dick&bush. Sour grapes.
President Obama, please sign an executive order to cease all fracking operations until proven safe. How can you allow such travesty to continue while you are president of this great country. We are obviously still being raped a-la dick&bush. The after taste is nauseating.
About time.
While it doesn't change the laws about prosecuting it, this is a step in the correct direction. What kind of country would not consider it rape when a man is forced without his consent? More importantly, what kind of country would not consider it rape when ANYBODY is forced without their consent.
Now if only we could apply domestic violence laws to both genders. There are still many places where the law only covers men attacking women.
Ruken - absolutely agree with you. Though, I don't happen to know where those places are...
That crazy lady on the reality show, I cant remember which one...but she was arrested for assaulting her boyfriend on camera...so, in some places they clearly have progressed to understand that a woman shouldnt hit a man, any more than a man should hit a woman.
The new law states:
“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.
It would seem reasonable that this new definition would also apply to the party of the second part as well assuming both were similarly incapacitated, thus according to this law, neither party would be capable of consent, so what then?
@Ruken & Jessica
That would be another step in the right direction. According to the latest domestic abuse statistics (depending on source), the number of victims of domestic violence is quickly approaching a 50/50 split between males and females. Getting the judges on board to recognize that more and more men are becoming victims of abuse is essential in the age of equal rights for all.
Ruken
I think in the late 80's or so most stated made that change. I know here in Michigan it did, my son's first wife slapped him, others heard them, and call the police and she went to jail for the night,
I'm free for the next 18.6 minutes. Anyone for a threepeat?
There is no new law. The Justice Department is changing the definition of what constitutes rape for statistical purposes. It is like changing the definition of what constitutes a PDA (personal digital assistant) to include smartphones. No more, no less.
Having Dumbama as pseudo president - that is rape.
no it isnt.The American voter consented. :)
Should be interesting to see the Republicans complain about this one.
well done, leftard.
I'm sure most Republicans support this new definition. But its dip sh(1)ts like you that feel you need to politically criticize a party you obviously know nothing about. Therefore, you just demonstrated how much of a fool you are! Have a great day loser! LMAO
Tracer - after reading other comments which you have made, I have come to this conclusion: You need to spend the rest of the day, gazing in a mirror, while reciting your last two sentences.
I think what he's saying is that since the republicans are against EVERYTHING that Obama or Biden seem to be behind then they're likely to find fault in the new definition. Besides, the way most of you guys behave it does seem more likely that you'd tell a rape victim to rub some dirt on it and walk it off, that they were asking for it or they wouldn't be dressed like that, or that they should just lay back and enjoy it because it's gonna happen whether they like it or not. Now I'm not saying that's how you guys feel, but it is how most of you guys act. Hell, you guys blame the victims for everything anyway; why should this be any different?
Not so - which is an appropriate name for you, should be a little more understanding with regards to others opinions and not be so hasty to criticize based on someones political views as John did. Therefore, go screw yourself......in the mirror.
This thread is a prime example of politics gone bad. Both sides blaming the other for intolerance while exhibiting the same trait themselves. A little respect goes a long way... or is blind hatred simply easier?
Tracer - you apparently dont follow the republican party, and there recent efforts to redine rape as only "forcible"...
oh sure, after the outrage it generated...they claimed "thats not what we meant to do"...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/anti-abortion-changes-definition-rape-critics-say/
Language is important, and these politicians are VERY AWARE of that...so, I dont buy the BS they tried to peddle after the fact.
you know there was someone in that bunch saying "so, if I bang a woman who's wasted on drugs, thats not rape right? cuz I didnt force her right? cuz she was passed out...so she didnt fight back"...
and no doubt there are men on this vine saying "wait, thats rape?"/// *facepalmxinfinity
Jessica - I agree with your statement. However, most of the Rep people I know are VERY receptive to the fact that people (men) can take advantage of a woman who is under the influence of a controlled substance...and this crime is unacceptable!!!
That being said, there are many cases of men having to defend themselves based on false accusations because BOTH parties are intoxicated - and whether the men is is innocent of not, they are consequently slandered for life as the public is quick to judge base on rumors rather than facts. Thank you for you comments.
