Angel Raped Buffy, Spike only tried

POSTED BY: FURYFIRE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 24, 2004 20:07
VIEWED: 35133
PAGE 1 of 1

FURYFIRE

Sunday, June 1, 2003 7:41 PM

Okay so, Buffy was only 17 years old, just turned actually, when she lost her virginity to an older man, well above the age of majority. Hence, technically Angel raped her.

Do yall think the producersb noticed this?

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

CYRIDEL

Sunday, June 1, 2003 7:45 PM

Well, looking at it from a completely legal standpoint, technically yes since the age of consent is 18 in California. But since they were truly in love and she ended up sending him to hell, I don't anyone really thought much of it.

ROBERTSPARLING

Monday, June 2, 2003 12:02 AM

It's unrealistic to call Angel and Buffy having sex "rape". Two consenting parties having sex, that's what happened. Spike tried to force himself onto Buffy. Violently. I'm a proponent of statutory rape legislation, but only in certain circumstances. And it really doesn't apply to the show in any way, for the reasons stated, and not to forget that Angel probably doesn't legally exist. Not like he has a social security card or anything.

The age of consent has been lowered, at least in New York, to 17 if it makes you feel any better.

SLOWSMURF

Monday, June 2, 2003 12:11 AM

Others might call it rape, she nor he would though. Thats all that really matters.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 2, 2003 12:29 AM

The reason that it could be considered rape is because a person that young would not be considered capable of giving consent. Buffy was already making life and death decisions and showed a level of maturity demonstrating that she was able to give consent. Legally it is a case of necrophilia, which I hope is illegal, and Buffy is the offender, and if rape were to be considered once again Buffy would be at fault because a dead person can’t give consent.

ROBERTSPARLING

Monday, June 2, 2003 1:23 AM

good point.

and yes, necrophilia is illegal

SLOWSMURF

Monday, June 2, 2003 2:55 AM

What if the person gives consent before they die?(via a will or whatever)

I'm just curious what the courts would do with that...

FURYFIRE

Monday, June 2, 2003 3:27 AM

This is the dumbest and funniest thing i've ever heard. Can you give consent for someone to have sex with your own dead body? LOL

K, what a provocative issue, and especially the title of the original post. Whoa, man, whoa.

Technically, it is rape with age difference and Buffy being under the age of majority, needing Joyce's consent. Granted, Buffy was mature enough to make the right decision...or was she? Look what happened afterwards, he tried to kill her. No relationship like this can be justified in a legal system.

And yeah, I agree with you guys, but how do we debate these points?

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

LOTV

Monday, June 2, 2003 3:42 AM

As much as I NEVER watch Buffy, and I'm only reading this thread on a whim... let us access our local online dictionary.

ahem...

rape ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
1.The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2.The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3.Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

According to such definitons, Angel did not rape Buffy as Buffy gave her consent to such an action, because it was not a forced action, as was previously mentioned in this thread.

As for other legal issues however, the waters begin to become murky. Due to child protection laws, Angel could be placed under arrest for corrupting youth (under aged sex) however, this is unlikely to go through due to the consent Buffy gave him, her age, and the fact that neither Angel or Buffy would be likely to turn themselves in.

As for the necrophelia issue... In vampire myth (truth?) Vampires are considered Undead. Yet, according to scientific defintion, something is alive if it meets the following criteria:

life ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

As Angel is capable of all such things, he under the law would be considered alive, and thus Buffy could not perform necrophilia on him...

Thank you, and this has been your lawyer report of the day.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Monday, June 2, 2003 4:04 AM

Yes, both the statutory rape and necrophilia technicalities occured to me long ago. But keep in mind what the word "statutory" means. Only occording to some statute is it a rape. Besides, while 18 trips around the sun is the span of time society has decided that a person needs to be mature enough to consent to sex, 16 is the age when when it stops be a real crime in many states. Also, keep in mind that this 18 rule is a very recent development in western culture. It was not too long ago--within Angel's life time--when a unmarried woman of 18 years was considered an old maid.

Furthermore, both of the above mentioned crimes pale in comparision to others perpetrated by various members of the Scooby gang; Faith was the only one that got nabbed by the laws for it.

Over the course of both shows, the "Good Guys" have committed the following crimes, many on several occasions:

- Breaking and Entering
- Cracking (hacking) private, government computer databases.
- Assault
- Battery
- Assault with a deadly weapon
- Blackmail
- Shoplifting
- Obstructing Justice
- Stealing a meter-maid's cart
- Aiding and Abetting an known felon
- Attempted Murder
- Murder
- Impersonating a police officer
- Impersonating an Interpol officer
- Stealing government weapons (don't know the techincal name, but know it's a crime)
- Kidnapping
- Fraud
- Burglary
- Arson

And I know there's a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting. I'd also like to add that Xander attempted to rape Buffy long before Spike jumped on the bandwagon. (he was possesed by a Heyena)

________________

GILES: This computer invasion that Willow is performing on the cororner's office. One assumes that it is entirely legal?
BUFFY: Of course.
WILLOW: Entirely..
GILES: Right. Wasn't here. Didn't see it. Couldn't have stopped you.

LOTV

Monday, June 2, 2003 4:05 AM

... and you kept a list of all of this!?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

FURYFIRE

Monday, June 2, 2003 5:08 PM

What's necrophelia?

Angel was 241 yrs old, Buffy 17. He's an old man with a lust for little girls.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

BRTICK

Monday, June 2, 2003 6:11 PM

ha. um, well, I would point out that what Spike tried to do was a touch worse then what Angel did.

Keep Flying!

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 2, 2003 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
What's necrophelia?

Angel was 241 yrs old, Buffy 17. He's an old man with a lust for little girls.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

nec·ro·phil·i·a

also nec·rophi·lism

n.
(1)Obsessive fascination with death and corpses.
(2)Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with corpses.

In this case the second one. Buffy had sex with someone whose heart wasn't beating, thus a dead person. Further this person (Angel) had died and had not been resuscitated (therefore dead.)

Sorry LOTV, but a corpse meets all of your requirements of life (except reproduction but mules don’t do that either). The reason? Well it is alive, the cells go on for quite a bit being alive after someone dies, so dead is accepted to be medically dead (heart stopped) or brain dead (brain stopped doing it’s thing.)

This is the reason that if my heart stops and then they come with a defibrillator and restart may heart ten minutes later I was dead for ten minutes.

LOTV

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 5:02 AM

Well... ahem..

Let me put it this way: Should your heart stop, and you are medically dead for 10 minutes, during that 10 minutes, I really do not expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to jump up, drive over to your 17 year old girlfriends house... and do the deed.

Not to represent the Undead here in legal court, but I'm sure that vampires and zombies of the like in legal standing due to their capabilites of motion and... according to the Buffyverse, "sexual capabilities"... would not be considered "dead" and thus individuals who fornicate with such beings would not be guilty of necrophilia, regardless of their techincal medical standing.

Why are we still talking about this anyway!?!

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LOTV:
... and you kept a list of all of this!?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Just a mental list. Oh, and I thought of a couple more:

- Vandalism
- Encouraging deliquency in a minor

________________

Nothing says "Aha, I'm on to you!" like being on the receiving end of a vicious police beating.

LOTV

Wednesday, June 4, 2003 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

- Encouraging deliquency in a minor

That's it! That's the one I meant with corrupting youth... on a post so long ago no one cares anymore... thanks anyway for reminding me...

