http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/30/te....ap/index.html
Damn now thats a twist.
owned is all i can say.....:O
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/30/te....ap/index.html
Damn now thats a twist.
owned is all i can say.....:O
haha she really was sleeping with the ups guy lol.
i believe the charges are just. karma's a bitch.
That woman should fry. Not only did she get a man killed, but crying "rape" when it is not the case just makes things harder on women who have been sexually abused/assaulted. She deserves the maximum punishment allowed by law, if not more.
God bless Texas!
I agree too. What husband wouldn't kill the guy who just raped his wife, especially if he goes around armed? I'm sure she just wasn't thinking, but her mistake cost a man his life. Manslaughter is very much an appropriate charge.
Its about time one of the states got it right.
I actually saw a porno with that theme...
Well, you don't generally get to kill people because they've done bad stuff. You get to (apparently) kill them in order to prevent them from doing bad stuff. Just a point.
Is it just me, or do you think that they are going to have a bit of a hard time showing that the wife... did anything? I mean, she may have been reckless, but she didn't shoot him, plan to shoot him, conspire with her husband to shoot him, etc. Does she not seem a little short on action to anyone else?
The charge isn't murder, it's manslaughter. The husband believed he caught some guy raping his wife and when he showed up and she screamed rape, the "rapist" took off running. ANYONE who had a gun would shoot. I would. It would be the right thing to do, as long as you knew your weapon and there were no bystanders in the way.
she knowingly exploited her husband's protective instincts in order to cause harm to another person. it is legally manslaughter in this country.
I see your point...from a rational perspective. But she was CHEATING ON HER HUSBAND, then cried RAPE to get herself out of trouble when she was caught, which provoked her husband to shoot (and kill) her lover in her defense. Again, this woman should fry and I'd be happy to flip the switch.
I agree, max punishment.
I'm not being clear - I mean I can see that she was reckless, but I can't see that she has DONE anything. I mean, think for minute about the general consequences of holding one person legally responsible for the actions of another. This is not a case of aiding and abetting or conspiracy - there we could see some ACTION. Here, there is no action that I can pick out. I'd personally be concerned about a legal precedent which says that one person can be responsible for another person's actions, minus any action of their own. Imagine: what if she really was raped. What if she told her husband truthfully that she was raped and he reacted similarly. What is she then? She was telling the truth, so the fact that what she said led directly to the guy's death, and that she should have known it would lead to the guy's death - what does that mean now? In those circumstances - has she done anything? What if she had not lied and told her husband that she was having an affair, and THEN he shot the guy? Then, has she done something? I mean, she still knows her husband carries a gun; she still has all the same knowledge of her husband's likely reaction. Lying to your husband isn't illegal, so you might want re-examine why the fact that it was a lie is so material. Whether the husband could claim such a defence is not really at issue since he wasn't charged.
And Glamazon - c'mon. If you can see my point rationally - do you really think we should charge, try and sentence people, and for that matter kill them, IRRATIONALLY? The rational perspective is kind of the perspective that matters in that arena.
Well, that might make her a bad wife.
Except all that is sheer conjecture.Quote:
Here is the definition of manslaughter (or one of them): A person recklessly causes the death of another, or acting under extreme emotional disturbance, causes the death of another, or acting under circumstances when a person reasonably believes the circumstances provide a legal justification or excuse for his conduct constitutes manslaughter.
By the above definition, she should be found guilty of manslaughter. She may not have known that her husband was going to kill her lover...but let's look at it this way. Her husbands packs...she knows this. Do you think that maybe she thought that if he caught her having an affair, he would kill her? So she screams rape to save herself, only to have her lover killed? That would be manslaughter.
VG - the part I'm contesting is the "causes" not the "reckless". I am a little uncomfortable holding someone criminally liable for the actions of someone else. If she had incited, abetted, aided or conspired you could see a guilty act; in this case she did not plan with or encourage her husband to shoot the dude. Again, what we're saying is that she is responsible for the actions of someone else.
Except for they can't, because that analogy exists to place limits on free speech, not correctly apportion criminal liability. Saying that someone started a riot is much different than saying that someone is directly responsible for the actions of another person - ABSENT (and I must stress this) any encouragement, incitement or conspiracy. Starting a riot is a crime, on which other crimes can be predicated. Lying is not.
But, she did something, willingly, that caused someone else to take matters into their own hands and do something that ended in the death of another person. How many people think that they can scream rape when they are caught in bed and not have their significant other react, in most cases, violently? Did she really think that her husband was going to walk up to the guy and hand him a cigar and congratulate him?
Her actions caused the death of another person. No, she didn't physically MAKE her husband shoot her lover. But, by screaming rape, she set the stage for violence of action. She is responsible for that outcome.