John S-400329:
No party is FOR RAPE but the left wing nut party can keep spinning things!!
Tracer-1829625:
The left does not care what others think!! Here in Alaska we have a case where a 26 year old injected heroin into a 14 year old girl > Killing her...THE LEFT WANTS US TO FELL SORRY FOR THE KILLER. The Republicans wants the death penalty. (which we don't have)
The Left only cares about the perp> NOT THE VICTIM.
gskx banned, comment history was pretty much this and smearing Muslims.
Tracer-1829625, you're suspended for a week for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
not so otto, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
3 didn't deserve this much attention, let alone this many violations.
AKRandy your so full of it. The only thing Dem's want is to be sure the law is followed. I understand you guys up there like to kill people before they have a trial. The Corruption is so bad in the Courts that we should never have the death penalty in this country. Every year DNA proves people were wrongfully convicted, many on death row. Hell men haven been in prison for 30 years for something they didn't do, How are with that?
Chuck...I am a Republican and I think it is certainly a step in the right direction for the Federal Justice System to catch-up with what the individual States are currently enforcing....If this is another unilateral decision by the President why did they wait three years into their administration to do this unless it were simply a technicality to claim victory over something positive.
As a reasonable person of course the definition of rape should include both sexes...of course it should encompass areas that involve the incapacitation of a victim.
What I don't understand is why the President and Joe Biden are touting some great victory? Certainly they have more going on in the White House to run the country than sitting in their offices piddling over word definitions that bring the Fed in line with the States. Shouldn't that be Eric Holder piddling over minutia or possibly the Justices?
Its funny how upset some Obama haters get for calling them out on exactly what this comment page is littered with... the page is filled with "Obama is (insert totalitarian flare word here)"... forget that this is a positive update to the law.
Sorry when you make every effort to spin everything Obama does as unconstitutional, Marxist, evil, or totalitarian without any CORRECT supporting facts that are not so easy to disprove by simply looking it up, or just make up what you feel is and should be true... you make yourselves look like fools... we don't have to tell people you are, you do a good job of that on your own
tracer. You must have missed the entire collapsed first thread about this :)
As a women of the generation where what you were wearing or whether or not you had participated in sexual activity at any time in your life was admissable evidence in a court of law...I say damn well time.
Once and for all - rape - be it an attack on male or female - is an act of violence - an act of control. PERIOD.
Also, this change will expedite the processing of charges of child sexual abuse.
Glad they finally made the change to broaden the definition, but what are they doing to solve the problem?
@been there....am with you. Rape should be a death penalty offence - it could be easily stated that something in the victim dies with this unwarranted and unwanted act of violence.
I agree PJ, it would help rid society of this type of aggressive behavior (even in the correctional institutions). And best, it would lessen that gene pool.
The problems with the death penalty are that:
1) The appeals death row inmates automatically get cost more than incarcerating them for life.
2) Killing an innocent convict (it has happened) is the ultimate injustice. At least innocents incarcerated 20 years of a life sentence will get some of their life left to live.
As far as punishments for rape go, there's always chemical castration for men, but how do you punish a woman for rape without it crossing into the cruel and unusal area?
Personally, my choice of punishment for men who rape would be taking them on a rooftop, tying one end of a piano wire around their jewels and the other to a brick, and then toss the brick. But that's a little extreme.
@ Ruken - see and understand your point. That said - life without the possibility of parole - let them experience the 'joys on the receiving end.'
There are many pitfalls with convictions and I don't downplay that issue at all.
I think I'm with david1 on this one, death is a bit too extreme, but there is always castration. I think they do that in some countries. It won't totally eliminate their ability to offend again, but it certainly makes it harder!
I think it is also time for the government to step up and help women become more capable of self-defense. Offering free martial arts classes would be a start. As would passing laws that make it impossible for an attacker to sue a victim for injuries received in self-defense. I know some places have such laws, but not all. Heck, what about the lawsuit being decided right now by the guy that took a couple hostage in their home, then sued them when the didn't help him hide? Utterly ridiculous. We need to have laws that prevent such ridiculous suits from even being filed. Even if that couple wins, the time and money to defend against that suit will be a huge burden, one that should never have been placed on them.
