newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

In case you are truly interested, I argue exactly the opposite: the defense should be granted ONLY when the victim either voluntarily gave up his/ her right not to be harmed (e.g., assisted suicide, s&m) or reduced that right by attacking a legal right of another (e.g., self-defense). In fact, there is a long discussion in the book of why by wearing a mini-skirt or even agreeing to a certain level of intimacy, a woman DOES NOT lose her right not to be subjected to unwanted sex. The reason is quite straightforward and follows from the theory advocated in the book: she does not lose that right simply because the attacker has no corresponding right that she do not wear a mini-skirt. Similarly, he has no right that she continue the intimate encounter as long as he desires. I further suggest that, if my theory is explicitly adopted, jurors would have a coherent way to distinguish a case in which the victim was at fault (attacked first or chose to participate in a drag race) from a case of date rape. In short, it may be worth browsing through the book before discussing it.