Question about rape by proxy

[robertmidwest]

Unfortunately, that doesn’t support the claim, but as long as you are happy with the wrong answer I guess its okay. With the loosely defined interpretation of “external pressure”, anything can be claimed as such eliminating the culpability of all sin. It just doesn’t work this way. Good luck trying to convince the victim of the rape her rapist isn’t guilty.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

A little more clearly defined now?

 

[robertmidwest]

Unfortunately, that doesn’t support the claim, but as long as you are happy with the wrong answer I guess its okay. With the loosely defined interpretation of “external pressure”, anything can be claimed as such eliminating the culpability of all sin. It just doesn’t work this way. Good luck trying to convince the victim of the rape her rapist isn’t guilty.

1746 The imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified by ignorance, duress, fear, and other psychological or social factors.

Pretty clear?

 

[Nacho45]

Without stretching this into an endless debate where neither of us change our position, I will end by stating “can” does not mean “will” and the way I read these still favor the man making the choice not to sin by not violently raping an undeserving victim no matter how weak his personality because he knows its wrong and can always refuse.

 

[Gorgias]

Without stretching this into an endless debate where neither of us change our position, I will end by stating “can” does not mean “will”

Nacho45:

If he rapes a woman, he is guilty of rape regardless of the circumstance.

Yet, “can” also does not mean “can not”, which is what your first post in this thread seems to suggest – that circumstance is irrelevant.

and the way I read these still favor the man making the choice not to sin by not violently raping an undeserving victim no matter how weak his personality because he knows its wrong and can always refuse.

Perhaps; yet, the “way you read this” also means that you’re reading additional information into the situation – that a person faced with this dilemma “can always refuse” or is in the state of mind where he “knows it’s wrong”.

 

[Buckeyeboy]

Here is the scenario. A man and a woman are kidnapped, and the kidnappers tell the man “rape this woman or I will kill you both”. If the man complies, is he culpable of rape?

YES. The defenses to a criminal charge of such are Justification and or Necessity or doctrines of similar import.

RAPE is NOT justified here, and if he proffers that argument as a defense, he will loose.

Just as if he is told to murder someone or he will be killed, Coercion of such magnitude is NOT a Justification to murder,

If he does not comply, and the kidnappers kill them both, is he culpable for the woman’s death?

No, not morally or legally.

For lesser offenses, such defense may be considered by the trier of fact though.

 

[robertmidwest]

if he proffers that argument as a defense, he will loose.

.

You think he you could get 12 jurors to convict?

 

[robertmidwest]

I don’t thing so. This is a really conservative website and there were several people on this thread who view the threat of death as a mitigating circumstance. I think he would have a very very very very good chance at being able to get a hung jury every time.

If I were a juror I would not convict. Having a rifle pointed anyone would definelty diminsh their capacity to make a sound judgement.

 

[Buckeyeboy]

You think he you could get 12 jurors to convict?

Some use as little as 6 jury members, but has to be unanimous. Ohio uses 12 for misdemeanor and felonies.

In a hung jury there can be a retrial, 3 retrials would probably be a Constitutional cap though.

RAPE is an evil against society. In my mind the only defense would be is if the woman said to the actor “have sex with me, I do not want to die”. It may diminish culpability to a trier of fact???

I keyed in Choice of evils + criminal law and retrieved this, and it has some annotations.

However, while it may have some swaying power, it is hard to say what a Jury will do given the mental state of the actor at the time, etc.

law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2009/Chapter28/28-1407.html

 

[Rin]

RAPE is an evil against society. In my mind the only defense would be is if the woman said to the actor “have sex with me, I do not want to die”. It may diminish culpability to a trier of fact???

This is the conclusion I came to after thinking about the scenario for a while. If the woman prefers to take her chances or even die over being raped, then I think the man’s duty would be to risk his life as well (though if he’s under enough stress so as to not think clearly, it might mitigate culpability - I think some juries would at least greatly reduce the sentence if that were proved to be the case).

If the woman asks the man to comply, then the man’s sin will be reduced to fornication, while obviously the captors would still be guilty of rape by proxy - of the woman as well as the man.

