[sunnymw]

http://distractify.com/news/2016/09/04/brock-turner-armed-protestors

(Okay, I'm clear that under Georgia law it wasn't rape, and I'm also clear that distractify isn't a legit news source.... But... Anyway)

 

[atlsrt44]

Glad they found something worth protesting....

 

[68908]

You can't have consenual sex with someone who cannot consent

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Okay, I'm clear that under Georgia law it wasn't rape . . .

I am not sure why you are so clear about that. See Paul v. State, 144 Ga. App. 106 (1977) (unconscious because of drugs or intoxication or just sleep)

Brown v. State, 174 Ga. App. 913 (1985) (comatose victim, prior sexual relationship, court recognized victim probably would have consented if she were awake, still rape)

Story from this summer http://www.walb.com/story/32446769/man-charged-with-rape-of-unconscious-woman

Story from this spring, close to you . . . http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2016-03-22/arrest-made-alleged-rape-unconscious-athens-woman

A lawyer's web page

Sexual intercourse with a victim who is unconscious, sleeping, intoxicated, or mentally incapable of giving consent is considered to be rape. At times, the victim of rape is under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both. This may confuse the offender into thinking rape is okay because the victim is unconscious or unable to give consent. Although this is the occasional situation, it is still an instance of rape.

http://www.cobbcriminallawyer.com/Criminal-Defense/Sex-Offenses/Rape.aspx

 

[sunnymw]

MP, because rape in the OCGA would be


(a) A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of:

(1) A female forcibly and against her will; or

(2) A female who is less than ten years of age.

Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. The fact that the person allegedly raped is the wife of the defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of rape.



So, his penis did not go into her vagina, therefore not legally rape.

Is what he did any less wrong? No. It's horrible. And his sentence was a freaking joke. But I was clarifying in my OP that while people were referring to him as a rapist, that would actually not be technically correct.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

his penis did not go into her vagina

#-o:???:

I did not know that. Since the news story said "rape," I just assumed there was penetration. I have not seen anywhere what he actually did to her.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Apparently it's not rape in California, either.

Around the world outraged headlines have referred to the “Brock Turner rape caseâ€. And that’s quite accurate â€" he was originally charged with rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person. But those indictments were dropped at a preliminary hearing, reportedly after prosecutors received the results of DNA testing.

As such, the case continued on the basis of ‘lesser’ charges: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person; penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object; and penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. In essence, Californian state law defines rape as penetration by the penis. Since that did not occur Turner is a criminal, a sex offender â€" but he isn’t, according to the law, a rapist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html

So this was not actually a rape case.

So much for mainstream media as an information source.

 

[AtlPhilip]

Am I the only one still stunned by (a)(2)?? TEN YEARS OLD?

 

[sunnymw]

Am I the only one still stunned by (a)(2)?? TEN YEARS OLD?

Yeah, like, what ten year old could consent to that? "Oh she told me it was okay, she wanted it."

..... No. Just no.

 

[sunnymw]

#-o:???:

I did not know that. Since the news story said "rape," I just assumed there was penetration. I have not seen anywhere what he actually did to her.

From reading her letter to him, I'm understanding that he got digital (so to speak) with her before he was chased off.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how someone can be convicted of multiple felonies of attempted rape/sexual assault/penetration with foreign object (if I recall correctly).... And spend three months behind bars. Apparently all the Open Carriers hanging out on Brock's front lawn are also having a hard time with it.

 

[AtlPhilip]

Sunny, delete some PM's so I can message you.

 

[sunnymw]

Sunny, delete some PM's so I can message you.

Done.

 

[68908]

Sunny, thank you for the clarity

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Am I the only one still stunned by (a)(2)?? TEN YEARS OLD?

It is a historical anachronism. Georgia used to have the death penalty available for rape. Those of you who are old enough remember the US Supreme Court's Furman case upsetting death penalty statutes nationwide. Following that, Georgia reenacted the death penaltt for all crimes of rape. In Coker v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court said the death penalty was unconstitutional as a punishment for raping an adult woman.

So Georgia responded by making the rape of a female less than 10 years of age a death penalty offense. The Georgia Supreme Court upheld that statute as recently as 2008 (State v. Valazquez). The U.S. Supreme Court agains truck it down in Kennedy v. Louisiana as applied to the rape of a child.

So now this thing is sitting in the statute with no purpose, but it has nothing really to do with whether 10 year olds can consent.

Georgia's child molestation law has undergone some significant changes over the last few decades as well, many of them dealing with punishments and 10 year olds, but I do not remember all of the permutations.

Anyway, it is just a leftover from the old days with no real relevance today.