Rape

[Chaos]

Fabricating such a story should be a punishable offense (if it isn´t already). Maybe punishable by exactly the sentence her victim would have gotten.

However, when/if I ever have kids, I hope I won´t be the kind of father that makes them so embarrassed being late from a party (and/or having sex) that they feel they have to fabricate such a story to avoid embarrassment.

 

[Cleopatra]

If this happened in a Greek court the judge would ask for her immediate arrest and she would be in real trouble.

 

[Dancing David]

Here is but one anecdotal account of a fabricated rape or sexual assault charge, in today's news:


18 year old recants charge of sexual assault

Discuss?

AS

very sad, I would never deny that such cases exist myself. And I agree that as in any I say/ you say situation the credability of the witnesses is very important.

Belief me from my twelve years in mental health i am aware of the strange world of the psyche and how people made wierd accusations. the worst perhaps was towanna Brawley. Then this is held against every other potentail rape victim.

My personal feeling is that when individuals no longer approve of rape, date rape and other non consensual sex will decrease some.

Should we talk about marital rape?

 

[Suddenly]

Should we talk about marital rape?

I will say this. One of my clients is doing 30 to 75 for that. If he would have done the deed 1 month earlier, W.Va. had a special statute dealing with marital rape that would have made that a 6 to 30. Talk about bad timing.

Plus, given the circumtances, if he would have just killed her, he would have most likely had a better shot at a lesser sentence. Silly Guy!!!

I hate perverse incentives.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I watched one of the first marital rape trials in my state about 11 years ago. The defense lawyer did a great job of exposing the case as little more than a marital spat between an elderly couple (He about 72, she about 68) with a lengthy marriage and a spotty history of violence between them. For instance, the wife had recently shot the husband in the arm (unrelated to the charge of rape or that incident). She testified that during the "rape" he hurt her hip during sex after she had recently returned from the hospital after having hip surgery.

It was embarrassing to hear their silly dirty laundry aired in court. No one believed there was any force or other unsavory circumstance involved. I was ashamed of the DA's office for prosecuting it. They do have the right to use discretion to say no to cases. Unfortunately, they exercise it too seldom.

AS

 

[nightwind]

rape

My thoughts? Sure, I think it is ridiculous to say that the death penalty should be punishment for a rape, unless there is also a murder involved.

But I was just thinking. The Kobe Bryant case I guess is the most publicized case at this point regarding rape.

My question is, if Kobe Bryant is found guilty of rape, should he get the death penalty, if it was available?

Or should be be spared because of his "star" status?

 

[renata]

I will say this. One of my clients is doing 30 to 75 for that. If he would have done the deed 1 month earlier, W.Va. had a special statute dealing with marital rape that would have made that a 6 to 30. Talk about bad timing.

Plus, given the circumtances, if he would have just killed her, he would have most likely had a better shot at a lesser sentence. Silly Guy!!!

I hate perverse incentives.

Suddenly, perhaps this is a topic for a new thread, but something that always puzzled me is seemingly contradictory sentencing guidelines. In California's three strike sentencing laws we have people receiving life sentences for third offenses that are very minor (like that case that went to the Supreme court, the guy that stole DVDs or some games) but murderers and rapists get out with much less time. It seems to me there is so much variation from case to case, even in the same state, it makes little sense. Wouldn't some standardized method be preferrable?

 

[Suddenly]

I was ashamed of the DA's office for prosecuting it. They do have the right to use discretion to say no to cases. Unfortunately, they exercise it too seldom.

AS

(Nods head in agreement. And violently so.)

 

[Suddenly]

Suddenly, perhaps this is a topic for a new thread, but something that always puzzled me is seemingly contradictory sentencing guidelines. In California's three strike sentencing laws we have people receiving life sentences for third offenses that are very minor (like that case that went to the Supreme court, the guy that stole DVDs or some games) but murderers and rapists get out with much less time. It seems to me there is so much variation from case to case, even in the same state, it makes little sense. Wouldn't some standardized method be preferrable?

The 3 strike laws are a standardized method. The fact is that judges dealing with individual cases are much more likely to be reasonable than legislators dealing with classes of offenses. However, as the strawman goes, since judges sometimes screw things up, the clamor goes out for legislative control, which screws things up more often. However, since legislative controll (in recent practice) screws things up in favor of harsher sentances, nobody cares.

 

[Chaos]

Suddenly, perhaps this is a topic for a new thread, but something that always puzzled me is seemingly contradictory sentencing guidelines. In California's three strike sentencing laws we have people receiving life sentences for third offenses that are very minor (like that case that went to the Supreme court, the guy that stole DVDs or some games) but murderers and rapists get out with much less time. It seems to me there is so much variation from case to case, even in the same state, it makes little sense. Wouldn't some standardized method be preferrable?

In case of the "3 strikes" law, it occured to me that another method might be better: how about saying that for the third offense, the normal sentence is doubled, instead of a flat 25 year sentence. Then it is doubled again for the fourth offense, and so on.
Another idea: the sentence is increased whenever someone committed an offense that is at least as serious then the one they were convicted for earlier, perhaps combined with the "3 strikes" or my above idea.
Well, I´m not a lawyer, I don´t know if that was feasible.

 

[AmateurScientist]

In case of the "3 strikes" law, it occured to me that another method might be better: how about saying that for the third offense, the normal sentence is doubled, instead of a flat 25 year sentence. Then it is doubled again for the fourth offense, and so on.
Another idea: the sentence is increased whenever someone committed an offense that is at least as serious then the one they were convicted for earlier, perhaps combined with the "3 strikes" or my above idea.
Well, I´m not a lawyer, I don´t know if that was feasible.

It doesn't matter about the details. The whole idea behind the criticisms of such mindless automatic applications of a rigid sentencing structure is that it removes all attempts to consider human factors, degrees of culpability beyond the mere "did he do it?" analysis, and the relative seriousness of the circumstances of the particular offense involved. The automatic application of so-called "three strikes" sentencing laws is that for subsequent offenses, they create perverse disincentives to plead guilty or to accept responsibility. The courts become overburdened with cases which could have been resolved without a trial if not for the draconian sentences required by mandatory minimums.

The only persons who benefit from "three strikes" laws are politicians who propose and support them (Virtually no politician will publicly oppose or criticize them; that's political suicide). The general public is almost completely in the dark about the perverse, unintended consequences of such laws. Judges hate them, defense attorneys hate them, even some prosecutors hate them because they have to try more cases as a result and thus the judicial system slows down. Nobody wins. Repeat. Nobody wins.

Our country simply has to get over this horribly misguided notion that the way to a better quality of life for American society is to "lock 'em up and throw away the key" when considering how to treat serious crime. We have a greater proportion of our own citizens in jails or prisons than any other free nation. That is a shameful reflection on our knee-jerk response to crime.

A terrific start to addressing crime rationally would be to decriminal all drug offenses immediately. All drug offenses. All drug offenses.

AS

 

[Cleopatra]

A terrific start to addressing crime rationally would be to decriminal all drug offenses immediately. All drug offenses. All drug offenses.

AS

Suddenly, do you agree with that?

 

[Suddenly]

Suddenly, do you agree with that?

Absolutely. I'd want regulation though. At a minimum I would suggest making all drug crimes (possession, sale, manufacture) no more than misdemeanors.

Most of the damage caused by drugs here is due to the fact that they are illegal. Drugs just aren't the dramatic demons they are made out to be. Take away the crime, and the price goes down and addictions can be managed and cured rather than seen as some absolute evil.

A lot of violence results from the fact that there is no legal recourse if someone breaches an agreement w/r/t drugs. When that coke someone buys turns out to be milk sugar, they can't call the cops, or sue. So they go shoot people.

