Premium
Rape‐Law Reform circa June 2002
Author(s) -
SCHULHOFER STEPHEN
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
annals of the new york academy of sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.712
H-Index - 248
eISSN - 1749-6632
pISSN - 0077-8923
DOI - 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07312.x
Subject(s) - intimidation , scope (computer science) , law , worry , power (physics) , liability , political science , coercion (linguistics) , law and economics , sociology , psychology , philosophy , anxiety , physics , quantum mechanics , psychiatry , computer science , programming language , linguistics
A bstract : This paper reviews court decisions determining the scope of liability for rape over the period 1998–2002. It finds many troubling signs that some courts, under some circumstances, are still wedded to the traditional (very strict) view of the kind of force necessary to support a charge of rape. There are, however, signs of encouraging progress: convictions in circumstances where even a decision to prosecute would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and holdings that accept power, authority, or indirect intimidation as sufficient ‘force.’ Is it possible to go too far in this direction? And is there any reason to worry that this could actually happen in reality? The research identifies several areas in which this surprising possibility may be about to materialize, for example on the normatively and practically difficult question of the degree of intoxication or alcohol‐induced willingness sufficient to invalidate consent.