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

Nothing says "Aha, I'm on to you!" like being on the receiving end of a vicious police beating.

I Love that line...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

SPIDERFISH13

Friday, June 6, 2003 5:01 PM

Sorry - I'm a bit late to this and haven't read (nor am I responding) to all of the posts. I just wanted to put my 2 cents in though:

So what if Buffy was 17? She consented to having sex with Angel - it wasn't forced. There is a BIG difference between being forced (raped) and what happened to her with Angel. Knowing many women who have been raped (and almost having once been a victim of it myself) I find the very idea that "Angel raped her, Spike 'ONLY' tried" to be pretty disgusting.

DRAKON

Saturday, June 7, 2003 7:43 AM

"So what if Buffy was 17? She consented to having sex with Angel"

The problem is a matter of semantics. Rape is a crime , and a pretty bad one at that. It not only covers non-consentual activities, but also situations where one of the parties is legally assumed to be incapable of offering consent. Such as if one of the parties is drunk, drugged, or under age.

Its a bit like the laws governing murder. You plan on shooting someone, set up an ambush and then kill them, that is murder. If it is done in a fit of passion, or while goofing off with a loaded weapon, its still murder, or manslaughter. Either way, the victim is dead, via your course of actions.

SPIDERFISH13

Saturday, June 7, 2003 7:46 AM

Quote:
he problem is a matter of semantics. Rape is a crime , and a pretty bad one at that. It not only covers non-consentual activities, but also situations where one of the parties is legally assumed to be incapable of offering consent. Such as if one of the parties is drunk, drugged, or under age.

I respect your opinion on this matter. However, I disagree with the idea that a 17 year old is too young to give consent.

QUAISIOR

Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:57 AM

When that episode of Buffy was filmed, the age of consent in California was 17. It was only raised to 18 in 2001.

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:13 AM

Double post.

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:13 AM

Lol.

We really need that whip sound about now :)

FURYFIRE

Sunday, June 22, 2003 5:07 PM

Thank you QUASIOR (sp?) That was a real answer, and what I needed. Thanks for the response.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

JMF

Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LOTV:
Well... ahem..

Let me put it this way: Should your heart stop, and you are medically dead for 10 minutes, during that 10 minutes

But Angel's heart is still pretty much... stopped.

Quote:
Not to represent the Undead here in legal court, but I'm sure that vampires and zombies of the like in legal standing due to their capabilites of motion and... according to the Buffyverse, "sexual capabilities"... would not be considered "dead" and thus individuals who fornicate with such beings would not be guilty of necrophilia, regardless of their techincal medical standing.

Why are we still talking about this anyway!?!

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

I don't think, pardon me, that being able to move and screw things qualifies you enough to be living. The body and host is dead. The demon isn't even a materialized creature. At best, one could call it an infection or parasite (just terming it for categorization as fictional as they are). The body is most definintely dead.

SLOWSMURF

Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:57 AM

Yes, but I believe the point is that this obviously is NOT something that could be legally tried(he's a vampire!), so using legal definitions is quite stupid.

RANDOMHERESY

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:10 AM

Angel is only technically dead, he meets most of the biological requirements set out to determine a living organism. He walks, he talks, he screws 17 year olds, for all intense and purposes Angel is alive, his heart merely doesnt beat because thats not part of vampire physiology, it's like saying a plant isnt a living because it doesnt have a heart. Okay that was a crappy comparison but you get my point.

--------
That's not normal: normal is coming home to find your mother nailed to a cross
screaming verses from the book of Mormon, your dad performing a dark ritual
with your brother as the sacrifice, and your sister getting railed by a goat.

LINDEN

Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:09 PM

"Angel Raped Buffy, Spike Only Tried"

That is such a repulsive sentence...

So, in your eyes the scene in "Seeing Red" where Spike tries to force himself on Buffy, trying to tear of her robe, when all the while she is screaming at him and clearly showing that she does not want this, isn´t really that bad? That the scene where Angel and Buffy are making love in "Surprise" is worse than that? And just to be clear, in that scene Angel actually says "Buffy, maybe we shouldn´t..." He is not the instegator, she is.

I find that sentence as bad as any lawyers out there trying to get their clients free from all charges when they, in fact, know that they are guilty. Saying that they´re "only doing their job"
That makes them as despiccable as the crime itself.

I consider rape one of the lowest acts you can commit on another human being and to see a remark like that makes me so angry. Have you seen the episodes in question? I wish you would really sit down and watch that bathroom-scene again. Watch Buffy´s genuine fear and then you tell me what rape is.

BROKENDREAMS3638

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 11:39 PM

I agree this is stupid... Its not rape she was willing and so was he! Its not rape unless one person says NO!! And i don't think it matters with the age, since uh ANGEL IS DEAD! I think buffy was mature enough to make that decision since she deals with life and death matters every day! Even though she knew after she made a mistake, still do you remember who you lost your virginity to? I bet you, you regret it too. Everyone does! Spike did actually try raping her! She said no... I don't think Buffy at that time really cared about how old he was since she believed that she loved him. If you really believe you love someone, and it all comes down to a choice, then its just your choice. you may regret it, maybe you wont you never know! You have to remember fate only takes you so far, but once your there its up to you to make it happen. Buffy loved Angel she probably still does! And people lets not forget IT'S A TV SHOW! A tv show that basically just had there last season. Don't get me wrong I love that show, but i really believe that it wasn't rape, because both male and female were willing to do it. And come on do you think she was really thinking about the Age when she saw Angel without his shirt on? Ok we all should know Angel is really hot! Hello people!!!!!! LOL

Brokendreams3638

MAGUINAN

Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:13 AM

"This is why I don't vote."

ZEKE023

Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:08 PM

Agreed.

This is legal semantics and Morality and Legality are different.

No matter how you phrase it, this whole argument undermines the sanctity of a person's body and the horrifying nature of rape.

TWICEONSUNDAYS

Thursday, November 6, 2003 9:32 PM

Maybe if you DID vote, the people in office (and making the laws) would be on your side. In a representative government, they can't represent you if they don't know how you feel. vote vote vote vote vote vote. One more time. vote. okay, two. vote! no, really, vote. Did I mention you should vote? And in between, call your representatives and tell them how you feel. And then vote.

Sorry for the rant. On the inane (yet amusing) argument that is this thread, I have one thing to add. Is Angel dead? Technically, vampires are called the 'undead,' yes? 'un' being a prefix meaning 'not' as in uninterrupted, or undisputed. So, philologically speaking, Angel is not-dead. Just a thought

FURYFIRE

Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:27 PM

Simmer.
We're takling legal issues here. Angel is immortalized as a 25 year old and had sex with a 17 year old girl. Under 18, a mionr, you are a child. We're talking a dark and tall evil 25 year old man having sex with children. Kay, I'm stretching it, but yah, Spike was raping Buffy, Angel and Buffy both consented to having sex with each other but legally it is rape and that's undeniable. This topic was just to point out something I had noticed, and to stir some feathers. Don't get worked up. Rape is a serious issue, but sex with a minor with consent is "rape" to some people which is why I mentioned it. Simmers.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

LOTV

Friday, November 7, 2003 6:51 AM

ooookay.. finally it all makes sense now, as to why this whole thread refuses to die...

