Sign Up | Log In
Angel Raped Buffy, Spike only tried
Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:41 AM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:45 AM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:02 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:11 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:29 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:23 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:55 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:27 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:42 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:04 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:05 PM
Monday, June 02, 2003 7:08 AM
Monday, June 02, 2003 8:11 AM
Monday, June 02, 2003 8:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
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.
Monday, June 02, 2003 7:02 PM
Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by LOTV:
... and you kept a list of all of this!?
Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
- Encouraging deliquency in a minor
Quote:Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Nothing says "Aha, I'm on to you!" like being on the receiving end of a vicious police beating.
Friday, June 06, 2003 7:01 AM
Friday, June 06, 2003 9:43 PM
Friday, June 06, 2003 9:46 PM
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.
Friday, June 13, 2003 10:57 PM
Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:13 AM
Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:07 AM
Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by LOTV:
Let me put it this way: Should your heart stop, and you are medically dead for 10 minutes, during that 10 minutes
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!?!
Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:57 PM
Monday, July 28, 2003 7:10 PM
Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:09 AM
Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:39 PM
Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:13 PM
Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:08 AM
Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:32 AM
Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:27 PM
Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:51 PM
Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by zeke023:
This is legal semantics and Morality and Legality are different.
Friday, November 07, 2003 11:54 PM
Saturday, November 08, 2003 2:30 AM
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:08 AM
Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:38 PM
Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:45 AM
Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:39 AM
Sunday, January 25, 2004 9:55 AM
Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:01 AM
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?"
Monday, January 26, 2004 12:57 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/delinque/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 since he was a member of the class the statute was designed to protect. The Court of Appeal rejected both contentions. First, the court held that American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, did not confer upon children the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. "While we do not ignore the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse. We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."
The court further found that the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists for a child deciding whether to have an abortion (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.373), "cannot be imputed to their
decision to engage in consensual sexual intercourse." On the child's second contention, the court noted that the legislative intent behind the statutory rape law was to make illegal sexual intercourse both between children and adults and between children. Although children cannot be prosecuted for felony statutory rape (unlawful intercourse between an adult and a child) because the child is the victim in such a crime, there is no parallel with regard to misdemeanor statutory rape, which by its terms involves sexual intercourse between two children.
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
Monday, January 26, 2004 1:29 AM
Monday, January 26, 2004 1:20 PM
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:49 AM
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:15 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.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:39 AM
Quote:This kind of stuff is a lot creepier than demons and vampires, eh?
Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
So what's your point?
NEW POSTS TODAY
All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.