This is actually the only reason I posted. Yes I did see a reference here and there to the lack of knowledge on the case, but for the most part, I was struck by the animus of some of the posters here. With so little known, how can people call eachother idiots, or be so certain in the 'correct' outcome? Discussion doesn't require intimate knowledge of the case, it doesn't require any knowledge at all. I was just hoping to slow things down a bit, give eachother the benefit of the doubt.Kilarin wrote:This has been recognized by several people involved in the discussion. It was referenced several times that we simply didn't have all of the information that the Jury did. So we were having a discussion based on the best info we had.BigSlideHimself wrote:The printed word does not do a trial justice
Yes it does. Let me explain. There's various definitions for rape among the states, but the general defintion is:Kilarin wrote:That seems really odd considering the definition of the crime.BigSlideHimself wrote:Similarly, the USE OF FORCE element is rarely in issue
1) Vaginal intercourse (in some states other appendages can apply)
2) Without valid consent
3) With force or the threat of force
Most states differ from that somewhat but it'll do for our purposes
Now, the 3rd element is a tricky one. What is force? If someone tells you no, but you have sex with them, is that force? What if they didn't fight back, is it still force? Many states adopt the rule that ANY sex without consent impliedly satisfies the Force requirement. In other states, there needs to be some showing of force/threat of force but the threshold is so low in light of the consent requirement that it constructively is the same as the NO FORCE rule.
Therefore FORCE will be impliedly proved by CONSENT, and unless there's bruising, a weapon, a witness FORCE won't be a hot topic.
As for the politics at play. Honestly I had to go back and reread my posts to understand why someone thought I said politics didn't factor in.
There's 2 issues here. 1) The new interpretation of the law. 2) The application of the law to the boys.
1) No I don't think the court changed the law to get the boys. Rather, it was a case that allowed them to examine a longstanding rationale in their state and change it if necessary. Did politics play into this? You bet your ass. But not in a way I think you would guess. POLICY is a huge component of any new law, as it should be.
2) This is what I was referencing in my first post. I don't believe the trial judge or the jury were swayed by politics. Yes they could have been, but my baseline belief until I see at least something backing it up is they took the law they were given and applied it.
I'm not sure of the grievance here. Are you saying the jury was influenced by politics?
Kilarin, what's your email? I'll send you the case later today. If I didn't respond to some of your points than just assume I agree.
