What is it with American justice and rape?(33 Posts)
I imagine both. Defense attorneys have to do their job but at the end of the day they are human... Not a job I would want to do in a million years
Thanks kim, I get a bit sensitive .
It is strange that in countries with access to education about women and women's issues that we have to have these discussions. Although you would hope that humans has some kind of inate morality that didn't see women as "less than" regardless of education.
Although I wonder if it was possible for the judges to not come to the conclusion they did while acting within the law. At least this man is going to trial again and I do hope he has his ass handed to him in a spectacular way.
What is it with American justice and rape?
WTF is it with America?
to me implies this being some sort of American problem and not a world wide problem which I found offensive
Entirely possible amanda there is often a lot of anti American sentiment on mumsnet rather than anti American policies and it gets tiring.
Although I have also heard that North Carolina was even later than the UK...
I do agree - it's shit everywhere, but I think Kim's comment was really just that there has been a rash of similarly absurd reported cases in the US, rather than any form of nationalist superiority.
I am fairly sure rape and appallingly low rape conviction rates are not just an American problem. So no need to phrase it that way.
This is a horrible story and I am glad you have brought it to our attention but please remember that in a country of 300 million we will have more horrible news worthy stories like this than you will. We all live under the patriarchy. That said I can think of many cases in the UK where judges have given undue leniency because the rapist couldn't have possibly known the child's "real age" or other bullshit reasons. Remember that raping your actual wife was only made illigial in the UK in 1991.
I do think the judge unfortunately had to accept this. I do hope now that this law will be dealt with appropriately.
Just to clarify - this appears to be an old law on the statute books only in the state of California (so would not apply in the US as a whole,) and appears to be one of those orphan laws that was overlooked and never got repealed, like the one about single men not being allowed to own sheep in Indiana - that sort of thing.
Like Amanda though, I find it strange no one unearthed the law at the time of the original conviction. I predict now though, it will be repealed sharpish and hopefully other states will also be re-examining their statute books to see if there are similar legal artifacts that need to be squashed as well.
Not saying there isn't rape culture in California or indeed anywhere else in the US generally. But, in this case, it would seem the decision related to an out of date law being pulled out of the cupboard at appeal.
Snatch - no greater knowledge. Happy to admit I know nothing about criminal. All I remember from law school is to always take fags with you if you are the duty defence solicitor! Sure you are right re tactics.
Amanda, I assume because the defence believe there's a good chance he will be convicted of rape/assault even without the impostor angle - at least this way they get a second chance.
Not a lawyer though so bow to your greater knowledge!
But why would they reserve it? Surely better to get your client acquitted at the original trial. Unless of course you are dismissive enough of the chances of a conviction that your client doesn't want to get off 'on a technicality'.
As for the prosecution, well, I agree to an extent. Prosecution funding can be appalling, but the first thing I was taught in law school about putting a case together (admittedly in civil cases) was to check any statutes you were relying on. Somebody did the paper work, and whoever that was was lax.
As for the judge, well again, he's a well paid professional and should check any infrequently used laws before directing the jury. That said, in civil practice it was amazing how often either side had not done so...
I agree with you somewhat, Amanda, but the law is 140 years old. I wonder if the defence knew about it throughout but reserved it in case of a guilty verdict. The prosecution would be the state (the District Attorney) and may not be as well funded.
You know what, almost as much as I am angry at the law, I am angry at the lawyers for letting this happen.
Obviously at no point during the original trial did either the prosecution or the the defence realise that this was an issue. Nor must the judge or he would have directed the original jury accordingly. Something like this should not have come out for the first time on appeal. A lot of people let this women down by the case being pleaded in this way.
This poor, poor woman.
Abigail, it isn't the judge.
No judge has said that it isn't rape, it's that the premise on which the verdict was obtained was not correct in law.
The judges have to apply the law as it stands, he's not been found innocent, there will be a retrial.
Again, the law here is an ass, but the panel of judges had to apply it.
Sadly it is not just the USA. The reality is that most rapes are not reported (speaking from personal experience), and those that are have very low conviction rates...and that decision was just crazy...
"Under UK law he could have been prosecuted for not having reasonable belief in her consent, I guess. "
under UK law it's been held that impersonating a boyfriend also visciates consent so the situation in the U.S. case has been accounted for by the law.
Says there will be a new trial, but what will be different?
I think the used the 'imposter' to get the conviction, they should be able to get a conviction without that now.
Bloody stupid, poor woman will have to go through another trial.
Under US law he should be able to be prosecuted because she didn't consent to having sex with him, otherwise a woman would just have to consent to sex with one man and any other man could have sex with her thereafter evermore. Which is clearly ludicrous (or not if you are a member of the Tea party). It is also not clear whether he started having sex with her when she was asleep which is also rape as you can't consent to anything whilst asleep. So whether she thought it was her boyfriend or not might not even be relevant (or shouldn't be if that was the case). Either way the judge is letting women down by allowing this and all this shit justs add to supporting the Rae culture we live in.
StickEm, there's nothing in the article to say he did carry on once discoveRed.
Don't get me wrong, this sucks. A clever lawyer has found a loop hole for his/her client and hopefully the retrial will be able to present an argument that it's rape anyway along the lines you suggest - and the conviction will then stand regardless of the impersonation
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.