Danny feels that despite helping many rape victims, history shows that too many are still not getting the support and justice they need and deserve.
If you recall not too long ago, the Justice Department finally got around to taking a look at their definition of rape. Not the wording I would have chosen but it’s a start towards the hopeful goal recognizing all rape victims (a crucial first step in helping all rape victims).
Well the law on rape that’s on the books, in New York at least, still has a major problem with it. A major problem that has just let a rapist technically get away with rape (and I say technically because while he was not convicted of rape, he was convicted of three counts of predatory sexual assault, each carrying a maximum of 25 to life).
The problem lies in the burden of proof required in order to prove rape. Take a look at what prosecutors must show in order to prove first degree anal/oral assault.
To convict someone of first-degree oral or anal sexual assault, prosecutors need only show “contact” between the attacker and the victim.
Now take a look at what prosecutors must show in order to prove rape.
But when the charge is rape, prosecutors must prove that there was “penetration, however slight.” Simple vaginal “contact” is “sexual abuse,” a much lower category of crime.
I’m not a lawyer and that might be why this seems a bit confusing.
From what I gather here, this seems like it’s saying that if a perpetrator were to make contact with the victim’s anus or mouth then its sexual assault but if the perpetrator were to make contact with the victim’s vagina then it would not count as rape unless there is proof that that contact with the vagina included penetration.
That little distinction between “contact” and “penetration” is exactly what allowed former cop Michael Pena to avoid conviction of rape. Apparently since there was no vaginal penetration its not rape.
Gentlemen do you hear this nonsense? The idea that since her vagina was not penetrated it’s not rape.
This former cop took a woman at gunpoint, assaulted her orally and anally, but since her vagina wasn’t proven to have been penetrated (or at least the prosecution didn’t convince the jury that vaginal penetration happened) it is not rape. Does that sound familiar?
Take a look at this story from about 3 years ago where a man in Hollywood, CA was raped.
In 2009 James Hornik was raped by a man, and when he went to the police to press charges, the LAPD actively denied performing a rape kit examination. Despite women (usually) being offered such examinations as a matter of course Mr. Hornik was allegedly told by the LAPD that “a gay man can’t be raped”.
According to California penal code rape is, “an ‘act of sexual intercourse or penetration, however slight, which is sufficient to complete the crime.’” Under this definition, even the often disbelieved circumstance of female against male rape fits the condition. Yet and still Mr. Hornik was told that gay men cannot be raped. To this day, the LAPD has yet to be held accountable for the way they treated Mr. Hornik.
Damaging beliefs like this (even when they run counter to what is on the law books) are why so many men and women are left with little in the ways of of support and nothing in the ways of justice when they need them the most. Women being horribly violated in some of the worst ways possible but being told it wasn’t rape because there was no vaginal penetration. Men being told that since they are gay they somehow cannot be raped.
As things stand now, will history say that Mr. Hornik and the victim of Pena were not raped not because of the things that were or were not done? No, history will say that Mr. Hornik and Pena’s victim were not raped because they did not fit some narrow idea of what rape is. (And while Hornik may have a chance at finally reporting his crime, depending on statutes of limitation, Pena has already been found not guilty of rape so even though he will hopefully be put a way for a very long time in a twisted technical and legal sense, he legally didn’t rape that woman).
Is that the kind of history we want to write for rape victims?
Photo of A bald man facing a red wall courtesy of Shutterstock.
Heather can we please stop stating that rape is about power and not about sex as a FACT, it is a theory only. There are also many competing theories.
Well first, it’s a theory with a lot of evidence behind it…but that’s besides the point. My use of the word ‘fact’ there was misplaced, but in my defence I was using it as a phrase: “The fact that,” as a phrase as opposed to trying to use the term “fact” to denote a scientifically proved fact, if you get what I’m saying. Also, as I pointed out, I was tossing around ideas…think of it as thinking out loud. My use of vocabulary was inexact. Perhaps a better way to say it would have been, “The fact that many times… Read more »
What are the other theories about rape? If rape isn’t only about power, is it about sex? I’m not sure how people can separate the two actually. There is something the person wants (sex or sexual contact) they use force of some kind to obtain it, dismissing the other person’s will or desires to not have it. Sex and power. Perhaps in some cases a perp would use sex as the tool as the power play is the goal. In others the desire for sex is strong enough that the perp is willing to use power over another to get… Read more »
“Perhaps in some cases a perp would use sex as the tool as the power play is the goal. In others the desire for sex is strong enough that the perp is willing to use power over another to get that sex.” Right, but the phrase I used was specifically in reference to the former. I agree that rape always has an element of power to it…one person is forcing another person to do something against their will. However, I was referring to the idea that rape is a tool to exert power, which may not always be the case.… Read more »
Given that the majority of rape victims are young and considered sexually attractive I’d suggest that sex and attraction at least play a role.
I’m sure there are a myriad of competing theories about why people rape, but for me I only need to know the story of a star-crossed rapper of the 90’s to early 2000’s… Mystikal. Known for such musical gems as “Shake Ya Ass (Watch Yourself)”, “Danger (Been So Long)”, and “Bouncin’ Back (Bump Me Against The Wall)”. He won a Grammy in 2003 for Best Rap Album, with Tarantula. In 2004 he was sentenced to 6 years in prison for sexual battery and extortion. Turns out Mystikal, and his two bodyguards, forced a woman to perform oral sex acts on… Read more »
I’d say if a person is using their body or will to circumvent the will of another, no matter the outcome or initial desire…it’s about power in some way. Sex may be the goal, power is the tool of use. Humiliation may be the goal, power is the tool. See the thread up now about Picking Up Girls on the Subway and “accidental touching.”
Edited to say, I got that backwards (thanks Peter). Sex is the tool of the goal of power over another.
I’d say if a person is using their body or will to circumvent the will of another, no matter the outcome or initial desire…it’s about power in some way. Sex may be the goal, power is the tool of use. Humiliation may be the goal, power is the tool. Personally I’m of the mind that many rapes are a situation where the goal is power and sex is the tool. Sex is a very intimate and personal thing to a lot of people. No matter how open and active your sex life is there are still things you hold near… Read more »
You know? You are right. I got that completely bass-ackward. Thanks for that, Peter.
No problem. Or did you mean Peter and reply to the wrong comment?
Until society lets go of the antiquated idea that a vagina is somehow more special than any other bodily orifice, we will have skewed rape laws.
Say what now? It is more special than any other body part. I, personally, would bask in it’s presence daily if I could. 😉 Seriously, though…I think perhaps part of the reason the violence against a woman’s vulva is considered worse than other types of violence is due to all the cultural baggage we have about sex. Our society still places value on a woman’s virginity, for example. We still treat sex (just regular sex) as something that is dirty and unclean. Then you add onto that the fact that rape (in it’s broadest definition) is about power and not… Read more »
Even though they may be separate issues aren’t they both worth it?
Of course in an instance where there is a victim but no perpetrator there may not be a need for justice but they should have support available to them.
And in the event that there is a perpetrator who did something to that victim doesn’t that mean that said victim should indeed have support and justice?
Does the fact that they may be separate or not mean that they don’t matter or something?
“.. left with little in the ways of of support and nothing in the ways of justice ..”
These are completely separate issues. It is counter productive to tie them together. It is very common for there to be a victim, but no perpetrator.