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.
The Appellate court was right and the original judge should lose his seat on the bench and be disbarred. Rape is rape, whether one is married or not according to the laws of all 50 states.
"Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract." (1) (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701#N _1_ - broken link) In the late 1970's, feminists began efforts to change these laws. Currently, rape of a spouse is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."
The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701 - broken link)
What I want to know is why wasn't this rapist criminally charged?
Because he is a Muslim. If he had any other affiliation he would have being charge.
Where are all the feminist organizations? If he was a white man in the south they would have been all over the case.
The judge wasn't justifying rape. He was determining the level of danger the husband posed to his wife. He was considering that the situation has materially changed. The husband didn't intend to harm his wife, his cultural background led him to a mistaken assumption that he was within his rights. Because of the wife's actions, the husband knows now that he violated his wife grievously. The question the judge was considering was whether the husband posed a danger to his wife now.
I think the judge erred because the husband demonstrated a gross insensitivity to his wife while they were married. He was so steeped culturally in the idea that his wife was property, that even though he now may intellectually recognize how wrong he was, that doesn't mean that his emotions have caught up to the reality. So I think the wife still has reason to fear, and the judge should have recognized that. But the judge did not decide the case due to Sharia law. That was my point.
And I think Americans have a holier-than-thou attitude with regards to our laws on rape. And we don't consider the fact that it wasn't all that long ago that our laws reflected the very same attitude regarding marital rape that we are now criticizing so vehemently. It underscores the idea that laws change as societies change. As has been pointed out in other threads, Sharia law is not uniform, there are several different versions of Sharia law, and we should not automatically think that because a Muslim couple is involved that Sharia law is involved. Just 17 years ago the laws were changed in this country. And yet we still have Christian men in this country who think they can force themselves on their wives.
AND
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Other people on the thread did say so. Even the title implies it.
And I realize that you pointed out about NC in 1993 finally changing its laws. I simply tried to explain more clearly what I was trying to say in response to your question. I'm not pounding that point out TO YOU, I'm pounding that point out to people who post as if Sharia law is in the Stone Ages, and we are so superior. I think it's important that we recognize how recently we've progressed on this issue, and that we still need to make further progress. We don't have the right to be arrogant towards the rest of the world when it comes to marital rape laws.
BTW, it's a surprise that so many "social conservatives" are so anti-sharia given you'd think that they'd be in favor of no abortion, no birth control, no porn, and severe limitations on womens' rights. There might be some economic conservatives who'd favor the Sharia prohibitions of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, and the mandate in Islamic law that orders that all money must have gold or silver backing.
You had to do it didn't you? You had to try and find some association between conservatives and this ass-backwards way of thinking. You must be so proud.
This is a very good point. Islam is a very conservative, classically "right-wing" ideology and it is astounding how much "social conservatives" have values that align with those of Islam.
WRONG!!! No Conservative I know approves of stoning woman to death or raping them because they feel they own them, or honor killings, or arraigned marriages. Ugh sicking and thread about a very serious issues gets dragged in the abyss of crap.
The husband didn't intend to harm his wife, his cultural background led him to a mistaken assumption that he was within his rights. Because of the wife's actions, the husband knows now that he violated his wife grievously.
WHERE did you get this from? Do you know him personally?
Quote:
I think the judge erred because the husband demonstrated a gross insensitivity to his wife while they were married.
Ya think?
Quote:
He was so steeped culturally in the idea that his wife was property, that even though he now may intellectually recognize how wrong he was, that doesn't mean that his emotions have caught up to the reality. So I think the wife still has reason to fear, and the judge should have recognized that. But the judge did not decide the case due to Sharia law. That was my point.
Quote:
Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
So what did the judge decide his case on? Men are stupid?
Quote:
And I think Americans have a holier-than-thou attitude with regards to our laws on rape.
Really? How so? How do Americans have a holier-than-thou attitude with regard to rape laws?
Quote:
And we don't consider the fact that it wasn't all that long ago that our laws reflected the very same attitude regarding marital rape that we are now criticizing so vehemently. It underscores the idea that laws change as societies change.
Which has nothing to do with anything. The laws are already in place.
Quote:
As has been pointed out in other threads, Sharia law is not uniform, there are several different versions of Sharia law, and we should not automatically think that because a Muslim couple is involved that Sharia law is involved. Just 17 years ago the laws were changed in this country. And yet we still have Christian men in this country who think they can force themselves on their wives.
And Christianity is bashed all the time, along with the beliefs (not laws) that go with it. When a convent was to be built in the vicinity of Auschwitz the Catholic church was asked to reconsider. And they did because they had respect for the request. But let's put a mosque/community center right around ground zero in NYC...and say, "no big deal".
What exactly is going on in the UK roysoldboy? you seem to be an expert on the law in my country.
My wife IS a lawyer, and she assures me that Sharia law is NOT recognised in UK courts.
Sharia law is used only in the Islamic community when family & financial matters are concerned.
The Jews have their own Beth Den courts in the US & the UK that deal with family & community matters, but you would'nt know that would you.
Just try to get your facts right for once, do some research, & don't just get it from Fox news.
Is the Sunday Times a good source for you?
Let me just correct you first about Jewish law.
You are not aware of facts either. Jews have Rabanic law that concerned family law, dealing with divorce even in Israel, but and that is what important. If a Jew (even in Israel) do not want to go through Rabanic law, they don't have too.
In any case the Rabbi just give them a religious divorce, they don't interfere with money issues, or in case of abuse of any kind the police is involved. The Rabbi can help with counseling much like a priest would, but it is the choice of the couple whether to use or not.
A woman that her husband abuse her would get a retraining order from a judge through the police. The Rabanic law would have noting to do with it.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Sharia laws prefer the man over the woman. more....
This is the third thread that I know of where this incident has been cited. First of all, I do agree that this judge erred in his reasoning, and the appeals court agreed, so that shows that our judicial system is working. But second, this was a civil matter the judge was ruling on. The rape is being addressed in a separate criminal court. This judge was ruling on the status of the restraining order the woman had against her husband, and so he took into consideration the man's intent. Again, this is a separate matter from the criminal complaint, and was overturned on appeal.
Finally, I think it bears noting that it wasn't until 1993, just 17 years ago, that all fifty states in the United States voided marital exceptions to rape laws. That's just 17 years ago when women finally won recognition in the entire United States that a wife could be raped by her husband. Not even two decades.
So do you offer to wait another 17 years until Sharia law will change too.?
BTW, it's a surprise that so many "social conservatives" are so anti-sharia given you'd think that they'd be in favor of no abortion, no birth control, no porn, and severe limitations on womens' rights. There might be some economic conservatives who'd favor the Sharia prohibitions of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, and the mandate in Islamic law that orders that all money must have gold or silver backing.
it's also surprising how many leftist liberals go out of their way to defend muslims and their faith/law.
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.
