So, this makes me think of two things (apart from the big main thing) Why was there no charge of attempted murder? If you choke someone enough to make them pass out, how's that not attempted...
So, this makes me think of two things (apart from the big main thing)
Why was there no charge of attempted murder? If you choke someone enough to make them pass out, how's that not attempted murder?
Public transit is important. If this was an area with frequent busses and/or taxis, something like this would've been way less likely. Yes, there still are perils, but it is way better than popping into a stranger's car.
Or, if you don't want public transit—and I've spoken to many Americans on HN that told me public transport "sucks" because there are other people and implied it was not worthy of them because how they are Übermenschen that merited better—then it is a basic human right to own a car and get fuel in a place where driving is the main means of transport.
Apart from that, I'm not surprised that relevant laws don't exist. If you asked me to define rape, it'd take me some significant amount of time to come up with a scenario like this. And even assuming the entire legislative bodies were men of good will when these laws were made, it is rather expectable that a scenario like this was not considered before a publicised instance of it came about. This underlines two main problems w.r.t. how these laws are made: (mostly, up until recently only) priviledged men w/o any expertise vote or just make up laws. Processes are top-down, and democracy is used a means to give the priviledged legislative power.
There are specific requirements for various crimes to have been committed. Juries are supposed to decide if the actions that are alleged to have happened meet the guidelines set forth by the...
Why was there no charge of attempted murder?
There are specific requirements for various crimes to have been committed. Juries are supposed to decide if the actions that are alleged to have happened meet the guidelines set forth by the state, and even if juries disregard some (or all) of those guidelines, you can appeal the verdict. Prosecutors are supposed to only pick charges they think have met the state's requirements given the alleged actions (though you'll sometimes see them "throw the book" (give them a laundry list of charges) at people in an attempt to get them to make a plea bargain). In this case, these actions may not rise to the level of attempted murder (and the requirements for attempted murder will vary by state). But Buzzfeed News is blocked by my corporate firewall, so I can't read the article and see if this is the case or not.
Murder requires intent to end life. He said he didn't intend to end her life, he just wanted her to think that. If she had died it might have been murder, or manslaughter. I think the English...
Why was there no charge of attempted murder? If you choke someone enough to make them pass out, how's that not attempted murder?
Murder requires intent to end life. He said he didn't intend to end her life, he just wanted her to think that. If she had died it might have been murder, or manslaughter.
If you asked me to define rape, it'd take me some significant amount of time to come up with a scenario like this.
I think the English Sexual Offences Act 2003 does a reasonable job.
So, this makes me think of two things (apart from the big main thing)
Why was there no charge of attempted murder? If you choke someone enough to make them pass out, how's that not attempted murder?
Public transit is important. If this was an area with frequent busses and/or taxis, something like this would've been way less likely. Yes, there still are perils, but it is way better than popping into a stranger's car.
Apart from that, I'm not surprised that relevant laws don't exist. If you asked me to define rape, it'd take me some significant amount of time to come up with a scenario like this. And even assuming the entire legislative bodies were men of good will when these laws were made, it is rather expectable that a scenario like this was not considered before a publicised instance of it came about. This underlines two main problems w.r.t. how these laws are made: (mostly, up until recently only) priviledged men w/o any expertise vote or just make up laws. Processes are top-down, and democracy is used a means to give the priviledged legislative power.
There are specific requirements for various crimes to have been committed. Juries are supposed to decide if the actions that are alleged to have happened meet the guidelines set forth by the state, and even if juries disregard some (or all) of those guidelines, you can appeal the verdict. Prosecutors are supposed to only pick charges they think have met the state's requirements given the alleged actions (though you'll sometimes see them "throw the book" (give them a laundry list of charges) at people in an attempt to get them to make a plea bargain). In this case, these actions may not rise to the level of attempted murder (and the requirements for attempted murder will vary by state). But Buzzfeed News is blocked by my corporate firewall, so I can't read the article and see if this is the case or not.
Murder requires intent to end life. He said he didn't intend to end her life, he just wanted her to think that. If she had died it might have been murder, or manslaughter.
I think the English Sexual Offences Act 2003 does a reasonable job.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
HN is probably the most regressive and parochial tech focused community I’ve ever seen.
Does tildes have a norm for content or trigger warnings? Tags to filter on maybe?