You've got your definition of rape in the wrong sense.

rape- The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse

What you are suggesting, sex with a minor is pedophilia / corruption of a minor. Because Buffy fully understood her actions, and gave consent to them, its not rape.

The only time when rape would be considered, regardless of consent, would be if the raped individual did not fully understand the situation, such as from a seriously underaged individual, or from a person with a mental limitations (retardation, medical states, etc)

However, Buffy's legal guardians could very well press charges for pedophilia as Buffy was then a minor.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

DRAKON

Friday, November 7, 2003 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Agreed.

This is legal semantics and Morality and Legality are different.

You're saying there's a difference between what's legal and what's right? Hmmm... I know a couple of other folks who have made similar distinctions.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

FURYFIRE

Saturday, November 8, 2003 9:54 AM

Vampires are not incuded in the legal system. If the authorities ever caught Angel, appearing as a 25 year old, who had sex with a 17 year old, he would be arrested if Joyce were to press charges. He would be tried and convicted. Nothing in the legal system speaks of vampires, he'd be imprisoned noetheless. Look at how many times that the poilce have fired guns at Angel, they don't understand. They'd arrest him under the normal law and never understand the difference. Angel's excuse that he's the living dead won't bode over well.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

DRAKON

Saturday, November 8, 2003 12:30 PM

This is kinda a silly argument, but what the heck.

You mention Joyce pressing charges, and that is key. If she don't, then it is a rare prosecutor who will go ahead and press anyway, regardless of the technical matters concerned. Statutory rape, when the victim is 17, and willingly consented, is tough to convict on. And with the defendent an apparent 25 year old male, its not that good.

Think about it for a second. Yes, technically it is a violation of the law. But you go to trial, and this 17 year old girl starts talking about how she is in love, appearing mature, and not seduced. You have the defendent, who appears about her age.

Plus, if they ever get to telling the tale of the entire ordeal, the defeating the boxed demon that Spike and Drusila brought in, how Angel turned into an evil vampire, instead of a good one, how the statue was destroying the world, and how Buffy ran Angel through with a sword to prevent the world from ending, well, what do you think the DA would do?

Either lock them up as complete loonies, or kick them out of the office for wasting his time. No DA would waste the court's time or his own reputation going after him on this issue.

In technical terms, Angel committed statutory rape of a 17 year old girl. He is also guilty of murder, torture and a whole lot of poor behavior that would be legally actionable. Statutory rape of a consenting 17 year old is the least of his crimes. And it is highly doubtful that a DA would even pursue it.

Besides which, Joyce is dead, Buffy is over 21 now, and she is no longer in the country last we heard. Neither the victim nor the defendent are going to press charges, so, in practical effect, there is no crime.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

FURYFIRE

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:08 PM

I don't know how anyone an defend a rapist

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

DARKERRAIN

Thursday, January 8, 2004 8:38 AM

I thought it was said above that when the episode was filmed, the legal age in California was 17. Soooo technically, Angel isn't a rapist, statutory or otherwise.

LADYJAYNE

Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:45 PM

Actually, the arguments are flawed because the term "rape" isn't even used in the legal system anymore. I've worked in a prison. The term is Criminal Sexual Conduct.

Under strictly legal terms, what Angel did would be considered Statutory CSC and what Spike did was Attempted CSC III.

I'm probably one of the biggest Spike fans around, but I still know CSC when I see it. I also know pederasty, too. (Pederasty is when an adult has a romantic/sexual relationship with a teen rather than pedaphilia which is with a child) A man hiding in the bushes and "falling in love" with a girl eating a lollipop just makes my skin crawl.

--Kala

KINGOFKOINS

Sunday, January 25, 2004 6:39 PM

I'd just like to point out, that while I don't believe that Angel raped Buffy, Xander certainly tried to. During "The Pack," in the scene where he had her on the floor and was smelling her fear, it's obvious he was trying to rape her. Why is it that he gets off the hook, whereas everyone seems to think Spike should be eviscerated by weasels? Both Spike and Xander were under the control of evil forces that were not themselves. Am I the only one who thinks this?

--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.

JASONZZZ

Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:55 PM

The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

During the latter part of the 1800's and the early part of the 1900's, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

(note that the April 2001 revision provides additional civil penalties to specific types of cases in addition to the misdemeanor and felony charges)

In criminal law, the age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts with another person. Thus somebody engaging in sex with someone below the age of consent commits a crime, called child sexual abuse. Strictly this is regardless of his or her own age, but if two young people engage in sex than the older one is considered to commit a crime, especially if the age difference is relatively large.

The age of consent should not to be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility. The marriageable age is not necessarily the same as the age of consent. In some countries the two are different.

The age of consent varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions in the world today have an age of consent between 14 to 18 years, but ages as young as 12 and as old as 21 also occur, with some countries in the Middle East holding female ages of consent in the single-digit range.

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. Calls for the age of consent for heterosexual sex to be lowered are largely unheard of, outside of U.S. states with an age of 17 or 18.

Sexual relations with a person under the age of consent is in general a criminal offense, with punishments ranging from token fines to life imprisonment. In the United States this offence is frequently called statutory rape, though outside the United States other names are more commonly used (e.g. "carnal knowledge of a person under sixteen years").

That the relationship was consensual is not in general a defense to having sexual relations with a person under the age of consent; however, there frequently are some defences: common examples include a limited mistake of age defence, and a defence of similarity of age. A mistake of age defence is that the accused mistakenly believed the victim was not under the age of consent.

In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/childrenandthecourts/case_law/del
inque/delinquency-13.htm)

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed, contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may not be constitutionally applied to him si

JASONZZZ

Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:01 PM

So again, consent is not a legal issue. Since the law (in California) defines that a person under the age of 18 cannot legal give consent (for whatever the reason). You are probably right that a DA will probably not press charges on their own; but if Joyce presses files charges, then she can still bring civil penalties and possibly can still bring criminal charges against them. In any case, if the issue comes to trial, a jury cannot just decide on their own to ignore the law. If the evidence is there and it fits the crime, what kind of jury system do we have if we can have people just willy-nilly decide that the law doesn't apply in a particular case?

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
This is kinda a silly argument, but what the heck.

You mention Joyce pressing charges, and that is key. If she don't, then it is a rare prosecutor who will go ahead and press anyway, regardless of the technical matters concerned. Statutory rape, when the victim is 17, and willingly consented, is tough to convict on. And with the defendent an apparent 25 year old male, its not that good.

Think about it for a second. Yes, technically it is a violation of the law. But you go to trial, and this 17 year old girl starts talking about how she is in love, appearing mature, and not seduced. You have the defendent, who appears about her age.

Plus, if they ever get to telling the tale of the entire ordeal, the defeating the boxed demon that Spike and Drusila brought in, how Angel turned into an evil vampire, instead of a good one, how the statue was destroying the world, and how Buffy ran Angel through with a sword to prevent the world from ending, well, what do you think the DA would do?

Either lock them up as complete loonies, or kick them out of the office for wasting his time. No DA would waste the court's time or his own reputation going after him on this issue.

In technical terms, Angel committed statutory rape of a 17 year old girl. He is also guilty of murder, torture and a whole lot of poor behavior that would be legally actionable. Statutory rape of a consenting 17 year old is the least of his crimes. And it is highly doubtful that a DA would even pursue it.

