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.
And it was made in a court of law. The judge allowed the defense attorney's to make that argument, didn't they? Because people should be able to make arguments in a court of law, and judges should be able to consider those arguments. Right?
There are lots of arguments you are not allowed to make in Court. Jury Nullification, Speech or Debate clause information, statements whose prejudicial value outweighs its probative value. etc.
Defendant's conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.
Yes, that's the one.
Quote:
I'd rep you but I have to spread a few around.
Informed, you have more patients than I do.
Thank you.
I find it very odd that a few posters are fighting tooth and nail to excuse criminal acts committed in the U.S. on the basis of religious belief - in this case, Islamic Sharia law.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 11-11-2010 at 07:56 PM..
Absolutely. Rape is against the law here. Marital rape isn't against the law in Morocco, where the man is from. People who come here are expected to obey the law, but sometimes they don't know that the laws are different, and they do break the laws. They deserve to be punished. This man will be punished. Because a separate court, a criminal court, is charged with evaluating his guilt or innocence, and with determining the appropriate punishment. This judge was not charged with this responsibility. This judge was charged with determining if the man posed a continued threat to his estranged wife. It wasn't a question if the man had broken the law or not. It was a question about risk. And part of that evaluation is looking at the situation when the man is accused of having committed the crime, and determining if that situation has changed. If the man's intentions were to always comply with the law, and he broke the law because he did not know the law, then does he intend to comply with the law now? If the answer is yes, then that impacts whether a restraining order should be imposed or not.
Nice fairy tale rationalization, but that's not what the judge ruled. This is:
Quote:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he 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.
...and in ruling such, found that the man's acts were culturally acceptable based on his belief (Islamic Sharia law) and thus not actionable.
The Appeals Court Judges promptly condemned and reversed the judge's decision.
Culturally acceptable according to.....Moroccan law? The man and his wife were both from Morocco. Not everyone in Morocco is Islamic. And yet the law in that country does not recognize that a man can rape his wife.
You must really be desperate. You're reading things into the case that aren't there. Read the Appeals Court decision and stop grasping at imaginary straws.
I find it very odd that a few posters are fighting tooth and nail to excuse criminal acts committed in the U.S. on the basis of religious belief - in this case, Islamic Sharia law.
I find it very odd that you would take something as simple as a restraining order case and blow it way over the top and use that as your rational for Sharia creeping in. It most certainly is not. Judge Charles didn't find any future threat. And if you had read more than the one paragraph you would see that.
Depending on the scale of it, that law is quite unconstitutional. Of course criminal courts wouldn't consider Shariah law(In which case the only valid argument for the proposal is a strawman as no one has seriously suggested that) but I don't see how this could constitutionally apply to civil cases. If two parties decide to make a contract that adheres to the rules of Shariah and doesn't conflict with Oklahoma law, who's to say they can't?
But I do have to lol @ banning something that doesn't even have a remote possibility of coming to fruition. It's right up there with banning human cloning, a science which doesn't even exist yet.
Well, ya know, that's just Oklahoma. We'll vote to not spend a damned dime on improving education, or even bringing our educatinal expendutures in line with all FIVE of our boder states. But by God! we'll spend money to legally fight for a law on to remain on the books to protect us from something that hasn't yet existed.
Oklahoma, what did you expect from a state that votes in idiots like Inhofe over and over and over?
We have the #1 rate of incarceration for women in the entire U.S. and we are in the top 10 for teen birth rates. LMFAO, yes, by God right here in the buckle of the bible belt.
btw, I voted no on that state question. Guess I'm in that 30% group.
I find it very odd that you would take something as simple as a restraining order case and blow it way over the top and use that as your rational for Sharia creeping in.
I'm blowing it way over the top? Apparently you didn't read the Appellate Court decision, either.
The Appellate Court Judges are much more condemning of the judge's decision than I am.
You do understand that there is a difference between intending to cross the street, and intending to jaywalk?
The family court judge, who has NO role in the criminal proceedings against this man, only said that the man had no CRIMINAL intent when he attacked his wife. Not that he didn't intend to attack his wife, but that he didn't intend to break the law when he attacked her. After he got arrested, do you think he was made aware that his attack on his wife was against the law? If yes, do you think the man wants to get into more trouble by breaking the law again? If no, then if you were a judge, would you think he still posed a threat to his estranged wife?
Can a court of law prove a person's intent to do something?
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.
