Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Whatever understanding I developed then is all I have to work from and that has been steadily degrading so I can't do much more than offer pithy one-liners nowadays.

Topic: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict (Read 689 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #25
It's not. In US law, whatever the jurisdiction of the law that was broken, that's the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #26
Pedantic point. ... ( or maybe not. I don't really know what the legal ramifications are. )

There was no "rape verdict".
Turner was convicted on INTENT to commit rape, and SEXUAL ASSAULT on an unconscious victim and SEXUAL ASSAULT on an intoxicated victim.

I'm not sure but I think the technical distinction involves presence or absence of penile penetration.

According to what I've read, state law and federal law differ regarding the definition of rape. Federal law defines rape as any non-consensual penetration, oral, anal, or vaginal, with a penis, digit, or object. State law in this case requires a penis to be used in order to define rape; other acts are referred to as sexual assault.

In this case there was no evidence of Turner penetrating his victim with his penis; he was 'dry humping' the unconscious woman when the Swedish students first saw him and subsequently stopped him. Hospital evidence suggested he digitally penetrated her and probably used an unknown foreign object too; there was dirt, pine needles, debris inside her vagina, along with lacerations.

To me that sounds like rape - so why doesn't the federal law apply? Surely that is 'higher' than state law?

Rape is not a mater of Federal Law, it is not a Federal Crime, though it is defined in Federal regulations in a specific manner to promote that definition throughout the States and to aid in various Federal prosecutions, such as human trafficking. It is usually prosecuted on a local or State level. This case does not, at least at present, involve Federal Law. Similarly, this case does not involve International Law.
Are we there yet?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #27
Quote
Similarly, this case does not involve International Law.
Ha, tell it to Cunt, who has always had a problem with women and the government, but now appears to have slid right off the rails.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #28
It's not. In US law, whatever the jurisdiction of the law that was broken, that's the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings.

Except, when the US decides it's jurisdiction extends to whatever limit it decides is appropriate. A classic case of this is the arrest and conviction of the doctor that was present and presided over the torture and eventual death of DEA agent Kiki Camareno in Mexico in the 1980s. Wherein the US determined it had legal jurisdiction over a murder case in a foreign country. The crime was committed in a foreign country, which would normally bar the US from any jurisdiction whatsoever. I mean, when does US law extend into foreign countries? If it does, then why hasn't the US intervened in numerous cases of US citizens arrested and convicted in foreign countries? In any case, the process was dubious and primarily relies upon the US having the power and the other countries not. Does it mean the Russians decide someone in the US has violated their laws while in the US, they have the legal right to illegally enter the US with illegal weapons and kidnap that person and return them to Russia and convict them of Russian law? I don;t think so. What if that person was the President of the US or a Justice of the Supreme Court. Or the country was actually Tonga or North Korea? This ruling essentially makes any act of any nation against any other nation legal. Especially if that nation has some sort of leverage (like serious blackmail or a nuclear weapon buried under DC) otherwise, forget it. The agents would be arrested for illegal entry, possession of illegal arms, kidnapping, etc. How does it square with US values? Not to mention other examples of extraordinary extradition to countries that permit torture. Where does it end?

US Federal Law ends wherever those that are administrating it decide it ends.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #29
Quote
Similarly, this case does not involve International Law.
Ha, tell it to Cunt, who has always had a problem with women and the government, but now appears to have slid right off the rails.

Well, yah. Cunt is inaptely named. More of a bitch.
Are we there yet?

Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #30
It's not. In US law, whatever the jurisdiction of the law that was broken, that's the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings.

Except, when the US decides it's jurisdiction extends to whatever limit it decides is appropriate. A classic case of this is the arrest and conviction of the doctor that was present and presided over the torture and eventual death of DEA agent Kiki Camareno in Mexico in the 1980s. Wherein the US determined it had legal jurisdiction over a murder case in a foreign country. The crime was committed in a foreign country, which would normally bar the US from any jurisdiction whatsoever. I mean, when does US law extend into foreign countries? If it does, then why hasn't the US intervened in numerous cases of US citizens arrested and convicted in foreign countries? In any case, the process was dubious and primarily relies upon the US having the power and the other countries not. Does it mean the Russians decide someone in the US has violated their laws while in the US, they have the legal right to illegally enter the US with illegal weapons and kidnap that person and return them to Russia and convict them of Russian law? I don;t think so. What if that person was the President of the US or a Justice of the Supreme Court. Or the country was actually Tonga or North Korea? This ruling essentially makes any act of any nation against any other nation legal. Especially if that nation has some sort of leverage (like serious blackmail or a nuclear weapon buried under DC) otherwise, forget it. The agents would be arrested for illegal entry, possession of illegal arms, kidnapping, etc. How does it square with US values? Not to mention other examples of extraordinary extradition to countries that permit torture. Where does it end?

