Galt's Gulch

Rape Conviction Overturned Because Victim Was Not Married

Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago to Government
9 comments | Share | Flag

Now if you'd like to try different hats on with this law, go right ahead.
My point in this story is that I do not see why one is prejudiced based on marriage. Does this mean that a gay, acknowledged as married in this state, has more rights than a single gay?
Unfortunately, there are no pictures
SOURCE URL: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/01/03/11833/rape-conviction-overturned-because-victim-was-not-/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ kathywiso 11 years, 4 months ago
    If someone is invited into your home and you find that say, a piece of jewelry is found stolen, even though that person was invited, you can still arrest them for theft. This is a little crazy, because I would think that you can tell whether you are having sex with your partner, or someone else.....dark or not. Morales was found guilty in 2009, therefore it shouldn't matter whether she was married to Victor or not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago
      I agree with the fact that the ruling should not be overturned to due an arcane law on the books.
      But in your example above, proving theft is more straight forward than proving rape with no violence evidence. it's more a he said she said or he said he said, she said she said, etc. but I'm with you, she admits she thought it was someone else. I'm skeptical. compared to say, those cases with evidence of forced entry, and the victim is trying to keep herself from harm. This is much easier to prove. But to agree you consented, caressed, responded to caresses and then in the morning realized it wasn't your boyfriend? I'm thinking Morales had a bad lawyer first go around
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by WWJGD 11 years, 4 months ago
    Yet another reason to push for separation of Marriage and State...

    By which I mean: Marriage should be removed from the realm of Law (not easy, I know) and returned to the Church where it properly belongs.

    I agree with the judge: the law is f'd up. Which is what happens pretty much anytime you try to make law based on religious matters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago
      what is your take on the facts of the case(what we're given)? It's pretty hard to prove force here. I guess you could play up the forced entry(I think that was a component) but then if someone forces entry to a house to commit robbery, then the occupant of the home has consensual sex with the robber (again, gotta establish that force) can the robber be charged with rape too? "date" rape issues always are murky for me, unless you can prove the party was drugged. The asleep/sleepy thing is kinda hard to buy. I would KNOW if I was having sex with someone I didn't want to. She may not have set out or intended to have sex, but is what this guy did rape?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by WWJGD 11 years, 4 months ago
        Well, the facts, as they've been presented to us, seem pretty straightforward. Not sure why force would be the only criterion -- when it seems to me to be more of a case of fraud than force. And isn't that the statute under which the perp was charged?

        The first time I looked up "rape" in a dictionary, it said "carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent." A bit dated, yes, but I think the part about "consent" still applies, no? And she clearly wasn't consenting if she thought the man was her boyfriend.

        I'm guessing that you're asking whether she's telling the truth about not knowing it was her boyfriend. The account of her screaming when a passing light revealed the man's face seems to corroborate her story...

        And yes, I've known people who had sex in their sleep and didn't know it.

        Too bad there aren't any pictures to make fun of! Nothing funnier than pix of a bunch of dumb, trashy spics, right?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago
          "physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent" Wikipedia definition. I would argue that she was capable of valid consent. just because she says no after the fact does not mean she suffered rape. the passing light was way later. morning light filtering into the bedroom. she might not have remembered the encounter because she was drunk but that does not mean she was forced. I do not know what a spic is. but yes, I would have like to have seen photos to trigger my spidey sense. it's a gift-don't make fun of it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo