Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 May 8

= May 8 =

What kind of crime is rape of an adult in the US? (e.g. misdemeanour, felony)
I don't know much about law and the only classifications I know are misdemeanour and felony but I'm thinking there might be classifications in between those. What classification does rape of an adult (I think classification might change when the victim is a minor) fit into in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.99.149 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a very serious felony in all states. I can't imagine why you might have suspected otherwise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's even been a capital offense in certain places and times. See Caryl Chessman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It may have been but the article you linked suggests the example isn't one such case. Caryl Chessman was convicted of rape, but our article says in several places that the capital offence part was a result of California's Little Lindbergh Law. The capital offences were "kidnapping with bodily harm", in particular "dragged Johnson 22 feet from her car before demanding oral sex, and that he abducted Meza against her will, driving her a considerable distance before raping her". While one* or both of these involved rape, it seems a stretch to say that means rape was a capital offence. You might as well say it is still a capital offence since I'm fairly sure the Felony murder rule means there is at least one state and probably several where if someone kills their victims from rape, even if it wasn't the explicit intention, they could have commited a capital offence. *=I'm not saying forcing someone to perform oral sex isn't rape, simply I'm not sure if it was considered as such by Californian law at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not appear that he was convicted of rape, as defined at the time. The cited source for that claim says that he was convicted of attempted rape of Meza, and of "Violation of section 288a of the Penal Code" against Meza, which seems to be about "oral copulation", though whether the section number has stayed the same since 1948 I have not attempted to check.
 * So it looks like our article has either gone beyond what the source says, or reinterpreted "rape" outside of what it (legally) meant in California in 1948. --Trovatore (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was the kidnapping that was a capital offence under the LLL, not rape. Strictly he 'only' (sorry) raped the women after kidnapping them (which in one case meant taking them ~20 feet away). &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that. My point is that he was not convicted of rape (as legally defined at the time) at all.  So the article is at least problematic on that point; it might be defensible to say that what he was convicted of would qualify as rape now, but it is not very clear exactly what the article means. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, Nil is quite correct that those were not the offenses for which Chessman was sentenced to death. He got two death sentences, one for kidnapping Regina Johnson for the purpose of robbery with infliction of bodily harm, and the other for the same offense against Mary Meza. --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And either way, there is no question that rape is a felony, at least in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Following up, it is certainly true that rape has been a capital crime in some US jurisdictions at some times. Chessman is just not quite on-point.
 * Our article on the Scottsboro Boys says that death was "the common sentence in Alabama at the time for black men convicted of raping white women" (the time being 1931).
 * Sometime between then and 1977, when Coker v. Georgia was decided, this seems to have tapered off. There were six men under sentence of death in Georgia for rape at the time; I don't know how long it had been since any had been executed for it.  Until 2008 (Kennedy v. Louisiana) there were still states that had death penalties for child rape, but I don't think there were any executions in the post-Furman era. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Rape in the United States. You can use it as a starting point for your research into rape in all 50 states.  As far as I know, all 50 states classify rape as a felony.  -- Jayron 32 00:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In general, a felony in the US is usually defined as any crime where the potential punishment exceeds 1 year in prison. See also misdemeanor.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Britain no longer uses this terminology.  Broadly, felonies are now classed as "arrestable offences" and misdemeanours as "non - arrestable offences".   An offence is "arrestable" if the potential punishment is five or more years' jail. 195.147.104.148 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like bullshit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you should write to all of the members of Parliament that passed the Criminal Law Act 1967 (many may be dead, perhaps you can write to their descendants) and tell them it is bullshit. They made the law, 195.147 is just telling you what the law is.  He had nothing to do with it.  It was Parliament that did so, and Parliament should be the source of your scorn if you don't like this law.  -- Jayron 32 18:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it's true. Technically though arrestable offence does include other things like possessing an offensive weapon (like a gun I guess?), ticket scalping(?) and driving without a license and there are even arrestable "non-arrestable" things so such a law is much more reasonable. In the US you definitely could get arrested for a 4 year felony or even non-felony versions of punching a guy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An offensive weapon is not just a gun. Police definition . So if I carry a baseball bat because I am going to play baseball that is OK but if I carry a a baseball bat intending to give it to someone who wants to use as a weapon that is a serious offence. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The plain English and common sense would also seem to agree that sports bats and many other things can also be offensive weapons but bat sports are allowed (and not a shield if you only intend to block any unprovoked attacks with it unless hitting someone with it is proportionate and needed) I guess since this is Britain the offensive weapon clause might've actually been used on knives more than guns even if guns weren't a different clause. Despite guns being more feared by the lawmakers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's most often used in relation to knives, but people (including tourists) should be aware that anything can be classified as an offensive weapon if it is being carried for that purpose. Some more info here. . Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's actually not (well, not any more). The concept of an "arrestable offence" was abolished (in England and Wales; the other jurisdictions differ) by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. And it was a pretty silly term anyway, since section 25 (now repealed) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 permitted arrest for a "non-arrestable" offence if certain conditions were satisfied, so "arrestable offence" really meant "automatically arrestable offence". The concept most analogous to the felony/misdemeanour distinction is currently indictable/summary (the latter can (except in limited circumstances) only be tried in magistrates' courts (the lowest level of criminal court), whereas the former may (or in some cases must) be tried in the Crown Court); indictable offences include (amongst many other things) murder, manslaughter, rape, burglary, theft, and all but the more minor assaults. (Incidentally, possession of an offence weapon wouldn't be charged in respect of a gun; there are separate (more serious) offences specifically covering firearms.) Proteus (Talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar to how some parts of America have a lower traffic court separate from their criminal and civil court I guess. And that you can't demand a jury unless the possible sentence is at least 6 months or something. Apparently you can demand a jury trial in certain kinds of federal trials where $20 or more is disputed but the right is $75,000 in the other kinds. The same $20 it was in 1792 (back when that was 20 huge silver coins) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's similar to that. There are essentially three types of offences: summary offences can only be tried in a magistrates' court (before either three lay magistrates or a district judge); "indictable only" offences (the most serious indictable offences, like murder and rape) can only be tried in the Crown Court before a judge and jury; and "either-way" offences (less serious indictable offences, like theft and possession of an offensive weapon) can be tried in either - first a magistrates' court decides if it has to decline jurisdiction on the basis that the offence is too serious for it to try, and then even if it accepts jurisdiction the defendant can "elect" trial in the Crown Court (i.e. insist on a jury trial). Because some offences cover very broad ranges of seriousness, the system can result in some pretty arbitrary distinctions. All thefts are either-way, for example, so a defendant can elect jury trial for stealing £1, whereas even some relatively serious assaults can be charged as a summary battery and will remain in a lower court. Proteus (Talk) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article suggests there's no longer such a thing as an Arrestable offence in either England and Wales or Northern Ireland, although it still exists in the Republic of Ireland. I don't think Scot's law ever had such a concept (or felonies, see Felony murder rule). Our felony article suggests the most common distinction in England and Wales now is between indictable or summary offences. Our summary offence article suggests, confirmed by is that this distinction also exists in Northern Ireland. Note that per our articles and  the Republic of Ireland also has this distinction, and others. In Scot's law, the procedure for criminal justice can be either Solemn procedure and Summary procedure, but I'm not that these are generally used to categorise the offence. See also Scottish criminal law. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Attention furriners: crimes committed in the 50 States and autonomous territories are the purview of those states unless they involve interstate activity, mail or wire fraud, acts of war or terrorism, counterfeiting, or a very small number of other specifically enumerated federal issues. Rape, age of consent, and murder are state issues.  It's pointless to ask what US law is on otherwise "normal" crimes committed in one state.  the United States Constitution covers what is federal and what is not in pretty good detail, and look especially at the tenth amendment.  Read it (and the Bill of Rights); it is a few pages long. Asking what the dog poop law is in the US is a fruitless enterprise. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not. True. At. All. Model Penal Code. Though not fully utilized in all U.S. states, it can be used as a baseline for how most of them enforce their laws.--WaltCip (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One. Hundred. Percent. True. The Model Penal Code is not an instrument of or product of the Federal Government, it is not enforceable, and it has no connection to federal laws. It represents an attempt by some states (acting independently, as is their wont) to coordinate some aspects of law enforcement.  To quote the exact article you quoted: "The MPC is not law in any jurisdiction of the United States; however, it served and continues to serve as a basis for the replacement of existing criminal codes in over two-thirds of the states"  States may coordinate in this way, they are not required to, and indeed have complete sovereignty over such matters.  That some states have, in some limited capacity, chosen to collaborate in this way does NOT make such collaboration binding.  Every state law is still independent of every other state law, except in cases where they coincidentally or arbitrarily align.  The fact that some state laws in some states are similar to state laws in other states, even with some intent, does not mean that fundamentally they are still not 50 states acting independently.  Any state is free to enact, not enact, enact then repeal, any part of the MPC as they see fit, and that concept's existence in no way discounts Medeis's statement, which remains 100% accurate and true.  U.S. State Sovereignty was not affected when the MPC was created, and that some of the 50 sovereign states have chosen to adopt any or some of that doesn't change the fundamental nature of U.S. state sovereignty in any way.  You're just wrong to imply that it does in any way. -- Jayron 32 16:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)