Linus Van Pelt wrote:There was a case similar to this. Some guy called a woman and said he was a doctor and he had her blood test results and she had some rare disease and there were only two cures: one, some very painful procedure that would cost $10,000 and insurance would not cover, and two, have sex with a guy who had been given the antidote. This would only cost $1000, and again, not covered by insurance. When she said she didn't have enough money, he got angry and said she should try to come up with as much she could. You know, typical doctor behavior. She talked to her employer about it, and when the "doctor" found out, he again got really angry and told her not to talk to anyone else about it. Again, you know, typical doctor stuff, not enough to rouse her suspicions. Anyway, long story less long, she had sex with the guy, and then later on she realized what had happened, and they charged him with rape. It ended up not being rape, because "fraud in the inducement does not vitiate consent." In other words, as long as the woman agrees to have sex with the guy and knows she's having sex with the guy, it doesn't matter if she consented to it by a trick. Pretty infuriating stuff. I hope this one comes out the other way.

Mr. Sbano continued to deceive the woman and persuaded her the cream was expensive, the court heard, so she gave him £400 and her mother handed over £5,500.

itchy mcgoo wrote:Being a gullible idiot is not a crime.

Skronk wrote:But even in this case, it's not rape. She knew what she was doing, even if the guy tricked her.

itchy mcgoo wrote:Linus!

Nice to see you.

Hope the first year in pursuit of the JD has treated/is treating you well.

chuckk wrote:

how dumb does someone need to be to let this guy stick their weenis inside them to potentially cure a phantom rash?

chuckk wrote:

how dumb does someone need to be to let this guy stick their weenis inside them to potentially cure a phantom rash?

(bbc)

Mr. Sbano continued to deceive the woman and persuaded her the cream was expensive, the court heard, so she gave him £400 and her mother handed over £5,500.

wow, amazing.

This may go down as the greatest "get rich and get yo' dick wet" scheme of all time. I wanna see what this broad looks like.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Skronk wrote:But even in this case, it's not rape. She knew what she was doing, even if the guy tricked her.

Well, that's sure one way of looking at it. Like the court decided in the case I described, fraud in the inducement does not vitiate consent. Another way of looking at it is that fraud in the inducement does vitiate consent. Think about theft. Scenario 1: You give me a gift of $1000. Is it theft? Of course not, because you gave it to me - we can call that consent. Scenario 2: I break into your house and take $1000. Is it theft? Of course, because I didn't have your permission - your consent. Scenario 3: I trick you into giving me $1000. Is it theft? Well, I have your permission, your consent; you gave me the $1000. Yet, it is still theft (larceny by trick or false pretenses, probably), because the fraud in my inducement vitiated your consent - that is, your consent was no consent at all because it was fraudulently obtained. One reason - one of the main ones, if I recall correctly - that the court, in the case I described, didn't apply the same type of reasoning to rape was that they didn't want to open a can of worms. If "have sex with me to cure your disease" is fraudulent enough to vitiate consent, the reasoning goes, then what about "have sex with me and I'll buy you jewelry," "have sex with me and I'll marry you," or "have sex with me because I love you"? The court didn't want to get into the business of policing all the lies men tell to get into ladies' pants. I sympathize, I guess, but I still say that was, and this is, rape. Rape by trick, call it.