In the latter scenario, I don’t think fornication is one of those sins over which we are required to prefer death. Whether or not it would be the more perfect way could be debated, but I’m not sure if even that’s true, if the woman asks the man to comply. He would then be risking the life of someone who isn’t willing to do that, just to keep himself “clean”. In either case, it is a situation with too many variables to give any clear, general answers.

 

[robertmidwest]

if he proffers that argument as a defense, he will loose.

You make this statement as if it is absolute fact that he would be convicted of rape in a criminal trial. He would be convicted as surely as water at sea level boils at 212 degrees F.

I think it is important to point out this is not true.

This is much more likely true:

it is hard to say what a Jury will do given the mental state of the actor at the time, etc.

I don’t believe there are many prosecutors who would even take a case like this to trial.

 

[Buckeyeboy]

You make this statement as if it is absolute fact that he would be convicted of rape in a criminal trial. He would be convicted as surely as water at sea level boils at 212 degrees F.

I think it is important to point out this is not true.

Absolute?? No!!

This is much more likely true:

I don’t believe there are many prosecutors who would even take a case like this to trial.

Although their is “Prosecutorial discretion” sure, but until such a case is presented, it is not known. Since I have never heard of such a case it probably would be a matter of “First Impression”. If the woman said, NO, I don’t care if I die, do not rape me, and he does, would this fact be admitted under the Rules of Evidence? Sure!

If she said, yes you have my permission to have sex, I do not want to die, that may exculpate the actor to a degree as the state would need her testimony, and if she did not report the crime, no investigation.

If she reports it, she may say she said yes, but only out of fear.

 

[BornInMarch]

Just to be clear. Do you think the chinese men who were forced to do this during the Nanking Massacre are doomed to go to hell? That seems unfair considering the fact that they were forced with the threat of death.

 

[chefmomster2]

Although a different situation, this thread reminds me about the period of the Persecutions. Despite the reasonable and intense fear that the Christians had, the Church held them culpable for their denial of Jesus if they “lapsed” in their faith. (This became a huge issue in the early Church with some arguing that the lapsi should never be allowed to rejoin the Church. This even prompted multiple schisms!) Eventually they were allowed to return, provided they completed appropriate penance.

To me this tends to support the idea that force does not, in and of itself, render the person non-culpable of serious evil.

 

[robertmidwest]

Just to be clear. Do you think the chinese men who were forced to do this during the Nanking Massacre are doomed to go to hell? That seems unfair considering the fact that they were forced with the threat of death.

I don’t think anybody here says they are doomed to hell.
IF a sin was committed and the men were truly repentant they would be forgiven.

 

[chefmomster2]

Unfortunately, that doesn’t support the claim, but as long as you are happy with the wrong answer I guess its okay. With the loosely defined interpretation of “external pressure”, anything can be claimed as such eliminating the culpability of all sin. It just doesn’t work this way. Good luck trying to convince the victim of the rape her rapist isn’t guilty.

None of us can say what “external pressure” qualifies as “enough” to hold a person non-culpable for an evil act. Nor do we have to. Only God can ultimately judge the circumstances that surround a particular disordered act.

That being said, the mother may not “choose” a child to be killed. First, murder is always a grave evil. Second, we must never allow an evil act in order to obtain a good result. Never. The mother would have to refuse to choose.

If she chose to have a child killed, she has participated in a gravely disordered act. She may be fully culpable or not culpable at all. Or, anything in between. God can see into her heart and he would judge the extent of her guilt. This is an important reason why we should not judge whether we ourselves are culpable or not for mortal sin. We must always seek reconciliation for the act. If we are not culpable, we can be grateful to God for His mercy. If we are, we would not wish to lose eternal life because in our pride we judged ourselves innocent.

 

[BornInMarch]

There are three requirements for a sin to be mortal. All requirements have to be met for the sin to be bad enough to result in eternal damnation.

1. It is of grave or serious matter
2. It is done with full knowledge of the severity
3. It is done with full consent

The third condition is not met if the person in the situation is being threatened with death/held at gunpoint (as happened during the Nanking Massacre).

In my opinion, the only rapist in this scenario is the person holding the gun. Both captives would be victims of rape.