What about two 14 year old kids (high school freshman age) fooling around? Neither are old enough to give consent. The death penalty has been historically unequally applied, so maybe we should slow down with this sort of talk.
Not that I disagree on principle, but the difficulty with making it a death penalty offense is that the standard of proof goes higher. Offenders would be slightly more likely to get away with it.
Also, good point, MarineDoc. I don't think that this is a good avenue.
Then, what happens when it comes out that the alleged criminal was really innocent?
These new definitions are too vague and will result in problematic legal issues. No doubt they will be revised.
Hey John... Republican here,
Sounds like a good change from what I read.
As for false claims of rape under the new rules, that'll have to sort it out in court, like that prostitute who claimed the rugby team raped her, or like the ho that claimed the french guy raped her, the law sorts that stuff out.
I agree. As necessary as they are, the legal lingo needs to be very specific, else it'll fall out in courts and appeals. This is really just grandstanding again by Obama and the Senate Judiciary democrat. You can't go wrong in showing off new policies against sex offenses, and the GOP can't really say anything against it without looking bad to the public. It's like the sex offender laws, very vague, some unconstitutional, but no politician would ever stand up against them.
I think where the real gray area is in this new policy is in the circumstances where women and men go out to bars, get a date, go home and have sex, but when dude leaves in the morning without a kiss, she gets pissed and claims she was drunk and puts a charge on his butt. It can work in reverse too now that men can claim rape.
Nice, Cygnus. Really nice. Make this about Obama...I figured it would happen soon. And while of course there are false charges this will help many more men and women begin to heal and take more rapists off the streets. I'm glad you got in your political statement though, and I'm sure all the people who will actually benefit from the changes would have something to say to you.
ram, it's not about Obama. It's just political grandstanding during election time. A republican would do the same thing. I'm as democrat as they come, but I'm calling it like I see it. Right now the Obama administration is doing everything it can to get more press than the GOP primaries, which are hogging the headlines. He needs to be seen doing positive stuff, while the GOP continues to fight a nasty battle, which impresses no one. It's all just political gamesmanship.
The legislative language ("legal lingo") cannot be very specific. The legislature always uses broad strokes in drafting its language, with the knowledge that the courts will be responsible for applying the very general elements of the crime to each specific case, or fact pattern.
While it is definitely possible for laws to be so vague and overbroad as to be unconstitutional, the intention is always to use very general language, in order to apply to a variety of different situations.
Actually, no. A Republican would try and do the opposite. They'd get the definitions of rape changed so that drugging a woman and then taking advantage of her didn't count as rape.
Don't think they would? They've already tried.
http:// +motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
In February of 2007, Time magazine published an article entitled "A Time Limit on Rape." The article reported on a Maryland case in which a boy, age 16, and a young woman, age 18, had sex in a car. The boy was accused of rape because, after the beginning of consensual sex, he didn't immediately withdraw when his female partner told him to stop. According to Time, "The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax."
When asked at trial how long the young man remained inside of her after she told him to stop, she answered, "About five or so seconds." He said he stopped immediately. Astonishingly, a jury convicted him of first-degree rape.
Chum the courts did't sort anything out in those cases. The people had money and bought there way out of that. The Courts just got out of there way and let it happen. Hell no sense in putting a rich man or a gang of rich kids go to jail for what they did to person without money. Or a lesser person then they are, That's how rich people think. The law don't apply to them. and we all know it.
Please explain why this change is to vague.
Easy, if there is no forensic evidence to prove that it wasn't consensual, then it can get mired down into "he said/she said". The crime and ensuing penalties are far to severe to be based on anecdotal evidence.
There are no legal issues for the courts here. This change in definition doesn't affect any law or prosecutions. It simply changes what is counted as "rape" for reporting purposes.
chuck,
As far as the Duke "rape" case, I recall there was an ATM photo of one of the accused young men taken at the same time the alleged "rape" was taking place. So, technically, I guess his money got him out of that charge, but not the way you're thinking.
