Rape Law Fundamentals

Corey Rayburn Yung
{"title":"Rape Law Fundamentals","authors":"Corey Rayburn Yung","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2337621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern American rape law is the product of historical contingencies, compromises, legislative inattention, successful reforms, and backlash. It is neither a puzzle to be solved nor a coherent system of rules and values. Perhaps the clearest lesson to draw from our criminal laws regarding sex is that there is no logic, reason, or consistency among them. As a result of its checkered past, myths and misunderstandings about rape law abound. Jed Rubenfeld’s recent article, The Riddle of Rape-by-Deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy, exemplifies the confusion many courts, scholars, and members of the public have about modern rape law. Rubenfeld’s specific proposal to base rape statutes on a right to self-possession, because it is derived from mistaken premises about rape law, would likely make legal over 90% of rapes in America. By replacing the non-consent element of modern rape statutes with a narrow force requirement, Rubenfeld’s recommendation essentially decriminalizes non-stranger rape and rape by a victim’s intoxication.In this Article, I examine the missteps Rubenfeld makes to explain why he ends up supporting such a disastrous conclusion. For example, Rubenfeld sees the need for his right to self-possession theory because he believes that autonomy is the sole basis that scholars offer for the foundation of rape law. However, rape is also properly supported as an independent offense by the nature and severity of harm caused, gender dynamics involved, and terror inflicted on the general population by widespread sexual violence. He also uses specious analogies and idiosyncratic conceptions of autonomy to establish the critical components of his argument.Despite the faults of his specific claims, Rubenfeld points rape scholars in a worthwhile direction. Instead of seeking diminishing returns with statutory tinkering, there is much to be gained by focusing on the foundations of rape law. By better integrating the fundamental values of rape law (autonomy, gender, harm, and terror), the major problems of high rape prevalence, law enforcement failure, and political hostility to rape victims that plague America can be better addressed.","PeriodicalId":83555,"journal":{"name":"Yale journal of law and feminism","volume":"17 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale journal of law and feminism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2337621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Modern American rape law is the product of historical contingencies, compromises, legislative inattention, successful reforms, and backlash. It is neither a puzzle to be solved nor a coherent system of rules and values. Perhaps the clearest lesson to draw from our criminal laws regarding sex is that there is no logic, reason, or consistency among them. As a result of its checkered past, myths and misunderstandings about rape law abound. Jed Rubenfeld’s recent article, The Riddle of Rape-by-Deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy, exemplifies the confusion many courts, scholars, and members of the public have about modern rape law. Rubenfeld’s specific proposal to base rape statutes on a right to self-possession, because it is derived from mistaken premises about rape law, would likely make legal over 90% of rapes in America. By replacing the non-consent element of modern rape statutes with a narrow force requirement, Rubenfeld’s recommendation essentially decriminalizes non-stranger rape and rape by a victim’s intoxication.In this Article, I examine the missteps Rubenfeld makes to explain why he ends up supporting such a disastrous conclusion. For example, Rubenfeld sees the need for his right to self-possession theory because he believes that autonomy is the sole basis that scholars offer for the foundation of rape law. However, rape is also properly supported as an independent offense by the nature and severity of harm caused, gender dynamics involved, and terror inflicted on the general population by widespread sexual violence. He also uses specious analogies and idiosyncratic conceptions of autonomy to establish the critical components of his argument.Despite the faults of his specific claims, Rubenfeld points rape scholars in a worthwhile direction. Instead of seeking diminishing returns with statutory tinkering, there is much to be gained by focusing on the foundations of rape law. By better integrating the fundamental values of rape law (autonomy, gender, harm, and terror), the major problems of high rape prevalence, law enforcement failure, and political hostility to rape victims that plague America can be better addressed.
强奸法基本原理
现代美国强奸法是历史偶然事件、妥协、立法疏忽、成功改革和反弹的产物。它既不是一个有待解决的谜题,也不是一个连贯的规则和价值观体系。也许我们从刑法中得出的关于性的最清晰的教训是,它们之间没有逻辑、理由或一致性。由于其曲折的历史,关于强奸法的神话和误解比比皆是。杰德·鲁本菲尔德(Jed Rubenfeld)最近的一篇文章《欺骗强奸之谜和性自主的神话》(The Riddle of rape by deception and Myth of Sexual Autonomy),体现了许多法院、学者和公众对现代强奸法的困惑。鲁本菲尔德的具体建议是将强奸法建立在自有权的基础上,因为它源自关于强奸法的错误前提,可能会使美国90%以上的强奸合法化。鲁本菲尔德的建议用狭义的强制要求取代了现代强奸法中的非同意要素,实质上使非陌生人强奸和受害者醉酒强奸合法化。在这篇文章中,我分析了鲁本菲尔德所犯的错误,以解释为什么他最终支持这样一个灾难性的结论。例如,鲁本菲尔德认为他的自我占有权理论是必要的,因为他认为自主权是学者们为强奸法的基础提供的唯一基础。然而,强奸作为一种独立的罪行也得到了适当的支持,因为它所造成的伤害的性质和严重程度、涉及的性别动态以及普遍的性暴力对普通民众造成的恐惧。他还使用似是而非的类比和独特的自治概念来建立他的论点的关键组成部分。尽管鲁本菲尔德的具体主张存在缺陷,但他为强奸学者指明了一个有价值的方向。与其在法律上修修补补,寻求收益递减,不如关注强奸法的基础,这样做会有很多收获。通过更好地整合强奸法的基本价值观(自主、性别、伤害和恐怖),可以更好地解决困扰美国的强奸高发生率、执法不力以及对强奸受害者的政治敌意等主要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信