Trump rape allegation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(21-07-2016 03:14 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If you gonna nitpick...

Since this case is not yet ( and it probably never will be ) a legal matter within the criminal justice system , using "victim" as legal status term is inappropriate, this is not a legal matter, at least not yet.
Not to mention that Dom's intended use of the "victim" wasn't as a legal status term, was it?

My objection to Dom's post stands for the exact reasons stated in the link you provided

While“victim” is a legal status that does not have any relationship to a defendant’s guilt or innocence, courts are often hesitant to permit the use of the term “victim” during trial. This hesitancy stems from a concern that the term “victim”conclusively states a crime has occurred; and, therefore, that its use is prejudicial, and violates a defendant’s constitutional due process right to a fair trial.


Also...

When the use of the term “victim” is at issue,
courts tend to distinguish cases in which it is
uncontested that a crime has occurred and only
the identity of the perpetrator is at issue, from
those cases that involve a question of whether a
crime occurred at all.


...even if this case went to court , the use of the term "victim" would be questionable since the main issue would be if the crime was even committed or not. Again, that is from the link you provided.

My objection to Dom's post stands.

The only problem is that my link does present counter arguments showing that opposition to the term of «victim» in such circomstances can be dismissed easily based on the fact that it has no bearing on the status of victims.; that even if the accused would be found not guilty, the status of the victim would not change at all. Since a person is presenting accusation, it's possible to refer to the person as a «victim» in the broad sense of term since an accusation of sexual misconduct is a legal matter. This discussion is about a legal matter which isn't currently in court, but certainly discussed by lawyers.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: Trump rape allegation
You're not truly a politician until you've had a rape or other sexual misconduct allegation. Pretty standard really.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
21-07-2016, 07:49 PM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(21-07-2016 06:53 PM)yakherder Wrote:  You're not truly a politician until you've had a rape or other sexual misconduct allegation. Pretty standard really.

While there seems to be a lot, in the last 6 years only 7 federal politician were involved in sexual misconduct, most of them for cheating on their spouse. My favorite is Eric Massa who admitted to«grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe». Ironically, its also the only one which invilved a non consenting adult. Considering how many normal people cheat on their partners or are culprite of sexual misconducted, it's not so surprising to find a politician be accused of such thing every year or so. It's pretty much inebitable considering their number.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
21-07-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: Trump rape allegation
I haven't heard of any other sexual misconduct allegations against Trump. You'd think there would be more than just one victim...

I'm not buying it. Drinking Beverage

He's been a household name for years. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just doesn't strike me as a sexual predator. With him being a narcissist, I would think there would be too many female subordinates that got a smarmy vibe from him if that were the case.

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 03:57 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(21-07-2016 06:18 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 03:14 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If you gonna nitpick...

Since this case is not yet ( and it probably never will be ) a legal matter within the criminal justice system , using "victim" as legal status term is inappropriate, this is not a legal matter, at least not yet.
Not to mention that Dom's intended use of the "victim" wasn't as a legal status term, was it?

My objection to Dom's post stands for the exact reasons stated in the link you provided

While“victim” is a legal status that does not have any relationship to a defendant’s guilt or innocence, courts are often hesitant to permit the use of the term “victim” during trial. This hesitancy stems from a concern that the term “victim”conclusively states a crime has occurred; and, therefore, that its use is prejudicial, and violates a defendant’s constitutional due process right to a fair trial.


Also...

When the use of the term “victim” is at issue,
courts tend to distinguish cases in which it is
uncontested that a crime has occurred and only
the identity of the perpetrator is at issue, from
those cases that involve a question of whether a
crime occurred at all.


...even if this case went to court , the use of the term "victim" would be questionable since the main issue would be if the crime was even committed or not. Again, that is from the link you provided.

My objection to Dom's post stands.

The only problem is that my link does present counter arguments showing that opposition to the term of «victim» in such circomstances can be dismissed easily based on the fact that it has no bearing on the status of victims.; that even if the accused would be found not guilty, the status of the victim would not change at all. Since a person is presenting accusation, it's possible to refer to the person as a «victim» in the broad sense of term since an accusation of sexual misconduct is a legal matter. This discussion is about a legal matter which isn't currently in court, but certainly discussed by lawyers.

You are missing the point of my argument as well as the point of the article you linked.
You insist on a definition and justification of the term "victim" as a legal status term but you fail to recognize that as such it can only be used in legal matters , which is not the case here , Dom didn`t use it as a legal status term, that is my point.
You pointing out that there is justification for the usage of the term within the justice system has no barring on my argument, woman we are talking about has not reached the victim status within the legal system therefore using the term is at best premature. Using the term outside of the legal system is just showing bias.