US Federal Law ends wherever those that are administrating it decide it ends.

No.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #31
However, killing DEA agents just on principle is fine with me.

ETA: It makes me a little sad when they torture them first. Really it should be one or the other.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Monad
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #32
Pedantic point. ... ( or maybe not. I don't really know what the legal ramifications are. )

There was no "rape verdict".
Turner was convicted on INTENT to commit rape, and SEXUAL ASSAULT on an unconscious victim and SEXUAL ASSAULT on an intoxicated victim.

I'm not sure but I think the technical distinction involves presence or absence of penile penetration.

According to what I've read, state law and federal law differ regarding the definition of rape. Federal law defines rape as any non-consensual penetration, oral, anal, or vaginal, with a penis, digit, or object. State law in this case requires a penis to be used in order to define rape; other acts are referred to as sexual assault.

In this case there was no evidence of Turner penetrating his victim with his penis; he was 'dry humping' the unconscious woman when the Swedish students first saw him and subsequently stopped him. Hospital evidence suggested he digitally penetrated her and probably used an unknown foreign object too; there was dirt, pine needles, debris inside her vagina, along with lacerations.

To me that sounds like rape - so why doesn't the federal law apply? Surely that is 'higher' than state law?

Rape is not a mater of Federal Law, it is not a Federal Crime, though it is defined in Federal regulations in a specific manner to promote that definition throughout the States and to aid in various Federal prosecutions, such as human trafficking. It is usually prosecuted on a local or State level. This case does not, at least at present, involve Federal Law. Similarly, this case does not involve International Law.

The state law is an ass then, as they say.

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #33
You and your realism. :Whyyou:
Why didn't that work?  Is it case sensitive?

:whyyou:  :WhyYou: :Whyyou: :whyyou:

Yes.  Yes it is case sensitive   :whyyou:

  • Pandora
  • Resurrected Robot
Re: crime and punishment: Stanford swimmer's rape verdict
Reply #34
Haven't they always been case sensitive?

Anyway... Yes, our justice system needs a serious overhaul.  Many of the sentences don't seem to fit the severity of the crimes committed.  I personally think a lot of the sex-related crimes are way out of whack.  Rapists I'd be happy with never seeing the sun again, same with child molesters.  On the other hand, however, if two drunk people make out and have sex while drunk, I find it highly objectionable that the female in that team of stupid can consider it rape because she's unable to consent, while the male is held accountable for rape even though he also was unable to consent.  I also find it entirely out of the tree that statutory rape gets a person who is NOT a threat to others permanently placed on a sexual predator list.  Let's not even get in to the whole treatment of drug use as a massive crime deserving of prison time.  Then there's the implicit racial bias all wrapped up in it (although I credit that significantly more to implicit social bias than to anything specific to the justice system).  And let's add the impact of wealth into the mix - the fact that wealth allows a criminal to experience a far lighter sentence simply because they can afford a better lawyer pisses me off in a really big way.

That said, however, I also don't think that abolishing punishment is really all that good an answer. 

For me, there are two things going on with our current retributive system that I think are perfectly appropriate.  First, I think it's perfectly appropriate to remove some people from society permanently.  Whether you do that through execution, exile, or imprisonment is a matter of your own predilections.  At the end of the day, however, I don't particularly care if the serial rapist is sorry for what he's done - I don't want him turned loose in the world.  He has forfeited his right to exist within the bounds of our society.  I don't want the murderer deemed likely to recommit let back out to endanger people who can manage to function without slaughtering their fellow citizens.

Second, I think that punishment serves a valuable role for the victim.  If someone hurts you through intent or negligence, it's both natural and reasonable to want to reciprocate.  It's tit-for-tat.  It's a clear and effective strategy to mold acceptable behavior.  But if left in the hands of the individual victims, you get fueds, torture, and needless violence.  As part of a reasonably well organized society, we cede that right of retribution to an authority.  We teach this to chlidren - parents are alllowed to dole out punishment, children are not.  If little Johnny down the block hauls off and punches you, you don't punch him back.  You tell an adult, who will talk to Johnny's parent's, and they will punish him in the manner they deem best, whether it's a spanking or time out or restriction or manual labor pulling weeds all weekend instead of playing video games.  As adults we abide by the same concept.  It's not for us the victim to enact vengeance.  The authorities are the only one allowed to do so, to ensure that there's a degree of remove from emotion involved.  But it's still important that such retribution occur. 

Does it need some tweaks?  Absolutely.  Should other methods of making ammends be considered as alternatives to imprisonment?  Sure, where appropriate.  But it shouldn't be scrapped altogether.  My opinion, you may disagree.
Just because you're unique doesn't mean you're useful.