file under: laws that should be stricken....

[chiver78]

I read this earlier today, and was so angry I had to walk away from my desk. please click the link for the full story.

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16347234-court-voids-rape-conviction-because-woman-not-married?lite

upon second read, words still escape me.

[Tennesseer]

I read that earlier today. The laws need to catch up with the times.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...lots of laws are "antiquated" but are they necessarily invalid at a certain age?

"California appellate judges urged legislators to update an arcane 19th century law, as the panel reversed the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse. The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases."

...why doesn't this law extend to all men? and why wasn't this particular guy tried for B&E, anyway?

...lots of things don't pass the sniff test, imo...

[djAdvocate]

weird. she should appeal it and hope to establish a precedent.

[billisonboard]

Jan 4, 2013 23:13:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

weird. she should appeal it and hope to establish a precedent.

The victim of a crime that is tried in a criminal court does not have a right of appeal.

[Tennesseer]

Fortunately, the appellate court sent the case back to be retried.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2013 22:54:15 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...lots of laws are "antiquated" but are they necessarily invalid at a certain age?

"California appellate judges urged legislators to update an arcane 19th century law, as the panel reversed the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse. The Los Angeles-based appeals court said that the 1872 measure doesn't give single women the same protections as their married counterparts in certain rape cases."

...why doesn't this law extend to all men? and why wasn't this particular guy tried for B&E, anyway?

...lots of things don't pass the sniff test, imo...

The whole idea that men can be raped is a fairly new one. Even newer than the idea that an unmarried single woman can consent to sex with one person without consenting to sex with all other persons. If they rewrite the laws, I would expect them to use an inclusive definition of rape.

As far as B&E goes, it is a much lesser charge than rape. And (as I understand it) the potential penalties are related to what you committed the B&E to do.

If it was B&E to kill someone, that is worse than B&E to steal some stuff, which is worse than B&E to keep from dying of exposure. If they undermine his intent by turning the felony of rape into misdemeanor sleeping in a strange bed, the penalty is pretty trivial. Probably the time he has already served.

[Deleted]

And this shows how ridiculous the justice system has become. The judge knew that law was ridiculous but felt he had to follow it like some kind of game was being played instead of a real life matter of justice. When getting justice is a game with ridiculous rules that separate the process from achieving justice the system is irrelevant and foolish.

[EVT1]

Speaking of rapes and prosecutions- this story is disgusting:

theweek.com/article/index/238386/the-controversial-anonymous-leaked-video-of-steubenville-high-school-athletes-mocking-a-rape-victim

Even more disturbingly, several of the high school's athletes allegedly stood idly by as the assault took place, and a few even documented the night's events on social media like Twitter and Instagram. (Many of the tweets and photos have since been deleted, but screengrabs still exist.) "Never seen anything this sloppy lol," reads one tweet. Another from the same Twitter account reads: "I have no sympathy for whores." Suspected participants in the assault have reportedly dubbed themselves "The Rape Crew."

If that was my daughter I would probably be in jail.

Very efffed up people in this town:

localleaks.blogs.ru/

Kudos to Anonymous.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2013 10:04:26 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

And this shows how ridiculous the justice system has become. The judge knew that law was ridiculous but felt he had to follow it like some kind of game was being played instead of a real life matter of justice. When getting justice is a game with ridiculous rules that separate the process from achieving justice the system is irrelevant and foolish.

I'm torn. I hate that this was overturn and that this poor survivor has to face a retrial.

But the retrial gives the option of a valid conviction that puts the guy away for a long long time. The jury has to say "yes, guilty because of the sleeping thing not the deception thing" and it holds up.

If this went to an appeal, the guy could be released because the law is antiquated and dumb.

If the judge reinterprets the law as written, we'd have another thread on the horrors of judicial activism. In this case, he's telling the legilators to get off their duffs and fix the law. At teh end of teh day, I think the judge is doing it right here.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 5, 2013 11:36:04 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jan 5, 2013 10:04:26 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

And this shows how ridiculous the justice system has become. The judge knew that law was ridiculous but felt he had to follow it like some kind of game was being played instead of a real life matter of justice. When getting justice is a game with ridiculous rules that separate the process from achieving justice the system is irrelevant and foolish.

I'm torn. I hate that this was overturn and that this poor survivor has to face a retrial.

But the retrial gives the option of a valid conviction that puts the guy away for a long long time. The jury has to say "yes, guilty because of the sleeping thing not the deception thing" and it holds up.

If this went to an appeal, the guy could be released because the law is antiquated and dumb.

If the judge reinterprets the law as written, we'd have another thread on the horrors of judicial activism. In this case, he's telling the legilators to get off their duffs and fix the law. At teh end of teh day, I think the judge is doing it right here.

The complaint of judicial activism came to mind with me too. But usually if I (collective 'I') agree with the judge ruling against the grain its a good, bold judge and decision. If I disagree with the decision, it's judicial activism.