General Discussion

cbrer

(1,831 posts)

115. OK so I picked a bad example.

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 04:08 PM

Jun 2012

Here's a clue for you.

Adult men giving blowjobs to kids has no accidental nature to it. In an earlier post I stated that those instructions may be more appropriate for a sentencing phase. If one is to believe witness testimony, guilt is real and intent is firmly established.

So the judges directions seem to at best point out the obvious. At worst, open a door for interpretation of mental state. Which has never been a feature of this defense.

There are enough examples of highly publicized trials going haywire. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that this judges instructions creates jury conflict, or simple doubt. To some degree. Reasonable? How the hell could anyone know?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wait! Whut?! Judge's instructions to Sandusky jury (unbelieveable) [View all] Are_grits_groceries Jun 2012 OP

that makes no sense. nt xchrom Jun 2012 #1

Nothing a jury does anymore surprises me. Look at the first OJ trial. Look at the Anthony killing southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #2

The jury was correct in the Anthony case obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #16

Are you talking about Jeff Ashton? Baitball Blogger Jun 2012 #36

You're both right Hugabear Jun 2012 #47

The jury had the option of finding Anthony guilty of a number of lesser charges csziggy Jun 2012 #89

The jury did the correct thing obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #93

Um, re the first OJ trial: Mark Fuhrman, the LAPD cop who coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #22

Speaking as a lawyer, the OJ case was never hifiguy Jun 2012 #26

Thank you for saying that. TheWraith Jun 2012 #81

Listen I am not here to retry the trial. I just saying nothing surprises me any more that people southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #27

I agree 100%. Well said. n/t PCIntern Jun 2012 #30

Don't be daft. WinkyDink Jun 2012 #83

Rape is rape Aerows Jun 2012 #3

What about a 11 year old girl and a gynecologist? AngryAmish Jun 2012 #6

OMG Aerows Jun 2012 #8

Maybe I explained this wrong AngryAmish Jun 2012 #13

We don't go to gynecologists until we reach puberty, after we get our periods, just for clarity. robinlynne Jun 2012 #15

My daughter started at 9 and most in the neighborhood by 10. Lionessa Jun 2012 #25

Whoa really? abelenkpe Jun 2012 #52

I didn't start until 14 Aerows Jun 2012 #79

It is due to body mass. Young girls are heavier, with more body fat LuckyLib Jun 2012 #113

One theory is that it's because of hormones in food. freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #64

Probably food... hunter Jun 2012 #68

Does that mean it is fine and healthy? robinlynne Jun 2012 #84

No. hunter Jun 2012 #88

I've personally known a 10 year old pregnant with her 2nd child Nevernose Jun 2012 #106

You are right. Still he is a big man on campus. I use to respect the head coach thinking southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #33

If Sandusky gets off I'm going to lose all faith in our justice system. Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #55

I lost faith in justice a while back. There really is a 2 tier system in america. If you are rich southernyankeebelle Jun 2012 #69

Jury instructions explain the law to the jury AngryAmish Jun 2012 #4

Instructions = Guidelines KharmaTrain Jun 2012 #23

Or, in Illinois, if you find an honest judge, you can infer that they are a tourist. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #31

That's not right--is that a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" loop hole? MADem Jun 2012 #5

I t kind of makes sense to me. Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2012 #58

Ahhh--yes, I see what you mean! That makes (horrific) sense--sort of like the pervert who lives MADem Jun 2012 #80

WTF vankuria Jun 2012 #7

Yes. Rape often has nothing to do with sexual desire RedCappedBandit Jun 2012 #62

Has the defense actually proven that he didn't act out of sexual desire? sadbear Jun 2012 #9

How could they prove that? Aerows Jun 2012 #10

Yep. sadbear Jun 2012 #12

i think the defense is alleging that he has a disease, some sort of temporary insnity thing. robinlynne Jun 2012 #18

The defense is not required to prove that. former9thward Jun 2012 #63

There is no sexual desire component needed for a rape charge obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #11

Yes there is certainly need to be an intent element to the crime. AngryAmish Jun 2012 #21

Yes, but the intent does not have to be sexual desire obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #29

But..... soccer1 Jun 2012 #103

that is crazy. mercuryblues Jun 2012 #14

Rape is a crime of violence not sexual desire. WTF Judge? Bonhomme Richard Jun 2012 #17

Actually the word rape is also used in statutory cases when one is a minor lunatica Jun 2012 #119

That's an appropriate charge... Whiskeytide Jun 2012 #19

I agree with you, that is indeed unbelievable slackmaster Jun 2012 #20

This is what happens when one relies on tweets by non experts onenote Jun 2012 #24