You also fail to take into account the fact that courts do make a distinction between cases where it is clear that the crime has been committed and only the guilt of the defendant is in question and the cases like this , where it is undetermined that the crime has been committed at all.

Quote:even if the accused would be found not guilty, the status of the victim would not change at all

This is only true in the case where the victimhood of the plaintiff is uncontested, in that case , the term "victim" is fully justified ,but in cases where plaintiff is yet to prove that he was in fact a victim of a crime this is not so and in that case the term "victim" is not justified , and like I said, and like it says in the article you provided , courts do make that distinction, for some reason you refuse to, even tho it is a matter of common sense, if there was no crime committed there can`t be a victim of said crime.

Read it again

When the use of the term “victim” is at issue,
courts tend to distinguish cases in which it is
uncontested that a crime has occurred and only
the identity of the perpetrator is at issue, from
those cases that involve a question of whether a
crime occurred at all.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:10 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(21-07-2016 05:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 02:47 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Except -- there never will be any trial.... The SOL ran out over 15 years ago.

Depends on the State. In NY there is no statute of limitations for "Rape; Criminal sexual act; Aggravated sexual abuse; Course of sexual conduct against a child."

The alleged event occurred in Florida. 4 years is max for rape.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 09:06 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(21-07-2016 09:00 PM)Nurse Wrote:  [...] Maybe I'm wrong, but he just doesn't strike me as a sexual predator.

Dunno... A 70-year-old bloke married to a woman young enough to be his daughter? Unsure

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
Instead of arguing on the definition of a victim, maybe we should continue arguing whether a car is part of a bomb. I think we still have a bit more mileage in that other thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 09:19 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(22-07-2016 09:06 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 09:00 PM)Nurse Wrote:  [...] Maybe I'm wrong, but he just doesn't strike me as a sexual predator.

Dunno... A 70-year-old bloke married to a woman young enough to be his daughter? Unsure

Svengali and pedophile may be kissing cousins - but they're not synonyms.....

edit to add

Nor are either synonymous with rapist...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(22-07-2016 03:57 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  This is only true in the case where the victimhood of the plaintiff is uncontested, in that case , the term "victim" is fully justified ,but in cases where plaintiff is yet to prove that he was in fact a victim of a crime this is not so and in that case the term "victim" is not justified , and like I said, and like it says in the article you provided , courts do make that distinction, for some reason you refuse to, even tho it is a matter of common sense, if there was no crime committed there can`t be a victim of said crime.

To which I reply with the paragraph bellow.

[i]Once an individual is accused
of a crime, he or she acquires the legal status of
“defendant.” Just as a jury is instructed that the
legal status of “defendant,” cannot be viewed as
evidence of defendant’s guilt, a jury can also be
instructed that the legal status of “victim” cannot
be viewed as evidence of defendant’s guilt. As
shown by the majority of the case law on the
subject, curative instructions are a simple and
effective way of allowing a victim to exercise
his or her rights in the criminal proceedings
while eliminating prejudice to the defendant.
Concealing a victim’s legal status, or making
the use of the term “victim” contingent on the
defendant’s choice of defense, is an improper
and unnecessary way to protect a defendant’s
rights; it trivializes a victim’s role in the criminal
proceedings and inappropriately renders victims’
constitutional and statutory rights dependent
on defendants’ litigation strategy
. In order to
fulfill the purpose of victims’ rights laws, courts
need to permit the use of the term “victim” as
recognition of a victim’s unique and important
position in the criminal justice system.

In other terms, no, denying that crime happen (thus that there was a victim at all) isn't a valid argument, since it infringes on the rights of the victim to be treated fairly. Of course, some jurisdiction do allow defense to use the term alledge victim when a defender's defense rely on denying any crime has been committed. One needs to remember though that this is part of a defense strategy. Considering the fact that the term «alledge victim» is pretty much only used in sexual assault/rape cases and not in cases of murder that might be suicide, robbery, insurrence reclamations, etc. one can legitimetly question such practice to be more akin to victim denying or blamming insteat of a real concern to give a fair treatment to the defender.

PS: In that case, though I would refer to this women as a victim, I don't think Trump is guilty of anything really reprehensible (maybe he made a kind of salacious advance to her at some point, but nothing criminal, far from there). Neither do I think it's a liberal plot to attack him.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: