Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

We see it here again, you are desperate for a guy to fry

I am not familiar with that case

You're not familiar with the case? I posted it on the previous page of this thread--twice.

We have, the judge should have been able to try him under today's laws and send him away for life.

Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-9.html

Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
A bill of attainder is a law that simply declares, by legislative fiat, that certain people are guilty of a crime and then imposes some kind of punishment upon them. In other words, it's a way for a legislature to act like judge and jury, convicting and punishing people without benefit of trial. Bills of attainder used to be used occasionally by the British Parliament; the American Founding Fathers viewed them as terrible violations of liberty and banned them from the United States.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively criminalizes a certain act after it has already been committed. In other words, it would allow a person to be prosecuted for doing something that wasn't actually illegal yet at the time they did it. The framers of the Constitution viewed ex post facto laws, like bills of attainder, as blatant abuses of power and banned them.

Disgraced celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been jailed for a total of eight years for a string of indecent assaults against girls and young women.

On Monday the 71-year-old became the first person to be convicted under Operation Yewtree.

Sentencing the PR man, Judge Anthony Leonard said he had groomed and degraded his victims.

Mr Leonard ruled that Clifford should serve his eight sentences of between six and 24 months consecutively.

He said that Clifford - whose lawyer later said an appeal was being considered - should serve at least half his total sentence in jail.

The judge said some of the offences would be charged as rape if they had happened today...

'Nobody is immune'

Speaking after the sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said Clifford "thought he was able to abuse his position of power".

"People think they can be immune somehow because of the positions they are in. And there is a very clear message here. Nobody is immune, nobody is above the law and it doesn't matter when things happened, we will prosecute when we have the evidence to do so."

Children's charity the NSPCC tweeted: "Max Clifford thought no-one would believe his victims. He was wrong. This sentence proves victims of non-recent abuse can get justice."

Director Peter Watt added: "It's clear the judge has recognised the pain and suffering Clifford caused and the additional distress he put his victims through by forcing them to relive their ordeal in court."

Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive at Victim Support, said: "This prison term reflects the impact the crimes Max Clifford committed has on his victims and the courage they showed in finding the strength to give evidence against him.

"We should not forget it was the compelling testimony of the women Clifford abused many years ago which convicted him even as he tried to claim they were liars and fantasists."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27259318

Editorial: Judge wrong to blame victim in Booker T. Washington rape case

We thought the judicial system had evolved beyond the point of blaming the victim, minimizing the act of a confessed rapist and casting an unwarranted cloud of shame on a sexually violated 14-year-old. Apparently, we were wrong.

State District Judge Jeanine Howard last week stunned us with a commentary right out of the Stone Age, describing the 14-year-old as not “the victim she claimed to be.” This despite testimony from the victim and the convicted rapist, Sir Young, then 18 and a fellow student at Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, that he forced her to have sex even after she repeatedly said “no” and “stop.”

Since when is it proper for a judge or anyone to vilify a rape victim? What message does Howard’s comment send to others about how they will be treated in court? The answer to the first question is it is never appropriate; the second helps ensure that other rape victims will suffer silently. “It would have been better for me not to say anything,” the girl in this case told The Dallas Morning News.

That’s precisely what must not happen. Rape is a vile physical assault that emotionally scars in ways that can last for years. It should have serious consequences, regardless of whether it involves two underage high school students or two adults. And regardless of other details of a young woman’s life.

But Howard thought otherwise. She gave Young probation and chose not to make him adhere to common restrictions given to sex offenders. Instead, she ordered him to spend 45 days in jail, plus the anniversary of the rape, and complete 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center.

Young had faced up to 20 years in prison but now will not have a conviction on his record if he successfully completes probation.

Howard’s reasoning reflects a troubling blame-the-victim mentality. She noted to the newspaper that the girl had sent a text to Young asking him to spend time with her and had agreed to have sex with him, just not at school. Howard also pointed out that the girl was not a virgin.

Howard recused herself from the case after her comments about the victim. This newspaper agrees with the Dallas County district attorney’s office’s decision to ask the new judge assigned to the case, state District Judge Carter Thompson, to toughen the terms of Young’s probation.

Most likely this will require Young to stay away from children, attend sex offender treatment, undergo a sex offender evaluation and refrain from watching pornography, all standard probation requirements to underscore the severity of the offense, prevent future victims and rehabilitate offenders.

Young deserves this and more.

Two views on rape

“There are rape cases that deserve life. There are rape cases that deserve 20 years. Every now and then you have one of those that deserve probation. This is one of those, and I stand by it.” — State District Judge Jeanine Howard

“I am outraged about the judge’s statements and her conduct. I feel as if the judge blamed the victim, which is never appropriate in sexual assault cases and especially in this one, where the defendant pled guilty. I am relieved the judge recused herself from the case, so the district attorney’s office can move forward and continue fighting for the victim.” — District Attorney Craig Watkins

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20140505-editorial-judge-wrong-to-blame-victim-in-booker-t.-washington-rape-case.ece

“There are rape cases that deserve life. There are rape cases that deserve 20 years. Every now and then you have one of those that deserve probation. This is one of those, and I stand by it.” — State District Judge Jeanine Howard

In a video recorded interview with Dallas police detective Denise Rodriguez that was played in court, Young(perp) initially said that the girl said no at first but then didn’t tell him to stop. But then, he admitted that the girl told him to stop numerous times, including during the sexual assault.

When Rodriguez described what happened and asked if that was rape, Young said, “That’s rape. I hate to have that on my plate. But that’s rape.”

After the rape, the school added a window to the room and cameras at the school, according to testimony.

Young has been charged in a second sexual assault of a classmate, but prosecutor Josh Healy told the judge that the prosecution doesn’t “have enough credible evidence to move forward” at this time.

I'm glad we don't have a statute of limitations so rich powerful criminals can avoid justice.

Quote:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.[8] ”

This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century.[9] It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.[10]

Its critics say Operation Yewtree, which is gathering evidence of all historic sex abuse in the Savile era, is a flawed project that depends on soliciting victims to make allegations. That criticism goes to the heart of how sex abuse is understood. These sceptics dismiss the idea that it is a very particular kind of crime in which humiliation is an integral part. They reject the idea that one of the things it does is to cause victims to lose any sense of their own credibility, which makes it all but impossible for them to imagine being heard. They portray the report on the Savile inquiry, written by the Metropolitan police and the NSPCC and called Giving Victims a Voice, which recognised that the silent victims of abuse needed to be encouraged to come forward, as an exercise in evangelism and an assault on the integrity of the justice system. The evidence that has now convicted Max Clifford gives the lie to that attack.

Thank god the US have a constitution that blocked ex post facto laws.