FBI Changes its Definition of Rape

[centurionguard]

rainn.org/news-room/fbi-changes-rape-definition

After decades of lobbying, and nearly a century of stasis, the FBI announced this month that it will change the way it counts rape. For the first time, rapes of men and statutory rape will be included in the official statistics that the FBI collects for the annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).

The FBI’s change does not affect any criminal laws; it adjusts the definition only for statistical purposes, so that crimes under existing state laws will now be acknowledged, and counted by, the federal government. Up to now, only the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” has been counted in UCR stats. In addition to counting crimes against men, the new definition will include rapes in which the attacker uses threats of violence, as well as all rapes in which the victim is a child and thus unable to consent.

In an interview with NPR, Scott Berkowitz, RAINN’s president and founder, said, “The FBI’s new definition of rape comes much closer to reflecting the reality of the crime. It happens to men and women, young and old, but in every case, it’s an incredibly violent crime and we owe it to victims to acknowledge and count every one, as the FBI is now going to do.”

“Rape is a devastating crime and we can’t solve it unless we know the full extent of it,” said Vice President Joe Biden. “This long-awaited change to the definition of rape is a victory for women and men across the country whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years.”

As a heterosexual man gang-raped and tortured at gunpoint I only see the FBI statement as a superficial victory with the Federal governmental justice system (not) recognizing the same, which will likely take another 80 years. I find it an insult that the Neanderthal courts of the land (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent). This is a bias Myth which even psychiatrist, psychologist, and most notably medical experts can prove due to the physiological auto-nervous response that the human body has to any stimulus. Given the male G-spot being the prostate and being directly stimulated and can produce an erection by means of a medical rectal exam or an act of sodomy. Idiots in the Justice system know this. Blame it on damned blood-sucking lawyers who’s only interest is to make money at anybodies expense. A woman who is sadly raped can by know fault of her own have an erection of her clitoris during rape. Does that mean she enjoyed it? Of course not.
The FBI’s redefinition of rape in light of male rape victims may be a step in the right direction for statistical data, but it means very little when push comes to shove when victims are confronted in the justice courts against their assailants. The majority of rape victims both female and male won’t go to the courts against their assailants because the mockery of the justice system only further adds to the unspeakable stigma of rape. Sure their are “some” convictions.

Present U.S. definition of Rape: students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/USRapeLaws.pdf

Post-script…(“Not to in anyway take away from the seriousness of women being raped”) but part of me sees a huge contingent in the Feminist Agenda whom themselves are against men being know as victims of rape and having any distinction in the justice courts as capable of being known victims and having the same protective and lawful rights as female rape victims under the statue of victim-hood. Due to the statistical fact the majority of rape assailants against women being forcibly raped are men, its not difficult to see how this has worked against male rape victims being recognized as being victims in the justice system on a bigger scale than is rarely expressed in the courts.

 

[SurlyMermaid]

I have nothing useful to add. Thanks for posting this. It’s a start, I think, and I’m glad to hear about it.

 

[jonbhorton]

Statutory rape isn’t rape though, it’s a consensual act. It also varies from state to state in what constitutes the act to begin with:

cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

Is a traditional issue delegated to the states now federal? If there is a federal definition, is there federal jurisdiction? How will this apply or not apply to mohammedanism, shariah law, and its subsequent immorality regarding forced marriage, child brides, etc. Make no mistake, this nation, this world, is being islamized and socialized. These questions have significant future weight if not clearly needed now.

The hypocrisies in statutory rape laws are clearly evident in abortion laws which allow minors to seek abortions, while not deeming them mentally capable to even enter into a situation which would lead to the desire for an abortion.

If they want to make a federal law that statutory rape is “rape”, they need to apply the concept to all aspects of the sexual process, dissolve NAMBLA, etc, and take moral action on a moral concept.

The including of men being raped IS good, as we will begin to see how truly depraved and psychotic our society really is. If people want statistics, let em have em.

