new definition of rape - not yet approved
Current definition (1929) - “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
Proposed definition - “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The proposed definition made it through a subcommittee and will next be voted on by full committee in December and then will go to the FBI director for his sign-off on it.
If this goes through, it's going to look like there's been a dramatic increase in rapes, whereas right now, a lot of rapes just aren't counted even though they happened.
I just thought I'd share this, since certain media outlets will be likely to sensationalize the 'dramatic increase in rapes' after a year or two (by which time everyone, including me, will have forgotten all about this thread... oh well)
We need a Socrates square on the Bingo card. :)
And if that is the case Kathy the new definition is far less convoluted than the old one.
I think dropping the reference to gender is appropriate. The term 'carnal knowledge' is pretty broad and probably needed refining as well.
I will say this though, I have some concern that expanded definitions may also lead to a concomitant rise in false/spurious accusations of sexual assault.
I'd like to think that the benefit of the redefinition will do more good than harm, and that the redefinition will come with renewed scrutiny as to accuracy of charges... hopefully that'll be the case.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm very sorry if I repeat, but:
Washington has followed the second "penetration" definition of rape for at least a couple of decades. So has every other jurisdiction with which I have any passing familiarity.
Exactly whose definitions are these?
Good question Lys.
I am glad the definition has become gender-neutral. I'm also glad that "forcible" has been replaced by "without consent".
*Warning: Mention of violence*
It seems unbelievable to me that the original definition still stood. Other laws must have already clarified the matter. I hope. Because if people have been going round thinking you have to be beaten bloody to have been raped (as implied by "forcibly"), it might explain why conviction rates are so low.
"Millstones of Justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine." ~John Bannister Gibson
The original definition doesn't make much sense. I guess in those days anything sexual was still off-limits to be talked about so they had to word it that way.
The new definition is straight and to the point. No confusion there.
Original Post by lysistrata:
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm very sorry if I repeat, but:
Washington has followed the second "penetration" definition of rape for at least a couple of decades. So has every other jurisdiction with which I have any passing familiarity.
Exactly whose definitions are these?
This definition is for reporting purposes. For the FBI reporting crime statistics.
In the past, if a man was raped, it wasn't counted in the statistics as a rape, but probably as a sexual assault. Same thing if a woman was raped with an object instead of a penis. Same thing if the penetration was of the mouth and not the vagina.
It doesn't change any laws - only a legislature can change laws (or a judge can strike them down).
It just means that the statistics on rape will more accurately reflect reality. Yeah?
I can't see how the FBI's terminology and definitions in reporting of crime statistics will cause people to start making false allegations of rape.
(I did point this out in post #4, just sayin)
Purely for reporting?
Those numbers are gonna be wacky compared to per counts per precinct. 
I may have to rethink my overall support for this. I could easily see big number differentials being used by unscrupulous observers as an excuse to dismiss all the numbers entirely, with a "they don't even know what they're measuring!" kind of statement. Wouldn't make it true, of course, but it'd provide opportunity.
The purpose of it is to have more consistency in reporting, since right now, there aren't really any reliable national stats (for the U.S.) because the feds haven't updated their definition since 1929, whereas some states or localities have updated theirs - in which case - those weren't counted in the national stats.
I am not sure what you mean by 'per counts per precinct'
If those standards get adopted by the various beancounters at state and local level, then imo it's all good... but if they aren't (and let's be honest, places like Arizona will reject anything federal just for giggles) then it's just another seemingly inconsistent number in a sea of other seemingly inconsistent numbers.
I dunno, the whole thing just strikes me as weird. Up here, our justice is administered on a provincial basis, but the criminal code is defined on a national basis, and observations are compiled federally via Statistics Canada (there are always local bylaws and whatnot, of course... but things like sexual assault are pretty clearly and uniformly defined).
Okay, I know I'm late to the rape party...so this might have been covered already...but does this mean forcibly fondling a woman/man is "not" rape under the new definitiion (no penetration) but was rape under the old definition?
You mean like forcibly mashing on her boobs? No, that wouldn't be rape under either definition.
Or her vulva? I don't think that would be rape in either definition either.
I guess that would be sexual assault/abuse.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
You mean like forcibly mashing on her boobs? No, that wouldn't be rape under either definition.
Or her vulva? I don't think that would be rape in either definition either.
I'm just sayin...no disrespect to the men out there that may take this negatively, but I gotta think if you run up to a girl, rip her clothes off, then rip your own clothes off....then proceed to do everything short of penetration...I gotta think that's rape. Maybe not...maybe "rape" is all semantics...but it ain't "right".
The experience isn't semantics. But we aren't talking about defining the experience. We're talking about how to categorize various types of bad acts for purposes of statistical analysis. If you want to think of it as rape, go ahead. Just be aware that if you're looking at rape statistics, your scenario isn't included.
Yeah, you would definitely feel violated.
But you weren't raped.
That's a specific word that refers specifically to your body being invaded by an object or someone else's body part.
Original Post by caloricat:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
You mean like forcibly mashing on her boobs? No, that wouldn't be rape under either definition.
Or her vulva? I don't think that would be rape in either definition either.
I'm just sayin...no disrespect to the men out there that may take this negatively, but I gotta think if you run up to a girl, rip her clothes off, then rip your own clothes off....then proceed to do everything short of penetration...I gotta think that's rape. Maybe not...maybe "rape" is all semantics...but it ain't "right".
She would be sexually assaulted.