Besides which, Joyce is dead, Buffy is over 21 now, and she is no longer in the country last we heard. Neither the victim nor the defendent are going to press charges, so, in practical effect, there is no crime.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Monday, January 26, 2004 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

During the latter part of the 1800's and the early part of the 1900's, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

(note that the April 2001 revision provides additional civil penalties to specific types of cases in addition to the misdemeanor and felony charges)

In criminal law, the age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts with another person. Thus somebody engaging in sex with someone below the age of consent commits a crime, called child sexual abuse. Strictly this is regardless of his or her own age, but if two young people engage in sex than the older one is considered to commit a crime, especially if the age difference is relatively large.

The age of consent should not to be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility. The marriageable age is not necessarily the same as the age of consent. In some countries the two are different.

The age of consent varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions in the world today have an age of consent between 14 to 18 years, but ages as young as 12 and as old as 21 also occur, with some countries in the Middle East holding female ages of consent in the single-digit range.

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. Calls for the age of consent for heterosexual sex to be lowered are largely unheard of, outside of U.S. states with an age of 17 or 18.

Sexual relations with a person under the age of consent is in general a criminal offense, with punishments ranging from token fines to life imprisonment. In the United States this offence is frequently called statutory rape, though outside the United States other names are more commonly used (e.g. "carnal knowledge of a person under sixteen years").

That the relationship was consensual is not in general a defense to having sexual relations with a person under the age of consent; however, there frequently are some defences: common examples include a limited mistake of age defence, and a defence of similarity of age. A mistake of age defence is that the accused mistakenly believed the victim was not under the age of consent.

In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/childrenandthecourts/case_law/del
inque/delinquency-13.htm)

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed, contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SERGEANTX

Monday, January 26, 2004 11:29 AM

This thread seemed comical to me when it first popped up so many months ago. Since then I've watched some Buffy episodes and some Angel episodes and come to what is, I hope, a little better understanding of what Joss is trying to do with this whole Buffyverse thing.

Feel free to correct me, as I'm fairly new as a Buffy fan, but it seems that none of these shows are about monsters in the literal sense. They all seem to me to be about the real, fearsome problems that we all deal with on a daily basis. Given that, I see the whole thing with Angel and Buffy as much closer to what was being discussed above in, I'd assumed, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manor.

What I'm saying is that the Buffy/Angel romance is the story of a very young girl hooking up with much older guy.

How did it all begin? Let's see we've got a much older man, alienated from most of his peers (due to his enlightened conscience) who, in his lonliness notices a young girl with similar problems. He stalks her from the darkness for awhile, obsessed with her as a curiosity. Soon he begins becoming more actively involved by helping her. He protects her when she feels threatened and gives her a sense of understanding when everything else around her seems threatening and alienating. Soon she begins to see him as more of a peer than the other people in her world and a budding relationship begins.

Things develop from there and soon their 'friendship' gains passion ending in a sexual encounter that ultimately makes him a 'monster'. Of course once the nature of their relationship is discovered he must 'go away' for a long time....

In a later episode of Angel he sees his forbidden love return to him. Through a series of freak occurrences he finds himself able to spend a day of perfect bliss with her, thinking this time they've escaped the moral implications of his 'sin'. But alas he sees that society will never accept them, and they will be plagued by a never ending wave of 'demons' set on destroying them. He realizes that his dream, his true love, can never exist anywhere but in his mind, as a fantasy that he will always remember, but that she will probably not.

This kind of stuff is a lot creepier than demons and vampires, eh?

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

COBBHOUSE

Monday, January 26, 2004 11:20 PM

Given that the state of CA age of consent is 18 (i think it is, from what ppl have said above), actualy this is also the age of consent in iraq (or atleast was under the previous administration). In much of the rest of the world it is 16. And if Angel had been convicted of rape, they could have always had him deported back to Ireland.

As far as i can remember from the episode (on skyone) where spike and buffy were in the bathroom, she said no, he grabbed her, she fell on the floor, and then spike looked all shocked. I doubt rape was spikes intention, as she had said no many times before, only to throw him into his coffin later. He didn't force her, and was shocked that no ment no this time.

IDEFIX

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cobbhouse:
Given that the state of CA age of consent is 18 (i think it is, from what ppl have said above), actualy this is also the age of consent in iraq (or atleast was under the previous administration). In much of the rest of the world it is 16. And if Angel had been convicted of rape, they could have always had him deported back to Ireland.

I'm from germany and we have the age of consent at 16 here. and if both are younger than that it's also no problem. as long as they both wanted to. I think it's stupid beyond believe to have a fixed age at all because it's so differnet from person to person and 'rape' is the entirely wrong word for it even if one is older than that fixed age and the other is younger as long as they both want to. rape is about forcing someone. and that's about the worst crime one human being (regardless of age) can do to another. rape is about power not sex it intends to humiliate a person. underage (whatever the age) sex is something completely different.

Quote:

As far as i can remember from the episode (on skyone) where spike and buffy were in the bathroom, she said no, he grabbed her, she fell on the floor, and then spike looked all shocked. I doubt rape was spikes intention, as she had said no many times before, only to throw him into his coffin later. He didn't force her, and was shocked that no ment no this time.

that's about the same I saw. she really meant no this time and she really was frightened and she really felt threatened and forced. but he never wanted her to feel that way. he just didn't understand that "no" meant "no" this time fast enough. as soon as he understood he was shocked and I even seem to remember guilt on his face. he was sorry to have misunderstood. so you can charge him with being slow and stupid but not with attempted rape because he never wanted to rape her (force her).

so no rape anywhere as far as I'm concerned. even if Buffy felt like it with Spike. had she not teased him with almost the same kind of behaviour many times before he should have known that "no" meant "no" but it never did before. they should have used a safty word or something. and maybe you should also keep in mind that in this particular relationship the tiny girl is not the helpless partner. she was always able to kick Spikes butt and he relied on this for much of what they did together. "she needs a little monster in her men" comes to mind.

and don't get me wrong I really felt for her in that scene. it looked like attempted rape from her eyes and it is not my intention to say that she got what she bargained for but I think it was a big misunderstanding and that's just not attempted rape. as rape is carried out with intent and there was no intent only 'normal' behaviour from one of them (Spike) with the other (Buffy) having had a change of heart in between last time and now. and a big failure to communicate on top of it.

Idefix

DRAKON

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Idefix:

I'm from germany and we have the age of consent at 16 here. and if both are younger than that it's also no problem. as long as they both wanted to. I think it's stupid beyond believe to have a fixed age at all because it's so differnet from person to person and 'rape' is the entirely wrong word for it even if one is older than that fixed age and the other is younger as long as they both want to. rape is about forcing someone. and that's about the worst crime one human being (regardless of age) can do to another. rape is about power not sex it intends to humiliate a person. underage (whatever the age) sex is something completely different.

But what is the alternative?

I see complaints like this all the time, the law is arbitrary. But the argument never addresses an alternative that can accomplish the same protection for the underage, against predatory sexual appetites.

Traffic lights are also arbitrary. But the alternative is to have a human person there, directing traffic. If you get rid of age of consent laws, then that would require establishment of some kind of testing and commision, meaning human beings have the power to decide whether you are, or are not qualified to grant consent in something that many folks think is too personal an issue to be ruled over by government in the normal course of things.

