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.
"I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case," Johnson said.
The judge was publicly admonished for his comments during a rape trial.
Quote:
The commission found that Johnson's view that a victim must resist to be a real victim of sexual assault was his opinion, not the law. Since 1980, California law doesn't require rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting because of threats.
Quote:
In an apology to the commission, Johnson said his comments were inappropriate. He said his comments were the result of his frustration during an argument with a prosecutor over the defendant's sentence.
Johnson said he believed the prosecutor's request of a 16-year sentence was not authorized by law. Johnson sentenced the rapist to six years instead, saying that's what the case was "worth."
How do these people make it to law school with these backwards ideas?
How do these people make it to law school , (and beyond) with these backwards ideas?
Well, in some cases REPUBLICANS vote them into the Senate.
When idiots like Akin and Santorum make ridiculous misogynist statements the Republicans PUBLICALLY object but privately back those very statements with funding for the candidate...
What makes this worse, in my opinion, is that the Judge was a former prosecutor in Orange County's sex crimes unit. For him to have this idea, that if the woman doesn't resist to the point of injury that it's not "real" rape, while he was charged with prosecuting rapists as his job, brings his prosecutions into question. How vigorously did he prosecute those he didn't think committed "real" rape?
What makes this worse, in my opinion, is that the Judge was a former prosecutor in Orange County's sex crimes unit. For him to have this idea, that if the woman doesn't resist to the point of injury that it's not "real" rape, while he was charged with prosecuting rapists as his job, brings his prosecutions into question. How vigorously did he prosecute those he didn't think committed "real" rape?
Wouldn't that also bring doubts about how he views women in general, how he "judges" them in other cases?
And how many other judges have distorted views of women???
Pretty scary and certainly not equal.
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.
Why?
