AL TRAV.
Bear in mind that where there is a legal definition, it is not an option to accept or reject the definition.We are all bound by the law, which is unaffected by personal opinion.
“Although the term "rape" is widely used, it’s not a legal definition of the crime. The correct term is "sexual assault," as defined in the NSW Crimes Act. Under the act, "sexual assault" is penetrative assault “
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-is-the-legal-process-for-rape-cases-in-australia

You will need to modify your consideration of the topic to accomodate this. Good luck.

Loudmouth, if you used a piece of wood and hit her with it, thta's assault. Depending on how much you hit her it could range from common assault to GBH, the law already has that covered.

If by 'induce' you mean you convinced her to go with you without any 'physical' assault, ie; she was not harmed, I would be relieved and even grateful.

It would be rape yes and that's all. You might squeeze in deprivation of liberty but if she was not restrained in any way, I can't see how, by law, one could argue any further.

One has to ask, why she did not put up a fight? Too frightened maybe?
As for being a 'vile' thing to do, depends who is judging. Vile is too strong a word.

A long prison sentence, NO! I reserve that for the 'really bad guys'.

I would be angry and want to take my revenge on the guy, but as I said I'd be grateful he didn't physically harm her.

If my wife and I are to give you an explanation as to how we would feel, we come from a time where, she would be having emotional moments, but after a suitable time of 'mourning', we would get on with our lives.

As I've said before, nothing changed and the emotional part of such a thing is nothing compared to some of the things we and others have had to and yet to endure during our/their lifetime.

The only assault that IS assault is a physical attack. Which the dictionary confirms. The inclusion later of the words 'sexual attack' is a later inclusion by the PC Nancys.

Times might have changed, and it seems reason and common sense has too, for the worst. PC and the weak have taken control of society and brought us down in a race to the bottom.

Alt ave,

FGS. If one were to threaten to hit a woman with a lump of wood, but eventually not to do so, but to rape her, can you understand that this would still count as assault ? That intimidation may be assault ? That any attack, physical and otherwise which interferes with their person, i.e. against someone's will, is assault ? To penetrate a woman against her will is surely assault ?

Assault doesn't just mean 'causing injury', although even there, rape would surely cause an enormous amount of psychological injury ? Oh, you don't believe in such a thing ? It's all put on ? I only hope for your sake that you don't do a stretch in Long Bay.

Yes, of course, there is consensual sex with porn stars, as Trump exemplifies, even while his wife is giving birth to his half-wit son. Somebody mentioned Jimmy Savile, but that's probably not very tactful at this time, given Trump's record. Yes, power may be a great aphrodisiac for both giver and receiver, especially sweetened by money, and perhaps it would be indelicate to point out that Trump may be familiar with going rates, both for twosomes and threesomes, so I won't. But even in those cases, if Trump were to make demands which even the sluttiest porn star refused to comply with, it would still be rape if he went ahead, no matter how much he paid her afterwards, and even if he didn't injure her physically.

I only hope your wife or daughter aren't aware of your opinions on this subject.

Joe

To Not_Now.Soon

I am opposed to capital punishment and I justify this by the following arguments:

1. The taking of an innocent life is a terrible crime and a just punishment must be the consequence.
It is self evident that our criminal justice system is capable of miscarriages of justice.
Carrying out a death sentence provides no remedy for a miscarriage of justice.
2. Executing a person who is subsequently found to be innocent, can undermine confidence in the judicial system, and the rule of law more generally. This is a circumstance to be avoided.
3. Executions do not act as a deterrent.
4. Executions only satisfy one aspect of sentencing - retribution. Vengeance, alone, should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
5. Life without parole is an available sentence that satisfies 1,2,and 4 above.

Not-Now.Soon, I'm a mix of optimism, pessimism and fatalism. I am a realist and a pragmatist all roped in together.

This may help others on 'The Forum', understand me better. If anyone wishes to look up the meaning of 'pragmatist', it will go a long way understanding me, for those who find it hard to do so.

The argument against capitol punishment is an emotional one. We must not introduce emotion into a debate or discussion. It provides no value.

We should not avoid undermining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law. This is a circumstance we MUST encourage.

At least you are not totally abolishing the idea of the death penalty.

Life without parole also gives the crims the opportunity to get pardoned because of some scum-bag lawyer and plenty of money.

I believe executions ARE a deterrent.

We must focus all our attention on where the faults are.

When an innocent person is executed, ALL the people involved with him getting to that end should ALL be arrested and charged with manslaughter/murder.(which ever is applicable)

As it is now is moronic. We have morons for police, who constantly need help from the public 'to call crime stoppers' because they are SOOOOOO useless. All they're good for is tax collecting.

We should be challenging them rather than fear them. That's what they want, thereby having control over us. If people started standing up to them, it would help if you read up on the police act, you will find they will not be so quick to charge someone knowing they could end up in jail themselves.

I've always hated the laws in this country. We get charged for the 'possibility' of us doing something wrong. Not for doing something wrong, why? Because it is easier to find fault and make money from a passive act of non-compliance.

For example, I am fined for exceeding a speed set for that particular road. I did nothing wrong, I did not kill or injure anyone or damage any property. I did nothing!

ALTRAV,

The case against the capital punishment need not be an emotional one. As the link I provided earlier shows, virtually none of the data supports the use of capital punishment.

Around 85% of criminologists are against the death penalty. Interestingly, you tend to find that since most of the data do not support the use of the death penalty, criminologists who support the death penalty do so for philosophical or moral reasons rather than what the data shows.

<<Life without parole also gives the crims the opportunity to get pardoned because of some scum-bag lawyer and plenty of money.>>

No, life without parole (LWOP) means exactly that. No amount of money or lawyer cunning can change that.

<<I believe executions ARE a deterrent.>>

Of course they are. However, the vast majority of the data suggests that they are no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

<<When an innocent person is executed, ALL the people involved with him getting to that end should ALL be arrested and charged with manslaughter/murder.>>

Then either no-one would become a criminal-lawyer/investigative cop/juror, or the death penalty would never be issued out of fear that those involved got it wrong.

You have not yet overcome this fatal problem with your proposal here.

<<We have morons for police, who constantly need help from the public 'to call crime stoppers' because they are SOOOOOO useless.>>

This would have to be one of the most moronic things you’ve ever said. You think you can do a better job? Do you think that the Crime Stoppers hotline is a sign of incompetence? Has it ever occurred to you that Crime Stoppers exists because police can’t know everything?

<<… I am fined for exceeding a speed set for that particular road. I did nothing wrong, I did not kill or injure anyone or damage any property. I did nothing!>>

Yes, you did. You sped, and put lives at risk in the process - even if only your own. There goes that moral disengagement of yours again. I take it you’re happy for others to put your life at risk?