Plus, the illegality raises the price. So there is a lot of property crime to pay for drugs.

Drugs being legal would cause some problems, due to wider availability, but all in all those are the problems I'd rather have.

 

[Cleopatra]

Thank you.

Needless to say that I add my voice to that.I have had this discussion with colleagues many many times and all of us agree with yours and AS's reasoning plus that we believe that it would clear our profession, the Police and the Judicial system from a lot of dirt.

But listen to the funny part.

The 2/3 of the Greek MPs are lawyers. When they become MPs and they have the power to vote for the change of the legislation they seem to forget what they were saying when they were practicing law something that makes you wonder about the way the state uses the drug legislation.

 

[Chaos]

Amateur Scientist
I guess you are right. I apologize for not thinking far enough.


Concerning drugs:
Alcohol and nicotin (sp?) are also, chemically/biologically speaking, drugs; they are legal, however, with certain restrictions.

In you opinion, (and this goes for the other lawyers here, too) would it help matters to have the same legislation for alcohol, nicotin, and the now-illegal drugs? I am thinking about the laws like they are for alcohol right now, i.e. minimum age to buy/use legally, driving "under influence" is prohibited, etc.

 

[Suddenly]

Thank you.

Needless to say that I add my voice to that.I have had this discussion with colleagues many many times and all of us agree with yours and AS's reasoning plus that we believe that it would clear our profession, the Police and the Judicial system from a lot of dirt.

But listen to the funny part.

The 2/3 of the Greek MPs are lawyers. When they become MPs and they have the power to vote for the change of the legislation they seem to forget what they were saying when they were practicing law something that makes you wonder about the way the state uses the drug legislation.

I have a feeling that in many counties it is less a question that reform would make sense than one of maintaining a relationship with the U.S.. Our government gets real miffed when other countries fail to be as stupid about drugs as we are. Plus, we are heavily armed.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I didn't read the whole thread but , recently the US courts affermed that a charge of rape could be filed by a woman MID-COITUS aginst a sexual partner if they did not desist when asked . I understand the laws intent of an absolute authority over one's body , but behaviorally I have a hard time squaring our legal code and such primal behavior. Before anyone jumps on me re-read the last sentince

I think this comes under the umbrella of assumed risk or informed consent, maybe the males in our society should carry around personal liability relese forms

 

[Dancing David]

TillE,
I understand the sentiment but there are reasons for disagreeing with it, respectfuly,

first, the slippery slope of saying that a biological imperative justifies a crime, men for years have used it, 'I was aroused' as a defense

second is to draw the line, from the following scenario, say that the victim (female) agrees to remove her pants and allow herself to be stimulated clitoraly but does not agree to penetration? For too many years there has been a ' well she removed her bra' mentality.

third is the actual nature of consent: in the Kobe case the bystanders are already saying; "well she went to his room, so she knew what was going to happen, so she consented". These laws are to draw a clear line, consent to go to a room is not consent to have sex.

Imagine the following scenarion, you are totaly drunk one night, so drunk that you are barely consious, and you end up having sex in some ones car, first the person preforms fellatio upon you (assuming in this case that you are male) but then they try to penetrate your anus with thier finger. If you say no, does the other person have the right to penetrate you?

(TillE: I find you view point to be a very common one, and one that I would have to agree with to some extent, but there are reasons for the consent law to exist, how they will bear out in court is different)

 

[jj]

But explain this to me- if I told you, for example, that I had been a victim of child abuse, rape, pogrom threats, stoning, being chased and tank bearing down on me, would my arguments have more weight?

It would affect my opinion, to some extent, on matters that would be expressed inside a victim.

I wouldn't say "more weight", but I'm sure that there must be a difference between people who have been victims of violent crime (or attempted victims, too) and people who have never had the experience, in terms of attitude.

Understanding that difference would be of interest, simply because it's there...