Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:11:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife  (Read 5676 times)
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2014, 02:57:40 PM »

sweet jesus what is this sh*t
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2014, 03:26:24 PM »

marital rape should be legal.

Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
  -Griswold vs Connecticut



3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.  1 Corinthians 7

Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2014, 03:29:42 PM »

marital rape should be legal.

Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
  -Griswold vs Connecticut



3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.  1 Corinthians 7

Not sure if trolling, serious, or just making a horrible attempt at satire.

Reported for trolling anyway.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2014, 04:16:17 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.

I wasn't worrying about his right to engage in sex, but hers.  I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not if you were able to come up with the above reply.

I know you think you're being compassionate or whatever, but what you're saying makes no damn sense.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2014, 04:26:25 PM »

Excusing Tweed's joke post, the simple fact is this. Every sex act is consensual for the duration of that sex act. Then it ends. Then you have to consent again. You can't give prior consent. If you're married it's exactly the f-cking same. If it's 'not tonight dear' then it doesn't happen. If faculties are inhibited or lost then you have to respect the fact that consent will also be lost.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2014, 06:57:50 PM »

Responding to this quote instead of the other one:
Suppose as a hypothetical:

1. Someone executes something akin to a living will, providing that in the event they become demented, they wish their spouse to still have sex with them if, as a condition precedent,  by the preponderance of the evidence, medical science supports the idea that in their situation at the time, sex will do them no harm, and/or still provide them with physical pleasure, and

2. Medical science in fact so supports meeting such condition precedent.

What is the reasoning for the jump from 1) to 2)? I can see very good reason for bioethicists to oppose any such reasoning which would allow for the acceptability of 1).

Specifically, there's a bizarre reductionist logic in 1). In arguing that conditions in 1) is sufficient to show allowance of consent, you're reducing reasons for consent to the fulfillment of pleasure and a special relation with the other agent. In this form people can accuse you of sexism more directly. One reason why we believe continuous consent is necessary is that we do not want to restrict the possible reasons, some unknown to the other party, that women and humans ought to be treated.

In other words, do you really think women say "no" mostly because they're not satisfied by sex? What about a sense of security and expectations about how this changes the special relationship she thinks she has with someone else? And, bare in mind, those reasons go through the heads of more than just those above the age of consent...
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2014, 08:54:37 PM »

This is arguably the worst thread ever (right up there with Sandra Fluke and Memphisgate and the Cory Story), and definitely the worst in recent times.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2014, 08:59:32 PM »

Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2014, 09:39:54 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

There is no grey area here, if a person is not mentally capable of consent, there is no debate to be had.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2014, 10:42:59 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

There is no grey area here, if a person is not mentally capable of consent, there is no debate to be had.

Then you're condemning that person to being cut off from what for most people is a significant part of their life.  You're condemning them to being a living corpse unable to fully partake of life's pleasures.  Frankly, if as a society we decide to condemn them to involuntary celibacy in such circumstances, then I would consider such a status a valid reason to allow the person to have decided ahead of time that if they ever do permanently reach such a state, they'd rather be euthanized.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2014, 10:52:34 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCS14PoQc2M
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2014, 10:54:09 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

There is no grey area here, if a person is not mentally capable of consent, there is no debate to be had.

Then you're condemning that person to being cut off from what for most people is a significant part of their life.  You're condemning them to being a living corpse unable to fully partake of life's pleasures.  Frankly, if as a society we decide to condemn them to involuntary celibacy in such circumstances, then I would consider such a status a valid reason to allow the person to have decided ahead of time that if they ever do permanently reach such a state, they'd rather be euthanized.

If you have advanced Alzheimer's or some other state of severe mental impairment, you basically are a living corpse. Sorry, but when you can no longer reason or communicate with others, you have ceased being human and started simply being a hunk of flesh that happens to be able to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. The person you were before - the person your spouse married - is gone.

There would be more dignity and humanity in that guy just going and having sex with a prostitute than using his wife like some piece of meat to satisfy his own carnal needs.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2014, 11:15:00 PM »

If you have advanced Alzheimer's or some other state of severe mental impairment, you basically are a living corpse. Sorry, but when you can no longer reason or communicate with others, you have ceased being human and started simply being a hunk of flesh that happens to be able to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. The person you were before - the person your spouse married - is gone.

That seems like overkill.  You "have ceased being human"?  Is there really a bright line between being a competent adult and being a vegetable, or is there a continuum along that line?  Who decides when you've crossed it, and what criteria do they use?

Also, how is this handled in cases where people are mentally handicapped from birth?  Are they deemed not fit to consent to sex in their entire lives, and on what criteria is this judgment made?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2014, 11:34:33 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

There is no grey area here, if a person is not mentally capable of consent, there is no debate to be had.

