mheslep said:
Sorry! said:
The politics forum is where people debate politics. So yeah - I come in here to argue.I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? You seem to imply the FBI (or LAPD?) could just go grab him. The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.
Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Rape is by definition not consentual and statutory rape is a type of rape. A subset. Read the dictionary definition and read the legal definition. Both have been discussed already. Here's more:maverick_starstrider said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape
Yes, she described violent rape, but he pled guilty only to statutory rape.
russ_watters said:
Caveat: there is another reason why people come in here: to make speeches.
I'm not big on making unsolicited speeches, so I'd say even more than 90% of what I do in here is arguing. And the amount of posting I do here ebbs and flows with the climate of the forum. When it drifts off into left field is when I feel compelled to come in and push it back toward the center.
And, of course, some issues I care about more than others. This one disgusts me. I'm not sure I follow you there: how would the US get him here "right now"? The US doesn't have the power to arrest people in other countries except in war. Extradition is a legal process that necessarily involves paperwork before the arrest and hearings and challenges afterwards, before the extradition. It isn't necessarily a simple process.
russ_watters said:
russ_watters said:
If you say so...Sorry! said:
I can't imagine the US would just go snatch someone in a European country. Do you have a link to the incident you are talking about? I've never heard of it.
russ_watters said:
Yeah, I probably heard about that and forgot. Like I said in the previous post: Except in war. Also, though the Italian legal system indicted a bunch of CIA agents over it, they also indicted a bunch of Italian agents and the Italian press calls it a joint operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affairOffice_Shredder said:
To my point, that's a short list and only 3 on that list can be considered common criminals (and only one of those is by the US, by the DEA, from Mexico), the rest are spies or terrorists or otherwise related to war.
russ_watters said:
What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?Count Iblis said:
There are statutes of limitation. California has limitations for all crimes with a penalty less than life imprisonment or capital punishment. When a minor is involved the statute of limitations may be suspended until they are of age though I am not sure if that applies outside of civil cases. The fact that he was convicted may or may not effect the statute of limitations as well. In the end it is really easier to add fleeing sentencing to the charges so that the defense will have a harder time requesting dismissal and a harder time arguing to a jury that the crime is too old to punish him for.pbadss said:
Ability to consent is rather important. The line may not be clear agewise but the law cannot afford to leave it to vagaries.maverick_starstrider said:
Most places have laws that distinguish by age. Federal is apparently 12 and under for sex with a child as opposed to rape.Russ said:
Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'. The law takes a broad view of what is considered violent so that even though a person may not have beat someone and done obvious injury to them during the course of a rape the court may still consider forced penetration an act of violence in and of itself. Unfortunately there will still be the issue of proving that it was forced which is difficult without any evidence of injury. In Polanski's case he apparently qualified under three categories of rape. She was under age, he gave her drugs that reduced her ability to resist or make an informed decision, and he apparently forcibly penetrated her against her will since she said 'no' but she was too intoxicated to put up resistance.Borek said:
lisab said:
For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.Borek said:
The quote in the wiki article is:maverick_starstrider said:
So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.
Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.
One of the criteria for extradition in the treaty I linked is legal compatibility, which means the countries must have legally compatible laws. A notable example where that doesn't exist is with capital punishment, as Office_Shredder noted. Yes, it does happen that with capital punishment cases, negotiations may be made to ensure that the death penalty is not on the table.Count Iblis said:
I think it's perceived as altering the impartiality of the judges/trial process if it means that political and financial considerations come into it.TheStatutoryApe said:
Borek said:
That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.Count Iblis said:
TheStatutoryApe said:
russ_watters said:
Galteeth said:
Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.TheStatutoryApe said:
That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.Tim Lynch said:
russ_watters said:
Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.maverick_starstrider said:
mheslep said:
Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.maverick_starstrider said:
mheslep said:
mheslep said:
mheslep said:
Galteeth said:
I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.Borek said:
I see that this can be the case in some instances but I do not know that this is all that common. I have been to court a few times and saw several plea bargains made as a matter of course, none of which seemed coercive. In fact I received one myself. Had I not I would have gone to jail. Had I been in a civil law court I would have spent what ever amount of time going through the process of being convicted by trial (with out a jury) and then sent to jail.mheslep said:
As already pointed out a plea does not take away your right to a trial by jury. It maintains your right and gives you the option rather than foisting your rights upon you. There may be room for abuse which could lead to a person being tricked into giving up their right to a trial by jury but there is room for abuse in any system and the occasional abuse does not constitute "elimination of the right to a trial by jury". Its like saying that since some police officers beat suspects with their baton police carrying batons is an elimination of the right of suspects to not be beaten.mheslep said:
The DA and police use all sorts of methods to coerce and intimidate suspects. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?mheslep said: