Read the statutes. There is no confusion between Sexual abuse and rape in the state of KY.
GRanted, I'm clueless about these things, but I did not see the word "rape" in the earlier post stating the statute. Do statutes typically use the word outright when it is speaking of rape? I woudl think that they would. I did see the word masturbation quite a bit though.
No. Rape is an act, not a word. The statute will describe the act and then assign whatever word to it that they like. Rape, felony sexually assault, etc. They don't have to call it "rape" for the act to be nonconsensual sexual penetration.
No. Rape is an act, not a word. The statute will describe the act and then assign whatever word to it that they like. Rape, felony sexually assault, etc. They don't have to call it "rape" for the act to be nonconsensual sexual penetration.
That's what I thought. I have never heard of a court charging someone with "first degree rape". It's always been "sexual assault".
In KY rape is called out separately as sexual intercourse and is a separate charge. First degree sexual assault can be any kind of sexual CONTACT. Big Huge difference.
The continued, willful ignorance in this thread is astounding.
Post by EllieArroway on Aug 23, 2012 9:39:15 GMT -5
I think I get where Emmy is coming from.
Sexual assault is defined as "contact" which means "touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party"
Rape is defined as "sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required."
Apparently there has to be actual penetration for it to be rape in Kentucky, and these boys were not convicted of that. I have no idea what they actually did. IMO there isn't much of a difference between the two, but I get where she is coming from.
Sexual assault is defined as "contact" which means "touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party"
Rape is defined as "sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required."
Apparently there has to be actual penetration for it to be rape in Kentucky, and these boys were not convicted of that. I have no idea what they actually did. IMO there isn't much of a difference between the two, but I get where she is coming from.
Am I the only one who sees a huge difference between sexual contact and rape? I mean there is no difference between a man touching my breasts and sticking his penis inside of me?
Sexual assault is defined as "contact" which means "touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party"
Rape is defined as "sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required."
Apparently there has to be actual penetration for it to be rape in Kentucky, and these boys were not convicted of that. I have no idea what they actually did. IMO there isn't much of a difference between the two, but I get where she is coming from.
Am I the only one who sees a huge difference between sexual contact and rape? I mean there is no difference between a man touching my breasts and sticking his penis inside of me?
Apparently it's just you and me, tho at least now that lack of distinction has been made, I can more clearly understand the mindset of some here. Not that it's at all a positive development.
Sexual assault is defined as "contact" which means "touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party"
Rape is defined as "sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required."
Apparently there has to be actual penetration for it to be rape in Kentucky, and these boys were not convicted of that. I have no idea what they actually did. IMO there isn't much of a difference between the two, but I get where she is coming from.
Am I the only one who sees a huge difference between sexual contact and rape? I mean there is no difference between a man touching my breasts and sticking his penis inside of me?
I dunno. I think if I were passed out & some guys stripped me, sexually assaulted me, took pictures of the assault, & spread them around, I would probably feel like I was raped, even if no penetration had occurred. I would feel differently if some dude in a bar grabbed me as I walked by. So I guess it just depends on the situation.
Post by pedanticwench on Aug 23, 2012 10:32:41 GMT -5
Emmy, I think it's really weird that you are trying to make this distinction when we know it's really semantics regardless of KY state law.
AN ACT relating to criminal sexual abuse. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
Section 1. KRS 510.110 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or (b) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he: 1. Is physically helpless; or 2. Is less than twelve (12) years old. (2) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class C felony. Section 2. KRS 510.120 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he is mentally retarded or mentally incapacitated; (b) He subjects another person who is less than fourteen (14) years old to sexual contact; or (c) Being an employee, contractor, vendor, or volunteer of the Department of Corrections, or a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010, or of an entity under contract with either the department or a detention facility for the custody, supervision, evaluation, or treatment of offenders, he subjects an offender who is incarcerated, supervised, evaluated, or treated by the Department of Corrections, the detention facility, or the contracting entity, to sexual contact. In any prosecution under this paragraph, the defendant may prove in exculpation that, at the time he engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, he and the offender were married to each other. (2) Sexual abuse in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class D felony. Section 3. KRS 510.130 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent. (b) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that: 1. The other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than sixteen (16) years old; and 2. The other person was at least fourteen (14) years old; and 3. The actor was less than five (5) years older than the other person. (2) Sexual abuse in the third degree is a Class B misdemeanor, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor.
Last Edit: Aug 23, 2012 10:33:22 GMT -5 by pedanticwench
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Apparently it's just you and me, tho at least now that lack of distinction has been made, I can more clearly understand the mindset of some here. Not that it's at all a positive development.
Why are you being such a hellacious bitch? Fucking Christ, man. This conversation can be had about the misuse of the word "rape" and the big difference between the two (ie Elle and V2) without implying everyone in the thread is a fucking dumbass and willfully ignorant and repeatedly calling a sexual abuse victim a lying liar that lies out her liehole (ie your sour ass).
Would you rather I pat your collective head and say 'There-there, definitions are hard, keep trying and I'm sure you'll get it next time!'?
