Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I already read the wikipedia aregument. You very conventeinlt have used dated infomation, but have left ot the part that...
You seemed to imply that it was not being treated as a crime in all 50 states.. Do I need to quote you again?
What are you talking about?!
I very clearly stated the date of the journal posts, etc when I posted them.
Also, what was going on in the nation on this topic in 2000 is more relevant to a legislative discussion in 2002 as opposed to what is going on in 2014
It's also funny that you quote that one excerpt from Wiki ... but not this one:
Quote:
Although marital rape had become illegal in all states by 1993, in most states there were significant differences between the way marital rape and other forms of rape were treated
This is a topic that was contested frequently between the mid 90s and mid 00s ....... it was in one such circumstance Mr. Black made his remarks
In some states today there are still significant differences
How the states currently handle marital rape is irrelevant though to how Mr. Black argued in 2002 that marital rape shouldn't be prosecuted unless it was under a higher standard than non-spousal rape
The issue at hand was something that would have restricted spousal rape prosecutions by adding a higher standard than that of non-spousal rape.
The wording that was to be added is as follows:
Quote:
"No person shall be found guilty under this subsection unless, at the time of the alleged offense, the spouses were living separate and apart, or the defendant caused bodily injury to the spouse by the use of force or violence."
If you understand that the above is the nature of the discussion and they were looking to add a higher standard just to prosecute and bring marital rapes to trial and that this measure failed then his comments make more sense under that context
He's in essance saying how can you convict someone of rape when it's your spouse and there isn't any injury or separation (you know, the two new standards that were trying to be tacked on) - while ignoring the complexity of rape
True but name one case that is convicted based on one victim's testimony alone and there's no other circumstantial evidence at all.
Testimony IS circumstantial evidence. The fact that the husband was at home, concedes that he did have sex with his wife, that's circumstantial evidence.
Just like if a person is mugged in an alley, and identifies the mugger from a picture, and the mugger is arrested and convicted solely on the victim's identification. No witnesses. The wallet was found in the gutter outside the alley with no fingerprints. The cash on the mugger had no usable fingerprints, because money is filthy. The victim's identification, and testimony in court to that effect, along with the mugger's lack of an alibi, are circumstantial evidence which can, and does, lead to a conviction.
I know what you were referring to. The context is clear. You said something stupid, and forgot you said it. Now after I called your bluff, you're trying to save face and wiggle out of it. First you claim you didn't say it, now you said it but in a different context.. lol you are a trip.
Oh, you must be the one tripping.
The context is that you were saying that unless proof could be proffered, that a husband should not be convicted. And I was pointing out that there are crimes that are committed where there is no "proof", but that demanding that there be proof, while knowing that there isn't any proof, is essentially giving the criminal a get-out-of-jail-free card. And you were asking how the two correllated. The two correllate because you are setting an unattainable standard. Hence my remark:
Because you demand that there must be proof, knowing that there is no "proof". There is only her word that she didn't consent. And if your demand for proof is the litmus test, when there is no "proof", then all a husband ever has to say is she consented. And poof, he's free. To rape her again, and again and again.
I'm afraid I've got to abandon this thread. I hope some other liberal assumes my place to take you to task. And in the meantime, enjoy your evening.
I very clearly stated the date of the journal posts, etc when I posted them.
Also, what was going on in the nation on this topic in 2000 is more relevant to a legislative discussion in 2002 as opposed to what is going on in 2014
It's also funny that you quote that one excerpt from Wiki ... but not this one:
This is a topic that was contested frequently between the mid 90s and mid 00s ....... it was in one such circumstance Mr. Black made his remarks
In some states today there are still significant differences
How the states currently handle marital rape is irrelevant though to how Mr. Black argued in 2002 that marital rape shouldn't be prosecuted unless it was under a higher standard than non-spousal rape
The issue at hand was something that would have restricted spousal rape prosecutions by adding a higher standard than that of non-spousal rape.
The wording that was to be added is as follows:
If you understand that the above is the nature of the discussion and they were looking to add a higher standard just to prosecute and bring marital rapes to trial and that this measure failed then his comments make more sense under that context
He's in essance saying how can you convict someone of rape when it's your spouse and there isn't any injury or separation (you know, the two new standards that were trying to be tacked on) - while ignoring the complexity of rape
What went on in the 1990s has very little to do with what were discussing today. We are debating whether a woman's word should be proof enough to convict a man of rape, and to a lesser degree now, if what was said in the video was inappropriate or not.