Just because a law is arbitrary does not mean that it is a bad thing. Even arbitrary rules accomplish some good. Perhaps that 15 year old is mature enough to play with. Perhaps not, and you only want to think so because your own hormones are jones. Either way, as a mature adult, passing up the pleasure of her company, until she is of legal age, seems a better solution than simply throwing her to the wolves.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

KALATHENA

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:39 AM

Quote:
This kind of stuff is a lot creepier than demons and vampires, eh?

Thanks for this well observed post, SergeantX. This is the kinds of stuff *I* have noticed about Buffy. I was a late-comer to the series, having borrowed seasons 1-5 on videotape from a friend of mine and watching them over a summer.

The patterns you have noticed were completely unmistakable to me. Someone else on this thread mentioned Xander in "The Pack". I will also point out "Harsh Light of Day" and "Beauty and the Beasts". In the Buffyverse, men are often portrayed as misleading pricks at best (Parker) and sexual predators at worst (Xander, Angel). The message is clear: Have sex with a guy and he turns into a monster, if he isn't a monster underneath already (Oz, Spike).

This theme was played out with more metaphor but more intensity in Season 7 when Buffy discovers that the original Slayer was forced into her duty against her wishes. I think most would agree that the rape perpetuated by the original Watchers was far more horrifying than any overt sexual act we'd seen on the show to this point.

Power over vs. power from within. Freedom from vs. Freedom to. These were the most common themes within the entire series.

--Kala

p.s. It about killed me when I found out that Jane Espenson wrote "Harsh Light of Day". Sigh. I thought for sure that one was a Marti Noxon. Ah well. I suppose Jane's not always perfect.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:16 PM

The points, if you actually read the post instead of just looking at it as a lengthy diatribe and slapping your forehead with your beer can (and everyone else who reads a legitimate and detailed post, then responds only with "so?") , are these:

1. The legal age of consent in California is 18 and has not changed since 1913.
2. There might be a moral argument against who can give consent or not and at what age based on common law or moral beliefs, but the criminal statutes defines it fairly clearly.
3. I give examples that "consent" while under the age of consent is not a legal defense.
4. There is a big difference between "Rape" and "Statutory Rape", the only thing common is the words in there. The operation definition and criminal statute definitions between the two are dramatically different. Same type of differences in the types of killing, e.g. "Manslaughter 1, 2, 3... Murder 1, 2, 3, etc."
5. A jury's responsibility is to determine whether the facts or the case match up with the charges, not inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

So what's your point?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

STATIC

Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:29 PM

I only skimmed through this thread, but here's my input.

Given that the legal age of consent in California is 18, then the sex that occurred between Angel and Buffy is considered STATUATORY rape, which is to say that while it was CONSENSUAL, it was not LEGAL, the understanding being that the law considers someone under the established age of consent to be unable to GIVE 'fully informed' consent.

Basically, my friends in Juvenile Justice paraphrase this by saying, "It's easier to seduce them when they're that young, so you're taking advantage, which is SORT of like coercing them, which is SORT of like rape."

This has probably all been said anyhow, but I thought I'd offer my input.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

SPIKESPIEGEL

Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:52 PM

We seem to be agreed that if Angel raped Buffy at all, it was only in a technical, legal sense (Statutory).

Well, in a technical, legal sense, Angel is dead. Not just like, a mistaken identity case where he's wrongly assumed dead, but demonstrably, with cold skin and no pulse dead.

I'm pretty sure there's no precedent for charging dead people with crimes committed 220ish years after they died. Angel needs an airtight alibi, all he has to do is lie very, very still.

"Bang."

ATHERTONWING

Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:38 PM

well does that mean buffy committed an act of necrophilia? or is that mis-counted because of the fact she's a minor.......heh heh she LOVES dead people heh heh. ok but seriously...?

SPIKESPIEGEL

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:14 PM

No wonder people stab you in the gut, Atherton.

Yeah, come to think of it, she DID commit necrophilia. But it was now, what, six years ago? I don't the statute of limitations on that minor, if gross, crime. But since she committed it as a minor, were she to have been convicted of it, the records would've been sealed once she was an adult, sparing us all from, you know, pondering this too closely.

"Bang."

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 30, 2004 4:19 AM

Quote:
5. A jury's responsibility is to determine whether the facts or the case match up with the charges, not inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes.

For 789 years -- that is since Magna Carta in the year 1215 -- there has been no greater principle of either English or American Constitutional Law than, that it is both the Right and Duty of the Jury to judge not only the meaning of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral intent of the accused, but that it is their PRIMARY, and PARAMOUNT Right and Duty to judge the justice of the Law itself ... and to hold all persons Not Guilty if they think the Law Itself is Unjust!

So, it is not only their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to, "inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes."

If the House passes a law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Senate. If the Senate pass the law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Executive. If the President signs it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Judiciary -- which hasn't truly done its job for nearly a Century. If the Supreme Court approve it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Citizenry through their agency ... the Jury!

So, it is not possible that you could be more mistaken.

"...no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholy on voluntary support." from NO TREASON by Lysander Spooner

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 30, 2004 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
- Stealing government weapons (don't know the techincal name, but know it's a crime)

Lets see: the gummymint sticks a tax board bayonet in your back and forces you to hand over your money, in effect a portion of your life -- the time and effort it took you to earn that money -- the goofermint then uses that stolen money to purchase weapons. The gummymint then calls it "stealing," and accuses you of "theft" when you take possession of property purchased with monies which were stolen from you.
You call it theft? I call it a tax rebate!

"It is the same with government as Caesar said it was with war: with money you can hire soldiers, and with soldiers you can get more money ... and also command general obedience to your will." Lysander Spooner

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 30, 2004 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by twiceonsundays:
Maybe if you DID vote, the people in office (and making the laws) would be on your side. In a representative government, they can't represent you if they don't know how you feel. vote vote vote vote vote vote. One more time. vote. okay, two. vote! no, really, vote. Did I mention you should vote? And in between, call your representatives and tell them how you feel. And then vote.

The people in office are never on your side.

Who is going to fight harder for public office?
Your honest neighbor who knows he will have to put his life on "hold" for a number of years to gain office in order to secure a freedom or expand a freedom, then go back home and pick up his life where he left off, and enjoy that freedom?
Or someone who burns to control the lives of others, and sees politics as a way of combining his sickness with a career which will bring him personal wealth, power, and fame?

"You can see it in their eyes as they sit and move the levers that work the gears of the State. They look at you and know there really is a free lunch. And when they reach to tear off a piece of your flesh, do you bite the hand that feeds on you? Or do you like so many of your fellows, ask if the maggot likes you rare, medium, or well done?"
From the Second Book of KYFHO

Don't vote ... it only encourages them!

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

JASONZZZ

Friday, January 30, 2004 5:21 AM

Wow, do you tote guns in Montana too? Yeah, you are talking about Jury Nullification. People who believe that also believe they don't have to pay income tax because it said so right there in the Constitution.

Magna Carta, yes - basic law, blah blah blah. It's great, everything we know derives from it, but we don't use it! We might use it as a basis for comparison and talk about how things are derived and what reasoning there is for Laws. We aren't in England! (well for that matter, neither are the English, but that's another discussion) and we have our own set of laws of the land here.