 

[Dale_M]

Statutory rape isn’t rape though, it’s a consensual act.

erm… I don’t think that is quite accurate. The crime of statutory rape is based on the inability of the victim to give legal consent.

Is a traditional issue delegated to the states now federal? If there is a federal definition, is there federal jurisdiction?

I was a bit confused by the OP’s comment about federal prosecution. Granted, I know little about the federal criminal courts. However, I think the overwhelming percentage of rape prosecutions are non-federal and rely on the definitions in the legal code of each state.

But I agree with the OP’s fundamental point: the change in the FBI’s definition is a step forward and long overdue. Still, the real work lies in changing the legal code used by police and prosecutors.

 

[centurionguard]

erm… I don’t think that is quite accurate. The crime of statutory rape is based on the inability of the victim to give legal consent.

I was a bit confused by the OP’s comment about federal prosecution. Granted, I know little about the federal criminal courts. However, I think the overwhelming percentage of rape prosecutions are non-federal and rely on the definitions in the legal code of each state.

But I agree with the OP’s fundamental point: the change in the FBI’s definition is a step forward and long overdue. Still, the real work lies in changing the legal code used by police and prosecutors.

I was a bit confused by the OP’s comment about federal prosecution. Granted, I know little about the federal criminal courts. However, I think the overwhelming percentage of rape prosecutions are non-federal and rely on the definitions in the legal code of each state.

Be it that I am not fully familiar regarding differentiation of laws from state to state in the U.S. Would not U.S. Supreme Court Federal Laws regarding the definition and prosecution of rape supercede that of State Laws regarding definition and prosecution of rape with regard to the Federal Criminal Codes. Sounds confusing how State Laws could differ drastically from Federal Laws on Rape.

 

[Dale_M]

Be it that I am not fully familiar regarding differentiation of laws from state to state in the U.S. Would not U.S. Supreme Court Federal Laws regarding the definition and prosecution of rape supercede that of State Laws regarding definition and prosecution of rape with regard to the Federal Criminal Codes. Sounds confusing how State Laws could differ drastically from Federal Laws on Rape.

Its been a long, long time since the civics class I had in eighth grade. So my memory is a bit fuzzy on this topic.

But here is a short explanation, as posted on the website of the US federal court system.

The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers expressly or implicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, while the state court systems deal with issues of law relating to those matters that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or explicitly deny to the states.

For example, since the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Likewise, since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case.

So what crimes would the federal courts have jurisdiction?

Federal crimes—Crimes defined by or mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or those defined and/or punished by federal statute. Such crimes include treason against the United States, piracy, counterfeiting, crimes against the law of nations, and crimes relating to the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, most crimes are state matters.

uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics/CourtStructure/UnderstandingFederalAndStateCourts.aspx

The webpage goes into much more detail than I posted.

 

[jonbhorton]

Numbered by me for ease of reply:

1. erm… I don’t think that is quite accurate. The crime of statutory rape is based on the inability of the victim to give legal consent.
2. I was a bit confused by the OP’s comment about federal prosecution. Granted, I know little about the federal criminal courts. However, I think the overwhelming percentage of rape prosecutions are non-federal and rely on the definitions in the legal code of each state.
3. But I agree with the OP’s fundamental point: the change in the FBI’s definition is a step forward and long overdue. Still, the real work lies in changing the legal code used by police and prosecutors.

