In an upcoming article in the Chicago Law Review, the authors propose making it a crime to engage in sex without a condom. From the
abstract (pdf):
This article attempts to make progress on both the problems of sexually transmitted diseases and acquaintance rape by proposing a new crime of reckless sexual conduct. A defendant would be guilty of reckless sexual conduct if, in a first sexual encounter with another particular person, the defendant had sexual intercourse without using a condom.
More on the flip.
While I disagree with it, I understand their argument against STDs. As for rape, I had to read a bit further.
To some it is controversial whether William Kennedy Smith or Kobe Bryant engaged in non-consensual sex - but is fairly clear that they engaged in unprotected, first-encounter sex. Therefore, the criminalization of reckless sexual conduct is likely to reduce the problem of acquaintance rapists who go completely unpunished. (p. 46)
Yeah, it's unpunished because you can't prove that it wasn't consensual. And what they're really talking about is punishing consenting adults. You think the wearing or not-wearing of a condom will deter rapists? This of course ignores the fact that many rapists are now wearing condoms in order to avoid leaving evidence at the scene, so to speak.
If you wanna have sex without a condom, have at it. In this day and age, anyone who has sex without a condom assumes the risk of contracting an STD.. so there's your punishment right there. Oh, and have I mentioned how ridiculously asinine and intrusive this is? [Found via TalkLeft: Politics of Crime.]
Thoughts?
Update [2005-2-16 16:43:55 by JenAtlanta]:Ok, I found a model statute on p.39, so uhm.. I take back what I said about punishing consensual adults. Ahem.
Reckless Sexual Conduct
(1). A person is guilty of reckless sexual conduct when the person intentionally engages in
unprotected sexual activity with another person who is not his or her spouse and these two
people had not on an occasion previous to the occasion of the crime engaged in sexual
activity.
(2). Affirmative Defense: Notwithstanding Subsection (1), it shall be an affirmative defense
to any action brought under this article that the person, with whom the defendant had
unprotected sex, expressly asked to engage in unprotected sexual activity or otherwise
gave unequivocal indications of affirmatively consenting to engage in sexual activity that is
specifically unprotected.