Where I come from, we vote people in to the two branches of the Government, then the President picks the people for the third. The citizens makes laws thru the Legislature. Well, sure the special interest gets their influence in there somewhere and the water gets muddier from there on out. But what the hey - everyone gets to speak about it.

Hey you get picked for the jury, you review the facts, you listen to the Judge review the law that you get to compare the facts with, you and the other 11 folks go and compare notes from the law with the facts and you decide whether they match up. How simple is that? Why all of a sudden do you get to make the law? That's not representative. That's you (or somebody else equally as misinformed).

And yes, it's possible. Do people believe in nullification? When the case is muddy and the facts aren't straight, you can nullify all you want. I wouldn't want anyone convicted when the facts aren't all there. But we are an entire nation of people, not Joe sitting in the corner making up stuff. That's what you are saying - which even if true, doesn't make any sense.

Why? b/c if you can Jury Nullify one way, to say that the law doesn't apply b/c I don't like it; then you can also do it the other way and say that John (the defendent) is guilty even though the facts aren't all there, but I think his ass should be fried anyways.

If we do that, why have laws in the first place. Oh wait, why have trial in the first place. Why don't we just stand on the street corner and throw stones at each other. The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win! Woohoo!

Look, no reason to talk about this anymore. Obviously, I can see where you are coming from if you have to quote Lysander Spooner. He is brilliant when it comes from that end of the spectrum. But I vehemently disbelieve that the government is a completely separate entity from the people. Which, somehow, some people (like Lysander Spooner) believes.

The government *is* the people. Here in the US, we do not have a government of Monarchs dictating the law to us. We do not have religious freakzoids dictating their law from their version and interpretation of the book. And we certainly do not have gun toting morons running up and down the street thinking about who else they can drag back to the palace and whipped in the name of the law.

The people *do* absolutely decide what's going on, we vote people in. In many states, they have even more power thru the initiative process. But we have to all sit down and agree on what *is* the law first. If there is anything that I would disagree with more than having a King or some other royalty sitting high up there making law, is some Joe equally misinformed and start making up the law while they are sitting in the Jury.

No sir, you can take that back to whatever country that is from...

And pardon me for the tirate if you are not from the US. Maybe whereever you are from, you could actually do that. If that's the case, please let me know, so I can remember to stay the heck away from that place on my next biz trip.

(me shuttering in the corner of the thought)

And Holy Smokes! Don't vote! How else do you recommend getting their silly asses out from there? Would you recommend an armed revolt?
We have lots of dumb asses sitting in those benches right now, I would not agree any less. But we still make the laws - although that bit with raising their own salaries every yea

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 30, 2004 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Why don't we just stand on the street corner and throw stones at each other. The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win! Woohoo!

Exactly, it's called Democracy!

"...a common passion or interest will always sway a majority, and there is no inducement to prevent them from sacrificing the weaker party..."
James Madison

Or as you so eloquently put it, "The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win!"
Democracy is an institutionalized form of mob rule ... my gang is bigger than your gang, so what we say goes.

Quote:
I vehemently disbelieve that the government is a completely separate entity from the people. Which, somehow, some people (like Lysander Spooner) believes.

Perhaps you should turn the television off for a little while, and take a closer look at the real world.

Quote:
The government *is* the people. Here in the US, we do not have a government of Monarchs dictating the law to us.

In theory: No. But in practise: Yes!

Quote:
And we certainly do not have gun toting morons running up and down the street thinking about who else they can drag back to the palace and whipped in the name of the law.

TRUE! In this country, those gun toting morons blow the heads off of mothers nursing their infants, or burn women and children to death in their own Church ... as they did in Texas a few years ago.

Quote:
The people *do* absolutely decide what's going on, we vote people in.

"I don't care who votes, as long as I get to choose the candidates."
Huey Long

Quote:
And pardon me for the tirade if you are not from the US. Maybe where ever you are from, you could actually do that. If that's the case, please let me know, so I can remember to stay the heck away from that place on my next biz trip.

The US is no longer the US. As for me, I currently -- and temporarily -- reside in the Peoples Republic of Califnordia ... a truly dystopian country if I ever saw one. Consider it the worlds largest open air insane asylum.

Quote:
And Holy Smokes! Don't vote! How else do you recommend getting their silly asses out from there?

Only to be replaced by other silly asses?

Quote:
Would you recommend an armed revolt?

"America is at that quite place where it is too late to change the system from within, and too early to start shooting the bastards."

Claire Wolff

{QUOTE]We have lots of dumb asses sitting in those benches right now, I would not agree any less. But we still make the laws - although that bit with raising their own salaries every year is really chapping my hide...

Actually, we "delegate" the making of laws to elected officials. Those elected officials have each sworn a solemn oath to obey the laws "WE" have created to limit their power! This body of law is called the Constitution. Its sole purpose is to define and limit the power and authority of Government.
The men and women in government routinely break those laws.
If they did NOT break those laws, if the Constitution were enforced, better than ninty percent of American government would disappear over night.

That, in what passes for my mind, is the sole problem with this country. It does no good to vote out of office a politician who has passed an egregious or unconstitutional law if said removal from office does not also repeal the law.

Oath of office enforcement!

Bill of Rights Enforcement!

And yes! I agree with you about the 27th Amendment to the Constitution! (Which was actually the original Second Amendment when submitted to the States for ratification in 1789 ... word for word!)
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Constitutionally speaking, the United States Government is the largest and most powerful criminal organization in the history of this planet!

ABO

DRAKON

Friday, January 30, 2004 10:25 AM

Only one point to point out.

In arguing the law, you have to ask whether the law even covers this case. Angel is, and has been, dead for quite some time. At present, there is no explicit law declaring vampires or other undead to be subject to the law. And being dead does prevent prosecution in almost all cases, of murder, rape and the like. Theft and other property crimes, it is my understanding the estate may be made liable for restitution, but cannot be held accountable for the actions of the deceased.

In short, is it still statatory rape if the guy is dead?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

LITWOLF689

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:47 AM

Well, Angel did not force Buffy to sleep with him. In fact, he kinda tried to stop her because he started to hesitate but Buffy said 'No just kiss me.' See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.

Spike on the other hand, when he was in the bathroom with Buffy, he pushed her to the floor, ripped her clothes off, and also started to hit her a little. And this was all against her will. So thats rape... or at least attempted rape.

Spike was closer to raping Buffy than Angel was.

^-^

Litwolf689

DASBRICK

Friday, February 6, 2004 3:00 PM

arg. forgive me if this has been done before. I will be using the Michigan Law system, since when I watched this episode witha friend at Cooley Law School in Lansing, he mentioned that it was rape.

I found this link to clarify it up basicly: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/rapedefined.htm

If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

DASBRICK

Friday, February 6, 2004 3:01 PM

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 6, 2004 4:42 PM

Agreed.

Although the discussion still fell into a couple of categories:

- not sure if the law applies
- the law isn't morally correct, it should be nullified by jury if charges are brought
- not sure what the law is

Quote:
Originally posted by DasBrick:
arg. forgive me if this has been done before. I will be using the Michigan Law system, since when I watched this episode witha friend at Cooley Law School in Lansing, he mentioned that it was rape.

I found this link to clarify it up basicly: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/rapedefined.htm

If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SUCCATASH

Friday, February 6, 2004 6:44 PM

I just saw this episode last night on FX. A good ep, and that bathroom scene is really creepy.

