| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Morton
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Eyeball kid,
Have you ever lived in Scotland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Morton wrote: |
Eyeball kid,
Have you ever lived in Scotland? |
No. But I once went to see Cowdenbeath play East Stirling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morton
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cowdenbeath V East Stirling. Perhaps you can work out where i got my user name from.
I'm sad to say there is a lynch mob mentality in Scotland. Especially in housing schemes/estates.
Being on the sex offenders list is a nightmare in Scotland. Especially if your name and address is printed for everyone to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bibbitybop wrote: |
In the USA, a man was driving a truck when a 14 year old girl walked out in front of him. He slammed the brakes and swerved, barely missing the girl. She just walked on like it didn't happen. He got out of the truck, full of adrenaline, a was trying to talk sense into the girl. She wouldn't listen and kept walking. He grabbed her by the arm and tried to make her realize what happened. He went to court.
In the court, the judge said because he touched the girl, no matter what the situation was and what part of the body he touched, he had to register as a sex offender. The judge said he didn't agree with doing it, but that's the way the law was written in that state.
Now the man who did nothing wrong (he didn't hurt or try to hurt the girl, either) is labeled as a sex offender and even the judge thinks it's wrong.
I heard this from a professor with a law degree in a legal and culture class. |
Come on! Really? The mere act of making any physical contact with a minor during any sort or altercation automatically puts one on a sex offender register? I can't see how that is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mj roach
Joined: 16 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The key piece of information to understanding the courts' decision was unfortunately not mentioned in the newspaper article.
After reading a full transcipt of the proceedings, it is evident that they found him innocent because he was drunk from drinking soju
- the world famous traditional alcohol and they did not want to tarnish the glory of Korean cultural asset #27237475795.
The court further explained that would have shown no leniency had the man been drinking foreigner alcohol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Morton wrote: |
Cowdenbeath V East Stirling. Perhaps you can work out where i got my user name from.
I'm sad to say there is a lynch mob mentality in Scotland. Especially in housing schemes/estates.
Being on the sex offenders list is a nightmare in Scotland. Especially if your name and address is printed for everyone to see. |
But it's rare that that would happen. Unless it's something the press are interested in, it's unlikely most folk would even know your name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lucas_p
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
But it's rare that that would happen. Unless it's something the press are interested in, it's unlikely most folk would even know your name. |
Well, I know I am probably grabbing at the air now, but point is, at least being on the list means you were guilty of such a thing! In this case, this guy can do all the kiddie fondling he wants as long as his alcohol intake is above a certain level!
And yes, I wouldn't have a hard time believing the truck driver story. I told my own crazy story, and someone close to me is also victim of something just as crazy doing with the list. Even if the wrongdoing is found NOT to be a wrongdoing, in many states you will be, and always are on that list. It's nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
beej wrote
| Quote: |
Bollocks. No judge in the US has ever said " Yes you did it, but you were drunk so its ok then."
|
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3801167&page=1
In the US, had he slipped her a few dollars, all would be fine.
Korea and the US are both revolting in many ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rai
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Location: Osaka
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Beej wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| I think it's a little alarmist to judge the destiny of a nation from one incident. This could have happened anywhere. People get away with much worse all the time. Heavens, in the UK, only 5% of rape allegations end in conviction. |
Bollocks. No judge in the US has ever said " Yes you did it, but you were drunk so its ok then." |
Oh really?!
If it happens in Scotland, I'm willing to vouchsafe that it happens in the US: http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=67922007 |
Well, you may be "willing" to make tortured leaps of logic, but don't expect anyone else to buy it. It happens in Scotland so it must also happen in America?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
| http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3801167&page=1 |
the opening paragraphs from this link
| Quote: |
Oct. 31, 2007
A judge in Philadelphia has come under fire for a controversial ruling in which she reduced charges so that a man accused of raping a prostitute at gunpoint faced only robbery charges for "theft of services."
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni earlier this month dismissed rape and sexual assault charges against Dominique Gindraw, who is accused of forcing a prostitute at gunpoint to have sex with him and several other men. Deni left intact charges of armed robbery for theft of services against Gindraw. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
beej wrote
| Quote: |
Bollocks. No judge in the US has ever said " Yes you did it, but you were drunk so its ok then."
|
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3801167&page=1
In the US, had he slipped her a few dollars, all would be fine.
Korea and the US are both revolting in many ways. |
Yes it would have been fine. She is a prostitute. Prostitutes have sex for money. Apples and oranges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| if McDonalds can refuse to serve someone because they're not wearing a shirt, surely a prostitute can refuse service as well, for any reason she likes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
This was Korea's opportunity to set an example for future perverts who do this.
If it was a test, they failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickvaughn
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Location: near Honorary Seoul Drive, Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
In The Salmon of Doubt, Douglas Adams relates the (true) story of a Japanese man who was driving his car one evening when he spun off the road, knocked over a few pedestrians, and smashed into a shop window.
The judge said that because the man was extremely drunk at the time, he didn't have control over his actions, and let him off the hook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalmaegi
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| if McDonalds can refuse to serve someone because they're not wearing a shirt, surely a prostitute can refuse service as well, for any reason she likes |
I agree that sex workers should certainly be able to choose their customers. However, your analogy here is a bit flawed in this particular case. If you read to the bottom of the sex worker article, you'll get to this:
"The accuser testified that she initially agreed to have sex with Gindraw and a friend of his in exchange for money, but that Gindraw refused to pay her..."
...and then, Gindraw apparently pulled a gun and forced her to have sex with other men (presumably those whom she didn't consent to).
But she didn't "refuse service" to the man on trial. He could certainly be considered an accessory to rape if she didn't consent to sex with his other friends, aside from the one she admitted she did consent to.
Anyway, it's a convoluted case all around. Breach of contract most definitely, but the initial consent to sex was there, which makes it complicated. It suddenly became a rape post-coitus when the money didn't change hands? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