While I wholeheartedly agree in this case, am I the only one disturbed that Obama (or any President) can just change the legal definition of a word anytime they want? Think about it. What's to prevent them from changing the legal definition of, say, treason to include speaking out against the government or the President?
Do you know anything about policies? The president presents a policy to congress, in this case, to the judiciary committee. They work out the legalese of it with the justice dept to formulate a law, then Congress passes it, then President signs. He can't just make it the law of the land, unless he was executing an executive order, which can still ultimately be overturned by the courts and congress through a long drawn out process. Checks and balances.
I can see your point tho isn't that what Bush/Cheney did with the Patriotic Act - 'anytime-anywhere' wiretaps, etc. etc..... He had an entire paid staff of the finest legal minds who's sole purpose for existence was to find ways to circumvent the constitution. He was 'The Decider'.
Cygnus: The only info I can find (see link below) is that the Obama administration "worked with DOJ on the matter". The DOJ is part of our Executive Branch and is headed by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President. It is not part of our Judicial Branch (Supreme Court & the lower courts) and the article doesn't mention anything about Congress being involved. Checks and balances?
h t t p : // thehill.com/homenews/administration/202757-department-of-justice-expands-definition-of-rape-to-increase-reporting
Reading comprehension:
""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."
Read between the lines, and learn about government procedures. Leahy will propose the new legislation through Congress.
PJ, the Patriot Act was voted on by Congress, who at the time HAD to vote for it, else risk their political careers as being "unpatriotic"
Cygnus: I must have missed your link on govt procedures and how they work. Or are we just expected to take your word for it?
Nothing I have read has stated that Leahy had anything to do with this decision other than commenting on it. And there's certainly nothing about him proposing new legislation through Congress supporting it. Everything reads as if this is a done deal... This article clearly states, "broadened the definition of the crime of rape". Broadened - past tense - already done. Try reading what is actually written without making all sorts of assumptions and talking out of your a$$ without any proof.
More reading comprehension:
This change expanded the definition of rape used to track these crimes on a national basis. It did NOT change the actual laws that anyone is prosecuted under. The Obama administration is not flouting the Constitution, or making new laws without Congress - simply defining which crimes are being compiled to accurately reflect the state of affairs nationwide.
There were 85,000 rapes in the FBI's report for 2010 - just imagine what the number might be with this revised - and commendable - definition.
Thank you, CJ. Finally, someone who isn't simply assuming that the Obama Administration is trying to seize power and usurp Congress.
'bout time; but, the definition should also include "acts of congress" that are bought and paid for by lobbyists, PACS, and campaign contributions that serve no purpose other than to "rape" the citizens while rewarding the criminals.
As much as I agree and appreciate, rape of another human being is extremely serious and probably not the place for congressional complaints... however, that's gotta be fixed too...
Now we have to work on teaching people not to ignore their limits with drugs and alcohol, and teaching people how to be respectful of when other people are too drunk....
Well, that should already have been done, but yes, we need to educate people on this much more than is already done.
I agree that this does get sticky but for example, let's say they've both been drinking and one passes out. Then the other starts to have sex with them without their conscent... that's rape.
Of course it should have already been done. It shouldn't even need to be stated that it has to be done, sadly.
And Mina, of course that's rape. Its teaching both people that when one passes out, the party is over, go to sleep or go home. Or reconfiguring society so that getting too drunk to stand is no longer fun and cool.
Well Mina, if the two individuals, both, or one inebriated, have an established sexual relationship, then why are you worried? And if they do not have this established relationship - then what else would you call it if someone is going to wait around for someoneelse to pass out so that they can commit a crime?
Since this includes oral, we can charge the Government, they have been raping the people for years;-}
You are so clever.
i don't know what to think. it seems like the definition was already good enough and even it got abused. now some girl who has been drinking that decides to cheat on her boyfriend can claim the next day she was too inebriated to give consent. hell, they already had too much leeway in some cases like the 15 year old boy who got convicted of rape after getting consent cause the women changed her mind after they started but the kid didn't stop immediately. i don't remember how long he took to stop but it was less than 15 seconds before he did.
Did you even read? The definition was broadened to include anyone - no longer just women.
Think on that some, and get back to me. The scenario that you described has already happened and already been dealt with, nothing changes.
