Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected?

Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 7:18:12 PM)
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend, ruling, in part, Wednesday that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases. A panel of judges reversed the trial court's conviction of Julio Morales and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted Wednesday from the Los Angeles-based court. Morales had been sentenced to three years in state prison. He was accused of entering a woman's bedroom late one night after her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking. The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day. Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors. "Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision. The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, one correct and the other incorrect, and the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported. The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law. In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend. The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011. Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday. Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/california-appeals-court-_n_2406167.html hmmmmmm so now she has to go thru this all over again???

naughtynick81 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 7:19:08 PM)
What are you doing about it, Lucy?

Lucylastic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 7:30:32 PM)
Fuck off nick

naughtynick81 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 7:33:06 PM)
Just pointing out the same standards you apply on me. [:D]

TheHeretic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 7:51:40 PM)
Oh my. That's freakin' hilarious. I'm surprised the guy stayed in California's prison system long enough for an appeal to go through. Oh well. At least he might be able to get off the sex offender registry.

TheHeretic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 8:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Fuck off nick It must be nice to be so special, Lucy. No worries about seeing "awaiting approval," where the post ought to be, for you.

Aylee -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 8:08:07 PM)
~Fast Reply~ I thought that someone that had been drinking had diminished capacity and so was unable to give consent. There has got to be more going on other than a law from the 1800's. Did the guy get any time for breaking and entering?

TheHeretic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 8:14:57 PM)
No mention of him breaking into the home, Aylee, only that he entered the bedroom. There is obviously quite a bit more to the story.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 9:29:37 PM)
'Diminished capacity' usually refers to a plea by the accused, not an element of the crime. It looks like the issue is that California still uses the term 'spouse' in the wording of California Penal Code 261 pertaining to rape by impersonation. As mentioned in the article, the appeals court ordered a retrial under only the correct section (probably the 'essential characteristics' specifics about consent obtained by fraud). quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~Fast Reply~ I thought that someone that had been drinking had diminished capacity and so was unable to give consent. There has got to be more going on other than a law from the 1800's. Did the guy get any time for breaking and entering?

mons -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 10:26:59 PM)
Well at least everyone knows whom he is and so they will not trust him! Having sex with someone who is asleep is not a good ideal for anyone to do! I personally would punch out anyone who touches me when I am asleep, oh shoot it is a old childhood problem I have! It is okay for many couples to do this it is only that I would not care for it, drinking, sleeping and sex do not mix well! mons

TheHeretic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 10:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mons drinking, sleeping and sex do not mix well! We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. [;)] Meanwhile, in India...

naughtynick81 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 10:53:06 PM)
I wonder what Lucy is doing about it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 10:57:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 I wonder what Lucy is doing about it. I don't think answering your curiousity is real high on Lucy's priority list, Naughtynick. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I got. [8D]

jlf1961 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/3/2013 11:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 I wonder what Lucy is doing about it. I don't think answering your curiousity is real high on Lucy's priority list, Naughtynick. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I got. [8D] She answered him in another thread dealing with rape and a football team.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 6:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: "Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision. The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law. The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument. The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband. hmmmmmm so now she has to go thru this all over again??? Actually, what is being done should ultimately make a difference in the long run. The guy isn't getting off. There will be another trial. Yes, she will have to suffer through it all again. As horrible as that may be for her, she'll have her however minutes of fame if/when this guy gets retried, once again found guilty, and having the abysmal law that caused the overturning repealed, deleted, or whatever the term is for deep-6-ing it. Then again, if the jury convicted him solely on the law's definition of rape including having sex with a sleeping person, then the guilty plea will be reaffirmed and it would pass the appeals court.

DarkSteven -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 6:47:55 AM)
This is a clear indication that the law needs to be rewritten. The courts' job is to apply the laws. If they're unjust, the laws are to blame and need to be changed.

Lucylastic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 7:13:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, what is being done should ultimately make a difference in the long run. I totally agree with you The guy isn't getting off. There will be another trial. Yes there will, Yes, she will have to suffer through it all again. As horrible as that may be for her, she'll have her however minutes of fame if/when this guy gets retried, once again found guilty, minutes of fame?? really? have you ever been thru a rape trial?? in any form? Already the court of "public opinion" has questioned wether she should have known it wasnt her boyfriend. and that she is crying wolf... that she shouldnt have been drunk, etc etc... minutes of shame and being questioned as being at fault? yes...He already said that she didnt actuallly consent, he didnt even try to claim such, just that she "responded". Now, thats just from what we have been told, Im well aware there may be more to the story, but the "minutes of fame" is my only WTF moment with your post and having the abysmal law that caused the overturning repealed, deleted, or whatever the term is for deep-6-ing it. Heres hoping its before the re trial Then again, if the jury convicted him solely on the law's definition of rape including having sex with a sleeping person, then the guilty plea will be reaffirmed and it would pass the appeals court.The fact that the lawyer went so far to claim it as being the reason for the appeal(and won) tells me that hes not too worried about that. So once again, I agree with you, but for the one "wtf "moment.

Lucylastic -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 7:14:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 I wonder what Lucy is doing about it. I don't think answering your curiousity is real high on Lucy's priority list, Naughtynick. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I got. [8D] She answered him in another thread dealing with rape and a football team. Nah Jeff, that was Tazzy...

jlf1961 -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 7:23:03 AM)
Lucy, considering the individual in question's past attacks on various posters, I would venture to say that anyone that holds such extreme viewpoints on so many subjects, and the tendency for those individuals to imply that specific posters, such as yourself, are nothing more than hypocrites, I would say that such individuals suffer a peculiar medical condition that is characterized by a 50% reduction in IQ every time they have a bowel movement. Note to mods, I did not refer to any poster by name, or in direct attack.

Aylee -> RE: Overturned Rape Conviction, Unmarried Women not protected? (1/4/2013 8:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic So once again, I agree with you, but for the one "wtf "moment. I took that to mean more in the line of Catherine McKinnon type of fame. Not Hunny-Boo-Boo.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875