Legal Question in Criminal Law in Pennsylvania

When is there "no consent"

I speak from California law which may not coincide exactly with your jurisdiction. Nonetheless, "consent" is most often defined by reference to when it is not present. For example, a minor is deemed incapable of giving meaningful consent due to youthful age. Similarly, a person of mental disability, depending on the severity of the condition may be incapable of delivering consent. The extent of the mental disability is a factual question for the jury. Another area of inability to consent is where the victim has been rendered incapable of consenting due to drugs or alcohol. The "date rape" prescription commonly known as "roofies" is known to knock out the victim to the extent that she wakes up the following day, sore between the legs and with no memory at all of the events. The reference to there being no necessity for the victim to fight back is because where there is a contested fact question whether consent was given, the law does not want the lack of defense injuries to be indicative that consent was actually given. In other words, the victim does not need to get beaten up to prove that she did not consent. This point, along with the inability of the defense to bring into evidence acts from previous sexual history of the victim represent a rebalancing of the scales of justice against the interest of the accused. Frankly, the existence of defense injuries is probative of a lack of consent and the converse ought to be able to be considered. Also, if a female has a long history of enganging in sexual activity and then claiming lack of consent, the jury ought to hear about it. They still can but only in the Judge's discretion. Face it, all in all, in a situation where witnesses are not usually present to hear words of consent, it is going to be a one on one credibility contest and therefore, susceptible to incorrect and hence "unjust" results.