(Untitled)

[nightgarden]

Whoa, now here's a thought to chew on (particularly in light of the Commerce Clause, for any Constitution nerds out there, but just in general as well):

[T]he rapist takes that to which he has no right. The consequence [is] a forced transfer of wealth [to] the rapist. [In] short, rape is an economic crime, and the act of rape constitutes economic

Comments

[stagnicity]

I'm confused. Was this the logic used by the government to state that the VAWA had the right to exist (which is to say, that the federal government had the right to regulate and offer civil remedy for such things... under the commerce clause)?

Maybe I'm completely off. Anyway, I'm not in law school... :-p

But, on the side, I don't even think Milton Friedman would be down with these bold sentences.

[nightgarden]

This was a commentator in a scholarly journal, not anybody speaking on behalf of the government, but, yeah, it's referring to VAWA and the Commerce Clause. R/E VAWA itself, I admit I think it was a bit of a stretch to put that under the Commerce Clause...but given that the court had OKed a law against *local* loansharking as legit under the Commerce Clause, I don't think that VAWA was any more out of line.

R/E the idea of rape as an economic act, while I would LOVE to see more cases of sexual violence end up in federal court, I don't think that justification works. While, very obviously, rape is a crime in which something is taken, I don't think economic value can or should be assigned to that.