Calif Court Says Woman Wasnt Technically Raped

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

Why? Because of an old law from 1872. So the guy that raped her while she slept is now not guilty. Huh?
There are 30 comments:
Male 1,754
I`m not understanding why this isn`t just put under the plain old fashioned RAPE label and why they don`t just ignore the rest of that other bullpoo. This wasn`t consensual. It was rape. Why is it being twisted?
0
Reply
Male 102
Oh for drat`s sake. If someone has sex with someone else without that person`s consent, it`s rape. There. Make that a law.
0
Reply
Female 2,602

E.g., if the jury on the Jean Charles de Menezes hearing had been kept fully informed of their right to ignore the Coroner`s unethical directions to exonerate the police officers involved in his killing, I doubt the police officers responsible for his death would now be free. And someone as evil as Augusto Pinochet should never have been sent back to Chile from the UK, just because corrupt politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush wanted to protect him from being lawfully prosecuted for the widespread campaigns of torture and murder he conducted whilst leader of Chile.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]With that right though should come the responsibilty of having to put forward a clear case of why you ignored the direction[/quote]

I`m sorry to hear about your girlfriend. It would certainly have been informative, and would have provided some closure to all involved, to know what the jury were thinking.

In general, though, I remain in favour of the ordinary people that make up juries having the power to ignore unjust laws when they see fit, and being made fully informed about that power when they are called to service. It`s by no means perfect, but on average I`d rather that the law were applied by ordinary people than by judges that are in politicians` and the police`s pockets (as evidenced by the number of police officers and states that get away with crimes up to and including torture, murder and human rights violations)....

0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]No, they`re not, a woman got raped and the law that allowed him to go free should not have been upheld. Now maybe that wasn`t the question the court wasn`t suppoosed to answer but nonetheless. If a jury nullified this man`s conviction it would`ve been a mistake, but it wouldn`t justify outlawing the practice.[/quote]

You`ve completely missed the point about what Jury Nullification is. It`s not just about the power to refuse to convict under an unjust law. It`s also about the power juries have to refuse to exonerate just because some arcane law says they have to. In this case, Jury Nullification could (and should) have been invoked by an informed jury to declare that the fact that the attacker wasn`t pretending to be the victim`s husband to be an irrelevance.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I don`t know where you get the idea of Judge Dredd though.[/quote]

The suggestion I was replying to was that judges have (and should have) the power to change the law by decree at will. It`s not much of a stretch from that to Judge Dredd`s most famous assertion - "I am the law".
0
Reply
Male 3,147
but like you say, they do have that right to ignore things they don`t like the judge instructing them to do.

With that right though should come the responsibilty of having to put forward a clear case of why you ignored the direction....so it`s not just on a whim or intimidation.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"Situations like this are what Jury Nullification was intended for. Of course, Courts and those that make their living out of the arse-backwards way the legal system works don`t want juries to know they have the power (and indeed a duty) to ignore unethical laws and judges` "directions"and find as their conscience dictates."

yes they can choose to ignore the direction of the judge, as happened in the case of my girlfriend`s father who repeatedly raped and beat her from an early age....she ran away and told her mum who was by then living with someone else and the first thing her mean person of a mother did was to take her back round to her dad`s and tell him what she`d told her was going on.... then she left her with him.

Anyhoos, even with overwhelming physical and witness evidence plus the judge directing the jury to find him guilty... they ignored it and let him go.

neither the police nor the judge could understand it... but like you s
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Situations like this are what Jury Nullification was intended for[/quote]

No, they`re not, a woman got raped and the law that allowed him to go free should not have been upheld. Now maybe that wasn`t the question the court wasn`t suppoosed to answer but nonetheless. If a jury nullified this man`s conviction it would`ve been a mistake, but it wouldn`t justify outlawing the practice.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote] Did you know, the first law Arnold Schwartzeneger signed into law after becoming Governator was to make sex with a dead human illegal? True fact.[/quote]

I`m surprised that`s not a default Federal thing that each state needs to recognise, like murder. When I read your post, I immediately thought of Kirstin Lobato (one of the many miscarriages of justice in the US that I`ve followed over the years). She was convicted of murder in the state next door (Las Vegas, Nevada) ten years ago, when there`s strong evidence she was 170 miles away at the time of the crime. As the victim (a homeless man) was also sexually assaulted, she was additionally convicted of "the sexual penetration of a dead body", hence my linking it to your comment.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Situations like this are what Jury Nullification was intended for. Of course, Courts and those that make their living out of the arse-backwards way the legal system works don`t want juries to know they have the power (and indeed a duty) to ignore unethical laws and judges` "directions"and find as their conscience dictates. It`s a Contempt Of Court to even inform a sitting juror of that right/duty. If you care about justice you should read about Jury Nullification and what it means before you find yourself in a room with eleven other people arriving at a finding that none of you agrees with just because "that`s what the law says you must do".
0
Reply
Male 3,894
That takes a very specific reading of the law.

