 swoop408
Male, 18-29, Western US
 1768 Posts
|
Monday, January 07, 2013 2:58:52 PM
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? |
|
 Nomud
Male, 18-29, Western US
88 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:51:03 AM
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. |
|
 MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 7:49:00 AM
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.
|
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 7:48:52 AM
With that right though should come the responsibilty of having to put forward a clear case of why you ignored the direction
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)....
|
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 7:36:27 AM
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.
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. |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9546 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:23:56 AM
I don't know where you get the idea of Judge Dredd though.
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". |
|
 Listypoos
Male, 30-39, Europe
1479 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 1:19:26 AM
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. |
|
Listypoos
Male, 30-39, Europe
1479 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 1:17:30 AM
"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 |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9438 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:16:01 PM
Situations like this are what Jury Nullification was intended for
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. |
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 8:06:44 PM
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.
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. |
|
MacGuffin
Female, 30-39, Europe
2597 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 7:50:13 PM
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". |
|
 DrProfessor
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
3525 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 4:37:48 PM
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. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9438 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 4:34:55 PM
They disagree with the law and don't want to uphold it, but they must do so.
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. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9546 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 4:17:15 PM
Wow usually I'd think the judge would actually void the law and not the conviction.
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. |
|
 Fehz
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
551 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 3:27:32 PM
@Cajun247
Two of my brain cells just committed suicide over your statement. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9438 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:56:56 PM
Wow usually I'd think the judge would actually void the law and not the conviction. |
|
 Fwoggie2
Male, 30-39, Europe
1159 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:56:38 PM
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. |
|
 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25638 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:40:57 PM
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.
|
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
770 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:30:38 PM
diylobotomy
This has nothing to do with common sense. A court does not decide common sense. It decides law. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
770 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:28:49 PM
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. |
|
 diylobotomy
Male, 18-29, Western US
1619 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 11:36:57 AM
Common sense is dead. |
|
 drawman61
Male, 50-59, Europe
1398 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 11:21:48 AM
Eew, LordJIm, did you have to say this was very sloppy work? |
|
LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2410 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:36:49 AM
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. |
|
Listypoos
Male, 30-39, Europe
1479 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:20:02 AM
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. |
|
 ByOwlPost
Female, 18-29, Western US
520 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:02:23 AM
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? |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}