This may be true on a moral basis; on a legal basis - again I go back to my previous fact variations. If she was in the marital bed, having sex and admitted that it was consensual and her husband shot him - but she still set the stage; why is she no longer responsible for the outcome? I'd be interested in how you'd make a cohesive argument here, because as it stands you would have a policy that states that when someone has lied, and that lie leads someone to take violent action (absent conspiracy, etc. which are already crimes) they have committed the requisite act; if they were telling the truth and the same thing happens, with all the same knowledge, recklessness and intent they haven't. To me that seems incoherent; and hey - coherence is important to me.
I think we all need to maybe give a little thought to importance of ascribing criminal responsibility for one person's actions onto someone else. I mean I understand a head shake and a "oh the humanity" - like the death of the man is tragic, but you might want to think about what kind of legal system we'll have when you say "I like that necklace" and then are charged with theft because your husband heard you, and you should have known that he wants to provide you with everything you want.
Jenny, Your argument is well stated. In this case most of your examples cant work. Making examples like yours are totally changing the story. The particular situation goes like this. The woman mislead someone intentionaly. This lie directly caused a mans death. She is not being charged with murder. She is being charged with manslaughter. That is exactly right in this case. I agree she could not be charged with murder but she isnt anyway
jenny, there's plenty of legal precedent for the woman to be charged with manslaughter in america. american law has already dealt with your objections as such.
The main difference between the two is that in your example, the wife willfully admitted to having consensual sex outside of marriage, which is not a crime. Rape, however, is-which can also lead to death in many cases. Some men rape and some men rape, mutilate and eventually kill. How could the husband have possibly known the potential outcome? In my eyes, he was doing whatever was necessary to save his wife's life. Could he have done things differently? Well, of course he could have. I'm not saying what he did was right or just-I'm sure it could have been handled differently without a death being involved-but I honestly believe that the wife played a major role in it happening. She should be punished somehow.
She spoke words that any reasonable person would think could result in violence. I don't think there is a man alive that wouldn't try and protect his wife/daughter/sister/mother from an attacker. No matter what level of relationship they have, estranged or close.
Just like if you decide to drive knowing that you are drunk and you kill someone, that is also manslaughter. Everyone knows that it is illegal to drive drunk, but some people do it anyway with out thinking through the potential consequences.
I do think that the husband needs to be held somewhat accountable, though. He did shoot and kill a fleeing man. The immediate danger had already passed, and using deadly force against a fleeing attacker is not legal in most of the US. I'm not sure about Texas, though.
I am as well. However I think those are circumstances in which the lie is the illegal act. It is illegal to lie about being raped to a police officer; it not illegal to lie about being raped to your husband.
I think you are still misunderstanding the element to which I am objecting - I am not contesting the "recklessness" - the mens rea, but the ACT. You have to DO (actus reus) something to commit a crime, and I don't see that she did.
Again - if you conspire/aid/abet someone in committing a crime, that IS the crime. She didn't DO those things.Quote:
Somewhat off topic, but this example is interesting since I saw a Law and Order rerun the other evening where this was thought to be the case for much of the hour. In that situation, the boyfriend had an IQ of around 80 and was easily manipulated. Just a side note, though I do wonder if like many of their shows this one had some factual basis.
Miabella - are you sure?
Well, technically, since he shot the guy as he was driving away, that is not true. But again - not the point since the husband wasn't indicted; what he is potentially guilty of is not at issue. The issue is whether she can be held criminally responsible for the actions of another person.
But Paris, you are contesting the wrong element (or not wrong, but not the element I am discussing); everyone is focusing on what she should have known; but you are also ignoring the fact that she didn't DO anything. It is illegal to incite a riot; it is illegal to drive drunk - it is not illegal to lie to your husband EVEN about being raped. Her level of intent and knowledge and recklessness doesn't change if she is not lying, and that is the only element you guys are focusing on. In criminal activity you have to have thought and act. Her "act" was not illegal; and I think we all need to be hesitant about characterizing lying (outside of specific circumstance - you're not allowed to lie in court, for example) as an illegal act; particularly when the element that everyone is obsessing over (the intent/recklessness) is the EXACT SAME when she is telling the truth. This should be disturbing.Quote:
Just like if you decide to drive knowing that you are drunk and you kill someone, that is also manslaughter. Everyone knows that it is illegal to drive drunk, but some people do it anyway with out thinking through the potential consequences.
What are you going on about? Criminal liability is codified and it is exclusive not inclusive. If it isn't in the criminal code, it isn't a criminal act. I would be pretty shocked if "lying to your husband" was in there as an indictable offence. The jury can't just "determine" that lying to your spouse is illegal.