http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/vi...ial/index.html
This is really fucking sad.
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/vi...ial/index.html
This is really fucking sad.
My faith in humanity would be at an all time low if I ever had faith in it in the first place. :/
Wow.
What really gets me is all of those counts against them. "1 count of penetration by force in concert"? Wtf does that mean?
On the bright side, there was no verdict so they can be tried again.Some porn stars are boring, yes, but I doubt her fantasy involved laying there passed out.Quote:
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys presented jurors with a different characterization of the teenage girl, describing her as promiscuous and an aspiring porn star who was acting out her fantasies and agreed to be videotaped.
Without knowing the quality of this "videotaped evidence" it's hard for me to feel one way or another about this case.
Either the prosecution makes its case beyond a reasonable doubt or it doesn't. From the jurors' statements and reactions, it looks like the latter.
Maybe the girl shouldn't have been drinking and/or taking drugs, but that does not mean those guys had any right to rape her. "As her body lay motionless on the pool table" hmmm... that doesn't sound like consent to me. What kind of sick fucks have sex with people who are passed out? I hate how lawyers always try to paint the victim as a slut--even if they do sleep with a lot of guys that shouldn't matter. What should matter is whether they agreed to the sex in question. Not to mention the three guys have a VIDEOTAPE of them gangbanging some poor girl. That doesn't make them promiscuous? Fuck double standards.
I know for a fact in California (because they put ads in the school paper all the time) that a girl cannot legally give consent while intoxicated... a guy can't say "well she was fucked up and lying still so I thought she gave consent for sex". Like... that's the law in California. This is bizarre.Quote:
Maybe the girl shouldn't have been drinking and/or taking drugs, but that does not mean those guys had any right to rape her.
I always thought that was the law everywhere... If it isn't, it damn well should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Well Nomi... I cant speak for the rest of the country because I dont live there... but the rape took place in CA and I know thats the law there.
A defense attorney's job is to defend their clients no matter what. If they don't defend to the best of their ability there's a good chance they can lose their license or even cause the case to be appealed. If anyone, you should blame the prosecution for not adaquately bringing up the points you've made to the jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by animegirl20
That's the law, everywhere. Anyways as stated earlier, no verdict = bastards can be tried again.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
If she agreed to it before she was intoxicated, they dont really have any case.
By law anytime during sex either partner can say no, like no and trying to stop (obviously screaming no in orgasm isn't much of a case to be presented), which means she must be of sound mind and able to make the decision at anytime during intercourse, or else it can be considered rape. It's a crime to fuck a corpse, sure the corpse doesn't mind, hell the person could say "Go ahead and fuck my corpse when I die" but it doesn't make it legal.
The point is that she was drugged and unconcious, at that point you are not of sound mind and body and any prior consent should be void. This is the kind of case where the prosecution should have tried to make new law on. It sickens me that they let the defense try this rediculous defense and not adequetly bring into question the victims state on that pool table. Unconcious = Rape, plain and simple!
Well said, ShineAqua.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
There is no justice here. These guys should've been sent up the river right out of deliberations. As things are, Mr. Hess needs to get a new trial going and nail those suckers.