TSOULZ

Friday, February 6, 2004 11:47 PM

This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.

LITWOLF689

Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DasBrick:

If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

I guess your right. So, from a legal point, Angel did rape her, but to Angel and Buffy, it was not rape because they both wanted it.

The other times when Buffy went to Spike to have sex with him willingly would not be rape. Only the one time in the bathroom would be at least attempted rape. But, how old was Buffy when she started to have sex with Spike?

Darn, I always hated Spike because I thought he had raped Buffy that one time but now see that legally (sp?) Angel also raped Buffy.

...well, I still really dont like Spike.

^-^

LITWOLF689

Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:22 AM

Sorry it printed twice

LINDEN

Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tsoulz:
This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.

Thank you, TSOULZ. I couldn´t agree more.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, February 7, 2004 6:40 PM

That's exactly it. Morals are fine if we can all agree (pre-agree) on a set of terms that we can all live with. But we have demonstrate here in our little slice of the world that we can't. That's why there are laws. And especially in Americas anyway, the laws are made by the people or their representatives. That means it's a quasi agreement (sometimes at best) on why we do, sometimes it's about morality - what we consider moral. It's not a law handed down to us from a Monarch or some higher being. We've defined it.

It's fine if we don't call it rape. The problem is, when an adult takes advantage of a child (what is defined as statutory rape), it is just as violent of an act - from a societal point of view. In fact, I would call it even more incidious, simply because the person is defined to be incapable of making a right and wrong judgement. So now, we have defined the act - that is, someone acting in a predatory role taking advantage of another who is not capable of making a judgement to give consent. Well, where do we draw the line? We can all agree that it's not the same line everywhere, and so far, it's not, each state has it's own definition. In Hawaii and New Mexico, it was the age of 14 for the longest part of the last century. It's not down to a local level, but at least it's fairly locally defined, at least we have a choice to say what it is.

I agree with you - *Rape* is a forceful and violent act and shouldn't be a word to be tossed around. People believe that the act of subjugating a minor into a sex act is that very same type of incidious violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by tsoulz:
This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

TSOULZ

Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:58 PM

Quote:
I agree with you - *Rape* is a forceful and violent act and shouldn't be a word to be tossed around. People believe that the act of subjugating a minor into a sex act is that very same type of incidious violence.

I will never deny a person their view or opinions, but some things need to be put under a magnifying glass. It all comes down to what a person has experienced in their own lives. I will grant the "statuatory rape" believers that anything under 15 or 16 years of age is a sick display of power-driven violence. But anything beyond that, unless truly RAPE or under the influence, can be considered consenting, regardless of what the judicial system says. I've known friends that were emancipated at 16 and 17 years old; and they're considered adults at that point. And no one, not a single soul will coerce me to believe that simply because I chose to live with my parents and not emancipate myself, that I was not adult enough to engage in "consenting" sex. I would quite happily spit in the face of a lawyer, judge, hell, the president if they wanted to tell me I couldn't make my own damn decisions when I was 16, even one so dyer as sex.

Politics...another agravating topic. Sorry...

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Saturday, February 7, 2004 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Litwolf689:
See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.

"It was the short skirt and lipstick you honour"

No further comment to make. (save to say I snipped the quote out of context somewhat)

"I threw up on your bed"

IDEFIX

Friday, February 13, 2004 4:33 PM

I'm sorry for bringing this up again. it's kind of an everlasting topic anyways but I had a dream last nicht about this thread and a whole new aspect to it:

we've talked about Buffy and Angel and we've talked about Buffy and Spike.
let's talk about Faith and Xander in "The Zeppo".

did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

so if the man is off age and the girl is under age and the girl sexually attacks the guy and he consents he's guilty of rape? it was his first time no less, whereas she clearly had done this on many occasions with many men. just for the fun of it because "slaying makes her horny".

...just another thought.

and on a personal note. I was 14, when I first talked with a guy (he was 15) about having sex together and we decided to wait til I was 16 because we were good children and the law in germany says you have to be 16 to have sex. as it is our relationship didn't last 2 years (only about 1 but it was still a very deep and stable and good relationship as long as it lasted). I still regret it now (I'm 28 now). I really really should have slept with that boy because we both wanted it and we both loved each other and it would have been good for both of us. stupid decision of mine. one of not too many I really regret. and for no good reason also. we were sure it would be right and good - just the law said differently and we were too intimidated by it to ignore it. he would have been my perfect first time and I wasted it.

Idefix

IDEFIX

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:
Originally posted by Litwolf689:
See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.

"It was the short skirt and lipstick you honour"

No further comment to make. (save to say I snipped the quote out of context somewhat)

have you seen the EP? cause that just sounds like a very stupid comparison to me. she wanted to sleep with him and all but told him to and never changed her mind thru all of it. she still wanted it the next day until she found out he's lost his soul and gone psycho. and later, when he got his soul back and returned from hell she still wanted to sleep with him and even did, once it was safe to do in the S1 Angel EP where he was human for a day. nothing like lipstick and a short skirt here to me.

I think people should be allowed to have a will of their own regardless of age. if no one gets manipulated there is a free will to consider. we are born with one. at least that's my believe. it is true that children are easier to manipulate than grown ups but they also have their own will and they are even able to state it if asked. and a 17 year old is no small child that can't be asked what she wants. I'd take a close look at the manipulation going on if one partner is very young and one is older but I can't decide that someone is too young to know what he or she wants in general. but laws around the world seem to make it easy by just stating an age (widely differing between nations) and be done with it. I think that's making it too easy.

I'm no fan of grown-ups abusing children sexually. but abuse has to be against the will of the child for it to be abuse. if the child is too young to grasp the concept of sex (under 10 years maybe) it still doesn't want it, that's the part that really harms the child, the not wanting it, not physically because it hurts and not emotionally because it's just not what he or she wants. after learning about sex (we here in germany learn the biology at 10-11 in school) the child will even be able to state that it doesn't want it before the act. I certainly was. you can think at that age and you can certainly feel and decide what feels good and what doesn't, some grown ups seem to forget that. if someone older or an authority figure threatens or manipulates the child into doing it anyway it's rape and I think rape of a child is worse than rape of an adult because the child can't deal with the violence of it in the same way an adult can or will learn to. rape is the worst crime one human being can commit against another. it tries to destroy not the body (like murder) but the soul/integrity. I don't want that crime assotiated with any underage consenting sex of whatever age.

and I don't even know why we all fight about this for this long. because at heart I believe we all just want no one to be raped ever, no child or adult no woman no man. but rape is about forced sex and talking a child into having sex he or she doesn't want is forced sex that's rape and the worst form of it. but a child of whatever age deciding to have sex with whomever of their own free will and not regretting it afterwards and being willing and eager to do it again that's not forced and therefore not rape. but that's not the law. I know that.

Idefix

FIVEBYFIVE

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:12 PM

Angel's not dead. He's Undead, duh.

JASONZZZ

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Idefix:
I'm sorry for bringing this up again. it's kind of an everlasting topic anyways but I had a dream last nicht about this thread and a whole new aspect to it:

we've talked about Buffy and Angel and we've talked about Buffy and Spike.
let's talk about Faith and Xander in "The Zeppo".

did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

so if the man is off age and the girl is under age and the girl sexually attacks the guy and he consents he's guilty of rape? it was his first time no less, whereas she clearly had done this on many occasions with many men. just for the fun of it because "slaying makes her horny".