1. Legal consent, or lack thereof, is a judgement call which is arbitrary in nature and not consistent between the states. It also calls into question how a young woman can’t consent to sex, but can if her parents consent (depending on state), particularly to marriage. Further, if said young woman can’t consent to sex, how can she consent to abortion, which is a medical procedure? If she can consent to a medical procedure without parental permission, despite apparently not having the faculty of critical thinking skills, and thus decision making skills, then why can’t she get her ears pierced, or a tattoo commemorating her abortion, loss of virginity, or the number of dudes she has laid? There is no theme of consistent application in the definition, and the definition is not concrete. Thus, how does a federal definition impact federal jurisdiction? Why federally define something not within jurisdiction of the defining party? If not totally pointless, this is a case of glaring fraud, waste and abuse- for time went into the research and write-up which is either necessary for federal jurisdiction, or wholly unnecessary. Further, if it is federally mandated, but left to the states, what power does the fed really have? If the feds won’t force or enforce a federal issue and definition, in contrast to state issues and definition, then we are totally being set up for sectioned territories- which is a goal of the type of socialism we face. This is a set up process for a Balkanized America, if this is the case.
2. This is a reactionary measure which cannot possibly understand the intricacies of each section of the country and its historical values within the framework of the Constitution. I do not expect a 15 year old in NYC to be ready to be a mother, she simply has been stunted in maturity by the system we live in. I don’t expect that a 15 year old in the hills of West Virginia to be such a deficient in her mental maturity for it is highly likely she has been treated like an adult and expected to act like one. We see this over and over in agrarian societies, as well as poorer societies where children don’t have the luxury of retaining childish things long after childhood is over. It simply cannot be made federal without totally taking away the traditional role of the state in such cases.
3. While it may seem like a step in the right direction, there is a line. The feminist lobby would like rape to include any regret at a consensual act to be define as rape. Got a little tipsy, and so was the guy? Obviously men have a strong resistance to the effects of alcohol and can make such a decision; women are apparently incapable of making decisions when drunk according to the feminists. Now what happens when we apply that to DUI? “Hello, I pulled you over for… oh, ma’am, let me retrieve my stupid-woman-helmet from the trunk of the patrol car and give you a ride home. I thought you were a guy, they drive drunk on purpose and can understand what they’re doing.” Um, what? This is the same concept applied to DUI.

In other cases, particularly involving minors, a child can be deemed chargeable as an adult, yet, in statutory rape cases, no quarter is given, nor reasonable doubt, as to the mental ability of the girl and the potential innocence of the male party. Medically, the law is erroneous. Women mature faster than men. An older teen girl is generally more mature than a boy of the same age. Somehow though, she is deemed mentally deficient when compared to him. How feminism plays into the concept that women are stupid and need help just exposes it for the joke it is.

Show me a stupid woman, and I’ll show you even even stupider man for being with her.

 

[Julia_Mae]

.(“Not to in anyway take away from the seriousness of women being raped”) but part of me sees a huge contingent in the Feminist Agenda …

I’m sorry this happened to you. I’m sorry for the assault and the way you were treated afterward.

I want to say something, even though I hear your rage. I’m a feminist, I’m also a former police officer and I know very well that men are sexually assaulted. It’s very difficult to get them to report. I hope your speaking out will encourage them to do so.

Try to forgive women who have been assaulted and have serious psychological issues and can’t fathom men as victims. Also realize how many men refuse to believe men can be victims because the idea is too threatening to them.

I’ve encouraged men who are fathers for years to tell their sons this happens, so that if it does, these young men and adult men will feel like they can report, or at least tell somebody.

Again, I’m very sorry this happened to you.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’d like to hear what the basis is for suggesting that feminists have campaigned against men being recognised as victims of rape too.

 

[centurionguard]

I’m sorry this happened to you. I’m sorry for the assault and the way you were treated afterward.

I want to say something, even though I hear your rage. I’m a feminist, I’m also a former police officer and I know very well that men are sexually assaulted. It’s very difficult to get them to report. I hope your speaking out will encourage them to do so.

Try to forgive women who have been assaulted and have serious psychological issues and can’t fathom men as victims. Also realize how many men refuse to believe men can be victims because the idea is too threatening to them.

I’ve encouraged men who are fathers for years to tell their sons this happens, so that if it does, these young men and adult men will feel like they can report, or at least tell somebody.

Again, I’m very sorry this happened to you.

Hello Julie;
I sincerely appreciate the sentiments you commiserate. I have been humbled and lucky to meet many uncountable women who are victims of rape and incest but less so in the number of men who are victims. In the last 33 years I have tried hard to find the lost identity of who I was before my assailants stole my soul, flushed it down the sewer and shattered it into a billion pieces.

