Cops Having Sex With Detainees Should Always Be Considered Rape, Say New York Politicians

Cops Having Sex With Detainees Should Always Be Considered Rape, Say New York Politicians

I’m shocked this needs to be a law. Have police no ethics? Or at least morality as a catch-all?

It's already a law. They're just trying to stop any ambiguity that it could be sexual harassment and move it straight to rape.

Should be the same for teachers and students, regardless of the students' age. I have nothing against teachers (I'm married to one), but an unethical High School teacher is very capable of fucking up a student's life with their grades and transcripts, thus limiting the options of their future. Point being, the power is there, and teachers should be held just as accountable for sleeping with students, even if the student is 18.

A couple... We read about police raping people on a pretty regular basis. They are also personally involved in more domestic violence than any other occupation. Something like 1 in 4 of them committing acts of violence against their SO or those those they live with. 25% bad apples spoil the bunch.

And you can read in police forums where they defend stuff like this. "She (he) wanted it!"

Lets be real here, even if it was made a law nothing would change. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cops aren't held accountable for their actions. So regardless of how immoral something is, regardless of how blatantly illegal something is, it doesn't matter. They're going to do it, and they're going to get away with it anyways because they're cops, and all but immune to the law.

That's kind of a no-brainer

Pretty much any group of people to which you hand power with no accountability is going to turn into a bunch of corrupt dickbags. Police are no exception, and regardless of how hard they stomp their feet and insist otherwise, they have no fucking concept of being held accountable for their actions.

Idk, I don't want to belittle the issue you are talking about but I think rape terminology should be limited to sex without consent (or ability to give it) and not be used to describe behavior which is problematic for other - even if related - reasons.

And yes, I understand what your point it but I think making something like that rape misses the point.

I don't want to make this political but I lack a better example so I'll use it anyway: Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky and she has pretty adamant that she persued him not the other way around. Lets - for the example - just accept this as presented, she was an intern in the White House while he was the President. It was obviously wrong of him to have Sex with her but I think that their power dynamic on its own (President and Intern) shouldn't be enough to override it being (presumebly) consentual and for this example at least something initiated by her, I don't think considering this (legally) as rape helps justice.

I get that classifying something like this always as rape and I get the appeal of "rape" as detterence of them happening but I think it also significantly weakens the charge of "rape" because its no longer limited to non-consentual sex - I think such problematic relationships can be consentual and I think calling sex in that context rape is detrimental to the significance of the charge even if many/most of those (subordinate/supervider or student/teacher) relationships aren't fully consentual and have power dynamics playing a role in them.

I think there needs to be another categorization for the sexual misconduct of persuing (and having) sex etc with somebody who is a subordinate in some form - I think rape is about lack of consent in the moment. But I think there is a difference between Clintong having sex with Lewinsky (assuming it went down as presented) and somebody like Weinstein (allegeldly) having sex with actresses - Weinstein pushed those actresses into a position where some of them accepted that they would benefit from such a relationship and went forward with it, even if they didn't want to. I think that is different from rape which doesn't mean its less fucked up.

And unfortunate that it was even a question

I can't wait to hear what conservative christian republicans have to say about this.

The "good cops" are the ones that cover for the "bad cops."

I tend to agree with you for things like teachers with 18 year olds, but i feel specifically for people who are detained (literally not legally free to leave the custody of the police officer and facing possible criminal charges), it's really rapey.

Your comment is ironic considering both detectives were charged with rape.

My ex girlfriend is a NYPD officer. I talked to her recently (were still friends) - she absolutely victim blames this girl. It's insane how hive-minded police become. She was one of the most liberal, hippie women I ever knew when we dated in college.

They’ll say “IF TRUE...”

The chance of them being convicted and seeing any sort of punishment are close to 0%. SOP for police accused of any crime is to offer either no defense of a laughable defense. They then hope for a pro-police jury or if they do get convicted they keep appealing until they find a pro-police judge to let them off.