Angel Raped Buffy, Spike only tried
POSTED BY: FURYFIRE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 24, 2004 20:07
VIEWED: 35067
PAGE 5 of 9
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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) mayNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME