Ed California rape conviction overturned by 19th-century law

[Hungry81]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law/

I am shocked. How can this guy get the conviction overturned using this argument? Would it be possible to charge him with another form of assault that would get around this ancient rediculous precident?

 

[lionking]

Can't wait for the apologists to defend this disgraceful decision.

 

[BStrong]

The bad actor faces a retrial, and the story isn't over yet.

 

[WildCat]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law/

I am shocked. How can this guy get the conviction overturned using this argument? Would it be possible to charge him with another form of assault that would get around this ancient rediculous precident?

Your thread title bears no resemblance to the CNN story linked or the actual case.

Can't wait for the apologists to defend this disgraceful decision.

And I deduce you didn't read the article.

 

[lionking]

And I deduce you didn't read the article.

Yes I did. The conviction of a rapist has been overturned.

The real question is why the loophole wasn't closed earlier. How many rapists have walked free due this monumental failure of the Californian justice system?

 

[UTLonghorn]

Could your thread title be more misleading?

 

[Travis]

Personally I can't make heads or tails out of that.

Because he told her he wasn't her boyfriend he can't be charged even though she was asleep?

 

[lionking]

Could your thread title be more misleading?

The title isn't wildly inaccurate:

"

A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend," the court wrote.
"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," the court said.

 

[Hungry81]

Could your thread title be more misleading?

Its not really, its just a quick summary. As quoted from the article:

"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,"

Bolded for emphasis.

 

[WildCat]

Yes I did. The conviction of a rapist has been overturned.

And? Was it overturned because "unmarried women can't be raped"?

The real question is why the loophole wasn't closed earlier. How many rapists have walked free due this monumental failure of the Californian justice system?

How many do you think? This is a pretty rare and bizarre case.

 

[lionking]

How many do you think? This is a pretty rare and bizarre case.

There was one just last year:

He first proposed such legislation last year after a woman in Santa Barbara County was raped in her bedroom. The woman first thought the attacker was her boyfriend and initially consented to sex. The county district attorney was unable to prosecute the man with felony rape.

Two in two years is shameful.

 

[WildCat]

There was one just last year:



Two in two years is shameful.

Completely different facts.

You should probably read the actual decision: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B233796.PDF

It's nothing like the media and especially the OP makes it out to be. The prosecutor screwed up by presenting an incorrect theory, there is a mistrial, and he will be charged again.

 

[Hungry81]

And? Was it overturned because "unmarried women can't be raped"?


How many do you think? This is a pretty rare and bizarre case.

How would you title it to reflect this bizzare ruling, keeping in mind the character limit of the heading? It seems to me that if she had of been married, the conviction would likely have been upheld.

If all a rapist has to do is tell his unmarried victim that he is her boyfriend then something is seriously wrong, especially if the victim is impared in some way.

Equally does this mean that an unmarried male is fair game as well as long as he is told the rapist is his boyfriend/girlfriend?

 

[geni]

Looks like a screwup by the prosecution combiened with a slightly messy area of law. I expect action to fix the problem will be taken shortly.

 

[cwalner]

How would you title it to reflect this bizzare ruling, keeping in mind the character limit of the heading? It seems to me that if she had of been married, the conviction would likely have been upheld.

If all a rapist has to do is tell his unmarried victim that he is her boyfriend then something is seriously wrong, especially if the victim is impared in some way.

Equally does this mean that an unmarried male is fair game as well as long as he is told the rapist is his boyfriend/girlfriend?

Try actually reading and understanding the article. The law is about one very specific type of rape, rape by impersonation. The argument is that the rapist deceived the victim by pretending to be her boyfriend and she was in a diminished capacity so did not detect the fraud and allowed the intercourse. The issue is that the law is from 1872, so probably specifically mentions only husbands, not boyfriends, because in 1872 good and proper women did not have sex with somebody who was not her husband.

This is a very narrow ruling on a very specific type of rape, one that is not very common. The appeals judge made the right decision, he followed the law as written, and did not insert his politics into the judgement. This ruling also brought attention to the flaw created by this outdated law so that the legislature can fix it.

 

[lionking]

This is a very narrow ruling on a very specific type of rape, one that is not very common. The appeals judge made the right decision, he followed the law as written, and did not insert his politics into the judgement. This ruling also brought attention to the flaw created by this outdated law so that the legislature can fix it.

And why was this law still in place? The prosecutor said he tried to change it. Why didn't it happen? Surely it would have been a slam dunk?

He first proposed such legislation last year after a woman in Santa Barbara County was raped in her bedroom

Gross incompetence by the legislature it seems clear.

 

[Hungry81]

Try actually reading and understanding the article. The law is about one very specific type of rape, rape by impersonation. The argument is that the rapist deceived the victim by pretending to be her boyfriend and she was in a diminished capacity so did not detect the fraud and allowed the intercourse. The issue is that the law is from 1872, so probably specifically mentions only husbands, not boyfriends, because in 1872 good and proper women did not have sex with somebody who was not her husband.

This is a very narrow ruling on a very specific type of rape, one that is not very common. The appeals judge made the right decision, he followed the law as written, and did not insert his politics into the judgement. This ruling also brought attention to the flaw created by this outdated law so that the legislature can fix it.

Yeah I read it and I understand it it just seems like discrimination that a married woman may be somewhat protected whereas a single woman doesn't even seem to matter. Could a mod please add "sometimes by liars" to the end of the title to make it more clear

 

[cwalner]

Yeah I read it and I understand it it just seems like discrimination that a married woman may be somewhat protected whereas a single woman doesn't even seem to matter. Could a mod please add "sometimes by liars" to the end of the title to make it more clear

We are talking about a law that is 140 years old. Societal values were different then and back then it does not surprise me in the least that such protections against rape by fraud were only given to married women. Back then single women were supposed to be chaste so shouldn't be consenting to sex at all.

The fact that it hasn't been fixed is an oversight that this case brought to the attention of the legislature. It will probably be fixed the next time the CA assembly is in session.

Also according to the article, the guy has not simply been set free. He has to go to retrial and this time the prosecution can only argue the case that she was asleep so couldn't consent. In the first case they prosecution had two theories of the crime. In the retrial, they can only use one. I don't think that this guy is avoiding justice. It is just being slightly delayed.

 

[eeyore1954]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law/

I am shocked. How can this guy get the conviction overturned using this argument? Would it be possible to charge him with another form of assault that would get around this ancient rediculous precident?

The judge did not state unmarried women cannot be raped.

 

[Hungry81]

The judge did not state unmarried women cannot be raped.

Ok requested title be changed to something a little less controversial. For the record original title is/was "California Judge overturns conviction, states unmarried women can't be raped"