How old was the "woman" with the 15 year old boy?
4 years older than him. digital, it was also changed to say that if you're too drunk to give consent it's rape. that's a part that could easily be manipulated by anyone who is remorseful about consentually cheating on their significant other. think on that and get back to me.
That's what we have courts for, HH. I know, it's such a novel idea...
and they all get it right everytime huh toasty! cept some like that guy who was released this week after serving 31 years for a crime he didn't commit. dang, so close.
So your argument is...?
Don't play dumb, Toasty, courts are run by people and people screw up. There is often public pressure to convict someone, ANYONE in cases like this, that the wrong person can get convicted and have their life ruined. Too often, an innocent person gets screwed by someone out for revenge. How many stupid, frivolous lawsuits have we heard about in the last several years? And you think courts are the solution?
So the point you're trying to make is that we shouldn't update the definition of rape?
HH: If the boy was fifteen and the woman was four years older, she should have been charged with statutory rape, just like a man.
Well, I'm glad we resolved and cleared up this "sticky" issue. Gee, how ingenious coming up with the legal description of rape. "Foreign invasion/protrusion of penis into vagina or anus. DUH! Relieved to see our government hard at work clarifying the critical issues of the day.
@ The Beev...guess you could say it only becomes a critical issue if you are on the receiving end.
PJ - "The Beev" is a well known shill around these parts. Easier to just ignore them.
Thanks digitalnoise
Best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore them.
So a man and women go on a date, have dinner and a few glasses of wine. then they go back to her hotel. they make out, get hot and have sex. The next moring she wakes up, see's him and calls rape. he is screwed as in he is guily and has no way out, no recourse. Congrats Brown U just won.
This is actually already a problem on a lot of college campuses. Personally, I'm behind good sex ed, including talking about rape and how to avoid both being raped and how to avoid being the poor guy who really didn't mean anything. Know your limits and don't be dishonest and sneaky. So much easier to say than it is to get other people to do.
Precisely. Therefore, if a women falsely accuses a man of rape and he is proven to be innocent, she too should be thrown in jail for life. That would certainly cut down on the false claims by women just because they regret their drunken decision the night before.
Er... i think you have successfully deviated from the topic ...
That's been happening for a long time. But the reality is that way more often they go to her apartment or his and he doesn't stop or he doesn't take into consideration that she wasn't sober enough to consent. Chellular is right. We teach boys that if she isn't sober enough to be clearly saying say you don't do it. We teach girls to not drink enough to not be able to say no clearly if they mean it. And we teach all of them that you keep your parts and objects to yourself unless you both are clearly willing, sober, and using protection. Nothing is 100 percent, but that would help.
this is what is socialism! which means control!
more laws more regulations more big government
over reaching in every way to take control of your
life and most liberals don't even see the connection!
.... I'm not sure where you're getting socialism from better sex ed and rape prevention, but you might be an idiot.
Really Ervin? Outlawing rape is socialism...?
ram-762581
What if the guy's drunk, too? Too drunk to 'give consent', but not drunk enough to pass out, just like the girl's too drunk to say 'no' or decide she doesn't want to, but not drunk enough to pass out? Who's fault is it then?
Can't wait for that one to hit the courts: "I didn't give consent because I was drunk!"
"But I was drunk, too! That means you raped me!"
Uh, Smith? Rumor has it we have a courts system to handle just those sorts of questions.
I have to agree with ram, there is just not enough education these days. Teaching mutual respect, and self-respect, would go a long way to solving this mess. There will always be pervs and pedos out there, unfortunately, but tougher laws will make it easier to put them away where they can't hurt anyone else. I remember some advice my dad once gave me. Before you date a guy, watch how he treats his female family members. If he respects them, he's probably a good catch. (and my husband is! He is awesome to his sisters). If he is a jerk to them, run screaming. I think the same thing applies to women. If a guy is dating a woman that seems just a bit squirrelly, he should probably break it off before she can get him in trouble!
Wish the "opt-in" laws for protecting personal INFO were at least this strong.
Finally!
Have to agree with this for the most part. I am a bit concerned about "drunken sex" though. If two drunk people have sex, can they both claim rape?