But most of all I have God and the Faith in the Catholic Church to thank for helping me put some of those lost pieces back together. Many women too who lost their identity and soul to the horrors of rape have helped me immeasurably beyond words.

I can easily empathize and open the compassionate depths of my heart to any women who has been unspeakably stigmatized by rape. I truly understand their psychological pain and yes too their anger and rage. However; it is not these women who have perhaps taken refuge and protection in the feminist movement as a way of quelling their own stigma. I am in no doubt sure as a police officer you have sadly witnessed the worst that society can afflict on others even perhaps beyond the affliction of rape and incest itself.

There’s a lot of indifference in society, many too who haven’t the foggiest idea what it is to carry the heavy affliction of rape, yet nonetheless are rash and quick to judge and bring more stigma upon victims. The majority of men who are raped will never come forward to seek help due to the overwhelming bias judgment in society. If society knew the real truth about rape statistics about male victims it would blow the roof off today’s statistics.
I’m convinced of that in my 33 years of victim-hood and studies. Its also the findings in many professional psychoanalytical circles, but won’t be published because the bias indifference of society only believes and hears what it chooses.

Yours In Christ
Chris

 

[michelleds]

I’m sorry this happened to you. I’m sorry for the assault and the way you were treated afterward.

I want to say something, even though I hear your rage. I’m a feminist, I’m also a former police officer and I know very well that men are sexually assaulted. It’s very difficult to get them to report. I hope your speaking out will encourage them to do so.

Try to forgive women who have been assaulted and have serious psychological issues and can’t fathom men as victims. Also realize how many men refuse to believe men can be victims because the idea is too threatening to them.

I’ve encouraged men who are fathers for years to tell their sons this happens, so that if it does, these young men and adult men will feel like they can report, or at least tell somebody.

Again, I’m very sorry this happened to you.

I join Julia Mae in expressing my sorrow that these crimes were committed against you. I pray for your continued healing.

I will also join her in saying that as a current prosecutor, I am also fully aware that men and boys are sexually assaulted. The office where I work and the police I work with will absolutely pursue these cases. But again, male rape victims are very reluctant to come forward. female rape victims are reluctant to come forward also but males even more so.

Just for clarification, I believe that some subsequent posters were confused about the OP’s post. the change the RAINN article refers to is a statistical accounting change, not a change in the criminal code. the criminal code is how cases are charged and prosecuted.

Rape laws and sodomy laws are prosecuted without regard to the gender of the victim. Rape is the penetration of a female sex organ. Sodomy is anal penetration or the oral contact with the male or female genetalia. “penetration” is usually defined to include “any penetration by any object, sex organ or finger” and “however slight”.

 

[centurionguard]

I join Julia Mae in expressing my sorrow that these crimes were committed against you. I pray for your continued healing.

I will also join her in saying that as a current prosecutor, I am also fully aware that men and boys are sexually assaulted. The office where I work and the police I work with will absolutely pursue these cases. But again, male rape victims are very reluctant to come forward. female rape victims are reluctant to come forward also but males even more so.

Just for clarification, I believe that some subsequent posters were confused about the OP’s post. the change the RAINN article refers to is a statistical accounting change, not a change in the criminal code. the criminal code is how cases are charged and prosecuted.

Rape laws and sodomy laws are prosecuted without regard to the gender of the victim. Rape is the penetration of a female sex organ. Sodomy is anal penetration or the oral contact with the male or female genetalia. “penetration” is usually defined to include “any penetration by any object, sex organ or finger” and “however slight”.

Greetings Michelle;

As a prosecutor you have privy and full knowledge of the law that even police officers don’t have full knowledge of. I guess my question relates to something I mentioned in my original post having to do with a male rape victim under examination of the justice courts by an attorney stating he got an erection while being forcibly sodomized. Would the court of law unwittingly take such to mean automatic guilt on the male victim under duress?
That would be like court saying the male victim enjoyed it given the present laws (clarification needed)… state they (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent). Such laws **if true ** sounds ludicrous and extremely bias.

