Friday, September 14, 2012

State v. Lovely case brief

State v. Lovely: Lovely is a rapist in this situation. He opened up his home to a drifter and they started a sexual relationship in exchanged (it seems) for a home and a job at his liquor store. The law in NH = crime for sexual penetration by threatening to retaliate against the victim. He gave the drifter a home and a job. The court in upholding his conviction does not distinguish between the two:
    1. I won’t take you home if you don’t have sex with me?
      1. Something that did not belong to you in the first place is taken away from you – this is not really rape.
    1. If you don’t have sex with me, you’ll loose your job?
      1. This is sexual harassment at least. Lovely is using his economic power/authority over the victim to get what get wants.
        1. The view of a lot of people and the law that once we start allowing non-physical threats to count as rape – it becomes a mess. Any other kind of threat besides physical threats just doesn’t count.
    1. Freedom of Contract Argument:
      1. But if men have a greater amount of economic power and women have a greater amount of sexual power – why not let them both use it!!

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...