2
   

GROSSLY inappropriate judicial behavior...

 
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:24 pm
I can't imagine what the hell could have been going through his mind when he said this. This is, ladies and gents, the same judge that played the part of the sentencing judge in "monster" the movie about the floridian serial killer female killer.

Quote:
SANFORD -- Circuit Judge Gene Stephenson on Thursday publicly apologized for insulting comments he made about a rape victim and removed himself from the case.

"The remarks were inappropriate. It's something I've never done before and won't do again," Stephenson said.

"I would just ask that she accept my apology. If she could find it in her heart to accept it, I'd appreciate it," the judge said

During proceedings in the rape case Monday before the prosecutor and defense attorney, Stephenson looked at a photograph of the battered victim and said, "Why would he want to rape her? She doesn't look like a day at the beach," according to a transcript reviewed by the Orlando Sentinel.

The victim was not in the courtroom at the time.

Stephenson, 70, said he didn't remember making the comment, but he acknowledged the transcript and said he thinks he probably did utter those words.

The victim, a 57-year-old woman, was not present for the apology. On Wednesday, she said she was shocked by the judge's remark.

On Thursday, the state attorney's office asked the judge to disqualify himself from the case.

Stephenson made the comment Monday shortly before Brian Huffman, 27, of Winter Park pleaded guilty to raping, kidnapping, beating and robbing the victim at about midnight New Year's Eve 2002.

Assistant State Attorney Stacey Salmons made no plea offer and wanted the case to go to trial.

Stephenson, though, offered the defendant 21 years in prison, followed by two years of house arrest and then 15 years probation if he pleaded guilty as charged.

Huffman did and confessed to the crime.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,414 • Replies: 69
No top replies

 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:29 pm
"On Thursday, the state attorney's office asked the judge to disqualify himself from the case."

He should disqualify himself from the human race.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:29 pm
I guess even judges can be first class jerkoffs at times.

To his credit, he made an apology.

My opinion, though, is he ought to find a different job.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:31 pm
I think he should be required to find a new job.

Not because of what he said but simply because he said he couldn't remember saying it.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:32 pm
Just proves that there are still MANY people (men?) out there who think rape is some sort of lust-filled act and not one of terror, control and humiliation of the victim.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:33 pm
Aren't state judges elected?
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:33 pm
I hope she has the good sense to sue that judge for slander.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:36 pm
I don't think lust and control are mutually exclusive.

Frankly I think the whole "it's not about sex" line to be overblown. It would read more honestly to say "it's not just about sex".

It is sex. Even if we don't like to think that it is.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 01:52 pm
It is the sexual act, but I beg to differ on saying it is sex. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 02:03 pm
How is a sexual act not sex? I can understand not wanting to have rape classified in a way that shares a relationship (even if only a semantical one) with a tender act but I think it equally important to recognize that it is does in fact share a relationship.

I think we like to paint rapists as base creatures and do not wish to recognize that the source of base instincts is not foreign to humans.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 02:08 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
How is a sexual act not sex? I can understand not wanting to have rape classified in a way that shares a relationship (even if only a semantical one) with a tender act but I think it equally important to recognize that it is does in fact share a relationship.

I think we like to paint rapists as base creatures and do not wish to recognize that the source of base instincts is not foreign to humans.


Particularly to male humans.

I have been of a mindset that agrees with Craven's thoughts here.

As much as I enjoy sex -- I see it as something that often is abused -- not only by rape, but often by a lot of violence that stops short of rape.

Sex is a motivator -- although control, domination, and plain violence are huge ingredients.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 02:13 pm
Yes, particularly to male humans. That's a can of worms I hadn't intended to open up though.

Frank seems to understand my point pefectly. Sex itself is a base instinct that has both positive and negative manifestations. Trying to paint all the negative manifestations as not sexual in nature will ignore the fact that sexual abuses can have less blatant manifestations and it will partially ignore the cause.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 03:28 pm
I agree with Craven and Frank, to a point. The prime motivator of rape is control, domination and humiliation, with sex as the vehicle.

Personally, I think that the judge needs to retire. I also hope that the raped woman sues the pants off him. What an insensitive dog!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 03:33 pm
How is sex a "base" instinct, Craven? Not sure of your definition of base here - do you mean basic? I see sex, as an instinct, as neither base, nor ...er...what, elevated, I guess (lol) - just as an instinct. It is what we do with it that makes the difference.

(Obviously.)

My guess is the judge forgot he was in open court - thought it was a totally informal process - and spoke as he would informally with colleagues.

At various times in my life I have spent a lot of time with senior lawyers and members of the judiciary - and I was absolutely horrifed by the beliefs and language of a significant number of them - eg a man who is now a supreme court judge, who once specialised in defending rapists and child abusers, who was defending a multiple rapist - he said he didn't see what the fuss was about, the man had either given 16 women the time of their lives, or a couple of minutes of discomfort.

Thing is, they are very powerful and shielded people - who often develop a particular hardened mentality and humour, as do others "in the trenches" as it were. Criminal law means being immersed in horror stories all the time.

Sometimes I think the level of power brings out the worst in them - and then shields them, usually, from reproof. The coarseness and awfulness of their thinking (when it is there) shows itself not just in such comments about sexual matters, either.

Can bring out wonderful things, too, of course.

This is going out on a limb here - but I would add that the "bad" ones seemed to me to be particularly obsessed with sexual power, too - perhaps just a feature of power in organisms? Ie powerful males usually get to mate more? Dunno...
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 04:08 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Sex is a motivator -- although control, domination, and plain violence are huge ingredients.


Was the above comment in regard to rape? If so, I strongly disagree. The motivator is not sex but power. I had seen a comment earlier in a different forum regarding different types (or degrees) of rape. I do agree with that one. But if you consider a violent criminal who assualts women sexually, then think of why this type of man would rape. Is it for sex? No. By instilling fear, by provoking pleading, by making his victim helpless he gains power over her/him. That is the what excites him, not the sexual act itself.

In answer to the difference between sex and the sexual act, I guess I think of it in a more emotional sense. Physically there is no difference. Emotionally I consider sex to be something both parties engage in, in an emotional sense. Whereas the sexual act doesn't require both parties be emotionally engaged.

Have I clarified my position?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 04:11 pm
I presume though that the power excites him sexually...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 04:19 pm
caprice wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Sex is a motivator -- although control, domination, and plain violence are huge ingredients.


Was the above comment in regard to rape? If so, I strongly disagree.


Yes it was; and I understand you do.

Quote:
The motivator is not sex but power.


So why not just beat the hell out of her?

Quote:
I had seen a comment earlier in a different forum regarding different types (or degrees) of rape. I do agree with that one. But if you consider a violent criminal who assualts women sexually, then think of why this type of man would rape. Is it for sex? No.


You are dismissing that component way too cavalierly, in my opinion.

Quote:
By instilling fear, by provoking pleading, by making his victim helpless he gains power over her/him. That is the what excites him, not the sexual act itself.


You seem to want to make a separation that I simply do not see.

If you are correct, why not do all those things without the sex act.


Quote:
Have I clarified my position?


I really do understand your position quite clearly -- but I honestly do not agree with it.

I think it important to mention, however, that I have never raped a woman -- so I am just speculating.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 05:03 pm
dlowan wrote:
I presume though that the power excites him sexually...


Yes, that is what I inferred. The power he believes he has attained through his victim excites him sexually, but it is not the idea of engaging in the sex act itself that excites him. If his victim had no fear, or any of the expected responses, (and when would that ever happen?) I would imagine he would not be sexually stimulated.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 05:13 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
So why not just beat the hell out of her?


I understand this happens in some cases.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You are dismissing that component way too cavalierly, in my opinion.


I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean I am dismissing the sexual component too cavalierly? I'm not saying there is no sexual involvement for the rapist. There obviously is, but the sex act in and of itself is not a key component here. If the power aspect wasn't involved, there would be no reason for this type of rapist to rape.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You seem to want to make a separation that I simply do not see.

If you are correct, why not do all those things without the sex act.


I think my above response (within this message) addresses this comment.

Perhaps I haven't fully clarified my position. It isn't the sexual act in and of itself that the rapist is motivated by, but the power he obtains by forcing this physical act upon an unwilling individual. If it really was primarily about sex, then I would think the judge's comments would hold more validity.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 06:26 pm
dlowan wrote:
How is sex a "base" instinct, Craven? Not sure of your definition of base here - do you mean basic? I see sex, as an instinct, as neither base, nor ...er...what, elevated, I guess (lol) - just as an instinct. It is what we do with it that makes the difference.


Does "primordial" work for you?

caprice wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Sex is a motivator -- although control, domination, and plain violence are huge ingredients.


Was the above comment in regard to rape? If so, I strongly disagree. The motivator is not sex but power.


Says you. I disagree. I also disagree with the supposed mutual exclusivity of the two.

Quote:
Is it for sex? No.


You can repeat this many times. In today's society it's oft repeated.

But you can't prove it. And for good reason.

Quote:
By instilling fear, by provoking pleading, by making his victim helpless he gains power over her/him. That is the what excites him, not the sexual act itself.


You separate the two without demonstrating why it should be. Frank made a good point. If it were just about power or fear it could easily be satisfied without sex.

It would come in the form of threatening phone calls, beatings and such but not rape.

Quote:
In answer to the difference between sex and the sexual act, I guess I think of it in a more emotional sense. Physically there is no difference. Emotionally I consider sex to be something both parties engage in, in an emotional sense. Whereas the sexual act doesn't require both parties be emotionally engaged.


Like I said, there's a desire to separate the two and this desire is unfounded. There's no need to respond to guilt by association. Such is a fallacy and compartmentalizing this makes little sense and is, IMO, very counter productive.

Quote:
It isn't the sexual act in and of itself that the rapist is motivated by


I've yet to hear anyone anywhere assert that.

Quote:
but the power he obtains by forcing this physical act upon an unwilling individual


What we are saying is that this is likely "a" source but that you have no basis upon which to declare that it is "the" source.

Quote:
If it really was primarily about sex, then I would think the judge's comments would hold more validity.


No, even then it wouldn't make sense.

Sexual acts with unattractive people happen all the time. One's unattractiveness has nothing to do with teh possibility of the act.

This does not even address the vastly differing tastes.

The judge's comments were idiotic and fallacious regarless of this issue we are discussing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » GROSSLY inappropriate judicial behavior...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/01/2021 at 08:44:41