NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/rape/3003

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 1.6 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!ralph.cs.haverford.edu!eoliver
From: [e-mail] (Erik Oliver)
Subject: Re: Rape as a perspective
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ralph.cs.haverford.edu
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:45:43 GMT
Lines: 23

There was a novel leagal suggestion being presented in a paper I read
recently which argued why this sort of things and many others should
still be considered rape.  It has to do with the principle which I
believe wasa termed "heightened care" or something like that, what the
principle referred to was that concept in common law that someone you
know has a heightened duty to care about your person.

So for example if my best friend were to trick me out of a $100, I might
argue that becausee of his close relationship with me, he had a
heightened duty towards me.  (I think this fleshs out the general
principle, I can try to find the original article if people are
interested.)

Anyhow, the lawyers making this proposal argue that once you begin
becomming a none stranger you begin to have heightened responsibilities
to get active positive consent without tricking the person.

It sounds like in the situation you describe this person knew her
feelings, ie he was no longer a stranger, and proceded to subtly coerce
her into sex.  Under this doctrine, which is not trial tested, I would
say that rape had occured.

-Erik