Linus Van Pelt wrote: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.
skatingbasser wrote:If you con me out of $1000 you conned me. Tricked me, committed fraud, set me up, shook me down, whatever. You didn't steal it from me, and you didn't commit theft.
Every person who shall ... fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property ... is guilty of theft.
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property ... committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as ... common law larceny by trick ... or obtaining property by false pretenses;
...
(d) By false promise.
A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation, express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person intends to engage in such conduct.
I'm saying there is definitely a huge difference between forcing yourself on a someone unwilling and having sex with someone while lying that the sex will help them.
Linus Van Pelt wrote:The ides is just this: a recognition of the fact that consent fraudulently obtained is really no consent at all. The law recognizes that if you sign a contract with a gun to your head, that's no agreement at all. It recognizes that if I trick you into consenting to give me your money, that's no consent at all. There's no reason why the same reasoning could not or should not be applied to rape law.
Boombats wrote:They guy should def get charged for the fraud, but I think rape has to be a hard conviction to live down, and I don't think he deserves that.
houseboat wrote:Boombats wrote:They guy should def get charged for the fraud, but I think rape has to be a hard conviction to live down, and I don't think he deserves that.
The man put his dick in her through deception. For him, it was a sex act. She seems to have been under the impression that what he was doing was not, in fact, a sex act.
If the woman had little or no understanding of sexual intercourse (she was Syrian, right? I know nothing about the sex education Syrian women receive) it is impossible for her to provide consent.
Without consent, sticking your dick in someone is rape.
skatingbasser wrote:If you trick me into giving you my money, it doesn't mean I didn't really consent to giving you my money, it means you probably didn't deliver what I was expecting in the end. What you're saying is that if you lie to me and say you'll paint my house for 500 bucks with no intention of doing so, if I pay you and you never show up... my reaction should be I paid 500 for a job paint job that did not include painting my house. Theft! The paint job I consented to included painting, this does not, therefore I did not consent to this paint job... my money was stolen.?
Does anyone really think this way (people or courts)?
LVP wrote:In California, for example:Every person who shall ... fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property ... is guilty of theft.
In New York they call it larceny:2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property ... committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as ... common law larceny by trick ... or obtaining property by false pretenses;
...
(d) By false promise.
A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation, express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person intends to engage in such conduct.
Don't we think Dammit that Linus! He never painted my house like said he would, I should get my money back.
Boombats wrote:I think rape has to be a hard conviction to live down
WoundedFoot wrote:A man MUTILATED another woman's body by posing as a gynacologist. He should recieve due punishment. The women in the other stories CONSENTED to sex. Not rape.houseboat wrote:a man posed as a gynacologist over the phone. He tricked a woman into mutilating her genitals, if I remember correctly.