What world are you living in? Marital rape obviously needs to have a higher burden of proof than than other rapes. I agree with Mr. Black. If you listen to his reasoning for coming to that conclusion, then it makes sense. A man lives with his wife, they sleep in the same bed, they have sex together, there aren't any signs of a struggle, etc. There is only he said she said. Obviously and logically there needs to be a higher burden of proof in these cases vs other cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Laker
How the states currently handle marital rape is irrelevant though to how Mr. Black argued in 2002 that marital rape shouldn't be prosecuted unless it was under a higher standard than non-spousal rape.
I'm glad you said that. So basically he also DOES think marital rape should be prosecuted when theres enough evidence to do so.
Testimony IS circumstantial evidence. The fact that the husband was at home, concedes that he did have sex with his wife, that's circumstantial evidence.
Just like if a person is mugged in an alley, and identifies the mugger from a picture, and the mugger is arrested and convicted solely on the victim's identification. No witnesses. The wallet was found in the gutter outside the alley with no fingerprints. The cash on the mugger had no usable fingerprints, because money is filthy. The victim's identification, and testimony in court to that effect, along with the mugger's lack of an alibi, are circumstantial evidence which can, and does, lead to a conviction.
What you are saying is not going to fly in court. That's your imagination only.
Eyewitness alone is not enough to convict the mugger in your example.
Again, you need to provide an actual case to support your argument.
The context is that you were saying that unless proof could be proffered, that a husband should not be convicted. And I was pointing out that there are crimes that are committed where there is no "proof", but that demanding that there be proof, while knowing that there isn't any proof, is essentially giving the criminal a get-out-of-jail-free card. And you were asking how the two correllated. The two correllate because you are setting an unattainable standard. Hence my remark:
Because you demand that there must be proof, knowing that there is no "proof". There is only her word that she didn't consent. And if your demand for proof is the litmus test, when there is no "proof", then all a husband ever has to say is she consented. And poof, he's free. To rape her again, and again and again.
I'm afraid I've got to abandon this thread. I hope some other liberal assumes my place to take you to task. And in the meantime, enjoy your evening.
Ummm.... that still makes no sense what so ever dude.... NONE and you know it which is why you're leaving. So you want to demand something that you already know doesn't exist to use against a man that's on trail for rape so that he doesn't go free to rape again and again? That makes no sense.
He made his comments in 2002, on the Virginia State Assembly floor, in a debate about repealing the state's ban on prosecuting marital rape. Now that you know the context, would you consider them arguments for or against repealing that ban?
The fact that Virginia specifically banned prosecution of marital rape into the 21st century is just one of those baffling facts I can't comment on without getting kinda mad.
I know when he made his comments. Why can't you give us this alleged quote?
it wasn't a news story, it was a contrived 'gotcha' piece. where it originated is irrelevant.
as to your last sentence, that's only part of the story, and is hardly an invalid point. the other part was equally valid - proving a 'he said/she said' scenario.
That's it, it was a cheap 'gotcha' attempt. They distorted what the guy said by playing up the irrelevant and incidental 'nightie' reference. Yellow journalism at its finest, as nonsenseguy said. And it is all defended by the usual lefty suspects.
Let's consider what the predictable consequences are of not taking into account the issue of false accusation of rape. It's just like the race card. It inflames those falsely accused, and inflames those who buy into the accusations, creating division and hostility. And it dilutes the impact of genuine accusations, creating a 'boy cried wolf' effect.
104+ countries have laws regarding spousal or marital rape because previously a husband's rape of his wife was considered legal. Men were entitled to rape their wives. Society's perception of a wife as a man's property to do with as he pleases has changed, and laws have been changed, primarily in the past four decades, to reflect that change.
And even so, there are many out there who think that because a woman regularly has sexual relations with a man, and especially when that relationship is recognized as a marriage, that a woman cannot deny consent. She sleeps in the same bed, she's wearing a nightie with him, as if these things indicate consent.
While, from a prosecutor's point of view, the relationship might make it more challenging to prove that a woman did not consent, the argument that laws against spousal rape make it easier for women to falsely accuse a man of rape is nonsense. The majority of rapes go unreported. The vast majority of spousal rapes go unreported.
I'd rather our legislators focus on providing women with the legal rights to prosecute rapists, rather than focus on the very few cases of false accusations.
As for the JAG prosecution, it merits applause. Because we all know that the military's prosecution of rape cases in general is a very poor record, indeed.
Providing victims (female or male) with the legal right to prosecute sexual assault cases and addressing fraudulent allegations of sexual assault are not mutually exclusive. My preference is that legislators focus on doing both.
And because there are those that argue that's not enough, most rapists get away with it.
No one is saying that marital rape is acceptable, but going to a lawyer to make a case for it should be last resort. If one has a problem with their spouse, then there are local resources that aid in domestic abuse victims. Courts need evidence to prosecute someone of marital rape. Can it be done? It isn't 1+1, but it may not be easy given how the state defines a marital rape charge, and once taken, it has to be tread carefully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
