Tuesday, August 21, 2012

On the Todd Akin Brouhaha


Did a random bit of legal research following on from the whole Todd Akin brouhaha. 

Just for historical interest, this is from Scott J in US v Dickinson, an 1820 judgment in the Superior Court of the Arkansas Territory:

The old notion that if the woman conceived, it could not be a rape, because she must in such case have consented, is quite exploded. 1 Hale, P. C. 631; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 41, § 8; 1 East, P. C. p. 445, c. 10, § 7; 1 Russ. Crimes, p. 677. Impregnation, it is well known, does not depend on the consciousness or volition of the female. If the uterine organs be in a condition favorable to impregnation, this may take place as readily as if the intercourse was voluntary. Med. Jur.


East puts it pretty bluntly:

It was formerly supposed that if a womman conceived it was no rape, because that shewed her consent; but it is now admitted on all hands that such an opinion has no sort of foundation either in reason or law.

1 comment:

Mario Giantomas said...

Who ever said Republicans gave two bits about reason when it comes to law?