Post by pedanticwench on Aug 23, 2012 10:37:47 GMT -5
Contact versus penetration. That's the argument you're making here.
In the victim's mind, she was raped, even though she (according to the law, I don't know what really happened) wasn't penetrated. Why do we need to qualify rape as penetration only? I know KY state does, but I disagree and I'm sure the victim does, too.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Emmy, I think it's really weird that you are trying to make this distinction when we know it's really semantics regardless of KY state law.
AN ACT relating to criminal sexual abuse. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
Section 1. KRS 510.110 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or (b) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he: 1. Is physically helpless; or 2. Is less than twelve (12) years old. (2) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class C felony. Section 2. KRS 510.120 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he is mentally retarded or mentally incapacitated; (b) He subjects another person who is less than fourteen (14) years old to sexual contact; or (c) Being an employee, contractor, vendor, or volunteer of the Department of Corrections, or a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010, or of an entity under contract with either the department or a detention facility for the custody, supervision, evaluation, or treatment of offenders, he subjects an offender who is incarcerated, supervised, evaluated, or treated by the Department of Corrections, the detention facility, or the contracting entity, to sexual contact. In any prosecution under this paragraph, the defendant may prove in exculpation that, at the time he engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, he and the offender were married to each other. (2) Sexual abuse in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class D felony. Section 3. KRS 510.130 is amended to read as follows: (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent. (b) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that: 1. The other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than sixteen (16) years old; and 2. The other person was at least fourteen (14) years old; and 3. The actor was less than five (5) years older than the other person. (2) Sexual abuse in the third degree is a Class B misdemeanor, unless there is penetration of the sex organs or anus of the victim by a body part other than the mouth or penis of the actor, in which case it is a Class A misdemeanor.
This isn't about semantics. This is about a group of people making assumptions based on little information and celebrating a teen who has lied about the extent of her sexual abuse (and by lie, I am not even talking about the rape comment. I'm talking about the bit where she claimed the boys distributed video of her naked, which didn't happen). Many posters have said, quite clearly, that these boys shouldn't have fucked her--shouldn't have had non-consensual sex with her---yet there is NO reason to assume that at all happened. That is not semantics. Thats just straight up horse shit.
so if I'm reading this right - rape = penetration of the anus or vagina with a penis or object. Sexual assault = EVERYTHING else. Including fingering, including forced oral sex (as long as it's penis in mouth, not mouth on vag if I'm reading that right).
So, yes, there is a bright dividing line under KY statute between the two terms. Probably not a bright dividing line in moral terms, or in terms of how violated you might feel as a victim, but legal definition wise - absolutely a difference.
Post by pedanticwench on Aug 23, 2012 10:48:52 GMT -5
Despite what we all think, these boys were found guilty.
Savannah thought it was unfair that their names were being withheld from the public and so she took the chance of being found in contempt and leaked their names.
Whether she claimed something incorrectly or not, these boys had already been found guilty in a court of law. So, their guilt is not suspect.
In any case, I can't muster up enough shit to care that these boys lives have been "ruined" even if their victim claimed something slightly false about them on Twitter.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Despite what we all think, these boys were found guilty.
Savannah thought it was unfair that their names were being withheld from the public and so she took the chance of being found in contempt and leaked their names.
Whether she claimed something incorrectly or not, these boys had already been found guilty in a court of law. So, their guilt is not suspect.
In any case, I can't muster up enough shit to care that these boys lives have been "ruined" even if their victim claimed something slightly false about them on Twitter.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm happy their lives are ruined. Flame away.
Is it usual to have a gag order placed on a court case for juveniles? I know the records themselves are sealed, but is there usually a court order as well not for any of the related parties to discuss the verdict or the crime?
Despite what we all think, these boys were found guilty.
Savannah thought it was unfair that their names were being withheld from the public and so she took the chance of being found in contempt and leaked their names.
Whether she claimed something incorrectly or not, these boys had already been found guilty in a court of law. So, their guilt is not suspect.
In any case, I can't muster up enough shit to care that these boys lives have been "ruined" even if their victim claimed something slightly false about them on Twitter.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm happy their lives are ruined. Flame away.
Flame away? lol. That's like saying "Well, I'm sorry. But those Jews should NOT have been gassed in the shower. Flame away!"
Doubtful. Didn't Emmybean argue in favor of the H who took and posted nude pics of his wife without her consent? This board seemed to conveniently ignore it when it happened even though some non-regs tried to call her out. This seems par for her course.
Are you on crack? One, that wasn't emmy. And two, the regs most certainly did not ignore that topic - the person you are referring to was flamed to high heaven and there was much tossing around of the beloved, "I feel like I don't even know you you anymore" hyperbole.
Get your facts straight.
Really? Confusing 2 posters with "...Bean" as their name = being on crack? I did use a qualifier in my statement. Considering what strict constructionists the two of you seem to be, I'm surprised you ignored that and leaped right to the name calling.
Are you on crack? One, that wasn't emmy. And two, the regs most certainly did not ignore that topic - the person you are referring to was flamed to high heaven and there was much tossing around of the beloved, "I feel like I don't even know you you anymore" hyperbole.
