See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aogxd
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
"Redfining Rape" - HR5939
If you click on the title of this post, it will take you to bipartisan bill HR5939, introduced by Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), which moveon.org and others are stating "redefines rape" and which feminists across the 'net are screaming about. Wow. My first thought when I read the bill for myself was, "Did these people even READ the bill???"
First of all, the word rape is mentioned ONCE in this bill, and only once - in Section 309 - as part of the phrase "forcible rape." This is apparently the "redefinition", according to the hysterical accounts. So, logic dictated I look up the current and historical definition of rape, make a comparison between what is now law, and what the change will be. Here is what I learned:
"The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will." from http://www.lectlaw.com.
"A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will." from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress." from http://criminal.findlaw.com.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Rape involves force. I tried to find a legal definition where it didn't, and couldn't. So how is the definition going to change as a result of this bill?
The only thing I can think of is that moveon.org - and others - haven't read the bill, and/or aren't familiar with current legal definitions, and/or simply want to raise a stink about something on the assumption that their "shocking" headline will be repeated everywhere by those who won't bother to read the bill, in an attempt to make these Congressmen look bad.
But such is politics today. There are some excellent protections in this bill also..but I'll let you read the bill in its entirety for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
First of all, the word rape is mentioned ONCE in this bill, and only once - in Section 309 - as part of the phrase "forcible rape." This is apparently the "redefinition", according to the hysterical accounts. So, logic dictated I look up the current and historical definition of rape, make a comparison between what is now law, and what the change will be. Here is what I learned:
"The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will." from http://www.lectlaw.com.
"A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will." from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress." from http://criminal.findlaw.com.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Rape involves force. I tried to find a legal definition where it didn't, and couldn't. So how is the definition going to change as a result of this bill?
The only thing I can think of is that moveon.org - and others - haven't read the bill, and/or aren't familiar with current legal definitions, and/or simply want to raise a stink about something on the assumption that their "shocking" headline will be repeated everywhere by those who won't bother to read the bill, in an attempt to make these Congressmen look bad.
But such is politics today. There are some excellent protections in this bill also..but I'll let you read the bill in its entirety for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
