Awkward attempt

If someone gets "floppy" during sex without consent—basically a failed attempt at rape—could that be blamed on some kind of impairment? Could that actually lead to a lighter sentence? 🙄

I’ve been losing my damn mind for two days straight digging through legal books, but I just can't wrap my head around 🙂

Look, rape or non-consensual sexual contact isn't just about actual intercourse; any kind of sexual act qualifies. Even if nothing physical happened beyond an attempt, that's still a crime. If there wasn't even an attempt, then we're likely looking at sexual misconduct, which can carry a sentence of one to three years depending on the specific charges and circumstances.

Chloe Baker88 said:If someone gets "floppy" during sex without consent—basically a failed attempt at rape—could that be blamed on some kind of impairment? Could that actually lead to a lighter sentence? 🙄

I’ve been losing my damn mind for two days straight digging through legal books, but I just can't wrap my head around 🙂

Here is a little something to give your brain a break from those two days of heavy lifting 😁

"I remember back when I was presiding over a court, a fellow judge came to me with a dilemma regarding a rape case. There was this gentleman, probably in his sixties, who intended to assault a woman of a similar age out in a field. It dragged on for an hour, but he couldn't actually complete the act because, well, he couldn't get an erection. My colleague told me he was going to rule it as an attempted crime. I wasn't quite sure if that fit the definition of an attempt; I argued that it would imply no one else under the exact same circumstances could ever succeed, and I wasn't so certain that was true. He just shrugged and said, 'It's the age, and it was winter—do you have any idea what a US winter does to a man?' So, I just conceded that he certainly knew more about those physiological matters than I did.

He ended up ruling it as an unsuccessful attempt, but the Supreme Court overturned his decision and sent it back. He came to see me again later, insisting he’d rule it as an attempt all over again just to watch them overturn it a second time. I told him, fine, go ahead—at least you'll clear the docket when they hand the case off to a different panel. Some time passed, and I had almost forgotten about him, until he showed up once more.

'You know,' he tells me, 'I didn't rule it as an attempt this time, let them have their way, but I finally figured out the pattern. Those justices on the Supreme Court are all older than me... if they were to accept it as an unsuccessful attempt, they'd essentially be admitting that nobody under those specific conditions could possibly pull it off! But hey, if they need that delusion to sleep better at night, fine by me—they know, and I know, that it was an unsuccessful attempt.'"

Just some copy-paste from an old internet forum..

Just jumping in here (might help some of you distinguish between an actual attempt and something just ridiculous): under the new penal code, they’ve redefined "improper attempt" to mean nothing more than gross negligence. Basically, it covers doing something completely mindless, like trying to poison someone with chamomile tea or attempting to shoot someone from 1.2 milesblocks away
. It wasn't like this before; for instance, theft used to be labeled an improper attempt if, say, you tried to steal a car that had an anti-theft steering lock or an empty gas tank.

All in all, a positive move *drot13* 😁

Tooth. I can't even begin to process this. What are we actually doing here? Seriously?
Here’s a little something to help you chill out after two days of nonstop brain strain. 😁

I remember back when I was running things as a presiding judge, one of my colleagues came to me with this absolute mess of a rape case. Some guy in his sixties decided he wanted to assault a woman around the same age out in some field. It dragged on for an hour, but he couldn't actually finish the job because—get this—he couldn't get an erection. My colleague tells me he’s thinking about charging it as just "attempted assault." Are you kidding me? I asked him, "Is that really an attempted assault?" Because if we go that route, it implies nobody else under those same conditions could pull it off, and honestly, I doubt that's true! He just shrugs it off like, "Look, he's old, and it was freezing out there. You have no idea what a winter night does to a guy..." Whatever. I just told him, "Fine, you clearly know more about biology than I do, so what am I supposed to say?"

So he tried to rule it an improper attempt, right? And then—surprise, surprise—the Supreme Court overturned him on appeal and sent it right back. After that, he comes crawling back to me like, "Hey, I'm gonna rule it an improper attempt again, because that's exactly what it is. Let them overturn me again!" Honestly, I just told him, fine, go ahead. At least you’ll get the case off your plate once they hand it over to another panel. Anyway, some time passed and I'd basically forgotten all about him. Then, out of nowhere, here he comes again.

