Does religion cause or prevent crime?

[The_Doc_Man]

It is perhaps a matter of degree rather than kind, but a man who is really drunk cannot perform because his blood pressure will be too low to support an erection. As a matter of fact, I was a juror on a trial where that exact topic came up and was relevant to the difference between charging a guy with ra** and charging him with attempted ra**. (The difference in Louisiana law is whether penetration actually occurred.) Intent leads to the attempt; sobriety permits the act itself.

 

[Jon]

and was relevant to the difference between charging a guy with ra** and charging him with attempted ra**.

So he would still have been charged with attempted ra** if he was really drunk? It seems that amounts to the same thing, that the man's brain is able to consent but the woman's can't.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Jon, I can only report that Louisiana state law differentiates between the attempt and the successful attempt. But then, a lot of states in the USA make the same kind of differentiation - attempted robbery vs. robbery, attempted murder vs. murder ... so it isn't particularly uncommon to find yet another crime where intent is a crime and success in that intent is a different crime. At least they aren't counted as separately chargeable crimes so that they get you for attempt AND success as two charges.

By the way, in that trial we found the guy guilty of attempted forcible ra**. Translation: Use of force via fists and/or feet, but no weapon. "Aggravated" would have included use of a weapon to subdue the victim.

 

[Jon]

So if a woman is blind drunk, has sex, does she have intent, or is she unable to have intent because she is blind drunk? Does the same not apply to the man? Do we not assume that each participant has an equal ability or inability to think straight, considering their drunken stupor? If so, why does the man get charged with ra** while the woman has not committed any offence? Is it because the man's bits go out and the woman's bits go in? What else could it be?

Do all men who marry an alcoholic nymphomaniac end up in prison? Just sayin'!

Just a barrage of questions to consider.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The only solution for a barrage of questions is a barrage of answers, I guess.

The jury for that case didn't have to consider your questions because the woman was sober. Tired from working a 10-hour shift as a bartender, but sober. (Bartenders rarely get drunk because they've seen it too much already.) She seemed to be a nice enough lady, but in all honesty, she was an older woman to whom life had been unkind. If the defendant really wanted to ra** her, he HAD to be drunk out of his mind. Definitely he was suffering from a case of "drink until she looks good."

Based on the district attorney's opening statements, the level of the defendant's intoxication at the time does not govern the charges to be filed. It is his actions that resulted in him being arrested and charged on four charges: Aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated attempted ra**, and aggravated crime against nature. Our jury reduced the "aggravated attempted ra**" to "forcible attempted ra**" and returned "guilty as charged" to the other three charges.

However, in regard to your question about which of the participants is drunk...

If the woman is drunk and the guy isn't, that is "statutory ra**" because she is presumed to be impaired and thus unable to consent. If if there is no actual violent act, her impairment means she didn't have a fair chance to say "NO."

If the man is drunk but can still perform, and the woman is not drunk and seduces him, it is theoretically possible but very unlikely for her to be charged with ra**, which again would be "statutory" because of the inability to provide consent.

For the case that both parties are drunk, I believe that the way the laws were written, it depends on who is the aggressor. If the police cannot identify that one was clearly the aggressor, the odds are that the district attorney will obtain a "no true bill" (USA legalese for saying the grand jury couldn't decide who was to blame so can't assign liability for the crime.) If two people both get stone-blind drunk and still manage to actually DO something (other than fall asleep), the cops will listen to whichever one complains but will probably privately say "Who cares?"

Do all men who marry an alcoholic nymphomaniac end up in prison?

After a while, yes. They go on sabbatical.

 

[Jon]

If the man is drunk but can still perform, and the woman is not drunk and seduces him, it is theoretically possible but very unlikely for her to be charged with ra**, which again would be "statutory" because of the inability to provide consent.

Why not? If he cannot perform, is it also unlikely that she would not be charged with attempted ra**?

it depends on who is the aggressor.

I believe that is not the case in the UK. If two are drunk and have "consensual sex", the man is a rapist even though she couldn't consent, and you would think that neither could he. This is an unequal application of the law but I don't see the feminists complaining that this is inequality between the sexes. One of my favourite hobby horses, as you know!

What about this...a couple are having consensual sex, the woman says stop instantly! But the man can't, because it is physically impossible to do "instantly". You can only do it quickly. Therefore, the man has become a rapist, even though only for an instance. How many years should he get?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm not enough of a "legal eagle" (it's a common USA phrase) to answer that one. "STOP" should always mean "STOP" but there are questions about start/stop situations that would cause many questions within our grand jury deliberations.

To explain to our UK friends, here is the sequence for most jurisdictions in the USA. The cops arrest you and develop/discover evidence/testimony. The district attorney reviews the case. IF the DA thinks there is sufficient evidence, s/he takes it to a Grand Jury. This is some number of people, often 20-25 in number, who vote on whether to return "true bill" (a.k.a. "indictment") or "no true bill" on the charges. The purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. They do not offer opinions on guilt. If the DA gets an indictment, the accused then is taken to trial, usually to face a Petit Jury when it is a criminal case, and the Petit Jury determines whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases).

Therefore, the question about whether the guy in the start/stop case would hope that the grand jury agrees that stopping can't be instantaneous because if they do, it never makes it to trial.

Your other question is a double-negative. If a guy is drunk and gets seduced, the odds are greatest that the woman would not be charged unless the guy presses charges. It is not unheard of, but exceedingly rare for such charges to be filed. Now if she robbed him while he was stoned, that might tip the scales towards filing charges. But most guys would be bragging about this "babe" he met, even if he can't remember squat and is making up the story as he goes along.

