FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W330961033> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W330961033 startingPage "1677" @default.
• W330961033 abstract "Commonwealth v. Berkowitz,(1) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 1994 ruling affirming the reversal of a 1992 rape conviction, drew considerable attention toward the broader and continuing controversy surrounding the legislative drafting and judicial interpretation of statutes that address the issue of sexual violence against women. The interpretations of both the intermediate and high courts were regarded widely as being both unusual and outrageous. However, they confirmed a tendency of many state courts to interpret such statutes, not only as narrow constructions, but also as being consistent with the contractual understanding of sexual relationships that traditionally have been embraced within liberal democratic jurisprudence. One of the notable aspects of this particular case is the fact that, in terms of the rape conviction, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Superior Court were consistent regarding each bench's particular interpretation of the state's rape statute. The supreme court's opinion essentially confirmed the lower court's narrow approach and reasoning, thus providing a good example of the thoroughness with which judicial constructionists have been appointed throughout the Pennsylvania appellate system.(2) However, an even more significant aspect of this case is the fact that both court rulings, despite the apparently surprising conclusions that they reached, draw attention to a traditional problem regarding the notion of and the way it is treated within a rape case. Therefore, this case offers an excellent example of the need to rethink the traditional legal and judicial understanding of rape as a crime that is determined primarily by proving the absence of involving an incident of sexual intercourse. Robert A. Berkowitz was a college sophomore who was convicted of raping a fellow student in his dormitory room. The testimony of both the accuser and the defendant revealed that the accuser repeatedly said no throughout the ordeal, although the defendant claimed that she did so while `amorously . . . passionately' moaning. In effect, he took such protests to be thinly veiled acts of encouragement.(3) The appeals court overturned the conviction, and the supreme court upheld that decision. Both appellate courts declared, in effect, that the defendant was acting reasonably in assuming that consent had been granted by the accuser for engaging in sexual intercourse. This conclusion was reached through a strict, and arguably rigid, interpretation of the statutory definition of rape found within the Pennsylvania Criminal Code, which states: A person commits a felony of the first degree when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person not his spouse: (1) by forcible compulsion; (2) by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution. (3) who is unconscious; or (4) who is so mentally deranged or deficient that such person is incapable of consent.(4) The law of contracts within the common law (as well as the explicit rules of the United States Uniform Commercial Code) traditionally has cited similar exceptions for determining when in apparent consent to a contract is deemed to be invalid. According to one scholar: [O]ne who is intoxicated or otherwise under an incapacity may, as fully as his incapacitated state will allow, intend to enter a contractual undertaking; yet if his incapacity deprives him of the ability to comprehend fully the nature of his acts, or is deemed as a matter of law to be insufficient to give rise to contractual liability, his subjective intent becomes irrelevant.(5) However, the Pennsylvania courts quickly dispensed with considerations of mental incapacity or mental coercion.(6) The courts also rejected any claim regarding 'a threat of forcible compulsion, finding that a direct threat had never been made by the defendant. …" @default.
• W330961033 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W330961033 creator A5049868254 @default.
• W330961033 date "1997-08-06" @default.
• W330961033 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W330961033 title "Interpreting the Sexual Contract in Pennsylvania: The Motivations and Legacy of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania V. Robert A. Berkowitz" @default.
• W330961033 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W330961033 type Work @default.
• W330961033 sameAs 330961033 @default.
• W330961033 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W330961033 countsByYear W3309610332014 @default.
• W330961033 countsByYear W3309610332020 @default.
• W330961033 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W330961033 hasAuthorship W330961033A5049868254 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C2777826127 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C47855350 @default.
• W330961033 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C144024400 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C17319257 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C17744445 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C199539241 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C2777278149 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C2777826127 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C2778272461 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C47855350 @default.
• W330961033 hasConceptScore W330961033C71043370 @default.
• W330961033 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W330961033 hasLocation W3309610331 @default.
• W330961033 hasOpenAccess W330961033 @default.
• W330961033 hasPrimaryLocation W3309610331 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W1556927467 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W1571964635 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W1723933989 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W236604322 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W2580801299 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W2625765063 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W2771612115 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W278925594 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W305107921 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3121598198 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3122418690 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3124475931 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3124945013 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3156086021 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3185380578 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W55652618 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W618662897 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W6435917 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W1661029240 @default.
• W330961033 hasRelatedWork W3121879817 @default.
• W330961033 hasVolume "60" @default.
• W330961033 isParatext "false" @default.
• W330961033 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W330961033 magId "330961033" @default.
• W330961033 workType "article" @default.