I realize this might take time on your part but I would sincerely appreciate any professional feedback you could offer. If you look at the RAINN article web link in my original post it also states the law courts (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent)

Sincerely Yours In Christ Jesus
Chris

PS. Of all the worse things going against the psychological make of a victimized man being forcibly sodomized is the added immense guilt and shame of his own bodily reactions going against him. Shrinks will say it wasn’t your fault, but it never removes the unfair guilt and shame a male victim feels inside. That’s the profound confusing part.

 

[michelleds]

Greetings Michelle;

As a prosecutor you have privy and full knowledge of the law that even police officers don’t have full knowledge of. I guess my question relates to something I mentioned in my original post having to do with a male rape victim under examination of the justice courts by an attorney stating he got an erection while being forcibly sodomized. Would the court of law unwittingly take such to mean automatic guilt on the male victim under duress?
That would be like court saying the male victim enjoyed it given the present laws (clarification needed)… state they **(do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent). Such laws **if true **** sounds ludicrous and extremely bias.

I realize this might take time on your part but I would sincerely appreciate any professional feedback you could offer. If you look at the RAINN article web link in my original post it also states the law courts (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent)

Sincerely Yours In Christ Jesus
Chris

Chris, I do not find any such language in either of the links that you posted. In fact, that link to the federal law of sexual offenses specifically addresses detention/prisons, which are necessarily inclusive of male on male sexual assaults.

An erection on the part of the victim could be used by the defense as supporting a claim of consent, which is always going to be at issue in a rape/sodomy trial, regardless of the nature of the crime. it would then be up to the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account all of the testimony.

From your posts above, it looks like your case occured about 33 years ago, is that correct? if so, much has changed in the last 20 years in how sexual assaults are handled in both law enforcement and the prosecution professions.

I would also just correct you and say that I don’t have any specialized knowledge that police officers don’t also possess, or at least not police officers with some time under their belt. Police officers and detectives can be every bit as knowledgable about the law as prosecutors.

It has just occured to me, Chris, that you might not be in the United States. Are you and were you at the time of the crime?

 

[Dale_M]

Rape laws and sodomy laws are prosecuted without regard to the gender of the victim. Rape is the penetration of a female sex organ. Sodomy is anal penetration or the oral contact with the male or female genetalia. “penetration” is usually defined to include “any penetration by any object, sex organ or finger” and “however slight”.

The situation may vary from state to state. Here in Iowa, the criminal code does not have categories for rape or sodomy, treating both as sexual abuse. The definition of sexual abuse does not have any gender specifiers.

If you look at the RAINN article web link in my original post it also states the law courts (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent)

Chris, I am a bit woozy due to medicine but the RAINN article you cited doesn’t seem to say that. Could you be thinking of a different article on the RAINN website?

Its distressing to think that any court, in this modern era, would be so uninformed. An erection is an involuntary response to stimulation. It has nothing to do with free will or consent. I would hope that a prosecutor could establish that quite easily.

Granted, though, in decades past sexual knowledge was more limited and sexual attitudes less comprehending.

 

[centurionguard]

Chris, I do not find any such language in either of the links that you posted. In fact, that link to the federal law of sexual offenses specifically addresses detention/prisons, which are necessarily inclusive of male on male sexual assaults.

An erection on the part of the victim could be used by the defense as supporting a claim of consent, which is always going to be at issue in a rape/sodomy trial, regardless of the nature of the crime. it would then be up to the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account all of the testimony.

From your posts above, it looks like your case occured about 33 years ago, is that correct? if so, much has changed in the last 20 years in how sexual assaults are handled in both law enforcement and the prosecution professions.

I would also just correct you and say that I don’t have any specialized knowledge that police officers don’t also possess, or at least not police officers with some time under their belt. Police officers and detectives can be every bit as knowledgable about the law as prosecutors.