...just another thought.

and on a personal note. I was 14, when I first talked with a guy (he was 15) about having sex together and we decided to wait til I was 16 because we were good children and the law in germany says you have to be 16 to have sex. as it is our relationship didn't last 2 years (only about 1 but it was still a very deep and stable and good relationship as long as it lasted). I still regret it now (I'm 28 now). I really really should have slept with that boy because we both wanted it and we both loved each other and it would have been good for both of us. stupid decision of mine. one of not too many I really regret. and for no good reason also. we were sure it would be right and good - just the law said differently and we were too intimidated by it to ignore it. he would have been my perfect first time and I wasted it.

well... I can certainly understand how you feel about "should have done it"... there are prolly others who feel things the other way around too, i.e. "Shouldn't have done it...".... So, I guess it's just regretful all around, just depends on how you deal with the experience.

Quote:
Originally posted by Idefix:

Idefix

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

PUDOR

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SlowSmurf:
What if the person gives consent before they die?(via a will or whatever)

I'm just curious what the courts would do with that...

Just to add a skewed note to the discussion, when I was going through my pseudo-goth phase at the age of 14, I filled in a necro-card (which were being given out pretty much everywhere). A necro-card (I'm not sure how *legal* they are, and I'm pretty sure they were mostly supposed to be a joke), basically was a copy of a donor-card, which you carry in your wallet, allowing anybody (or a named party) to use parts of your body (specified by your self) for sexual purposes after your death.

I always wondered what sort of legal status that would have if I'd died... ;)

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Idefix:
did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

Legally? No, its not possible within the legal definition, as its stands in most countries, for a woman to "rape" a man. There's a separate offence in most cases of sex with a minor.

"I threw up on your bed"

IDEFIX

Monday, February 16, 2004 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:
Originally posted by Idefix:
did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

Legally? No, its not possible within the legal definition, as its stands in most countries, for a woman to "rape" a man. There's a separate offence in most cases of sex with a minor.

"I threw up on your bed"

read my post again. I didn't ask if Faith raped Xander. I asked if Xander raped Faith, because he was off age (19) and she was underage (about 16-17).

I asked to make if even clearer how stupid I think the law is. just have an "age of consent" and don't look at the circumstances or people involved.

Idefix

ELYSIAN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:46 PM

Did Angel rape Buffy in "I Will Remember You"? He slept with her and then stripped her of her memories of that. No-one can ever consent to sex without knowing that their memory of it will be gone . . . I don't think.

Insofar as Spike . . . Spike was a victim of domestic abuse. She beat him constantly. I know domestic abuse can be a qualifier for murder, say if you lost control and killed your abuser. Can anyone say that Spike was in his right mind?! I'm not sure that excuses what he did, but it does put it in a context.

Comments?

NUR

Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elysian:
Did Angel rape Buffy in "I Will Remember You"? He slept with her and then stripped her of her memories of that. No-one can ever consent to sex without knowing that their memory of it will be gone . . . I don't think.

Insofar as Spike . . . Spike was a victim of domestic abuse. She beat him constantly. I know domestic abuse can be a qualifier for murder, say if you lost control and killed your abuser. Can anyone say that Spike was in his right mind?! I'm not sure that excuses what he did, but it does put it in a context.

Comments?

So I'm a little late but I agree completely. Spike has taken a lot of flack for that incident. I'm not saying that what he did was excuseable but rather quite understandable. I once saw it put in the framework of reversing their roles. Imagine you heard a story about a man who constantly goes to a woman he knows loves him and practically forces her into repeated rough sex then tells her at ever oportunity that she's worse that the dirt between his toes. Once, she's had enough of being degraded and violated on his terms, she turns around and gets a little rough with him wanting to turn the tables and take a little control back into her life. Would we say that she tried to rape him? Not at all, its all in the perception of the situation.

On a random note, for personal reasons I would completely disagree with anyone that tried to argue that Angel raped Buffy. Statutory rape and rape rape can be two very different things.

http://www.thecherryorchard.net

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an 26:83

ACTORGURL3

Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:10 PM

Considering it is only sagitory rape if you are not "legal" the legal age is 16 so there fore she was not doing anything illegal. Had she been doing something illegal, she gave her consesus to him and would only sue if he gave her an std or pregnancy and refused to help. Otherwise, she asked for it and at first he refused.

Hazel: Paige, I just saw Spinner. He was completely out of line.
Paige: [crying] It wasn't what I thought, you know? First time, I thought it would be beautiful or something. It's so stupid.
Hazel: It's not stupid
Paige: Those shoes, I wanted it to work. I wanted him to want to be with me.
Hazel: He did want to be with you.
Paige: Yea, sure.
Hazel: He'll call you. You don't have to worry.
Paige: I didn't even want to do it Hazel. I said No, over and over and over.
Hazel: You said no? and he didn't listen?
Paige: He just pushed me down, harder, and he wouldn't stop. He just wouldn't stop.
Hazel: Paige, Honey. If you said no, that's rape.
Paige: Don't touch me. Don't ever touch me.
Spinner: Why not? Everyone else does.
Spinner: He took it too far, like Hazel said, right? Didn't he?

PVC we rock on, we rock on till the break of dawn, hip hop, don't stop, we will make your body rock. rock rock roll rol icy icy cold cold disco disco beat beat pvc sweet sweet!

FURYFIRE

Friday, July 23, 2004 5:30 PM

Excuse me? How is it understandable that he was allowed to rape her??? Doesn't matter what his feelings were or what his intentions were, he tried to bloody well rape her, and those actions can never be deemed understandable.

And in response to that other post above, Angel didn't rape Buffy in I Will Remember You, she was in a full frame of mind when she consented, he only raped her in Innocence.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 23, 2004 5:49 PM

Why couldn't this thread just die?

As I said before I don't think the laws cover the event in which a dead person has sex with one below the age of consent. As such we fall back on the fact that it was consensual and forget the established legal age of consent.

Yes, legally with the ages of them what happened would be considered rape, but it would also be considered necrophilia. I think it’s just an eventuality law doesn’t cover.

LOSTINTHEVERSE

Friday, July 23, 2004 7:32 PM

Here's how I see this playing out. (I was never a religious fan of the show, though I've seen a few eps here and there)

Angel is vulnerable to be charged with Statutory rape. Through other actions, Buffy has proven her ability to consent and understand her actions, though in trying to prove that most courts would probably rule her insane (I mean,

Quote:
"Well, I can give consent because I go around killing vampires and vaquishing demons in my free time. Those are pretty heavy decisions. Fire bad. Tree pretty."

sounds more than a little crazy). So there goes any shot of her ability to give consent at all. Of course, Buffy's mom would have to press charges, which doesn't seem likely.

Now:
Given that necrophilia is illegal... what about if 2 vampires have fully consentual sex? eh? Where does hot Undead-on-Undead action fall into all of this? Now that can lead to some interesting legal discussions.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NUR

Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
Excuse me? How is it understandable that he was allowed to rape her???

1)If he was allowed it wouldn't be rape then would it?

2)He wasn't allowed and though he tried, he didn't succeed.

Apart from those 2 little corrections I feel no need to respond to anything else you've said. You aren't seeing everything that led up to the incident and you didn't listen to what I said the first time.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/fleshlycherry/

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an 26:83