Look, they’re telling me I didn't even make a valid attempt. Fine, whatever. But let’s be real—I see exactly what’s going on here. Everyone over at the Supreme Court is older than me... if they actually admitted this was an improper attempt, they'd have to admit that nobody could ever win under these ridiculous conditions! So fine, if they need to tell themselves that just to sleep better at night, let them. I know the truth, and deep down, they know it too. It was an improper attempt, plain and simple.

Just some copy-paste from the depths of the internet.

What's this even supposed to be? 🤣😂

Brandon Allen3 said:Just jumping in here (might help some of you distinguish between an actual attempt and something just ridiculous): under the new penal code, they’ve redefined "improper attempt" to mean nothing more than gross negligence. Basically, it covers doing something completely mindless, like trying to poison someone with chamomile tea or attempting to shoot someone from 1.2 milesblocks away
. It wasn't like this before; for instance, theft used to be labeled an improper attempt if, say, you tried to steal a car that had an anti-theft steering lock or an empty gas tank.

All in all, a positive move *drot13* 😁

I’ve been digging through this "new" draft law. Honestly? It just shifts the whole mess onto the concept of gross negligence. Think about it: if some guy is physically incapable of performing, isn't attempting a rape basically just gross negligence at that point? Assuming we're talking about the "classic" way of doing things, anyway. Or does the law now consider just using force and pinning someone down enough to count?

Man, just think about all those cases handled under the old laws. Everything was so much simpler back then... ugh. personal bias

Chloe Baker88 said:

Tooth. I can't even begin to process this. What are we actually doing here? Seriously?
Here’s a little something to help you chill out after two days of nonstop brain strain. 😁

I remember back when I was running things as a presiding judge, one of my colleagues came to me with this absolute mess of a rape case. Some guy in his sixties decided he wanted to assault a woman around the same age out in some field. It dragged on for an hour, but he couldn't actually finish the job because—get this—he couldn't get an erection. My colleague tells me he’s thinking about charging it as just "attempted assault." Are you kidding me? I asked him, "Is that really an attempted assault?" Because if we go that route, it implies nobody else under those same conditions could pull it off, and honestly, I doubt that's true! He just shrugs it off like, "Look, he's old, and it was freezing out there. You have no idea what a winter night does to a guy..." Whatever. I just told him, "Fine, you clearly know more about biology than I do, so what am I supposed to say?"

So he tried to rule it an improper attempt, right? And then—surprise, surprise—the Supreme Court overturned him on appeal and sent it right back. After that, he comes crawling back to me like, "Hey, I'm gonna rule it an improper attempt again, because that's exactly what it is. Let them overturn me again!" Honestly, I just told him, fine, go ahead. At least you’ll get the case off your plate once they hand it over to another panel. Anyway, some time passed and I'd basically forgotten all about him. Then, out of nowhere, here he comes again.

Look, they’re telling me I didn't even make a valid attempt. Fine, whatever. But let’s be real—I see exactly what’s going on here. Everyone over at the Supreme Court is older than me... if they actually admitted this was an improper attempt, they'd have to admit that nobody could ever win under these ridiculous conditions! So fine, if they need to tell themselves that just to sleep better at night, let them. I know the truth, and deep down, they know it too. It was an improper attempt, plain and simple.

Just some copy-paste from the depths of the internet.

What's this even supposed to be? 🤣😂

I’ve been digging through this "new" draft law. Honestly? It just shifts the whole mess onto the concept of gross negligence. Think about it: if some guy is physically incapable of performing, isn't attempting a rape basically just gross negligence at that point? Assuming we're talking about the "classic" way of doing things, anyway. Or does the law now consider just using force and pinning someone down enough to count?

Man, just think about all those cases handled under the old laws. Everything was so much simpler back then... ugh. personal bias

it’s not stupid because attempted rape begins the second the force is applied.

remember how people used to be convicted under those old laws... things were much simpler back then... ah, old-school policing

that judge disgraced himself and the whole American justice system. pretty sure he was "retired" recently😁