I definitely agree with what you're saying. Unfortunately the decision in this case seems to have had nothing at all to do with those sorts of questions. A quote from the actual decision:
The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial "de-flowering" of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party -- the father or husband . . .
. . . [I]t was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State's highest court or by statute . . . (from here)
So this case is not about protecting the rights of the accused person, or issues of consent, or hearsay. They're saying that once a woman has consented to sex, and begun having sex, it is impossible for her to change her mind, and impossible for her to be raped.
The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial "de-flowering" of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party -- the father or husband . . .
. . . [I]t was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State's highest court or by statute . . . (from here)
So this case is not about protecting the rights of the accused person, or issues of consent, or hearsay. They're saying that once a woman has consented to sex, and begun having sex, it is impossible for her to change her mind, and impossible for her to be raped.
Reply
Leave a comment