It has just occured to me, Chris, that you might not be in the United States. Are you and were you at the time of the crime?

The crime against me happened in the present Canadian Atlantic Province city I have resided in for the last 37 years. The Canadian Criminal Codes on Rape in the Justice system are very close to U.S. laws on the same matter. However; Canada has recognized men as being victims almost 5 years ago. I will add that I never knew the identity of my three assailants one being female and two being men. I was one of three male victims involved. One male victim died as result of his victim-hood one week after the horrifying incident by suicide. There were no convictions. I stayed silent about it for 23 years telling absolutely nobody. I still carry the stigma but part of me feels I have transformed some aspects of my victim-hood into being a survivor. I have God, the love of family, and genuine female friends who too are past victims. We support each other which is a blessing. I wish though I was a stronger person carrying my cross. Its a haunting experience that never leaves despite having past help from shrinks. But that’s life I guess which always invariably throws you some heavy curve balls.

Thank you sincerely for your correspondence.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Statutory rape isn’t rape though, it’s a consensual act.

It is a consensual act? Part of the definition of statutory rape is that the victim is unable to legally consent.

 

[centurionguard]

The situation may vary from state to state. Here in Iowa, the criminal code does not have categories for rape or sodomy, treating both as sexual abuse. The definition of sexual abuse does not have any gender specifiers.

Chris, I am a bit woozy due to medicine but the RAINN article you cited doesn’t seem to say that. Could you be thinking of a different article on the RAINN website?

Its distressing to think that any court, in this modern era, would be so uninformed. An erection is an involuntary response to stimulation. It has nothing to do with free will or consent. I would hope that a prosecutor could establish that quite easily.

Granted, though, in decades past sexual knowledge was more limited and sexual attitudes less comprehending.

My apologies Dale;

I got mixed up with another article here. noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/fbi-subcommittee-acknowledges-men-can-be-raped/

FBI Subcommittee Acknowledges Men Can Be Raped
Posted on October 24, 2011 by ozymandias42

The FBI’s definition of rape has remained unchanged for more than eighty years: “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” It is unknown how many millions of rapes have gone uncounted because they were Apparently Not Really Rapes.

On Tuesday, the Uniform Crime Report Committee voted unanimously to expand the definition of rape to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The report will move on to a higher advisory body and then to FBI Director Robert Mueller for approval.

**This definition is, of course, still problematic: for instance, it does not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent. ** Nevertheless, the acknowledgement that men can be raped at all is progress and could affect everything from funding for sexual violence prevention to basic statistics about how many rapes are committed.

Congratulations to all the activists who have campaigned to make the FBI change its definition, and congratulations to the FBI for being only about twenty years behind the times.

 

[Jesusismyfriend]

I think it’s great that they are including men in the definition as victims. It’s a lot more commmon than they claim.

 

[Dale_M]

I think it’s great that they are including men in the definition as victims. It’s a lot more commmon than they claim.

It is.

Lara Logan, an amazing journalist, was raped while reporting on the Egyptian revolution last year. She recently had an hour long interview with Marvin Kalb which touched upon this issue. She said that male reporters suffer just as much sexual abuse as women, specifically mentioning the New York Times journalists captured in Libya. But guys don’t talk about it because the shame is so immense.

As I recall, overcoming the immense shame of rape was something the women’s movement of the 1970s struggled with, and to some extent had success. But guys haven’t caught up.

 

[TimothyH]

As a celibate Catholic male, I can state unequivocally that an erection does not automaticaly mean consent.

Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin. (Romans 7:25)

St. Augustine addressed this very topic in City of God, when he spoke about the holy virgins who had been raped by the Visigoth’s in the sack of Rome in 410 AD. He argues that even if one experienced physical pleasure from the act, if they did not desire the act and did not consent to the act, then they had not lost their purity.

It is my uneducated understanding that this is also the position of the criminal justice system here in the US, that sensations of physical pleasure is not an indication of consent. I would be surpised to find out otherwise.

-Tim-