"State high court upholds law that says sex obtained fraudulently is not rape
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff
A Hampden County man who allegedly tricked his brother's girlfriend into having sex with him by impersonating his sibling in the middle of the night cannot be convicted of rape, the state's highest court ruled yesterday in a controversial ruling that affirms the court's long-held view that sex obtained through fraud is no crime.
The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that a judge should have dismissed the rape charge against Alvin Suliveres, of Westfield, because Massachusetts law has for two centuries defined rape as sexual intercourse by force and against one's will and that it is not rape when consent is obtained through fraud."
You've GOT to be kidding me. How is it consensual sex if she believes she's consenting to one person but another one is actually her partner? This court's logic suggests that consent is blanket - that it just kinda floats out into the air, independent of the actors involved. This is such crap. I would argue that implicit in the notion of consent is the concept of permission, and as anyone who attended elementary school can tell you, you can't get permission from just anyone, for just anyone. Of course consent is attached to a particular person or persons!!
Here, here. As a Culture of Life point, if that phrase is ever to mean anything at all, well, here's the opposite of that. In my utopia, this brother goes away to jail and stays there, not just for fraud, but for damage to souls of both this woman and his brother, and never comes out again, is fed dry rice and beetles and water, and has to bunk with an even worse sociopath than he is. --- But, I'm just hacked off right now, and I'm sure my sense of avenging justice will ease off here after my walk.
No comments:
Post a Comment