This is Bad News! - Topic Powered by eve community

No "incredibly stupid news" thread, that I can recall, so this goes here.

quote:
"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

Somebody find that twit and punch him in the throat for me, please?

________
You have to give up

Posts: 11788 | Location: Silicon Valley (not Japan) | Registered: May 28, 2003

Ignored post by colin posted

Gromit

Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by InfinityCircuit:
courtroom censorship

Usually, I don't swear in my posts. But this time, all I can say is "What the *fuck* made someone think this was the right thing to do?"

That's a really interesting article. I think the most relevant points are made on the second page - firstly, that there isn't a neutral word to express what's happened to someone who's been raped, and secondly, that there's little if any evidence that the use in trials of words such as 'rape' is at all prejudicial.

Having said that, I can see what the judge was trying to achieve. Let's say someone's charged with assault. The complainant's asked to tell the court what happened, and they say something like "we had an argument and then he assaulted me".

Now it's up to the jury to decide whether or not what happened was an assault. The complainant can of course say "...and then he hit me", which conveys the information without assuming that which the trial is being conducted to ascertain (the defendant's guilt or innocence).

There's potentially the same problem if someone says "...and then he raped me". The trial is taking place in order to decide whether or not what happened was in fact rape. The statement implies guilt, so I can see why the defendant's counsel might object.

So what's the alternative? As the article considers, saying "...and then he had intercourse with me" or "...and then he had sex with me" arguably implies some level of consent. So that's not fair to the complainant. You have to get into fairly biological detail to get around this problem - if it actually is a problem in the real world.

But this sort of thing has the potential to get very silly very quickly, it seems to me.

-----------------------------
"It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself."
--GK Chesterton, "Heretics"

Posts: 7495 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: February 02, 2003

Ignored post by Gromit posted

InfinityCircuit

Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Gromit:
quote:
Originally posted by InfinityCircuit:
courtroom censorship

Usually, I don't swear in my posts. But this time, all I can say is "What the *fuck* made someone think this was the right thing to do?"

That's a really interesting article. I think the most relevant points are made on the second page - firstly, that there isn't a neutral word to express what's happened to someone who's been raped, and secondly, that there's little if any evidence that the use in trials of words such as 'rape' is at all prejudicial.

Having said that, I can see what the judge was trying to achieve. Let's say someone's charged with assault. The complainant's asked to tell the court what happened, and they say something like "we had an argument and then he assaulted me".

Now it's up to the jury to decide whether or not what happened was an assault. The complainant can of course say "...and then he hit me", which conveys the information without assuming that which the trial is being conducted to ascertain (the defendant's guilt or innocence).

There's potentially the same problem if someone says "...and then he raped me". The trial is taking place in order to decide whether or not what happened was in fact rape. The statement implies guilt, so I can see why the defendant's counsel might object.

So what's the alternative? As the article considers, saying "...and then he had intercourse with me" or "...and then he had sex with me" arguably implies some level of consent. So that's not fair to the complainant. You have to get into fairly biological detail to get around this problem - if it actually is a problem in the real world.

But this sort of thing has the potential to get very silly very quickly, it seems to me.

I can see how, in the context of other physical assault, a complaintant should say "...then he hit me", or "...then she sprayed mace in my eye".

However, we don't have any other way to describe what happened, in the case of alledged rape, in any more neutral terms--one could say "he forced his penis inside me", or "he held a knife against my throat and made me suck his penis", but I don't see how this language is any less prejudicial towards the defendant, and in my opinion would probably make them look *more*, not less, guilty. But I suppose that's really what the judge is going for--not a judgement call from the complaintant, but clear evidence that meets the definition of rape.

Still, it just seemed kind of crazy to me, as I can see where this sort of thing could really get out of hand.

______________________
"As our own species is in the process of proving, one cannot have superior science and inferior orals. The combination is unstable and self-destroying."

