Sexual Assault: Discussion

[Jim Ernst]

If you have a murder where the perpetrator had purchased supplies (weapons, rope, shovel, fire fuel), scopes out the victim's surroundings for a time where the murderer can catch the victim alone and off-guard, and commences murdering the victim with the supplies the murderer brought for the job, any competent prosecuter will argue that the murderer showed clear intent to murder the victim, versus, say, a police officer coming home from work, finding his wife in bed with his best friend, and shooting one or both of them. Intent is often a huge factor in determining punishment for crimes.

That being said, you can have differences in perception. There is a type of rapist (I think called the Casanova rapist or something) that thoroughly convinces himself that the assault is wanted and/or provoked by the woman, so that IN HIS MIND, he is not committing rape. Is it your feeling that due to differences in perception, this type of rapist should not be prosecuted or that the woman victimized should be called into question for 'perceiving' the situation differently?

you have two completly differant cases here(good point) 1st is premedetated,2nd is in LETTER OF LAW, not statuet, heat of passion

 

[mrobinson]

Im sure it happens every day! I had a friend who himself and his wife owned a daycare,they had a pool. ONe day my buddy was in the pool. throwing the kids 1 by 1 in the water. just like people do with their kids all the time. One of the parents found out and told the police he was molesting the kids by youching them on their buttocks. By no means was he molesting them. but now he is on the sex offender registry in my state.

Not only do I agree with Andy, if this guy was convicted then...
But what about the voices of sexual assault and rape you'll never hear about because of people wondering with this kind of agenda?

 

[HammerNoMore]

michael jackson hasn't yet been proven guilty, yet his trial is all over the news.
so was OJ's, Peterson's, you name it...

Yes, but the reports I've been seeing of the MJ case seem to be impartial for the most part.

James

 

[H2Andy]

He was convicted because he would sit the kids on his hands
and throw them up in the air into the water, thats all. just because it "seemed"
inappropriate. noons was there to witness it. the girl was 5.. you tell me how he was
convicted

well, that's terrible. sounds like some overzealous parenting and prosecution.

on the other hand, this is a very different scenario from a grown woman making
a false accusation.

this sounds like a parental issue.

 

[michaelp68]

I cannot quite understand exactly what you are saying from how you wrote it, but if you are trying to say that the name of an accused may not be released to the public until or unless the accused is found guilty in a court, then

I'm not aware of any law that says the the name of an adult accused may not be publicly revealed unless and until proven guilty in a court.

Michael[/QUOTE no you are missunderstanding the LETTER OF LAW, compaired to the statuet of law, basicaly what i am saying is that SB, covered thier a_ _

Jim, I'm pretty confident that I'm not misunderstanding the law, whether it's constitutional law, statutory law or common law.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the point you're tyring to make.

Either way, as most people understand, and as Andy already pointed out, the names of people accused of crimes are regularly publicized every day even though they have not been convicted of the alleged crime in a court of law. This is legal and normal.

The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is that when an accused/arrested person appears in court, s/he does so as an innocent person. The burden is on the government to prove that the accused is guilty before the government may throw that person in jail.

Michael

 

[H2Andy]

Yes, but the reports I've been seeing of the MJ case seem to be impartial for the most part.

James

we're not a reporter of news (such as CNN, ABC), who are expected to be
impartial.

we are an internet publisher. by nature, we are going to have posts with opinions in
them, and opinions imply bias (like editorials).

also, unlike the media, the "board" is really a huge collection of posts by
thousands of people. you're bound to have strong opinions on almost any
subject.

 

[NauticalbutNice]

also, unlike the media, the "board" is really a huge collection of posts by thousands of people. you're bound to have strong opinions on almost any
subject.

No you're not. You're soooo wrong :11ztongue

Nauticalbutnice :fruit:

 

[H2Andy]

doh!

this is like the fourth time i've been wrong since 1979

 

[Jim Ernst]

Jim, I'm pretty confident that I'm not misunderstanding the law, whether it's constitutional law, statutory law or common law.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the point you're tyring to make.

Either way, as most people understand, and as Andy already pointed out, the names of people accused of crimes are regularly publicized every day even though they have not been convicted of the alleged crime in a court of law. This is legal and normal.

The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is that when an accused/arrested person appears in court, s/he does so as an innocent person. The burden is on the government to prove that the accused is guilty before the government may throw that person in jail. yes we really are on the same page here, the letter of law is kind reading between the lines, p. o . s. t 832-837, (peace officer standards and training) i can see that i have confused some folks here sorry, no you are not missunderstanding the LAW i have caused you to missunderstand my statement, sorry,

Michael

 

[Ishie]

Yes you are right but the "accused" should be view in the same light untill proven guilty.If I am having consentual sex with a woman,totally consentual. and the next day she sees me with another woman and tells the police I "raped" her. Im pretty well screwed. because of what "she says"

Um, if I am having consentual sex with a man, and the next day he sees me with another man, he can tell the police that I committed any number of crimes too. If he wants to be equally vindictive, he can claim that he and I had consentual sex, I tried to charge him after it, and then robbed him when he was unwilling to pay. That would be a sufficient ugly little mark on my record.

Would you view this scenario as equally likely? Because without accusing you of anything, it seems almost like you view women as these emotionally unstable, conniving little creatures that should be doubted for any statement. It seems less like "getting both sides" and more like saying "Well, without his side of the story or for the vic to go into details that she is understandably uncomfortable with, we shouldn't lend emotional support to her or anything. It also seems unreasonable that with things being independently verified as to this guy getting drummed out of PADI, instead of that being sufficient... it's the whole "well... maybe he shouldn't have gotten drummed out of PADI" scenario. If he does go to jail, are we to be subjected to laments about false imprisonment and deceitful women too?

More likely, a man or woman emotionally unbalanced enough to commit such an act as you described would already have caused a scene at the time of witnessing the second sex act, thus invalidating criminal claims later (you were raped, but when seeing him with the witness the day after your "rape", you called him a lying cheating SOB?) They also tend to have records of this sort of outrageous vindictive (or litigious) activity.