And the jury members are experts? Are_grits_groceries Jun 2012 #35

assuming you are correct, what is your proposed solution onenote Jun 2012 #37

No. Of course not. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2012 #54

You're going to consider facts instead of tweets? That's going to slow things down. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #44

thank you for that. Whisp Jun 2012 #66

You are correct. Lisa D Jun 2012 #74

IOW calm the fuck down everybody. Really. DevonRex Jun 2012 #75

Exactly. treestar Jun 2012 #108

SINCE WHEN IS RAPE SEXUAL???????????????? DearAbby Jun 2012 #28

Rape, as a legal concept, must be sexual. The intent of rape; however, is almost never sexual SlimJimmy Jun 2012 #32

see post #24 -- these were instructions about the other charges KurtNYC Jun 2012 #109

The judge did this so he can throw out the jury verdict if guilty for not following his rhett o rick Jun 2012 #34

You might try reading post #38. onenote Jun 2012 #59

Here is what the Judge said, according to an article on Pennlive... Spazito Jun 2012 #38

+1 cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #41

But all of that won't fit into a tweet, MineralMan Jun 2012 #112

Yep, they, from what I understand, receive the instructions both orally and in written form... Spazito Jun 2012 #114

We excuse a lot in this country, but child rape is not one of them ecstatic Jun 2012 #39

Do we have any reason to think the tweets are precisely accurate? cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #40

If it's on the Internet, IT MUST BE TRUE! slackmaster Jun 2012 #42

UPDATE!!! TWITTER IS DOWN FOR THE AFTERNOON!!! W@E MAY NEVER KNOW THE TURTH! slackmaster Jun 2012 #43

The jury really must conclude that if he molested the children, it was out of sexual desire. Bake Jun 2012 #45

Nothing surprises me anymore either ... Nifong anyone .... nt littlewolf Jun 2012 #46

It doesn't matter if he robbed your house it only matters if he meant to rob your house perdita9 Jun 2012 #48

Previous posters explained it pretty good. ieoeja Jun 2012 #78

Also, showering with a boy and lathering him up is not a crime... joeybee12 Jun 2012 #49

It's a crime if it's done to wash away evidence of sexual contact. rocktivity Jun 2012 #50

Lathering a boy who is not your son is criminal, IMHO joeybee12 Jun 2012 #51

My five year old can wash himself up just fine - TBF Jun 2012 #67

Sandusky may walk? abelenkpe Jun 2012 #53

He already walked, and he's been nominated to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court! slackmaster Jun 2012 #56

kitteh! :) abelenkpe Jun 2012 #76

does anyone have the FULL context of the statements? Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #57

Post #38 offers more context, if not full context onenote Jun 2012 #60

Rape Is More Than "Poor Judgement", It Is A Violent Crime DallasNE Jun 2012 #61

what the HOLY SHIT?!!!! Whisp Jun 2012 #65

The judge's jury instructions make sense to me........ soccer1 Jun 2012 #70

Yep. This thread's context-free kneejerk outrage. (nt) Posteritatis Jun 2012 #72

WTF? EFerrari Jun 2012 #71

This message was self-deleted by its author Lucy Goosey Jun 2012 #73

They were tweets by people Are_grits_groceries Jun 2012 #77

Maybe this judge is a wee bit simpatico, IYKWIM. WinkyDink Jun 2012 #82

Or maybe he's just stating the law. onenote Jun 2012 #86

Why would a man molest a child except out of a sexual desire for children? Lydia Leftcoast Jun 2012 #85

Please try reading the posts in this thread that put this in context. onenote Jun 2012 #87

Ready for the other shoe to drop - Sandusky's adopted kid just told the media that he was molested LynneSin Jun 2012 #90

Jury is sequestered for deliberations.... soccer1 Jun 2012 #102

If he walks, it won't be because of this. JoeyT Jun 2012 #91

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo a kennedy Jun 2012 #92

I'm certain Sandusky will be found guilty.... soccer1 Jun 2012 #105

I'm assuming that he had a stiff prick while he was in the act of molesting those boys... MrScorpio Jun 2012 #94

Apparently I could shoot someone cbrer Jun 2012 #95

I imagine establishing "intent" is important in any criminal trial....... soccer1 Jun 2012 #96

There are lots of non-intent based criminal laws AngryAmish Jun 2012 #97

Yes, I understand your point.... soccer1 Jun 2012 #99

You mean... cbrer Jun 2012 #100

Perhaps if establishing cbrer Jun 2012 #98

Actually, that is true provided that you are acting in legitimate self-defense as define by law slackmaster Jun 2012 #101

apparently you don't have a clue what your talking about onenote Jun 2012 #111

OK so I picked a bad example. cbrer Jun 2012 #115

Here's a clue for you. You still don't know what you're talking about onenote Jun 2012 #116

You twittered this? cbrer Jun 2012 #117

No. That's where the original story that you were commenting on came from. onenote Jun 2012 #118

That outta bring out the knee jerks. GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #104

jury instructions come from the law treestar Jun 2012 #107

Precisely. And not giving the proper instruction can be reversible error. onenote Jun 2012 #110

Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape. Zoeisright Jun 2012 #120

I disagree... soccer1 Jun 2012 #121