strict with sexual offenders in Manitoba

[Scotty]

But let's face facts, if she's wearing a tube top and high heels and talks about going swimming you KNOW she wants it! No need to listen to anything else she has to say - although, if you don't, you could be considered 'inconsiderate', and be grounded for a while.

Soooo... everyone still against electing judges for fear we'll get some who care what ordinary people think of their rulings?

[BubberMiley]

It's these Liberal-appointed judges that coddle the criminals!...

Oh wait...Harper appointed him.

[Smallc]

But let's face facts, if she's wearing a tube top and high heels and talks about going swimming you KNOW she wants it! No need to listen to anything else she has to say - although, if you don't, you could be considered 'inconsiderate', and be grounded for a while.

Soooo... everyone still against electing judges for fear we'll get some who care what ordinary people think of their rulings?

So, would you care to continue your selective story? Or does it not play the way you want it to?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Complaint+filed+against+Manitoba+judge+didn+jail+clumsy+Juan/4349860/story.html

[bloodyminded]

But let's face facts, if she's wearing a tube top and high heels and talks about going swimming you KNOW she wants it! No need to listen to anything else she has to say - although, if you don't, you could be considered 'inconsiderate', and be grounded for a while.

Soooo... everyone still against electing judges for fear we'll get some who care what ordinary people think of their rulings?

I think there are enough mouth-breathers among interested voters that this precise same problem would still occur.

[Scotty]

So, would you care to continue your selective story? Or does it not play the way you want it to?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Complaint+filed+against+Manitoba+judge+didn+jail+clumsy+Juan/4349860/story.html

How was my story selective? I was mocking a dumb decision by a judge who clearly has his mindset in some strange land far from the Canadian mainstream. Who appointed him is beside the point unless you can show he was unqualified in some way.

The problem with the system is that just because you know the law, ie, are a lawyer, doesn't mean you have good judgment and can be a good judge. It's evident this guy, while he might well know the law well, doesn't have very good judgment. So it would seem the process by which he was selected and assessed is lacking...

[Smallc]

And how often do decisions like this, which are clearly wrong, made? It doesn't seem that this judge is going to get away with what he said, so I'm really not sure what your point is. The process has already kicked in.

[Molly]

It's a wild stretch, not just a leap but a flight of faith to suggest that election would be an improvement on that selection process.

Short term considerations and knee-jerk reaction to events of the moment is the worst possible basis for selection.

[Hydraboss]

It's a wild stretch, not just a leap but a flight of faith to suggest that election would be an improvement on that selection process.

Short term considerations and knee-jerk reaction to events of the moment is the worst possible basis for selection.

No. Electing someone that has a track record of making decisions that fall in line with what the electorate wish within the confines of the written law should be exactly the criteria for selection. For first-time electoral candidates, they should have a chance to cast judgements, and if they fall short of expectations (or are outright outrageous), then they should be recalled.

[William Ashley]

But let's face facts, if she's wearing a tube top and high heels and talks about going swimming you KNOW she wants it! No need to listen to anything else she has to say - although, if you don't, you could be considered 'inconsiderate', and be grounded for a while.

Soooo... everyone still against electing judges for fear we'll get some who care what ordinary people think of their rulings?

It creates a context for reduced sentencing for rape based on mitigating factors - and while some mitigating factors may exist - I think it is highly wrong to provide a suspended sentence to a rapist - the fact here is that a non consensual woman was raped. If dress makes rape legal then there are a whole lot of women to be raped out there with no jail time in the mix.

Judges need to realize that they rule for "Canadian wide" context. This judge is basically saying that women in Manitoba can't dress skimpy. There are plenty of cultural contexts that don't facilitate rape as "ok" for instance going swimming. Women shouldn't live in fear of rape because of going out somewhere or going to the pool.

Rape is a serious offence, it is a mostly physically insignifigant act, but it is a tremendous cultural offence.

The precendent established does not represent the norm of sentencing to date.

Yada yada.

A womans dress does not make it ok to rape them. It is backward. There are lots of sexy women out there, it doesn't make it ok to rape them because they are sexy - it is backwards logic on the criminality of the act.

Shopping doesn't equate buying.

Edited February 28, 2011 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

If people choose to hang around with women who dress like whores don't be surprised if you catch something. This guy caught a jail sentence.

If this man went to Church and lived a clean wholesome life, this would not have happened. Hopefully he walks with the Lord from now on.

[Molly]

Well that's an interesting variation Hydraboss, but I still disagree.

Election is a 'short attention span', wide pendulum-swing process. Patching on a sub-clause vowing to fix the silliest mistakes later doesn't do anything like enough to prevent making them in the first place.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Molly

[Molly]

The attitude that the victims are guilty seems to be fairly common among our protectors:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/18/officer-to-apologize-for-slut-remark/

A Toronto police officer will send a written apology to students and faculty of Osgoode Hall Law School, after commenting that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like a “slut.”

The incident occurred on Jan. 24, at a campus safety and security forum that featured two members from York University security and two police officers from 31 Division who were available to offer tips.

York University’s newspaper Excalibur reported that the assistant dean of the Juris Doctor program heard the officer say: “I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this,” before offering the offending suggestion.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Molly

[g_bambino]

I think there are enough mouth-breathers among interested voters that this precise same problem would still occur.

Likely more often.

We don't need politician judges.

[Scotty]

Another take on the judge's decision now that transcripts are out.

If you read the ruling, all 88 pages of it, it provides a much more complex perspective. You may still not agree with the Judge’s decision to award Mr. Rhodes a conditional sentence—although, the Judge points out that for sexual assault cases such orders are “not infrequently utilized” (or at least they weren’t until the government began outlawing conditional sentences, which happened after this incident). But you will find a stunning disconnect between assumptions the media took for granted, and the reality of the case.

Distortions of the Dewer rape ruling

[Molly]

"Or this: I dont criticize the complainant, the judge said. She was, he said, frightened, and alone, with a large, perhaps loud, overbearing man. Butand this is the one point someone could easily take issue withhe noted there were signals, such as the kissing and handholding that occurred prior to the rape, that Rhodes read the wrong way and was not considerate enough to make sure of what they were saying. The judge explicitly says in his decision, contrary, again, to virtually every media report, that this was not about the manner in which the victim was dress. It was more than that: it was these misunderstood and unexamined signals that were, along with the lack of any sign of intimidation, violence or expressed threat thereof, he believed, relevant and mitigating factors to the case."

She asked him if he was going to kill her.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Molly

[GWiz]

She asked him if he was going to kill her.

That one very relevant sentence says it all...

After THAT the rest of the "findings" by the judge aren't relevant at all...

IMHO

[Scotty]

That one very relevant sentence says it all...

After THAT the rest of the "findings" by the judge aren't relevant at all...

IMHO

Hey, I mocked the judge as much as anyone. But the transcript does tend to show a different story. And the 'she asked him if he was going to kill her' was something the judge himself used in his decision to sweep away the man's defense that she never said no. The judge is looking a lot more intelligent and part of this century in the transcripts than in the original story.