Get your facts straight.
Really? Confusing 2 posters with "...Bean" as their name = being on crack? I did use a qualifier in my statement. Considering what strict constructionists the two of you seem to be, I'm surprised you ignored that and leaped right to the name calling.
I was more annoyed that you seem to remember that post as being a bunch of regs patting bunny on the head while non-regs clutched their pearls. But ok.
ETA: I just noticed that you seem to think I agree with emmy here. My point in the previous post was that sure, there is a legal difference in the definition of those two things, but those dudes are still complete asshats who deserve to have their "ivy league dreams" dashed and the victim probably does feel that she's been completely violated because the moral line between "actual" rape as defined by KY statute and not-quite-rape is pretty damn fuzzy. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.
Dietrich said she was sexually assaulted by two teen boys she knew in August 2011. She had been drinking at a gathering, she said, and became unconscious. Months later she learned that pictures of the incident had been taken and shared with others.
She very well could have been raped but because she was unconscious she doesn't know and, this is just my criminal justice degree via Law and Order talking, the prosecutor could only prosecute what was proven by the pictures the boys took.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
If she thought she was raped, she could have gone to the hospital for a rape exam.
I had a case that was slightly sort of somewhat similar to this. Actually, this case is worse with the fact that she was unconscious when the violation happened. But I don't for one minute believe the use of the word rape is appropriate here, nor do I believe that this girl thinks she was raped.
54% of sexual assaults go unreported and even less are prosecuted. I imagine she didn't report it right away for the same reason most don't; shame, being unsure of what happened, thinking that others wouldn't believe you, and being afraid of the consequences. It points more to how society treats victims than anything. She only reported after the pictures came to light.
I don't know that I would have reported my own rape if I wasn't so badly injured and HAD to got to the hospital. My attacker was popular and rich and when he was arrested I was treated like crap by a lot of people. Those are all things that could have gone through this girl's head when she came to.
With rape it's almost never as simple as the crime happening and you report it. You go on trial as much, if not more, than the attacker. It's scary.
Dietrich said she was sexually assaulted by two teen boys she knew in August 2011. She had been drinking at a gathering, she said, and became unconscious. Months later she learned that pictures of the incident had been taken and shared with others.
She very well could have been raped but because she was unconscious she doesn't know and, this is just my criminal justice degree via Law and Order talking, the prosecutor could only prosecute what was proven by the pictures the boys took.
Were the pictures admitted as evidence? I did not get the impression that they were. And that is the whole damn point of my argument here. We have no real facts because the details are sealed. All we have is the victims words, which she seems to be just throwing around willy-nilly---but rather than even acknowledge that, most people here just want to jump on the rape train.
So you think she revealed their names for shits and giggles?
No. I just don't think she was raped. In fact, that she was willing to reveal their names suggests to me that if she had been raped, she would not have been shy to do to the doctor and be treated. I think she was unquestionably violated. I think what those boys did was disgusting. I think "rape" is a powerful loaded word with an unambiguous meaning and having pictures of yourself taken in the nude does not count.
Believe what you will but I choose to believe that the plea deal took her from scared to pissed. That's why she revealed their names.
54% of sexual assaults go unreported and even less are prosecuted. I imagine she didn't report it right away for the same reason most don't; shame, being unsure of what happened, thinking that others wouldn't believe you, and being afraid of the consequences. It points more to how society treats victims than anything. She only reported after the pictures came to light.
I don't know that I would have reported my own rape if I wasn't so badly injured and HAD to got to the hospital. My attacker was popular and rich and when he was arrested I was treated like crap by a lot of people. Those are all things that could have gone through this girl's head when she came to.
With rape it's almost never as simple as the crime happening and you report it. You go on trial as much, if not more, than the attacker. It's scary.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying here about rape, generally. I do not think it applies to this case.
Ditto.
And further, I think it's harmful to assume it does apply without any evidence to suggest it does.
This thread makes my head want to explode. There are so many assumptions flying it is ridiculous.
This is what we know. The girl was sexually assaulted while passed out. We do not know if that included rape or not. The girl says it did, the court did not issue that specific conviction. Just because they were not convicted of rape does not mean that rape did not occur - but it also does not mean that it did. They then sent the pics around to all their buds - hence the voyerism conviction. This is what we know.
To call the girl a lying lier who lies is fucking ridiculous, since know one has a fucking clue if she is lying. In addition, she is a young kid, and her definition of rape might not be the precise legal one. Maybe they penatrated her vaginally or anally with other objects, and she feels that is rape. Maybe they fingered her and she feels that was rape. I am honestly a bit sick to my stomach reading that people are automatically assuming she used the "wrong" word. I mean, the fuck? i feel like we are playing a game of legitimate rape here.
And yeah, it would have been wrong of her to use the word rape if they did not rape her in any shape or form, but I can't drum up any sympothy for those raging assholes to give a shit. She was sexually assulted whatever way you look at it, so I don't think it diminishes p in v rape.