District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll.
Fun fact: the UK defines rape as “penetration with his penis”, so, in the UK and legally speaking, a woman can’t rape a man.
Instead, it would be sexual assault, which has the same sentencing range. However, we all know that female rape against males is not prosecuted as harshly, if at all.
Not that women have better luck in court, mind. It’s all messed up, and it’s not like locking someone up actually stops them from doing it again as soon as they get out. Detention is not an effective deterrent - the most effective deterrent is the certainty of being caught. After that, rehabilitation is needed. But hey, private prisons need bums in cells.
deleted by creator
I appreciate the context you gave after this statement, however I disagree with the conclusion you started with.
The purpose of my comment was to highlight that New York isn’t all that unique in its definition of rape - there are others that are similar. However, in New York, state law is superseded by Federal law. The judge here has treaded on eggshells to make a declaration that fits under federal law, but doesn’t quite line up under state law. Such a declaration wouldn’t even be possible under UK law.
I, too, hope that Trump actually faces the consequences of his corruption. I hold my breath in anticipation, though, rather than celebrate him merely being told off.
The judge made it clear that it was rape even if it didn’t fit the definition of rape under New York state law.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll
Yes, that’s what I said. The judge said it was rape (under federal law), while the jury said it was not (under NY law, which is the same as UK law here).
deleted by creator
That fact is not fun nor is it relevant.
Not fun, sure, but how is the legal definition of “rape” of a prominent jurisdiction not relevant - especially in a discussion about how Federal laws says rape is any penetration of the vagina, but the New York state definition require a penis - just like UK law?!
NY law is closer to UK law than US federal law. That’s the subtext of what I said. You have just jumped on a bandwagon here, and haven’t contributed anything of any significance.
Booooo to you.
I’m trying to highlight shit that is wrong in the world. You’re just trying to say I’m wrong because I’m talking about things that are wrong.
This comment, aside from the wild assumptions and self pity, is much more relevant than the first. Go with the subject matter here as your first statement next time. Your original comment was too much “sub” and not enough “text”.
Mate I’ve had faaaaar too much rum tonight to avoid self pity. But yeah, imma sub some shit with my text.
If your comment here was about atrocities happening in Palestine the reaction would have been the same. Yes, it’s wrong, but it’s off topic.
How is it off topic to highlight that NY isn’t alone in its legal definition of rape?
You’re getting shit on for raising a perfectly valid point regarding how our society views the subject of this post.
People don’t want to be shown the hypocrisy of their positions though so like we see time after time when people want to talk about gun control after a mass shooting, ‘now is not the time or place’ to address these issues and politicize this awful tragedy.
All forms of sexual assault should be taken seriously. The imbalance in the laws is an injustice to all victims.
Exactly. We can’t address these nuanced issues without actually discussing them openly.
IMO, US federal law is right - rape doesn’t need to involve a penis to be rape. NY and UK law are wrong, as they imply a woman cannot rape a man, or that a woman cannot rape another woman, or that a man isn’t raping a woman when he doesn’t use his penis.
I think rape should be seen as any sort of involuntary sexual penetration, with any thing. Rape is a form of sexual assault, but sexual assault also includes lesser offenses such as flashing.
Convicting a rapist for what could be viewed as a lesser offense isn’t really sufficient.
deleted by creator
Take your head out of your ass and stop looking for a fight. I’m not in any way supporting Trump nor any far right agenda.
Colloquially, we still call them rapists, even if the legal term is different. Similarly, we don’t call people common assaulted, even if that’s the legal term. They are attackers, etc.
“Colloquial rape”, unfortunately, doesn’t cut the mustard in a legal setting. This is, apparently, a particularly relevant subject when discussing rape law in NY.
This also actually points to something I’ve used as a challenge for people who are hard lined right/vs/wrong:
If someone robs a bank, but they aren’t caught, are they still a bank robber?
No, of course not. Legally it’s sexual assault. It still meets that criteria from all I’ve seen. We still call female perpetrators rapists, even though without a penis they don’t meet the criteria.
You’re missing the point. Hes done something the judge considers rape. He’s a rapist. It also didn’t happen in the UK, so even with a penis it wouldn’t meet the criteria.
However, if it had happened in the UK, he’d still face the same legal repurcussions and everyone would call him a rapist. Legally, though, h d be guilty of sexual assault rather than rape.
No, it happened in NY, which happens to have a somewhat similar legal definition of rape requiring penetration with the penis - per the article.
He was convicted in NY of sexual assault with his fingers, but the jury stopped short of a rape conviction involving his penis. If the same reasoning had been made in a UK court, then he would have had the same conviction.
No, it was a civil case, not criminal. It was about defamation.
Yes, a civil case in NY, in which a jury ruled that Trump had committed sexual assault.
The fun part is that, while sexual assault is a crime and a court has ruled he did that, he’s still not actually convicted of the crime of sexual assault - we can say it’s more than 50% likely he did it, but we can’t quite say it’s more than 99%.
It’s a bit like OJ Simpson, who got off on the criminal murder charge, but then lost the civil case for killing. Except in this case there was no criminal trial.