Whoever said law school and sex didn't mix?

So, we’ve just started a unit on rape in crim, and for today’s [and by today, I mean a week ago, when I actually drafted this] class, we read a pretty interesting case. The facts are as follows: this woman testifies that she met this creepy guy in a bar, who asked her for a ride home. She agreed, and when they got to his place, he invited her in and she decline, whereupon he grabbed her keys out of the ignition and told her that she would have to come upstairs with him in order to get them back. She claimed to be scared and confused at this point, but she went upstairs with him anyway. Once they were inside his apartment, he left her alone for about five minutes, presumably to use the communal bathroom down the hall. During this time, the woman made no attempt to escape. The guy came back, told her to sit down, and then wound up pulling her on to the bed. At this point, she said she started crying, and he lightly began to choke her to get her to stop crying. She asked him whether, if she cooperated, he would let her go, and he said that he would. So, they have sex, he walks her to her car, and she leaves.

            Now, for his version of events… He said that he asked if she would like to come home with him, to which she replied that she did. He denies taking her keys and choking her and alleges that the sex was totally consensual. He said that after they had sex, she started crying and was distraught. She asked if she could leave, he walked her to the car, and she left.

            Note, that there was no proof of physical force, no evidence, no witnesses, etc. Here’s the punch line: my home state handed this guy what could potentially have been a 20-year sentence (I have no idea what he actually got in sentencing) based upon a he said-she said situation. Now, feminist readers may hate me for this, but my initial reaction upon reading this case was to wonder just how the hell it managed to get past a motion for summary judgment! I couldn’t understand how anyone could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy was guilty of rape. Why even let this case go to the jury?! I sat there in class, quietly plotting my revenge against all males who have ever wronged me… just kidding!

            On one hand, there was no evidence, the guy’s version of events was perfectly plausible, and the woman had plenty of opportunity to leave what she alleged to be an uncomfortable situation. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT suggesting that rape isn’t wrong, or that rape is typically the woman’s fault—that’s certainly not the case. However, in an ambiguous situation like this, I don’t think it’s unfair or unreasonable for the law to impose some duty on people to remove themselves from situations in which they feel uncomfortable. At the point when the guy allegedly took the car keys, he posed no physical threat to her and gave no indication that he had a weapon or anything like that. Your car is not worth jeopardizing your safety, and if you call the police, you even stand a good chance of getting the car back. If you feel uncomfortable, just leave. She also had those five minutes while he was using the bathroom, but I digress. I understand that it’s difficult for people to think straight when they’re scared, the effect of which would certainly be profound if he had had a gun or threatened her in some way. However, I don’t think that mere discomfort, especially absent a physical threat, should absolve people of all duties to think and exercise common sense.

            As I dwelled on this case, another point began to emerge. I thought to myself, “Ok, so let’s assume that he didn’t rape her, why would she go through the burden and expense of litigation?” I came up with a couple of answers to this question: either 1) she’s a crazy bitch with a personal vendetta against men or 2) he did something else to piss her off for which she seeks revenge. However, if answer #2 were the case, one would assume that the guy would mention in his testimony anything he knew of that might have given her a motive to seek revenge. It’s difficult to assess just how plausible #1 is, especially given the fact (which I neglected to mention earlier) that in the guy’s testimony, he mentioned that while they were in the car, she told him all about her failing marriage and her previous experiences with rape. Upon considering these additional facts, the “personal vendetta” theory seems to look less like a conspiracy theory. However, there’s also the equally valid option #3, which is that she’s going to all this trouble because he really did rape her and she seeks the justice to which she is entitled.

            The law certainly isn’t fair, and these factors are really tough to balance. Do we want to protect women from rape at the expense of robbing a few innocent men of significant period of freedom? Do we want to deter men from committing rape? If we are convicting innocent men, does this even serve the purpose of deterrence? Do we want to impose a duty on women to think with some level of clarity during extremely difficult situations? Comments welcomed.