@hawkeye10,
Quote:The people were never told the truth about the extent and purposes of the sexual assault reform laws, we have never really had our say,,,
The public is constantly educated and reminded about the content of the sexual assault laws--in rape education campaigns, in public school sex-ed classes, in the posting of the state sexual assault laws on every college and university Web site, and in the coverage of sexual assault trials in newspapers and television and the internet. And, the purpose of sexual assault laws is to deter and punish the types of sexual assaults described in the state laws.
Your repeated assertion that the public is unaware of the content and purpose of the laws is absurd, as is your statement, "we have never really had our say" in the passage of those sexual assault laws. When duly elected representatives in state legislatures write and pass laws, after allowing public debate on the legislation, that is "the people" having their say in the matter--no state laws pertaining to sexual assaults come into being in a clandestine fashion--these things are done in a very public, and democratic, and open way.
You don't like the state sexual assault laws because they conflict with your own sexual motivations and sexual preferences and sexual behaviors--and you've made that abundantly clear. Laws prohibiting forcible violent sexual assaults against an unwilling person have been around for a very long time. If that is your preferred mode of sexual contact, you are being "disadvantaged" by such laws, and it would help to explain your perception that they are "unfair". Well, such laws might be unfair to you, but they help to protect the rights of others not to be subjected to your unwanted behaviors.
Quote: jury nullification of bad laws has a long tradition in America and an honorable one... making sure that we do our part to stop injustice as we sit on juries is our duty. It kinds looks like two cops got cleared of sex charges in just this way recently.
Where are juries nullifying laws that pertain to forcible violent sexual assaults? Who, beside you, and probably a lot of convicted sex offenders, is objecting to those laws?
The two NYPD officers were found not guilty of rape because the case lacked DNA evidence, and the woman's recollection of events was spotty, so the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. But the officers were found guilty of departmental misconduct, and they were immediately kicked off the police force. No one, including the jury that decided the case, thought that there was anything wrong with the sexual assault/rape law under which they were charged. No one including the NYC police commissioner, thought that either the rape charges, or the trial, were unjust or unfair. That you cite this particular case as an example of "jury nullification" or juries stopping the injustice of a "bad law", is such a distortion of reality, that it borders on the bizarre.
You deny the reality of serious, violent felony, sexual assaults because it apparently hits too close to home in terms of your own behavior. So, the charges against DSK are, in your mind, "at best, minor crimes", rather than acts the state regards as so heinous that they can result in a 25 year prison sentence. And DSK's victim, if she's not outright lying, has an "inaccurate perception" because "DSK is flirty and entitled", but he's not an abuser. So, if the hotel maid isn't out to shakedown DSK for money with a fabricated accusation, she's clearly delusional in even believing she was sexually assaulted. In your mind, serious, violent felony, forcible sexual assaults don't even exist if they are committed by white guys, like you and DSK, in nice rooms. Again, your denial goes to such lengths that it borders on the bizarre.
No wonder the French are reeling in shock--a man who might have become the next president of France, might also be a criminal sexual predator, and they've possibly been covering up such behavior, thanks to their privacy laws. So they, and you, Hawkeye, sputter in righteous indignation that we photographed him in handcuffs for a "perp walk"--a "terrible humiliation" for the man--with no words about the terrible humiliation and sense of profound violation that his alleged victim (or victims) might have suffered because of this man's actions.
You have to pretend that DSK is being victimized, that he's the real victim, because the police and D.A. had the gall to act on a credible report of a crime, as well as other evidence of the crime, and went ahead and "unjustly" arrested him and charged him with the crime--and now they are going to put him on trial. Well, if that's not a gross miscarriage of justice, what is, right, Hawkeye? The nerve of them to victimize DSK that way.
It's only "machismo". It's only misunderstood seduction. It was only some groping and a blow job--he didn't kill anyone, what's the big deal, right, Hawkeye? Victim? There is no victim--it's all in her mind, right, Hawkeye? DSK is the real victim, because these are "bad laws", right, Hawkeye? Forcible, violent assaults of unwilling victims are just the way some people express themselves, it's their individuality, and the rights of the individual are paramount, right, Hawkeye?
You overidentify with Strauss-Kahn, Hawkeye. You've told us that you and he are similar. That's why you can understand him. That's why you're defending him with all sorts of rationalizations and denials. That's why you can't acknowledge he might have serious psychological problems regarding his sexuality. That's why you can't acknowledge he might be a criminal sexual predator. It's all about, "There but for the grace of God go I" when you see him doing the "perp walk".