The “criminal sexual assault” statute _is_ Illinois’ rape statute. No statute in Illinois’ criminal code is entitled “Rape.” There is no firm naming convention for American criminal statutes.

So, since Illinois criminal law uses the term “criminal sexual assault” rather than “rape,” is it your contention that no sexual assault in Illinois is ever “rape,” or do you concede that a sexual assault which satisfies the elements of 720 ILCS 5/12-13 (the statute Tony quoted) is a rape?

Casey: semen inside someone doesn’t mean penile penetration, there’s a tenuous link between the two

Joel: Rubbish. If everytime you wish to havesex you need to ‘ask’ where’s the spontaneity? It is a matter of saying ‘No’, not having to consistenly say ‘Yes’. If that seems bad let’s reduce it to just kissing… when you start to go out with someone you kiss and if everytime you wished to kiss them you had to say “Please may I kiss you?” no-one ever would be kissing. So, you have the assumption you can kiss until they ask you not to.
There are enough opportunities to say ‘No’ or ‘Stop’.

If you think my attitude is wrong, go out with a girl and ask everytime before you touch her – she’ll soon consider you a freak.

We need to teach the children that you have to get permission each time.

Actually they found his semen inside of her…

I didn’t say “stable.” I said “uniform.” Perhaps Wales has different statutes now due to devolution- but from the Scottish border down to Land’s End, the law of England is the same, without separate regional variations. No?

To assert that there are no negative consequences to women who report rape is simply absurd — as we have seen in this case, Kobe Bryant, etc., the demonization of the complaintant is surely a brutal and bruising experience, even when she tells the unvarnished truth. Much more so than for, say, a man who reports that he has been robbed at gunpoint. As for sanctions for false accusations, such a prosecution is certainly possible — but it runs into the same proof problem as the rape itself: how do you prove the rape victim is lying? He says it was consensual, she says it wasn’t. If he’s acquitted, it simply means the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that her account was false beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely you are not suggesting that it should be _easier_ to prove that a woman is lying about rape, than to prove rape?

Finally, you repeat for the third time an assertion that seems more tenuous every time you say it — that the conduct of these men was not rape. The language of the statute is above: “the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent.” That seems to me precisely what happened here.

If you are still holding to your assertion that it didn’t happen because there’s no conviction, I remind you of three things. (1) one man plead guilty. (2) the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This woman could well succeed in proving in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence all the elements of the offense. (3) the Justice Department keeps statistics on major crimes, such as homicides and robberies, as well as rapes. They take the data from reports, not arrests or convictions. If a person is killed, there’s a homicide even if there is no conviction. If a liquor store is robbed, there is a robbery even if there is no conviction — indeed, even if the robber is never arrested.

Thomas: Purple Duck has a point, if certain words are overused they lose their impact. Still, irrelevant to this thread.
Also rape laws aren’t “stable” in England and Wales. As I say in all cases that go to court, guilty or not, all the accused (men) are socially stigmatised. With no repercusion to the accuser for deliberate false claims. A good commentry on some of the issues by Melanie Phillips – who is well worth a regular read.

Now I shall re-iterate (for the third time):
I think what the men did was morally wrong and should be against the law. In Illinois it clearly isn’t. All decent men and women should wish that changed for future cases.

“What we have to decide is do we want more rapists being convicted at the expense many more innocent men will be convicted; do we want less rapists convicted so that hopefully no innocent men will be convicted.”

Well, we don’t want to convict the innocent, but I think this case isn’t about whether the accused is guilty or innocent, it’s more about “can we find a way to blame the victim for putting herself in a situation where rape was possible” – in other words, for showing up at a party and drinking? I think if you’re caught on tape having sex with an unconscious woman, you’re guilty of rape. End of story.

Also, the jury’s finding only makes you guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law. It doesn’t change whether you are really guilty or innocent.

A woman cannot give legal consent to an adult partner under this statute until she is 18.