No one's talking about Steubenville?

For those who don't know about it, here's the story:

http://www.localleaks.blogs.ru/

Don't miss the Nodiano vid! See a man gleefully ruining his life (though he's thus far not been charged with anything.)

Here's the pic that's circulating on the internet.



Here's the full pic.



Wonder why the cropped one is so popular?

 

I had read about this the other day, but the story didn't have the rich details this one had.

This I definitely did not know, and it all makes perfect sense now....

...The Honorable Jane Hanlin is a Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County and the mother of Big Red football player Charlie Keenan, who is suspected of being a member of “The Rape Crew”....

Pretty much explains the disgusting slow wheels of justice thus far.

 

Rape in America and thruout the world is not considered a crime.

There was a recent rape case here in America with the rapist being acquitted because his lawyers found a obscure law from the 1800s saying a single woman could not be raped.

I'll search for it and post it

 

Yes please.
You can't believe it till you see it.

Not that I doubt you..
I'm sure it's absolutely true.

 

Rape is indeed considered a crime in America, stop playing. :-|

I had read about that case too, but that isn't what the archaic law is about. Rape in the criminal definition always applied to all women, single or otherwise.

Also, he was in fact convicted -- his sentence was overturned on appeal due to incorrect jury instruction.

That case differed in that she (drunkenly) responded (and thus technically 'consented") to the sex assuming it was her boyfriend when it was in fact his friend who initiated it. The "technicality' of the old law is that obtaining sex by deception or impersonation is not a crime unless the victim is married. Under the law, one may not impersonate a spouse to procure sex. Boyfriends don't count.

The good news is I read that he will now be (re) tried under the correct crime theory and hopefully will be found guilty for good.

 

Citing 19th-century law, California court overturns rape conviction because the victim was not married

A California court of appeals said it had no choice but to overturn the conviction of a rapist who entered a sleeping woman’s bedroom and posed as her boyfriend before having sex with her because the woman is not married.

Published: Friday, January 4, 2013, 5:51 AM
Updated: Friday, January 4, 2013, 6:13 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rape-conviction-tossed-victim-single-article-1.1233410


A California appeals court has overturned the rape conviction of a man because the female victim in the crime was not married at the time of the crime.

The Second Appellate District Court in Los Angeles cited an 1872 law that creates a loophole for rapes perpetrated on unmarried women by men pretending to be someone else, The LA Weekly reported, and remanded the case for retrial.

On Feb. 20, 2009, Julio Morales was initially convicted of entering the sleeping victim’s bedroom shortly after the woman’s boyfriend had left the apartment she shared with her brother. In the dark room, Morales, a friend of the victim’s brother, allegedly kissed the woman, who told police she believed the man was her boyfriend.

Upon waking, the victim told police she found Morales having sex with her, screamed, pushed him away, and called her actual boyfriend.

Later picked up by police hiding in nearby bushes, Morales admitted to police that the victim did not know his true identity, he contended that she was awake when they were having sex.

Morales was found guilty of the rape of an unconscious person and sentenced to a three-year term in state prison, but the appellate court overturned that conviction on the basis of the earlier law.

“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,” Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court’s decision. “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.”

In the decision, Willhite said the court had little choice but to overturn the conviction, though urged the California legislature to reconsider the antiquated law.

The 19th-century statute also goes easy on spousal impersonators, stating, “any person who fraudulently obtains the consent of another to sexual relations escapes criminal liability (at least as a sex offender under title IX of the Penal Code), unless he (or she) ... masquerades as the victim?s spouse.”

A date for Morales’ new trial has not yet been set.

 

Holy cow balls.

That's all I can say.

 

It's considered a crime, but it isn't taken seriously. The onus is still, even in America, on the Victim. If she was drunk, or dressed 'wrong,' or flirted, had a previous sex life, etc., oftentimes charges aren't filed even if she reports it. People are still very quick, as in the Steubenville case, to protect the guy. On many college campuses, campus police won't even pursue a rape case.

It's really simple. If she says no, you stop. And that means you stop badgering her, too. If she is drunk, she is legally incapable of giving consent, period. If you've ever made a woman feel too uncomfortable to say no, stop that shit too. If we have sex with you because we were afraid not to, that's rape.

It goes both ways, too. Don't badger, threaten, pout, or coerce someone into having sex with you. The sex might feel good, but your partner will never see you the same way again.

Personally, I wouldn't want sex with someone who didn't willingly and joyfully want me too.

 

I think that old law stems from the concept that only married women have sex, so someone posing as a husband would be wrong, but the idea that someone could pose as a boyfriend never occurred to the lawmakers because when it was drafted women were not (or at least not openly) sleeping with boyfriends.

 

Still.

Holy Cow Balls.

 

It's a old law that was written when men had ABSOLUTE control over women. There are plenty of laws similiar to what they found in California all over America that people have simply forgotten about, but are still legal somebody opens up a old case book to find them.

Remember, there was a time in this country when women could not vote, own property or have any say in any matter concerning anything.

Women were considered property, this practice is observed in hundreds of countries today around the world.

Even ones that we pump billions of U.S. taxpayer money into that the U.S. Govt considers "Allies".

Anybody notice on how on this recent California verdict, there has been no national outcry or debate on changing and updating the law that got the rapist off?

Interesting huh?

 

Don't forget rape in marriage.
And don't get me started on those who perpetuate rape as a game.

BTW, how were people very quick to protect the guy in the Steubenville case? He was initially convicted and served almost 3 years already.

Had nothing to do with protecting him. The judge's hands were tied, having to overturn his conviction based on the current law. It was not the first time this law was successfully used, which is how his lawyer was able to to cite it. The jury received improper instruction. What the judge did was save a lot of taxpayers money because this would have gone on through each appellant court. He can now be tried correctly.

 

I dont give a fuck about any archaic law. The law was made by men and common sense must prevail here. If that was my sister, i would make a few calls track these guys and there will be a beatdown from me and my homies.

 

Actually there has been in California and in feminist circles. And yes, if you go back to earlier rape laws, rape was a property crime against the man the woman belonged to, husband, or brother, father.

Assembly speaker introduces bill to close legal loophole in rape cases
January 8, 2013 | 10:50 am

Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) has joined with a Republican lawmaker to introduce legislation that would close a legal loophole that led a state appeals court to overturn the rape conviction of a California man.

Citing a 19th century law, the Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled last week that a man who impersonates someone in order to have sexual intercourse may be guilty of rape only if the victim was married and the man was pretending to be her husband.

"This is an appalling failure of justice, and I am committed to acting swiftly to prevent a similar occurrence in the future," Perez said in a statement. "Like every Californian, I was deeply disturbed by this decision, and my colleagues and I will work on eliminating this glaring loophole in state law and protect Californians from such a gross violation."

The legislation, AB 65, would expand the definition of rape to include cases where a perpetrator impersonates a person's boyfriend or girlfriend.

Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) is the measure's co-author. He introduced similar legislation in 2011, but it died in the state Senate Public Safety Committee, where lawmakers have a longstanding policy of shelving bills that could exacerbate the state's prison overcrowding crisis.

"Today, Republicans and Democrats are joining together to make an important statement -- the Legislature will not stand for rapists getting away with their heinous acts because of an ancient provision in state law," Achadjian said in a statement. "The overwhelming response last week to an injustice in the law that I’ve been fighting to end for quite some time will give our proposal the strong momentum it needs to be enacted into law."

The legislation has the support of 13 state senators and 30 Assembly members.

Lawmakers vow to close legal loophole in rape cases

Legislators vow to change law on rape by impersonation

Assembly speaker says Senate should clear way for rape bill

-- Michael J. Mishak in Sacramento

twitter.com/mjmishak

Photo: Assembly Speaker John A. Perez speaks on the Assembly floor during the legislative session in 2011. Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press


Twitter: @latpoliticsca
Facebook: Los Angeles Times
More in: Assembly, Courts, crime, John Perez

 

The Steubenville case is the gang rape case in Ohio, where the unconscious girl was carried around like a sack of potatoes. That hasn't gone to trial. The California case is entirely different.

 

here is a good piece on Steubenville, and sexual and gender violence in general is Delhi so Different from Steubenville?

 

Always disagreed with and felt this notion was too broad. So if a woman thinks no I'm at fault? I need some verbal dialogue if a woman doesn't want to, not read my mind or pay the consequence. I get it in terms of women being cornered in a uncomfortable situation but there needs to be some responsibility on people putting themselves in bad situation. Like cases where women go to frat parties alone with a house full of strangers and men she doesn't know. Not in anyway saying a woman deserves to be raped but exercising some type of survival instinct and not resting sole responsibility on others to read your body language and make sure you're comfortable might help to reduce certain situations. One more time before this gets twisted around into something else, I am in no way condoning rape just saying certain common sense needs to be executed. Victim doesn't always mean completely powerless.

 

Oh yes, my apologies. And yes, they did protect THEM. Thus far. But one alleged perp's mom is a PA? Please.

And I have also heard cries for the law to be abolished in CA. It was in Idaho.

 

New York City Currently Reviewing Hundreds Of Rape Cases For Errors

1 Lab Tech Over 7 Years Apparently Botched Evidence Or Overlooked Results

January 11, 2013 9:44 PM


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/11/nyc-now-reviewing-hundreds-of-rape-cases-for-errors/

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – It’s a forensic nightmare. The New York City Medical Examiner’s Office is reviewing more than 800 rape cases in which critical tests of DNA evidence may have been botched.

City officials are raising a scary question: are there rapists on the loose in New York City?

Council Speaker Christine Quinn then on Friday asked the question on many people’s minds.

“Are there potential perpetrators out there on the street, people who have raped and sexually assaulted New Yorkers who weren’t prosecuted?” Quinn told reporters, including CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

That question came after the startling disclosure that the ME’s office is reviewing hundreds of rape cases in which one lab technician over seven years mishandled DNA evidence or overlooked results. Rape kits were contaminated.

“Eight-hundred-plus cases of DNA around rape and sexual assault. How does that happen? That isn’t one human error; that isn’t one foggy day.

That’s a pattern,” Quinn said. “It’s the kind of thing you see in bad movies and you think when you see those TV shows and movies thank God it doesn’t happen, but it happened.”

During the initial investigation of 116 cases, supervisors found:
* 26 cases in which the technician failed to detect DNA evidence that was actually present
* One of those cases matched a convicted offender, who was indicted 10 years after the alleged attack
* Two other cases led to people already under suspicion

“Mishandling of rape and sexual assault evidence is a re-victimization of rape victims. It’s like raping people twice,” Quinn said.

Attorney Barry Sheck is a member of the New York Forensic Science Commission, which polices DNA testing practices in the state. He said there has to be a root cause analysis done to see exactly how the test were botched for such a long time, asking questions like:

“How could this have happened? Is it a supervisory problem? Is this a more general thing or just one individual that is competent? But obviously, if it’s somebody missing these stains and engaging in conduct not adequate for so long there’s gonna be a supervisory problem,” Sheck said.

This story tells you how mofos see it as a priority.

They do better forensic work on mofos that sell dime bags on the corner.

 

I get what you're saying, but-and it's a big but. Women should not have to alter their actions to avoid rape. The difference between a drunk woman at a frat party who is raped and one who isn't is the presence of a rapist. It's that simple. Lets teach boys not to rape instead of teaching girls how not to be raped. Because the truth is that the latter doesn't work, and as we have already seen its a slippery slope. Why shouldn't a girl be able to go to a party & drink? Guys can. It very quickly becomes victim blaming. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't lock your car either, but no one really thinks forgetting to do so is an invitation to grant theft auto. Since the vast majority of rapes are committed by a man the woman knows, avoiding strangers isn't an answer anyway

woman raped by teammates who said they would get her home safely
You're right that there needs to be open communication. But that's on both parties. If you are at all fuzzy on what your partner wants -ask! It shouldn't be entirely on her to stop you - enthusiastic consent is sexy. You can tell if a person is into the scene or not. If you think your partner might not be, ask them. It's just not that complicated. Admittedly this is often harder with younger folk who are negotiating the sexual waters for the first couple of times, but if we taught our kids that sex is ok, and young men and women didnt feel uncomfortable about sex in the first place, it would help a lot. We still have a society which judges women for being sexual, and I think that leaves a lot of younger women uncomfortable with the idea of coming out and saying 'yes, I want this.' That needs to change too.