Then you're condemning that person to being cut off from what for most people is a significant part of their life.  You're condemning them to being a living corpse unable to fully partake of life's pleasures.  Frankly, if as a society we decide to condemn them to involuntary celibacy in such circumstances, then I would consider such a status a valid reason to allow the person to have decided ahead of time that if they ever do permanently reach such a state, they'd rather be euthanized.

If you have advanced Alzheimer's or some other state of severe mental impairment, you basically are a living corpse. Sorry, but when you can no longer reason or communicate with others, you have ceased being human and started simply being a hunk of flesh that happens to be able to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. The person you were before - the person your spouse married - is gone.

There would be more dignity and humanity in that guy just going and having sex with a prostitute than using his wife like some piece of meat to satisfy his own carnal needs.

If the person is just a hunk of meat as you claim, and no longer human, what would be the problem with treating them as such?   
If you truly love someone, you love that person's whole being, not just their mental and communicative ability.  You recognize what they've lost doesn't erase their humanity. 

The pertinent question here is whether the person had the ability to consent. The judge said no. The husband disagreed. I don't know nor how anyone here would know exactly what the mental state of the wife was or whether there was any hint of consent.  Consent is a tricky enough thing to define, and it doesn't do any good to pretend it isn't. Even stipulating that one shouldn't engage in sex unless the consent isn't crystal clear, there are different levels of infringement upon consent.   But if we can't even agree that the person has their own individual existence, what is the point of even talking about consent?   
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2014, 04:51:37 AM »

Ernest, are you talking about this particular case or a general concept that people have a non-ending right to consent? I don't know you as a horrible person so I'll assume the latter..

We limit the beginning of a person's right to consent based on age and awareness, etc.. why not the end if the situation is quite similar?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2014, 06:33:03 AM »

Ernest, are you talking about this particular case or a general concept that people have a non-ending right to consent? I don't know you as a horrible person so I'll assume the latter..

We limit the beginning of a person's right to consent based on age and awareness, etc.. why not the end if the situation is quite similar?

In general, since I don't have any knowledge of how incapacitated the wife was in this particular case.  The relevant difference here between the beginning of life and the end of life is that is impossible for a person to make an informed consent of future actions before the beginning of their legal awareness, but it is possible to do so before the end of their legal awareness.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2014, 06:56:24 AM »

Responding to this quote instead of the other one:
Suppose as a hypothetical:

1. Someone executes something akin to a living will, providing that in the event they become demented, they wish their spouse to still have sex with them if, as a condition precedent,  by the preponderance of the evidence, medical science supports the idea that in their situation at the time, sex will do them no harm, and/or still provide them with physical pleasure, and

2. Medical science in fact so supports meeting such condition precedent.

What is the reasoning for the jump from 1) to 2)? I can see very good reason for bioethicists to oppose any such reasoning which would allow for the acceptability of 1).

Specifically, there's a bizarre reductionist logic in 1). In arguing that conditions in 1) is sufficient to show allowance of consent, you're reducing reasons for consent to the fulfillment of pleasure and a special relation with the other agent. In this form people can accuse you of sexism more directly. One reason why we believe continuous consent is necessary is that we do not want to restrict the possible reasons, some unknown to the other party, that women and humans ought to be treated.

In other words, do you really think women say "no" mostly because they're not satisfied by sex? What about a sense of security and expectations about how this changes the special relationship she thinks she has with someone else? And, bare in mind, those reasons go through the heads of more than just those above the age of consent...

I don't really follow much of the above very well, but suffice it to say, I personally would have no problem with the idea that I can agree in advance while sentient to give consent to my spouse to have sex with me while demented assuming medical science supports the idea that it will not be doing affirmative harm to me while in the demented state. It is similar to the notion really that I can execute a living will, stating I want to be offed in I descend into a vegetative state (to the extent otherwise legally permissible). 
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2014, 07:30:20 AM »

If you have advanced Alzheimer's or some other state of severe mental impairment, you basically are a living corpse. Sorry, but when you can no longer reason or communicate with others, you have ceased being human and started simply being a hunk of flesh that happens to be able to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. The person you were before - the person your spouse married - is gone.

That seems like overkill.  You "have ceased being human"?  Is there really a bright line between being a competent adult and being a vegetable, or is there a continuum along that line?  Who decides when you've crossed it, and what criteria do they use?

Also, how is this handled in cases where people are mentally handicapped from birth?  Are they deemed not fit to consent to sex in their entire lives, and on what criteria is this judgment made?


I believe this is the case yes. There was a court case in Sweden where a man picked up a mentally handicapped women at a playground (she was above age of consent physically, like 17 or something, but mentally at the age of Cool and took her to an apartment where she was gangraped. They all got off though because the court said that since they never bothered to speak to her they couldn't be expected to have figured out she was mentally 8.

