Which carries the higher sentence? I would have thought it would be rape.
This is why you fingerspell those words, if the Deaf person will understand. Deaf People prefer this. They really hate when someone says “rimming” or whatever, and then suddenly every eye in the room is on their interpreter. I have interpreted in court, although never for a sex crime, but I have interpreted some graduate student classes where lots of such words came up-- once it was words for sex acts, another time it was just words for body parts that are usually covered, and the audience was graduate students. Nonetheless, professor says “scrotum,” and every eye is on me.
Also, you don’t have to hold the V-fingers in front of your mouth. You can hold up the fingers, then indicate that you are going to use two fingers on your other hand to represent a tongue. Usually too quick and subtle for the non-signing crowd, but the Deaf person follows just fine.
What is not a defence in claiming to her that what you are doing is to improve her singing voice.
R v Williams (1923) 1 KB 340.
Here’s the question
a) If that really was a “reasonable belief” (and accepted by the court) would they have been compelled to find him innocent?
b) Had he been found innocent of desecration - could they then have recharged him for the rape? Or similar or would that have been double jeopardy? (double jeopardy refers to the same crime offence and lesser included offences right?)
**It’s rape week in law school **
God, I hope this isn’t going to be on the test!
Could one of you legal eagles provide some context here ? Based on the whimsical tone of the posts thus far I am guessing that this is some hoary tradition that only those on the know are aware of, and not the actual criminal offense.
Fun anecdote time… When I was in college, Jason Mewes showed up for a special screening of Clerks and a Q&A afterwards. During the Q&A, Mewes demanded that the sign language interpreter show him the sign for “cunnilingus.” Naturally, he didn’t use the proper medical term.
Snootchie booches!
Well, at least during Rape Week, you don’t have to sit through a made-for-Rape-Week movie called Rapenado.
I’d say that his crim law class is covering the crime of rape, which means reading a lot of old archaic decisions on rape.
I think we had to read Hines v. Garrett in Torts not criminal law.
No, my law school didn’t run to clinical programmes in the first year. 
C-U-N-N-I-L-I-N-G-U-S, really fast. I just tried to see how fast I could spell that, and because of the clusters of letters, it’s actually very easy to spell fast. I would really enjoy spelling that one for Jason Mewes. Who has no right to demand anything from the interpreter. Even if he’s paying her wages, she can say “I’ll show you later.” If someone else is paying, she is free to tell him “No.”
Not familiar with Jason Mewes or the crowd that would go see him, are you?
Mewes is a comedian and he was the guest speaker. Hearing him talk was what the audience came for (and hearing him talk about sex acts is part of his appeal in the film series). It’s exactly what we all paid to see. And the interpreter (who was an old man by the way) thought it was hilarious and gladly showed Mewes the two fingers in between a V sign that you mention above.
Bingo. A couple statutes from different states with different interpretations, a couple of cases highlighting the nuances between those cases, a couple of people with hard line vested interests in promoting their positions, and overall just an uncomfortable topic to discuss especially when broken down int Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Attenuating Circumstances, etc.
Well, I can tell you that if you end up doing any criminal law, it’s not a wasted effort. My first case (still a law student) was public indecency, and involved some things I never thought I would talk about in public, especially in a court room. The first few years out of law school involved a lot of rape cases, including child rape allegations. Conducting voir dire in these cases is tricky. Some of the perpetrators are vile human beings, and some, in my opinion, are unjustly accused. I must say, I don’t miss criminal law.
If a school I went to said it was rape week, I’d come to class with lots of concealed weapons. Scary shit!
I am, which is why I would have enjoyed spelling that for him. I hate when the speaker addresses me directly, which isn’t supposed to happen. Sometimes I can get the message across by playing it really straight. If the speaker says “What’s the sign for cunnilingus?” I interpret it exactly that way. If I’m standing to the speaker’s right, I ask a “person”-cl to my right “sign C-U-N-N-I-L-I-N-G-U-S how ?” Instead of letting the speaker engage me. Deaf people usually find it hilarious.
The interpreter isn’t there for the speaker’s amusement. The interpreter is there to make the lecture, show, whatever, accessible to Deaf people.
So how do you lawyers learn all the aspects of what is rape, what isnt, what needs to be proved, what evidence you need to make a case worth it, she said - he said, etc…?
You start with the basic principles of criminal law, such as the concepts that every offence has certain physical elements (termed the “actus reus”) as well as a mental element (“mens rea”). For an offence to be made out, the accused must have committed all of the physical elements, and must have the mental element.
Then for a specific offence, you turn to the relevant statute. Crimes are defined by statute, which sets out the physical elements for each offence, and the mental element (the latter may be specifically set out for a particular offence, or it may be implicit in the general principles of the criminal law). Each jurisdiction defines its criminal law in its own way, so the specific elements of an offence can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Then, you look at the case law which has interpreted the statutory definition of the particular offence. In some situations, the case law may be more important than the statute, if the statute is ambiguous in some way and the ambiguity has been considered by case law.
In law school, you don’t learn about what leads to a charge being brought, like assessment of the evidence. That kind of practical knowledge is acquired once you’re in practice, after being called to the bar, and comes from working with senior lawyers or attending specialised professional training sessions.
Great explanation, Northern Piper!
pancakes3, your newly-acquired knowledge is requested in this thread: Is this statutory rape?