As always, it's a matter of consent.
People can always claim whatever they want. As in any criminal case, there is a presumption of innocence. The difficult part would be proving your claim beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. Even if someone is really raped, there is sometimes not enough evidence to prove it.
I hope that they included a definition that covers the raping the US people took at the hands of the banks (and still do) over the housing fiasco. And another definition for what the govt does to us when it comes to throwing our money away bailing out banks, car companies, and alternative power companies. ; )
BTW, I am not taking away anything from this article. Just saying that there are tens of thousands of families that feel that the banks/govt got away with taking them to the cleaners and we bailed them out so they could do it again.
this is what the obombo administrastion is working on while our
economy goes to HELL! what a loser! what is this about to
attract his lefty wing liberal gay supporters? what a loser!
there are enough laws on the books without MORE which
seems to be this all this dictator wants to do. more control!
hey liberals it's FREEDOM NOT FREEDUMB!
What a classy troll you are. I think from your post it's obvious who the loser here is. I sincerely hope no family member of yours needs this law. Grow up.
I know, that crazy Obama, protecting people from rape. He's such a prankster.
Great news. Rape is serious and should be punished severely.
Now, they just need to give people that falsely accuse someone of rape the same punishment the accused would have received if (or when) they had been found guilty.
The men that have been falsely accused have their lives ruined, all because some woman was "scorned" somehow.
PS, thank you to the idiots on these boards that bring partisan politics in to the discussion. Congratulations! You morons are the reason this country will never get out of the cesspool it is in.
Agreed- This shouldn't be a partisan discussion. I don't know ANYONE who thinks rape is ok, even the ones that believe Obama is an outer-space alien. Rape isn't republican or democrat, it's human, and we need to attack it as humans, not at republican nitwits or holier-than-thou democrats. Overarching insults, and I know that not all of you are either, but I think it certainly helps validate my point.
We live in a partisan country; it is ingrained in us from the time we are young to favor one way or thinking or another. Still, I agree, it would be refreshing to see an open and honest discussion of issues WITHOUT all the name calling, finger pointing, and partisan bickering. Can you imagine would could be accomplished if we abolished parties and make all the politicians get together and solve issues without party lines getting in the way?
I would literally pay money to sit in on that Congress. Can you imagine how monumental?
So if a girl or guy gets drunk and has sex, now it can be considered rape by the other party because they were legally incapacitated? It'll fall in line with contract law? Seems to me this is asking for trouble if not clarified a little further. What would stop a woman from crying rape if she has regretful sex while drunk that she half remembers but consented to at the time?
It's all about intent and control. Highlighting incapacitation by drugs or alcohol limits a potential situation where a person tries to get another "liquored up" so he/she will be less likely to resist sexual contact. This has been a huge, huge issue on college campuses for years and it's about time we educate these kids about the dangers of this behavior.
Thank you...that's all I was trying to say in my previous comment. There are innocent men in prison as we speak serving time for rape they did not commit...most of them African Americans.
That's what I'm saying about the sex ed thing, but I'm really curious what else we all think could be done to make this whole thing... better, I guess? My only idea is sex ed, because I'm not really used to thinking outside the .edu box- Equal punishment for false accusation is a good one, but I don't know how well that will go over... Ideas?
You said it perfectly! How well will it go over - or how could a false accusation be prosecuted. The bottom line is this....both parties must be held accountable for their actions. Both men and women have a responsibility not to become so intoxicated that their judgement is impaired. Its no different than climbing into a car while drunk. Your judgement is impaired. Plain and simple.
Agreed! I've had personal experience with both sides- one of my best friends was falsely accused of rape. I just want to know how we get people to really think about what they're doing and how much they're drinking. It seems like this generation has a lot of trouble NOT going out and getting completely effed up on whatever they can get a hold of, which absolutely contributes to any rise in sexual assault charges. How do we hold people accountable (beyond even rape) without a total system overhaul?
We're turning into the type of society that interact with itself based only on personal desire and need, not a community- focused, mutually beneficial type of society. And before I get railed, I don't think we need to go to a socialist government. I love capitalism. I think we need a much more socially accountable and community oriented form of it.
