How credible is an alleged child molester?

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
There are levels of rape and it does influence convictions and sentencing.

sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault. Those are the only 'levels' of conviction as far as I know. Sentencing may be effected by circumstance, but it doesn't change what one is found guilty of typically.

It's been covered. You're flogging a dead horse Karrie.


I was posting to JLM. It didn't become a dead horse until I had to start cross posting to both of you rather than him speak for himself.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
'the problem is....'

Come on JLM, you have to get this.

For sake of argument lets say the law covers the scope of rape (too) broadly. Is there something wrong with that statement? If you were to check in to the vast differences in sentencing, I think you would probably agree. Now tell me what do you think is the proper answer?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,225
14,251
113
Low Earth Orbit
I was posting to JLM. It didn't become a dead horse until I had to start cross posting to both of you rather than him speak for himself.
He's knows what he meant. I know what he meant you seem to refuse what he meant even though you now know what he meant.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault. Those are the only 'levels' of conviction as far as I know. Sentencing may be effected by circumstance, but it doesn't change what one is found guilty of typically.




I was posting to JLM. It didn't become a dead horse until I had to start cross posting to both of you rather than him speak for himself.

I thought I spoke for myself in post # 12. -:)

F**K it Petros, I'm going to bed. Got some tiling to do in the morning! -:)
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
For sake of argument lets say the law covers the scope of rape (too) broadly. Is there something wrong with that statement? If you were to check in to the vast differences in sentencing, I think you would probably agree. Now tell me what do you think is the proper answer?

I think that if my husband ever 'takes what he wants', the very implication is that it is not consensual, and the idea that you would excuse it and imply that the law should not cover it, is repugnant.

I stated earlier I think the fact that rape by someone you trust is viewed as less heinous than rape by a stranger, is flawed, and I think the differences in sentencing are at least partially accounted for by that disparity.

Now, feel free to explain if I've misread you, but, your refusal to, and your defensiveness regarding it, imply I've hit the nail on the head.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,225
14,251
113
Low Earth Orbit
Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another. It is one of three categories of “mens rea,” the basis for the establishment of guilt in a criminal case. There are multiple shades of criminal intent that may be applied in situations ranging from outright premeditation to spontaneous action.

It is possible to establish criminal intent even when a crime is not premeditated. Individuals who commit a crime spontaneously may still understand that their actions will cause harm to another party and contravene existing criminal law. In other words, an individual that takes or withholds action with the knowledge that such behavior will lead to the commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent.

Criminal Intent: What You Should Know

While criminal intent is a necessary component of mens rea in virtually every modern legal system, its particulars may vary between jurisdictions. There often exists a distinction between “basic intent” and “specific intent.”

Since it requires a lighter burden of proof, the former is used more often to establish criminal intent. For instance, an individual who strikes a pedestrian crossing the street in a marked crosswalk can be said to have exhibited “basic intent” whether or not they intended to cause the pedestrian harm. There are two reasons for this. First, the driver may have ignored state and local law requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Absent such laws, the driver either failed to pay close attention to the road ahead or assumed that the pedestrian would be able to avoid their oncoming vehicle. In either case, the driver abdicated their legal responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of others on the road.

“Specific intent” is invoked less frequently and often applies to cases in which the accused intends to commit a crime but has not yet done so. It may be used to justify preventive detentions associated with terrorism, treason or sabotage. For instance, an individual who has communicated his intent to assassinate an official may be judged to exhibit specific intent on the basis of his or her pronouncements.

Criminal intent may be further categorized as either “direct” or “oblique.” Defined as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome, the former may be used to prove premeditation. For instance, an individual who purchases a firearm and uses it in a mugging exhibits direct intent to threaten another with deadly force.

By contrast, “oblique” intent may be used to establish guilt in cases that involve unintended consequences. An individual who undertakes a specific action with the knowledge that it may cause certain consequences can be said to have oblique intent. For instance, an individual who injures someones by firing a gun into the air near a crowd may be held responsible for that injury despite a lack of direct intent to cause harm.


Law Dictionary: What is CRIMINAL INTENT? definition of CRIMINAL INTENT (Black's Law Dictionary)
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I think that if my husband ever 'takes what he wants', the very implication is that it is not consensual, and the idea that you would excuse it and imply that the law should not cover it, is repugnant.

I stated earlier I think the fact that rape by someone you trust is viewed as less heinous than rape by a stranger, is flawed, and I think the differences in sentencing are at least partially accounted for by that disparity.

Now, feel free to explain if I've misread you, but, your refusal to, and your defensiveness regarding it, imply I've hit the nail on the head.

Every thing I say is quite easily understood at face value, there is no need to be trying to figure out what I mean. What I say is what I mean. Now, I'm going to make one final statement on the matter and that is the end of it. You don't want to discuss, you just want to ram your ideas down other people's throats. Now here is my final statement. "As far as the courts are concerned the offense of rape and related charges such as assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment etc. covers a broad spectrum, none of which is good"