Quote:
Originally Posted by Dottore
Thank you for the first rational response here.
I don't think her consent (or lack of it) is irrelevant when the charge is rape. On the contrary it is extremely relevant for the person charged with the offense.
|
He would not have wanted to have a trial at the time on that charge or issue. Unless her GJ testimony was made of whole cloth, he drugged and raped her. You do realise that if a woman, (or girl, or guy if you swing that way), says "no" and you force yourself on them sexually, it's rape. Right? I'm talking legally here, so skip the obfuscation that I'm just a "sanctimonious burgher" who does not benefit from your more sophisticated worldview.
All issues of criminal law have some moral or value judgement attached to them or why else would we as a society choose to proscribe them? Why not just allow murder, rape or swindling old people out of their life savings. Bunch of sanctimonious burghers...
He could have withdrawn his plea and had a trial if they were not willing to make the deal that had been discussed. Not sure how familiar you are with the legal system in the U.S. but he and his attorney did not have any legally binding agreement for a certain disposition to the case, only a suggestion from prosecutors as to a particular sentence if he pled guilty to a certain charge.
I think that even his close friends know that he's a sick fk and that he forced himself on that little girl, (which is rape in this country), they just do not want to see him rot in prison. He has led an extremely privileged life in the years since 1977 and if there is any injustice in this case, it was his flight.
All of your claims of "kangaroo courts" and corrupt legal systems are a waste of breath, he was entitled to a trial. he probably would have benefited from the young victim's unwillingness to relive that day on the witness stand and been sprung-free.