Rape is a serious offense that needs to be severely punished, however, several legal controversies are surrounding the act – many of them are related to consent. When it is withdrawn in the process, it is essential to understand how the act should be viewed. It can be examined with consideration to the case of John Z, the detailed analysis of which will be presented in this paper.
In this case study, Laura, the victim, clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the intercourse, but John Z. persisted in his actions. California Penal Code requires that to be considered rape, a sexual act that is accomplished against one person’s will by means of duress, menace, physical force, or the threat of it (Cal. Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)). Laura testified that at some point, John Z. pulled her on top of him for about five minutes, during which “she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down” (“In Re John Z.,” 2003). Then, he rolled the victim over and continued forcing himself on her. These two elements are crucial: during the act, Laura tried to get off, but John Z. forcibly made her remain on top of him and, then, rolled over, blocking her escape by the weight of his body. Hence, it can be considered that he used physical force to continue the act.
Together with the issues of consent and physical force, it is also essential to consider the offender’s intent. Rape is usually regarded as a general intent crime, which means to be prosecuted, the offender is not required to possess any specific purpose for committing the crime, only the desire to execute the act itself (LaMance, 2019). In this case, according to Laura’s testament, she made her reluctance to continue the intercourse obvious enough for John Z. to recognize it (“In Re John Z.,” 2003). Having been notified about her withdrawal of consent, John Z. continued the sexual act, thereby showing a criminal intent.
However, there is another element to this question. In this case, men’s rea for the crime should be negligence – the defendant might not have known that he is causing harm to the victim. However, he should have been aware of it since Laura had explicitly shown her discontent (“In Re John Z.,” 2003). In other words, he demonstrated disregard for the fact that the act might be non-consensual.
However, some may argue that the court resorted to a strict liability standard while making a ruling. In criminal and civil law, strict liability standard implies that a person is responsible for their actions’ consequences regardless of their intent (“Strict liability,” n.d.). Therefore, even if there were no criminal intentions, a person would be held accountable for the consequences. Strict liability is usually employed in statutory rape cases – acts that are illegal even if consensual because they involve a minor. In the case of John Z., the victim was underage (she was 17 years old), but so was John Z. This is the reason why the court found him guilty of forcible rape in accordance with Cal. Pen. Code, § 261 (subd. (a)(2)), not § 261.5 which discusses the cases involving abuse against minors (Cal. Pen. Code, § 261 et seq.). Moreover, John Z. would have been accused of rape even if they both were older than 18. The fact that he employed physical force to continue the intercourse after the victim had withdrawn her consent serves as enough evidence to find him guilty.
References
California Penal Code, § 261 et seq. (1872). Web.
In Re John Z. (2003) 60 P. (3d) 183 (Cal.). Web.
LaMance, K. (2019, November 1). What are the differences between specific and general intent crimes? Legal Match. Web.
Strict liability. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. 2020. Web.