Skip to comments.Citing 19th-century law, Cal. court overturns rape conviction because the victim was not married
Posted on 01/04/2013 7:02:34 PM PST by SMGFan
A California court of appeals said it had no choice but to overturn the conviction of a rapist who entered a sleeping womans bedroom and posed as her boyfriend before having sex with her because the woman is not married.
Morales was originally found guilty of the rape of an unconscious personbut then his conviction was overturned because of an 1972 (sic)law that required the woman to be married for the conviction to hold.
A California appeals court has overturned the rape conviction of a man because the female victim in the crime was not married at the time of the crime.
The Second Appellate District Court in Los Angeles cited an 1872 law that creates a loophole for rapes perpetrated on unmarried women by men pretending to be someone else, The LA Weekly reported, and remanded the case for retrial.
On Feb. 20, 2009, Julio Morales was initially convicted of entering the sleeping victims bedroom shortly after the womans boyfriend had left the apartment she shared with her brother. In the dark room, Morales, a friend of the victims brother, allegedly kissed the woman, who told police she believed the man was her boyfriend.
Upon waking, the victim told police she found Morales having sex with her, screamed, pushed him away, and called her actual boyfriend.
Later picked up by police hiding in nearby bushes, Morales admitted to police that the victim did not know his true identity, he contended that she was awake when they were having sex.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rape-conviction-tossed-victim-single-article-1.1233410#ixzz2H49cqlGR
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Seems vaguely Muslim in some way. Unmarried women? [shrug] fair game.
This case is too complex for the Democrat mind. There’s no GBLT angle to it, and the woman was in a bed ~
So let me guess, somehow if it was the "Justice's" daughter, the fact that she was not married when she was raped would not count?
Is this really part of the California criminal statutes? It kind of hard to believe that this little wrinkle has escaped the notice of California’s army of lawyers for all these years.
Alright, just back off! You’re all being culturally insensitive.
Jerry Brown’s fault. Literally.
Maybe they had a ot of Muslim lawmakers in California in the 1870s?
Insanity. Some of those sitting on that Appellate Court need to be replaced.
Rather, I would suggest that America was (in some ways) a more backward place in the 1870s. Aspects of our culture, and our laws were not necessarily things to be proud of. But America has matured and become a more modern, more civilized place — at least in some ways.
The Muslims, on the other hand, are engaged in honor killing, they execute women who are victims of rape, and in some countries that publicly beat women who “dress provocatively”.
I suggest that Muslim culture is not really in-line with 21st century sensibilities, although it may be similar to mid-19th century sensibilities, or in a worst case scenario, 7th century sensibilities.
Yet another reason why laws should have to be reviewed and reissued every ten years.
I was wondering how she couldn’t immediately tell it was a stranger. I guess she was only half awake. Did he stop immediately once she realized, or what?
The law is inapplicable beccause the legal status of women has changed since 1872. Back then, a woman couldn’t vote, and couldn’t do a lot of business things without being the ward of a man, usually her father or husband. Thus the rape law actually had to do with the rights of the husband over the sexual ownership of his wife, and her status as his legal ward.
Needless to say, those restrictions no longer apply to women, and so this law, which operated in accordance to those restrictions, also cannot apply. If a specific statute is needed, the legalization of women’s right to vote would do, or any other law having to do with the lifting of these restrictions.
This is a purely political ruling by a liberal judge and a defense attorney to continue to promote the concept that women are oppressed in a male-dominated society. It’s an abuse of the judicial seat in order to promulgate a meme lie on behalf of a political party that panders to idiot women.
It’s really kind of a complex issue. A sexual encounter with a married woman by someone posing as her husband is a rape. (261.5 CPC) From a practical aspect, the husband is a specific individual whose identity can be proved, and you can prove the suspect isn’t that individual.
In the case of a suspect who poses as a boyfriend, you have only her word that he’s not her boyfriend, compounded with only her word that the only reason she consented to have sex with him was because he claimed to be her boyfriend. This isn’t a situation where she had sex against her will, which would still be rape, it’s a situation where she willingly had sex with someone who wasn’t who he claimed to be.
Claims that this somehow equates to a belief that unmarried women deserve to be raped completely miss the point. It’s just an act that wasn’t one of the innumerated offenses in the rape statute. A sexual act committed by a duck also isn’t included in the statute.