This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
What ever happened to Stickie McStickfigure?
https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1231
After what she went through last time, I don’t think she’s returning Nathan’s calls.
Besides, it’s probably really hard to get a positive ID on a stick figure perp.
“Did he have a neck?”
“Were his eyes circles, or dots?”
“Straight lines, or curvy?”
“Did he have feet?”
By request, I made a flowchart generally summarizing what is and isn’t rape. Which was hard to do, because the law is so variable from state to state. And it certainly shouldn’t be taken as a statement of what the law is in your particular state.
It somehow doesn’t really fit with Sticky McStickfigure’s section (the comic’s actual chapter on rape), so I guess I’ll just park it here:
So what is the justification between answering “Yes” to “Did the other person know they were having sex with you against your will?” and saying “Doesn’t matter” to “Was the other person too drunk to know what they were doing?” Reading these two statements as a lay person leads me to believe that they contradict each other. Is there something I’m missing?
The only way I can think of that would reconcile that would it being an objective test rather than a subjective test. That is to say, it does not matter whether or not they knew that you did not want to have sex. Rather, what matters is whether any reasonable person would conclude that you did not want to have sex.
He discussed this in the section on Mens Rea in the criminal law comic. If you get drunk, the law applies your intention in getting drunk towards actions you perform while drunk. In other words, even if I didn’t know what I was doing while drunkenly raping someone, when I was drinking beforehand I’m presumed to have known that I might do something wrong while I was drunk, and yet chose to drink anyway.
You should add the brand new “Some laws require consent”, which I suspect will become popular.
Wait… so if you’re male, someone getting you drunk and giving you a handjob when you can’t resist isn’t rape? I mean, there’s no penetration, technically…
Is this another one of those ‘the law hasn’t caught up to changing morality’ issues?
That might simply be a different charge (sexual assault?)
On the other hand, I have heard it claimed that, in a few places, rape is defined in a way that requires the victim to have been penetrated. Which implies a female forcibly having vaginal intercourse with a male isn’t rape (since the male wasn’t penetrated). Some laws are just badly drafted.
My guess is it wasn’t him, because his eyes aren’t yellow.
They’re yellower than the ambulance, so I think they’re yellower than typical eyes. Most people’s scleras are a little on the blue side of white.
Would you mind if I copied that onto Imgur and posted it onto reddit?
You mean the flowchart thingy? Be my guest!
Here’s a link to the full-sized image: https://lawcomic.net/guide/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Was-It-Rape.png
The suspect’s face looks female to me in the close-up.