Look, your boyfriend can still technically rape you. The law is essentially saying "if you agree to sex with someone, but find out later they`re an impostor, it`s only illegal if they were impersonating your husband" (which at the time it was written probably made sense because sex out of wedlock was heavily frowned upon anyway).

She wasn`t fooled into the sex. She was assaulted in the dark while she was sleeping, and when her disorientation cleared up, she struggled with her attacker. If she fought against him while he was trying to have sex with her, he`s guilty of rape. Whether he`s a stranger or married to her. Doesn`t matter.

But pretending your hands were tied made for a much more sensational news story. Nice work, judge.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] They disagree with the law and don`t want to uphold it, but they must do so.[/quote]

True, I suppose there will have to be another trial to challenge the statute in question. I don`t know where you get the idea of Judge Dredd though.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Wow usually I`d think the judge would actually void the law and not the conviction.[/quote]

It`s the USA, not Megacity One. The judges *can`t* change the law. They disagree with the law and don`t want to uphold it, but they must do so.

There are good reasons for having that seperation of power. It won`t always be a good thing, but it`ll be a good thing a lot more often than judges being the law. The world of Judge Dredd is a dystopia, not a utopia.
0
Reply
Male 579
@Cajun247
Two of my brain cells just committed suicide over your statement.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Wow usually I`d think the judge would actually void the law and not the conviction.
0
Reply
Male 1,803
This happened to a friend of mine in the UK. She dumped her bf the following weekend when he went off to play weekend warrior with the territorial army. He always was a bit... odd. He can`t find her anywhere (she`d incredibly only moved round the corner), so calls me up to ask. She`d told me what happened, so I refused to give him her new address. He threatened all sorts of nasty things to me, so I gave him my address and told him to drive the 7.5 hrs to me to sort it out man to man. He never did show up of course. Wish I`d never introduced them to each other.

The good news is that she`s now happily married to a far better man than he or even I, with 3 beautiful daughters all of whom have Welsh names that I can`t even begin to pronounce.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

Hype Hype Hype
It`s an old law everyone had forgotten about until one very bright defense attorney spotted it. I`m sure the problem will be corrected.

Did you know, the first law Arnold Schwartzeneger signed into law after becoming Governator was to make sex with a dead human illegal? True fact. Seems some guy was enjoying his job at the funeral home too much. He got fired but they could not arrest him for anything as it was not illegal. It never occured to anyone to make it illegal.

0
Reply
Male 1,293
diylobotomy

This has nothing to do with common sense. A court does not decide common sense. It decides law.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Don`t blame the court, blame the California legislature! They have plenty of time to spend other people`s money to get themselves re-elected, but not enough to keep the law up-to-date with society.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
Common sense is dead.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
Eew, LordJIm, did you have to say this was very sloppy work?
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Although (crazy as it is) it seems rape by impersonation only applies to impersonating the husband the guy was also apparently guilty of rape of a sleeping person.

This sounds like very sloppy work by the prosecution.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
if that`s what the law says then it`s the fault of that particular law, not the appeal court judges.

UK law is full of drating stupid laws from eons ago but until sad cases like these that highlight the stupidity of them are brought up in modern court then they are often overlooked for repealing.
0
Reply
Female 519
Does the person have to know the person you`re impersonating intimately? Or can a man dressed like a sloppy Johnny Depp at a party just put it in?
0
Reply
Male 39,948

Good. I don`t want courts to make up new rules, I want them to abide by established law. If the law is flawed fix it, but I don`t want Judges to have Godly Powers and hand down punishments when they feel like it even if a law hasn`t been broken. Yes, occasionally a guilty person will go free, but that`s preferable to sending innocent people to prison.

P.S. Oh, and change that stupid law.
0
Reply
Male 550
WHAT?
0
Reply
Male 3,285
He could still be prosecuted under federal law. State laws do not override federal.
0
Reply
Male 4,242
not touching this one
0
Reply
Male 20,917
Link: Calif Court Says Woman Wasnt Technically Raped [Rate Link] - Why? Because of an old law from 1872. So the guy that raped her while she slept is now not guilty. Huh?
0
Reply