Rape Conviction Overturned in L.A.

[FreeFall]

A state appeals court has overturned the rape conviction of a Southern California man whose victim may have mistakenly believed he was her boyfriend - conduct that the court reluctantly concluded is not a crime.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Rape-conviction-overturned-in-L-A-4164988.php#ixzz2Gz6nTQBS


Wait. I can't even follow that logic. Lock your windows and doors guys, that's all I got.

[Noirtier]

Somewhere in the mess of legal jargon, there are laws that actually keep us safe. Maybe. It's all a matter of interpretation. The thing that confuses me though is the article claims that he already served his prison sentence, so what is he trying to get at this point by having another trial? Unless he's hoping to prey on more women. Chalk another mess to clean up for the US court system...

[FreeFall]

Somewhere in the mess of legal jargon, there are laws that actually keep us safe. Maybe. It's all a matter of interpretation. The thing that confuses me though is the article claims that he already served his prison sentence, so what is he trying to get at this point by having another trial? Unless he's hoping to prey on more women. Chalk another mess to clean up for the US court system...
I'm still stuck on trying to figure out if raping people who are in a coma, are asleep and are unwed is somehow legal.

[Jess]

"We reluctantly hold that a person who accomplishes sexual intercourse by impersonating someone other than a married victim's spouse is not guilty of the crime of rape of an unconscious person," said Justice Thomas Willhite in the 3-0 ruling. Because it wasn't clear whether the jury convicted Morales on that basis, the court said, he is entitled to a new trial.

I do not understand how a person who does that is not guilty of rape........:/

[TigerBoy]

So this doesn't even seem to be a case of poor interpretation by the legal team involved in this case. According to that article California actually has a law that says rape is ok if the person is unconscious or asleep and you pretend to be their partner! What the hell kind of messed up system allows something like that to get into law in the first place?!

Seems to me you'd be legally better off just shooting your rapist as an intruder rather than expecting justice as a result of the rape laws.

[FreeFall]

So this doesn't even seem to be a case of poor interpretation by the legal team involved in this case. According to that article California actually has a law that says rape is ok if the person is unconscious or asleep and you pretend to be their partner! What the hell kind of messed up system allows something like that to get into law in the first place?!

Seems to me you'd be legally better off just shooting your rapist as an intruder rather than expecting justice as a result of the rape laws.
You can only pretend to be someone else, as long as it isn't their spouse. Which is the ONLY part I can understand but not accept. Because a spouse brings in legal detail, but you know, anyone else is totally ok.

I could have sworn my country had/has a law where it states an unconscious person is unwilling. Thought that a bunch of doctors and nurses where molesting and raping their comatose patients and people got sick of it and made a way for those to be protected. This seems to go completely against that. Actually, I think it does go against that.

[Jess]

Here's more to this story:

Judge: Law won't protect unmarried victims in rape (http://news.yahoo.com/judge-law-wont-protect-unmarried-victims-rape-012941200.html)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse, ruling that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases.

A panel of judges reversed the trial court's conviction of Julio Morales and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted Wednesday from the Los Angeles-based court.

Morales had been sentenced to three years in state prison. He was accused of entering a woman's bedroom late one night after her boyfriend had gone home and initiating sexual intercourse while she was asleep, after a night of drinking.

The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.

Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors.

"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes," Judge Thomas L. Willhite Jr. wrote in the court's decision.

The appeals court added that prosecutors argued two theories, and it was unclear if the jury convicted Morales because the defendant tricked the victim or because sex with a sleeping person is defined as rape by law.

The court said the case should be retried to ensure the jury's conviction is supported by the latter argument.

The decision also urges the Legislature to examine the law, which was first written in response to cases in England that concluded fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.

Willhite noted that the law has been applied inconsistently over the years in California.

In 2010, a similar law in Idaho prevented an unmarried woman from pressing rape charges after being tricked into sex with a stranger by her then-boyfriend.

The judge called what happened "despicable" but said the state's law left the court with no choice. Idaho's law was amended to cover all women in 2011.

Morales' attorney Edward Schulman declined comment when reached by phone Thursday.

Prior to the conviction, Schulman had argued Morales believed the sex was consensual because the victim responded to his kisses and caresses, according to the decision.

---------------------------------------------

One of the dumbest things ever.......

[Mortal Coil]

This whole thing is sickening. I couldn't even read it all the way through because of PTSD reasons.

[TigerBoy]

This whole thing is sickening. I couldn't even read it all the way through because of PTSD reasons.

:hug:

Which is exactly why it enrages anyone with an ounce of empathy reading this. It's infuriatingly stupid that such a law hasn't already been investigated and repealed before, and that at the same time the judge admits the law has been applied inconsistently he/she still chooses to apply it in this manner rather than the more just way in which it has evidently been applied previously.

At least this has attracted a lot of attention and hopefully they'll fix what is clearly a problem with the law.

[FreeFall]

This whole thing is sickening. I couldn't even read it all the way through because of PTSD reasons.
Hugs hugs, warm fuzzies and hug to you my friend!

This is sickening and makes NO sense.