Didn’t we read earlier that the police dropped the forcible rape charge when they discovered evidence that gave them reason to believe that the accusation was bullshit?
First of all, we can only go on what we know. Second of all, didn’t we read earlier that the police discovered evidence that implied that the woman was full of shit?
The frikking judge delievering the verdict talked about sex and deception. It wasn’t a “well it was really rape but we are just going to call it sex by fraud”
The original accusation by the woman was forcible rape and then I thought the police discovered evidence that this was bullshit and they continued to go after the guy with this bullshit charge.
Hence the charge “rape by deception”.
the premise of your complaint is the justice should be all or nothing. In the real world prosecutors have to go for the best justice they can get.
I don’t see that. All I see is Bricker uncovering new information about the original charge. The description of events is prefaced with the words:“according to her”
We read earlier that the POLICE dropped the forcible rape charge when they uncovered evidence that it was bullshit. Have we discredited that cite?
The guy had a lousy lawyer that got him to plea guilty to everything without getting any assurance that the sentence would be light. Surely Bricker has encountered these lawyers in his career, I certainly have.
Well, apparently what “you know” includes the automatic assumption that the Israeli court system is racist.
When it turns out that this is not demonstrated by the specific facts in issue, that assumption is revealed for what it is - an assumption.
Note that it could well be the case that the Israeli court system is in fact racist, or at least that this judge is … but there is nothing in this case that demonstrates it that we know based on the facts actually in evidence. There never was.
If the woman was full of shit, then the alleged perp was ill-advised to accept a plea bargain, certainly. Perhaps he only accepted it because, as an Arab man, he felt that he could never get justice in an Israeli court.
But I would not be betting on it.
Or perhaps you are jumping the gun (are you embarrassed?)
Perhaps it is a case of having a lousy defence lawyer - or perhaps it’s a case of having a good one, who got the best sentence his client could reasonably expect.
Either way, the case does nothing to support the racism-based “RO” claimed in the OP. There is no evidence the fellow was convicted “because he was a Palestinian”.
Well, it more the KNOWLEDGE that Israeli society is racist.
Two fucking years for rape by lying. Yeah nothing troubling about that at all.
I don’t think the facts are what you think they are.
Do you know how many idiotic plea bargains I have seen from defendants in 3 months I worked in a courtroom, most of them are ill-advised?
Are you refuting the earlier cite that the police dropped the charges and decided to go with the rape by lying charge?
If you doubt the cite then provide some evidence that it is incorrect don’t just say “I doubt it”
No, because my position is not based on whether the guy is guilty or innocent.
The issue is whether the case demonstrates the “racism” claimed. The more facts are uncovered about it, the more obvious it becomes that it does not, in and of itself.
Well, if you start with that conclusion, what need have you of a little thing like facts?
It’s a plea bargain. He agreed to risk it.
If the guy or his lawyer is behaving idiotically, that is hardly evidence that the court is “racist”.
Well, first please provide the cite. I don’t remember what you are talking about.
The facts do not support your theory that the lawyer did a bang up job. We have a cite that the police dropped the forcible rape charge when they uncovered evidence the woman was lying, the only charge they had left was “rape by lying.”
Well, I guess you’re right that none of this undisputably proves racism. The judge announcing the verdict didn’t actually say “we’re sending the dirty Palestinian to jail for two years because he’s a Palestinian”
I think we can all agree that Israeli is an incredibly racist society (perhaps the racism is understandable based on the history of terrorism in the area but its still racism). Against this backdrop we have a Palestinian guy going to jail for two YEARS for lying about being married (How many Jewish men are serving two years for that crime?). We don’t have any other examples of ANY men being charged for this crime under these sort of circumstances, they are always in the context of some sort of prolonged fraud or deception or involved some sort of coercion, never a one night stand. And you think its unreasonable to wonder if racism doesn’t have anything to do with this unusual case.
Are you claiming that its NOT?
I googled Kashur, Palestinian, violent, rape and fraud and got these links among others:
“The prosecution first claimed that the complainant actively and significantly objected to the events, but in the course of the trial the young woman testified that she had agreed to the action because she had thought that the person in question was a Jew. In light of that the indictment was amended, and the defendant was accused of rape and indecent actions by way of fraud.”
“we do not have before us a ‘class’ case of rape – by force – and the indictment initially filed, which had indicated significant objection by the complainant to the actions by the defendant, had been amended further in the proceedings, after hearing her testimony, when it became clear that the actions were indeed carried out with her consent,”
http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=3189
The only two cases where Jewish men were charged under this statute (under more egregious circumstances), the Jewish men were convicted of fraud but not of rape.
Here’s some more language from the judge:
It doesn’t sound particularly racist but in context, it seems odd that you would think it unreasonable for others to think race was not an issue.
:dubious:
It is a good thing, then, that it is not my “theory that the lawyer did a bang up job”.
First, I’d take issue with the conclusion that Israel is “an incredibly racist society”. Certainly, there are tensions between the various ethnicities that make up that country, in particular between Arabs and Jews (though also between, say, Mizrai Jews and Ashkenazic Jews). But “incredibly racist”? Compared with what? Its neigbours in the ME? The US? That’s pretty arguable.
Second, there are few others charged with this crime because the crime is relatively new.
Third, since it appears that the crime was simply chosen for purposes of a plea-bargain, its actual details are relatively less relevant.
The subsequent site significantly amends that account of the case:
Point being that her testimony was confused and contradictory on the issue of consent - being a sexually abused mental patient, who had also worked as a prostitute, made her a less than reliable witness. The prosecution decided there was a good chance she would not be believed on the issue of consent.
It is pretty clear that things were not as straightforward as “she’s full of shit”. She may be - given there was no trial of the issue, we cannot know. The fact that the guy copped a plea certainly makes it appear that whatever interaction left her naked on a rooftop after a brief introduction to this guy, was probably not soimething that was particularly to his credit.
So the defense bullied her into a lesser charge. There’s no way in hell they would have accepted the fraud agreement if he wasn’t guilty.
This is my problem with the idea that you should defend your client at all costs.
I am not commenting on this specific case, but if you think prosecutors don’t accept pleas from people who they don’t think are guilty (certainly beyond reasonable doubt), and defendants don’t accept pleas when actually innocent, you are sorely mistaken.
[quote=“Malthus, post:394, topic:547472”]
Much of the evidence youa re talking about is preceded by the words “according to the victim”
Now who’s jumping to conclusions?
BTW, before this gloss on old news (we already knew the original charge was forcible rape and that the conviction was based on a plea bargain) were we bothered by the two year sentence otr did we just say “what’s wrong with teh sentence, nothing wrong with it that would make anyone think that racism might be involved” Now we accede that the sentence was out of whack but now we have a better explanation: it was in light of the fact taht this guy was ACTUALLY guilty of forcible rape but was getting away with this “rape by deceit” charge because the victim would be traumatized.
I read the dicta from Judge Tzipi and he seemed to focus on the deceit quite a bit as if that was really the issue in the case. Talking about protecting women from smooth operators while acknowledging that the rape had been consensual.
Doesn’t this statemnet by the judge at the very least form the basis for our leaping to the conclusion that the sex had been consensual?
Either the judge knew the sex was consensual and imposed an overly harsh sentence (for whatever reason, perhaps it wasn’t racism), or he knew it wasn’t consensual and made unecessary comments about it being consensual.
As a total aside: I understand that one of the other judges on panel is having some problems with how he handled a case between a Jewish man and an arab woman (a car accident I think).
Christ, what a bunch of arrogant assholes you all are. In rape cases, the victim is often judged as ‘being full of bullshit’ if the prosecutor doesn’t think she’s a lily white virgin. That’s all it takes. In this case, the victim had been abused by her father for years and had just fled to a shelter. She was incredibly vulnerable, and not only did this guy take advantage of her, so did his scumbag defense attorneys and the scumbag prosecutors, who apparently judged her harshly.
I know the SDMB loves to talk about false accusations obsessively but if correcting ignorance were really a concern, the sexist lies that women are subjected to should be a concern at least as important. It’s not like men face an almost all-female justice system. Men lie about rape and walk. Women tell the truth about rape and get called whores, bitches, sluts, what have you.
Now go ahead. Call me a feminazi or whatever else you trot out. This woman got nothing but abuse from just about everybody in her life, and you guys want to ignore that and argue technicalities.
So you know for a FACT that this woman was forcibly raped even? Then how do you explain what the judge said?
Sure men lie about rape…so do women.
Should we assume every accusation of rape is true?
God I long for the days when the hatred of the Arabs and the Israelis matters only to them. What tiresome nattering.