Just in case anyone was feeling too happy about having read this thread!
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2014, 08:38:11 AM »

People sometimes express wonder as to why Women don't post here. They amaze me.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2014, 08:45:28 AM »

This is a really strange thread.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2014, 08:48:41 AM »

If I didn't know better I'd swear Ernest is trolling.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2014, 11:24:36 AM »


Perhaps it is best to understand it as unconscious performance art.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2014, 11:30:29 AM »

If I didn't know better I'd swear Ernest is trolling.

Well, it's not as if I didn't have some idea of the reaction I'd get when I initially posted in this thread. And I fully acknowledge that when it comes to striking a balance between the extremely legitimate concerns that the mentally incompetent not be abused and my concerns that society tends to want to lock up those receiving care in a chastity belt and throw away the key without much thought about whether they would have wanted to be stuck in a chastity belt just because they are stuck in care facility, well striking that balance would be difficult even if it were not contentious.  Even with pre-given consent, I'd want the balance to call for erring in favor of the chastity belt if there were the least sign of distress on the part of the person.


Perhaps it is best to understand it as unconscious performance art.

Groan.  However there is nothing in either the OP or the linked article that suggests that the woman was unaware of her surroundings, just that she was not competent to legally give consent.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2014, 12:59:44 PM »

I don't really follow much of the above very well, but suffice it to say, I personally would have no problem with the idea that I can agree in advance while sentient to give consent to my spouse to have sex with me while demented assuming medical science supports the idea that it will not be doing affirmative harm to me while in the demented state. It is similar to the notion really that I can execute a living will, stating I want to be offed in I descend into a vegetative state (to the extent otherwise legally permissible). 

Maybe I would too, but two gay men's opinions does not make it right.

I'll try to be clearer. The first big problem I have is the comparison with a living will. Then you can argue that, because we allow that kind of legal solution for ending one's life, we can allow that solution for everything with lower stakes than ending one's life. But I disagree, because signing away my life and signing away my ability to consent involve two different rights.

Signing away my life affirms a right to the body (not a lawyer, but this should correspond to something legal). Signing away my ability to consent does not affirm any right to the body. Instead, it involves a right of surrendering my body to someone who wants to use me. I doubt many people believe this right exists, and would be outraged if someone used it to justify assault or rape.

Of course you can oppose that interpretation and say that oversight exists, through medical instruments that can test whether the incompetent person is in pain. But you cannot say the only reason we have to refuse consent is when we are in pain. We can refuse consent when we expect that having sex will lead to negative consequences. I believe we cannot come to agreement about how these expectations ought to be measured, so this oversight is ineffective.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2014, 03:34:22 PM »

I don't really follow much of the above very well, but suffice it to say, I personally would have no problem with the idea that I can agree in advance while sentient to give consent to my spouse to have sex with me while demented assuming medical science supports the idea that it will not be doing affirmative harm to me while in the demented state. It is similar to the notion really that I can execute a living will, stating I want to be offed in I descend into a vegetative state (to the extent otherwise legally permissible).  

Maybe I would too, but two gay men's opinions does not make it right.

I'll try to be clearer. The first big problem I have is the comparison with a living will. Then you can argue that, because we allow that kind of legal solution for ending one's life, we can allow that solution for everything with lower stakes than ending one's life. But I disagree, because signing away my life and signing away my ability to consent involve two different rights.

Signing away my life affirms a right to the body (not a lawyer, but this should correspond to something legal). Signing away my ability to consent does not affirm any right to the body. Instead, it involves a right of surrendering my body to someone who wants to use me. I doubt many people believe this right exists, and would be outraged if someone used it to justify assault or rape.

Of course you can oppose that interpretation and say that oversight exists, through medical instruments that can test whether the incompetent person is in pain. But you cannot say the only reason we have to refuse consent is when we are in pain. We can refuse consent when we expect that having sex will lead to negative consequences. I believe we cannot come to agreement about how these expectations ought to be measured, so this oversight is ineffective.


That is all fine, but the weight you put on the horrors of signing away one's consent to sex in this context, such that one simply should not have the right to do that, even with one's spouse, is way in excess of mine. It does not bother me at all, actually. Frankly, once I am demented, the least I can do is still offer some pleasure to someone. Of course, in my case, if I know I am going the demented route, I will commit suicide, thus mooting the issue, but I digress.  Anyway, the weight you put on the giving up of consent in this case, to me (and I don't mean this personally), is nanny statism gone wild. If I were a juror, and a case like this came up for rape, involving one's demented spouse, with a document giving advance consent while the spouse were sentient, I would take great pleasure in engaging in jury nullification, and be pleased to brag about it, and tell the prosecutor to his face that he was an ahole.

Have a good one, Foucaulf.  Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 12 queries.