However, back to holding potential victims accountable- do we hope that their friends/parents/teachers will do it? Can we ask the right questions to get them to do it themselves?
I only know my own human nature, thats why I'm asking so many questions :)
But...but...you wanted God out of our lives? Can't legislate/educate morality. Can't be done. Human nature being what it is, needs common sense rules to live by (the ones in the Bible). "Thou shalt not commit murder," "Honor thy father and mother." etc. These aren't hard rules to live by? That little thing called "personal Responsibility."
Why does morality depend on the Bible or religion at all for that matter? Why can't morality be something along the lines of "do your d*mnd*st not to hurt other people and society as a whole"? Why can't we as Americans come up with our own basic ideal of morality?
I've been talking up personal responsibility on two different articles today, I'm fully aware of what it is.
I think Baker's point, Chellular, is that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Society has HAD moral codes like this for centuries, but in the last century or so it has all be thrown out in the name of "personal freedom" and "get your religion out of my face" kind of attitudes. There is no reason religion has to be FORCED on someone, but the moral codes laid out by most reasonable religions are a good start.
I think you both have a point, though, about personal responsibility. We're living in a culture of victimhood, and while I would NEVER blame a rape victim for being raped, I would certainly teach my own kids that if you don't want to get in that kind of trouble, don't put yourself in that position in the first place. Save yourself the heartache, and avoid those situations entirely.
I understand his point, but I think that in the interest of compromise, we may have to pretend we invented a better wheel. We've gone too far with the "ugh, religion" mentality to get back to it in any timely manner. So why not take those basic rules, the ones that say "don't freakin hurt each other, it's detrimental to the society we live in" and call them a moral code instead of calling it a religion?
That's a tough one. But very valid. The problem is, even if religion and politics too, are vanquished from the Earth, someone will always appear to put their own personal spin upon this moral code. Then the question becomes - why is that someone right?
It seriously took this long for a common sense definition?
Yeah, our great government was too busy defining other more important things, like whether pizza is a vegetable.
Shouldn't this require modification of laws by legislators, and not by executive fiat from Obama in election mode? I don't disagree with the intent, but I disagree with the method. By instruction from Obama, the Justice department is not going to enforce a law on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act, but now they are going to prosecute on verbiage that is not currently in a rape law? What are judges and juries to do with that? Obama is such a transparently, political POS!
You're just plain wrong there, Mike. The administration is still enforcing DOMA, but they are not defending the law. Take off your blinders and think for yourself. That's a key part of becoming an adult.
And please, Mike, READ the article. This changes the definition used for REPORTING rapes on a national level. It does NOT change the laws used to prosecute rape. This was clearly stated:
I dunno, CJ, any time you change a legal definition, for whatever reason, it will affect how courts decide things. It's all about precedent, and besides, how much of this article is touting the fact that this will now improve prosecutions of male rape? You better BELIEVE this will change things! Hopefully, for the better.
Catsclaw81 ... the article didn't say that the "legal" definition of rape is being changed. Besides, the definition varies from state to state. Only the definition of rape for statistical purposes is being changed. That's very different.
If it wasn't for the fact that the number of rapes will show a sudden increase because of the expanded definition, the DOJ probably wouldn't have bothered with an announcement at all.
They should also list this administration as a "rapist" for taking our jobs via their "crusade" and "inquisition" to destroy America and it's real citizens. God will repay.
"Destroy America?" Man, the teabaggers love their histrionics...
Oh, brother, will you people PLEASE take the political posturing out of this?
The penalty for rape should be much higher.
That sounds like rape to me.
Gay, my question is why does the length of her skirt matter? I don't care if a person is running around butt naked NO ONE has the right to put their hands on them. What a person wears does NOT invite rape.
Also, are you trying to say that she was aware of what was going on during the heavy petting, but forgot everything after the heavy petting, therefore she is unable to determine if she gave consent or not? If you clarify that point a little better I think I see where you are going with that part of your point.
I completely disagree.
What a person wears doesn't justify rape...but it most certainly can invite it.
But this leads us into the realm of if someone has one drink they cannot consent.