Comments on: The Kobe Bryant Rape Trial

by: jojo tell

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:30:49 +0000

all right five years after this encident with kobe hes a superstar b baller and no one even knows kobes a rapist now but for people who arnt millionares or sports stars people will always be like oh watch out johnny hes dangoras. but with kobe alll the kids think hes the greatest person ever because there not going to ruin a superstars rep but with a normal person they could care less about ther rep

by: John T. Kennedy

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

“The physical damage is equivalent in pain and healing time to a really good “indian burn.” Should the penalty be the same?”

You should be thinkin in terms of damages rather than penalty. What are the damages in each case?

“I know if you asked 100 men at random if you could either penetrate them anally or give them an “indian burn” for, say, $100, the answers would be very different.”

And if you asked a hundred hookers you’d get a lot of them opting for the penetration. In that case should an indian burn be treated more seriously than rape for hookers?

Or in your example suppose you find one guy who would prefer the penetration. Should an offense against him be measured by the standard of his subjective preference, or that of the other 99 men?

by: Matt

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I also disagree, at least with part Kennedy’s argument. Suppose that the harm done is subjective. So what? Why is that a reason for discounting it altogether?

As capitalists, we know that value is subjective. We let people set their own price. The same should be true of the “price” of sexual consent, even if it isn’t expressed in monetary terms. The loss suffered is reflected in psychological trauma, and though this may be harder to discern, it can’t be discounted.

by: Andy Stedman

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I see your viewpoint, but I can’t bring myself to agree with it. Some thoughts:

If a rapist is really gentle, the physical damage is nearly zero. In that case the only charge is kidnapping for 15 minutes. What should be the penalty for that, and why should the penalty for 15 minutes’ kidnapping be the same as that for 5 minutes’ kidnapping plus rape.

Let’s suppose someone with very poor taste rapes John T. Kennedy. The physical damage is equivalent in pain and healing time to a really good “indian burn.” Should the penalty be the same? I know if you asked 100 men at random if you could either penetrate them anally or give them an “indian burn” for, say, $100, the answers would be very different.

by: Boner_Bonobo

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I would suggest that Mr. JTK subject himself to a rather rapid buggering by a rather well endowed African-American and report back with an in depth accounting of what it really feels like.

by: Lynette Warren

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

“I would suggest that Mr. JTK subject himself to a rather rapid buggering by a rather well endowed African-American and report back with an in depth accounting of what it really feels like.”

He definitely would be wronged and entitled to perhaps a large amount of compensation from anyone perpetrating such an act upon him, butt if he routinely experienced buggery in the course of his normal sex life, then he probably wouldn’t find it so physically or mentally traumatic that it would merit putting his attacker in jail for life.

by: Wild Pegasus

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

[jtk]
The other argument seems to be that rape inflicts a special kind of psychic harm. But I reject the notion that psychic harm ought to be legally actionable since it is entirely subjective. Some may suffer no more psychic harm from rape than from a non-sexual assault which is comparable in terms of physical damage. Others may suffer more psychic harm from a verbal insult than from being punched in the gut. Actionable harm ought to be objective.
[/jtk]

The problem is that it is rare where a harm has an objective value. The case of robbery is pretty easy. The case of assault is not. How much is a broken arm worth? A black eye? A fat lip? A cracked rib? We try to use medical bills as an approximation, but it’s impossible to say how much suffering and anguish the victim has gone through. Mental or not, the suffering and anguish are very real, and that suffering is a result of the tort.

The common law has come to realize this, which is why we get “pain and suffering” as part of injury restoration. Over the past century, it has also begun to recognize something called the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress tort. It’s balls-hard to get to that level, but if you act to unbalance someone’s mind with the intent to do so, the suffering inflicted on the other person creates a debt the inflictor must pay. I’m not sold on IIED yet, but it does make sense if the Pain and Suffering tort is accepted.

- Josh