Comments on: Online Legal Reporting Trumps CNN http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Crystal Exposed http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-1673 Crystal Exposed Mon, 26 May 2008 01:17:24 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=441#comment-1673 And then there's a lot to be said for www.crystalshinkle.com And then there’s a lot to be said for http://www.crystalshinkle.com

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-1637 Omar Ha-Redeye Wed, 21 May 2008 01:56:15 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=441#comment-1637 Wow Bonnie, that was quick! Then again, you had the advantage of just living up the street. Thanks for stopping by. Wow Bonnie, that was quick! Then again, you had the advantage of just living up the street.

Thanks for stopping by.

]]> By: Bonnie Dean http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-1636 Bonnie Dean Wed, 21 May 2008 01:48:57 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=441#comment-1636 Hear, hear! If she "was a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday" that means she was 15. Which means she was under the age of consent. Which means she could legally not give her consent. So it was NOT consensual. End of story. Just when I think we've come so far... Hear, hear!

If she “was a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday” that means she was 15. Which means she was under the age of consent. Which means she could legally not give her consent. So it was NOT consensual. End of story.

Just when I think we’ve come so far…

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-1632 Omar Ha-Redeye Tue, 20 May 2008 20:19:26 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=441#comment-1632 I totally agree that it's prudent to avoid the sexist paradigms you refer to Jacob. I totally agree that it’s prudent to avoid the sexist paradigms you refer to Jacob.

]]> By: Jacob Kaufman http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/19/online-legal-reporting-trumps-cnn/comment-page-1/#comment-1626 Jacob Kaufman Mon, 19 May 2008 18:07:05 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=441#comment-1626 First, the "sex encounter[s]" in question were <i>not</i> "consensual". The Florida age of consent is 16. The complainant was 15 at the time of said encounters and thus could not consent. The accused knew the complainant's age. Second, even if this behaviour had occured in a jurisdiction with a lower age of consent I would not describe the relationship as consensual either. The accused would ply the complainant with alcohol and drugs to make her have sex with him. The fact that the complainant said "yes" does not mean she was not sexually assaulted: <blockquote><a herf="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0516081crystal8.html" rel="nofollow">Q</a> You drank and smoked. This and that. He never forced you to have sex. Um it was just the fact that... A I mean there was a few times <b>I was laying there and it did hurt. And I told him, come on stop it hurts.</b> Oh I love you, I love you baby just let me finish, let me finish, let me finish. And I just laid there like... hurry the... get off me.</blockquote> [emphasis added] Does this sound like a consensual "sex encounter"? The quotation with how the case sheet leads off really has no bearing on whether the complainant was actually sexually assaulted. I suspect this quote from the prosecutor sheds some light into his exercising of "prosecutorial discretion": <blockquote>"[Father] really wants this to be prosecuted. I really don't know the reason. <b>He has full knowledge of [Victim's] lifestyle[.]</b>"</blockquote> [emphasis added] Let that quote sink in for a minute. The complainant was <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0516081crystal8.html" rel="nofollow">"sexually active"</a> before the incident. As such, the quote seems to suggest, the prosecutor wondered why it would even matter that she was sexually assaulted. It's not like she was a proverbial quote/unquote "good girl". She drank, partied and had sex so why should the law protect her? Well, the law should protect everyone equally without relying on tired old sexist paradigms like the Madonna/Whore complex. It didn't here. That's the actual "real story". First, the “sex encounter[s]” in question were not “consensual”. The Florida age of consent is 16. The complainant was 15 at the time of said encounters and thus could not consent. The accused knew the complainant’s age.

Second, even if this behaviour had occured in a jurisdiction with a lower age of consent I would not describe the relationship as consensual either. The accused would ply the complainant with alcohol and drugs to make her have sex with him. The fact that the complainant said “yes” does not mean she was not sexually assaulted:

Q You drank and smoked. This and that. He never forced you to have sex. Um it was just the fact that…

A I mean there was a few times I was laying there and it did hurt. And I told him, come on stop it hurts. Oh I love you, I love you baby just let me finish, let me finish, let me finish. And I just laid there like… hurry the… get off me.

[emphasis added]

Does this sound like a consensual “sex encounter”?

The quotation with how the case sheet leads off really has no bearing on whether the complainant was actually sexually assaulted. I suspect this quote from the prosecutor sheds some light into his exercising of “prosecutorial discretion”:

“[Father] really wants this to be prosecuted. I really don’t know the reason. He has full knowledge of [Victim's] lifestyle[.]“

[emphasis added]

Let that quote sink in for a minute. The complainant was “sexually active” before the incident. As such, the quote seems to suggest, the prosecutor wondered why it would even matter that she was sexually assaulted. It’s not like she was a proverbial quote/unquote “good girl”. She drank, partied and had sex so why should the law protect her? Well, the law should protect everyone equally without relying on tired old sexist paradigms like the Madonna/Whore complex. It didn’t here. That’s the actual “real story”.

]]>