Posts: 733 | Location: Sierra Vista, AZ | Registered: October 19, 2006

Ignored post by InfinityCircuit posted

colin

Member

Posted

Ah, but in this case (according to the article) she claims she woke up and he was on top of her, having sex with her. She asked him to stop and he did. So it's not quite as cut and dried as your examples, and the images you use are probably exactly the kind of thing the defense was objecting to. Still... I don't know that the judge's solution was all that good.

________
You have to give up

Posts: 11788 | Location: Silicon Valley (not Japan) | Registered: May 28, 2003

Ignored post by colin posted

Kradlum

Member

Posted

Police TASER man doused in petrol. Man doused in petrol bursts into flames. "We don't know what started the fire", police said.

Posts: 5775 | Location: London | Registered: April 02, 2003

Ignored post by Kradlum posted

Justy

Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by colin:
Ah, but in this case (according to the article) she claims she woke up and he was on top of her, having sex with her. She asked him to stop and he did. So it's not quite as cut and dried as your examples, and the images you use are probably exactly the kind of thing the defense was objecting to. Still... I don't know that the judge's solution was all that good.

I have a problem with the idea that stopping a non-consensual sexual act after starting it means that rape hasn't taken place. If he started before she came out of her rohipnol-induced coma, but stopped after she came to, noticed, and protested, would we then call it attempted rape?

_{»» "Forget infinity. I've got books waiting for me to read them." — colin
»»"Speculative novels of last Tuesday." — William Gibson}

Posts: 5094 | Location: Knoxville, TN, USA | Registered: January 12, 2003

Ignored post by Justy posted

Member

Posted

Are things really getting that much worse, or are we just getting more information?

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Justy

Member

Posted

I'd say more information.

_{»» "Forget infinity. I've got books waiting for me to read them." — colin
»»"Speculative novels of last Tuesday." — William Gibson}

Posts: 5094 | Location: Knoxville, TN, USA | Registered: January 12, 2003

Ignored post by Justy posted

colin

Member

Posted

quote:
I have a problem with the idea that stopping a non-consensual sexual act after starting it means that rape hasn't taken place.

Luckily, that's not what I said.

Since I agree that the definition of rape is sex without consent, perhaps we should call what IC mentioned "rape plus violent assault". The point being that for many people the word "rape" not only connotes non-consensual sex (which is bad enough), but physical violence as well. One could take the position that a rape without violence is precisely as bad as one with violence ("he held a knife against my throat and made me suck his penis"), I suppose.

A different question: I he hadn't stopped when she told him to, should he be punished more severely?

Anyway, I think the judge was just trying to stop endless interruptions over the supposed connotations of words like "sex" and "rape". One hopes these things are entirely secondary to the main point of the trial: what happened, was it illegal, and how should he be punished if it was. The problem is the defense maneuvering to try to keep their client from being punished for something that didn't happen (e.g. physical violence), and the prosecution maneuvering to see that the defendant doesn't get off easy because of the implication of consent, but I guess that is inevitable.

________
You have to give up

Posts: 11788 | Location: Silicon Valley (not Japan) | Registered: May 28, 2003

Ignored post by colin posted

Witness

Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Justy:
If he started before she came out of her rohipnol-induced coma, but stopped after she came to, noticed, and protested, would we then call it attempted rape?

The crime has already been committed by the time she became aware of the situation.

In Victoria they just arrested a guy who had dozens of video tapes of him having sex with sleeping women. They believe that he drugged them to have sex with them, and the women they've been able to locate didn't know what he'd done to them.

They're charging him with rape, as well they should.

*edit*

Actually when I think about it I believe the article said they were charging him with "aggravated sexual assault" whatever that means. But it sounds like rape to me.

Lithos made me do it

Posts: 645 | Location: Cronulla, Australia | Registered: January 08, 2005

Ignored post by Witness posted

Member

Posted

"For an exact science, an exact language is needed."

_{As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.
-Albert Einstein}

Posts: 19162 | Location: my happy place. | Registered: February 17, 2004

Ignored post by Boogerhead posted

Member

Posted

Seems to me the language is already as exact as it needs to be. It's just that lawyers and RAPISTS don't want to admit what they've done. That goofy bastard needs to chill on D block for a few years and see if his attitude about rape dosn't change.

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Member

Posted

Sorry, don't mean to go on, but really. We all know what's right and what's wrong. Maybe some small minority of people can't distinguish the one from the other. But this jerk certainly can. Does his inability to secure a date give him the right to knock someone out and kidnap them and rape them? Ambulatory fukken turd. The judge could prolly use a night or two in the joint as well. I'll bet it would focus his attention really well.

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Member

Posted

quote:
We all know what's right and what's wrong.

Really?
I beg to differ. The difference between "right" and "wrong" is a debate as old or older than the language we use to frame it. It is the pivitol catalyst that spurred philosophy from the dredges of human conciousness.

Just because, in some situations, we think we can see the difference between the two doesn't mean that everyone else can. This is why we need to define and refine the language with which we choose to frame the question.

That being said, I think what the perp did in this instance was rape.

_{As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.
-Albert Einstein}

Posts: 19162 | Location: my happy place. | Registered: February 17, 2004

Ignored post by Boogerhead posted

Eric

Member

Posted

100 foot deep Andes Lake disappears

David Blaine couldn't pull it off must have been David Copperfield.

______________________________________________________________
...after all you can chuck bones in an envelope -- remotepush

"Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not an animator!" -- Thal

...if it's that small a world, it starts to smell funny -- CayceP

Posts: 4445 | Location: The Fringe (I prefer no borders but for inquiring minds, Wise, VA, USA) | Registered: January 10, 2003

Ignored post by Eric posted

Member

Posted

Quote"Really? I beg to differ."-Boogerhead. I agree that words have meanings. In fact words have very definite meanings both in and out of court. I also agree that there is a very definite need for some kind of arbitration system between opposing parties, if for nothing else, just to keep the bodies from piling up in the streets. It also seems that we are in agreement on just what this man did to his victim. The only place we seem to disagree is on the subject of the judges' conduct. I've never heard of a trial where the crime couldn't be mentioned by name. That's one of those WTF moments in my opinion. I'm the first guy to defend the rights of the accused. Hell I've been there. Lucky for me the spurious accusations were easy to knock down. But when I look around at what's happening today in the U.S.A.'s legal system, I see the criminals staunchly defending thier rights (often at taxpayer expense) and the victims repeatedly getting the shaft. (by the way, I think that must be a legal term, "the shaft") I'm just saying that we've all heard of the "golden rule". And that reasonable people live by it. People who refuse to respect the rights of others, REALLY need to have thier rights curtailed. All the rest is legalistic mumbo jumbo. A dead language used by a corrupt system for the expressed purpose of taking advantage of the unwary and uneducated.

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Member

Posted

By the way, the jerk with the pants lawsuit lost. He should have had to forfeit a dozen other suit pants as a kind of punitive damage.

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Member

Posted

reguarding the language allowed in court.

I wonder if the Judge also denied the defendant from using the term "Intercourse"..

quote:
prosecutors upped the ante last month by seeking to have words like sex and intercourse barred from the courtroom as well.

oh, yeah...There's actually quite a lot going on here. Too many subtexts. THey're trying to establish a precedent of some kind...

What I also think is he may have been attempting to hand the defendant enough rope to hang himself with.

..or he could've been trying to avoid pulling a Nifong.

_{As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.
-Albert Einstein}

Posts: 19162 | Location: my happy place. | Registered: February 17, 2004

Ignored post by Boogerhead posted

Member

Posted

LOL, Nifong=Wilson

I have lived long enough to know that there is no such thing as paranoia. Not in the 21st century. no. Paranoia is just another word for ignorance.-Hunter S. Thompson

Posts: 1649 | Location: cowtown,u.s.a. | Registered: April 16, 2007

Ignored post by limbojim posted

Member

Posted