 

[Jon]

What percentage of the grand jury do you need for an indictment?

 

[Dick7Access]

The only solution for a barrage of questions is a barrage of answers, I guess.

The jury for that case didn't have to consider your questions because the woman was sober. Tired from working a 10-hour shift as a bartender, but sober. (Bartenders rarely get drunk because they've seen it too much already.) She seemed to be a nice enough lady, but in all honesty, she was an older woman to whom life had been unkind. If the defendant really wanted to ra** her, he HAD to be drunk out of his mind. Definitely he was suffering from a case of "drink until she looks good."

Based on the district attorney's opening statements, the level of the defendant's intoxication at the time does not govern the charges to be filed. It is his actions that resulted in him being arrested and charged on four charges: Aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated attempted ra**, and aggravated crime against nature. Our jury reduced the "aggravated attempted ra**" to "forcible attempted ra**" and returned "guilty as charged" to the other three charges.

However, in regard to your question about which of the participants is drunk...

If the woman is drunk and the guy isn't, that is "statutory ra**" because she is presumed to be impaired and thus unable to consent. If if there is no actual violent act, her impairment means she didn't have a fair chance to say "NO."

If the man is drunk but can still perform, and the woman is not drunk and seduces him, it is theoretically possible but very unlikely for her to be charged with ra**, which again would be "statutory" because of the inability to provide consent.

For the case that both parties are drunk, I believe that the way the laws were written, it depends on who is the aggressor. If the police cannot identify that one was clearly the aggressor, the odds are that the district attorney will obtain a "no true bill" (USA legalese for saying the grand jury couldn't decide who was to blame so can't assign liability for the crime.) If two people both get stone-blind drunk and still manage to actually DO something (other than fall asleep), the cops will listen to whichever one complains but will probably privately say "Who cares?"



After a while, yes. They go on sabbatical.

 

[Dick7Access]

The reason this issue seems complicated it because of a few simple considerations that must first be applied.

One it is because we tend to forget that we are dealing with two separate factors. A legal issue and a moral issue. Trying to merge any two of anything can be difficult. To further complicate matters there are many different standards in the world on what’s moral and what’s legal.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What percentage of the grand jury do you need for an indictment?

I believe this falls under a "state's right" situation with regard to the number of members in the panel, and I think in MOST cases you need at least 12 members of the grand jury to vote to return a "true bill" (indictment). Because the grand jury does not need to be unanimous, this is only the first part of the process. It was frequently but not uniformly the case before, but is the legal requirement now, that the petit jury's vote (guilty or not guilty) MUST be unanimous. A recent US Supreme Court decision did away with "split juries" on most if not all felonies. But I'm not 100% clear on the exact scope of the SCOTUS ruling. I know it ABSOLUTELY must be unanimous on death penalty cases.

 

[Jon]

I was wondering if the percentages operated along similar lines as criminal vs civil cases. Or like in the Senate when you need 2/3rds for impeachment.

 

[CollaTech]

True Religion will not encourage killings and deaths.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

True Islamic religion encourages or even REQUIRES killings and deaths when the accusation is apostasy or blasphemy. There are Biblical mandates for death to infidels as well, and they occur outside of the Pentateuch so apply to Christianity (or at least outside the writings of Judaism). Not to mention God Himself ordering the deaths of the Amalekites and sending bears to tear apart young, irreverent children. If God did it, that is as "true" as religion gets.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I was wondering if the percentages operated along similar lines as criminal vs civil cases.

Convictions in the USA, particularly for felonies, require unanimous verdicts. Further, the standard for criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt." For civil cases, the standard is that the predominant portion of all evidence on the case must point to liability. Having sat on a jury for a civil suit, the questions are whether an injury occurred, whether the defendant was to blame, and whether other circumstances were present to magnify or lessen the defendant's liability. In Louisiana, we were allowed to choose a percentage of liability always as a multiple of 10%. In our case, we found that the actions of the plaintiff strongly contributed to the injury (I.e. she brought it on herself) but that the defendant mishandled her response so had to share some blame. Awarded the plaintiff 30% of what she requested.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@StanHansen, its both. You are correct that folks read what they want into religion, but there are explicit references in the Bible and in the Koran that clearly mandate death for certain infractions that in a more enlightened society wouldn't even count as a misdemeanor.

 

[Isaac]

@StanHansen, its both. You are correct that folks read what they want into religion, but there are explicit references in the Bible and in the Koran that clearly mandate death for certain infractions that in a more enlightened society wouldn't even count as a misdemeanor.

But as I mentioned before, it's a matter of interpretation. Now I admit that if a literal text appears to promote violence, that's a concern--interpretation being at best a shallow-seeming and intangible moat between words and actions. BUT, the various religions have vastly differing track records in the current modern age of how they interpret their original text. The large majority, if not something close to 100%, of modern day Christians seem quite firmly entrenched in a non-violent interpretation of current mandates upon them. I can't say that for all other religions. In my opinion.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Isaac - In the USA, we are enlightened and also slowly stepping away from fundamentalist religion. But in some countries, both Christian and Muslim families still have honor killings based on scriptural standards as the only way to judge that loss of honor.

 

[Isaac]

I'd be interested to see any real solid, believeable documentation about regular Christians performing honor killings in other countries.
Although I will admit there are some African countries that have gone too far with the gay issue - for sure.
I see your point..