[reso]

No other comments have directly addressed the quote you referenced. My interpretation is it is saying that rape cases are prosecuted about the intent of the perpetrator. Aka, they are convicted if it can be shown that they intended to commit rape, or knowingly committed rape, and acquited otherwise.

This puts the standard of conviction much higher than other crimes, because lots of crimes can be committed unknowingly (theft, embezzlement, even homicide), the intent of the criminal having no bearing on their guilt or not. In these cases the experience of the victim bears strongly on the case: the person who's car was stolen, the company who's funds were embezzled or the (deceased) victim of negligent homicide. The speaker is saying that courts do not weight victims' experiences appropriately, if at all, in rape cases.

[DanBC]

You can't "unknowingly" commit theft (intent to dishonestly permanently deprive), emezzlement (intent to deceive) or murder (intent to unlawfully kill someone).

[reso]

As a clear counterexample: you can certainly commit negligent homicide without intending to.

[anu_gupta]

Negligent homicide is not murder.

[reso]

The language my top comment used was "homocide" and "negligent homocide" while the responder changed it to "murder". The point is that in the view of the justice system, sometimes it doesn't matter if you meant to kill someone or not--you still killed someone.

[anu_gupta]

It does matter. The charges are different, the sentencing is different.

[DanBC]

Yes, only one of your three examples was correct.

Homicide is so broad it's meaningless.

[TheCoelacanth]

Even with negligent homicide the perpetrator's mindset is still taken into account. It is only negligent homicide if they should reasonably have known that their actions could cause the death.

[fleitz]

The guilty mind (mens rea) does have bearing on sentencing and the types of charge. For instance if you intend to kill someone it's a different charge than if you accidentally killed someone, and if it couldn't have been foreseen that the actions would kill someone then there is generally no crime at all.

[reso]

This is very true. Many activists actually want to open up less-harsh sentencing or charge options in sexual assault cases to give prosecutors and juries more ways to treat the specifics of each case.

[tomp]

It's perfectly possible for someone to be raped without their partner being the rapist.

For example, imagine two people enjoy rape roleplay, but don't decide on a safe-word. In the middle of the act, the receiving partner changes their mind and starts screaming "no" and "stop". The giving partner interprets this as part of the roleplay, which makes perfect sense, and continues.

Who's guilty/victim here? (Hint: it's a trick question - both are guilty of stupidity for not choosing a safe word.)

[tedks]

Nope, it's still the "giving partner's" (i.e. rapists) fault. If you're applying coercive force to someone, it's your responsibility to make sure that your actions are consensual. In this case, it's the dominant's responsibility to check in regularly.