New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Just disgusting

PACE said:
Guess I'm not as jaded as you
Click to expand...

I agree with you PACE. That's truly disgusting. He should be castrated and put in prison where he can be used by other sexual predators. That woman had enough to deal with without having to worry about some filthy animal raping her.

I suppose certain cons would ask if it were "legitimate" rape before they'd condemn the freak.
 
oh I thought you were referring to John Sununu referring (twice) to Barry as 'lazy and unengaged'.

twice.

I thought andrea mitchell was going to swallow her tongue

but when the administration has no regard for the law why in the [Unwelcome language removed] would you expect the courts to give a flying [Unwelcome language removed]?
 
I guess in Connecticut one has a open invitation to rape the disabled. This will not be the end of it Supreme Court or not.
 
Are you trying to argue that the opinion was a good opinion or are you just finding excuses for the judge? You need to take a time out.

DefeatObama said:
oh I thought you were referring to John Sununu referring (twice) to Barry as 'lazy and unengaged'.

twice.

I thought andrea mitchell was going to swallow her tongue

but when the administration has no regard for the law why in the <img src=images/smilies/animated/censored.gif> would you expect the courts to give a flying <img src=images/smilies/animated/censored.gif>?
Click to expand...
 
No, it's not lilly, it's not the end of this, and there's no ruling I could find today that sets a precendent for this ruling,

These justices got some explaining to do

Regards
Pace
 
PACE said:
Horsefeathers
Click to expand...


Until you read the whole transcript of a case you really cannot judge it properly.

It says that the woman was questioned for four hours, answering yes or no but it doesn't say what she said.

There isn't enough in the news paper to be able to see the arguments from either side.

Judges can only go by The Law they can't go by moral judgements. popular or no.

You might be right this might be a travesty but it might not be.
 
I don't know? I DON"T KNOW?

How do YOU KNOW WHAT I KNOW???????
 
PACE said:
I don't know? I DON"T KNOW?

How do YOU KNOW WHAT I KNOW???????
Click to expand...

Well if you know more than you have presented here then please let us in on it........

She has a womans body, meaning she will have feelings which do not go easily with a three year old mind. Should the Law be changed so that she is legally a miner ? That is the problem.
 
I gotta side with Q-T on this one. It looks like the "failure" is on the part of the law extant - and maybe the prosecution, not the judge. There's no plausible incentive for a judge in this era, to find FOR a rapist, unless he has no other choice under the law. This looks more like a case where the prosecutor should've done a better job of choosing his charges.
 
DefeatObama said:
oh I thought you were referring to John Sununu referring (twice) to Barry as 'lazy and unengaged'.

twice.

I thought andrea mitchell was going to swallow her tongue

but when the administration has no regard for the law why in the <img src=images/smilies/animated/censored.gif> would you expect the courts to give a flying <img src=images/smilies/animated/censored.gif>?
Click to expand...

Yeap, another kkkon defending the raping of women...

The culture of conservatism has become such a leech on the morality of this grand nation of ours
 
These are the people my daughter works with, Anny. This woman would have been defenseless against anyone. There are indications of prosecutorial malfeasance, as well. They prosecuted only on "physical disability", did not include "mental disability". Here's some more info:

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), a lack of physical resistance is not evidence of consent, because “many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent.”
They also state that lack of consent is implicit “if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a 'mental defect' as the victim did in this case."

Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, told Think Progressive
“By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases. Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.”

Connecticut advocates for disabled persons filed an amicus brief filed which argued that the higher standard
“discourag[ed] the prosecution of crimes against persons with disabilities” even though “persons with a disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more than twice the rate for persons without a disability.”

LINK
Click to expand...

An astute reader pointed out that the prosecution appears to have made an egregious error in the trial. Instead of prosecuting the sexual assault on grounds that the victim was “mentally defective” (subsection 2 of this code), they charged that sexual assault took place because the victim was “physically helpless” (subsection 3). Without the subsection 2 evidence, the Court could not consider the mental capacity of the victim and hence ruled only on physical helplessness, perhaps wrongly. As noted above, disability rights advocates still have major concerns about the majority’s holding on subsection 3 grounds, as it appears to set a higher standard of proof of “physical helplessness” for disabled victims relative to able-bodied ones.

LINK
Click to expand...
 
Friday13 said:
These are the people my daughter works with, Anny. This woman would have been defenseless against anyone. There are indications of prosecutorial malfeasance, as well. They prosecuted only on "physical disability", did not include "mental disability". Here's some more info:
Click to expand...


I know sweet heart, I realise the problem and it is a problem because within the very large group we are talking about some people are very highly sexed and uninhibitedly so. so what can the Law do ? Say that a physically grown man or woman is not a man or woman but a child ? It is a tough one.

It is easy enough for us to, without all the facts, condemn this man because the woman is 'helpless' but I would want to see what she said before doing so and know more about him and how long they had known each other and so on.

I am not saying it was so in this case but it is within the relms of possibility that the two enjoyed one another, the man has been in prison for what four/five years, why or how would such a case come to a high court if there were not some doubt somewhere some how about her consent all along ? He was convicted by a jury who would in the present moral climate usually react in 'disgust' rather than correctly.

Sorry pet one needs to know more before passing judgement. I too had at one time quite a lot of contact with the mentally under developed and their parents/carers, they too are all individuals of varying degrees of sexual awarness and capacity to love as well as all other human attributes. It is just too easy to condemn out of hand because of our own sensibilities.

If the body wants sexual and or loving physical pleasures even though the mind is under developed should the Law deny the pleasure ?

And the man was convicted for sexual assault not rape.


ps you added bits to your post :) ......I am not saying it was a correct verdict but there are buts to this whole subject. I have seen people heartbreakingly denied loving relatioships because of their 'mental ages', I just hope for others like them that the overturning of this verdict has merit and a warmer understanding of their feelings comes out of it.

But if it is simply that the prosicution fucked up ...poor everyone.

I also realise that the vunerable are always more likey to be missused in our very fucked up societies. It is one of our social problems. the tougher life gets, the less love is admired and encouraged the harder the Law comes down on those who 'abuse' that which we do not encourage ......it is a complete contradiction. When we allow our gentleness through so will it grow...keep on advertising plastic love and cybre violence and there will be more and more abuse on every level of society
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top