Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSwissie
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
     
    Posted By: TrimIs he a Moslem then?

    I thought they were allowed to have sex with underage children.


    http://www.nairaland.com/1086492/ayatollah-khomeinis-book-sex-shias
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
     
    Posted By: AngusMaybe. If there is no memory and no injury it can't be established.
    Unless you include as "harm" the mere fact of having been the victim.
    On the face of it they don't seem to have suffered any more harm than a mohel routinely inflicts.
    I don't know the facts of the case or how young the alleged victims were but use plenty of caution here. Repressed memories are a major feature of childhood sexual abuse. Often, the memories return to the adult after traumatic events, happy events, almost anything. And behavior can be disrupted in major ways without the memories, especially in susceptible individuals, the classic example being those with a tendency to borderline personality disorder. Typical behaviors caused by childhood sexual abuse include sexual acting out ("promiscuity"), substance abuse, molesting children sexually and violence towards children. Even without memories.

    As to SA being competent to stand trial, I also doubt it. He may have had a really bad attorney or examining psychiatrist. But either way, mental institution or prison, someone has to protect society from this guy and his impulses.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
     
    Basically, we agree. My point was that there didn't seem to be any evidence that the crime he confessed to actually occurred. The possibility that he is nuts would seem to indicate caution in imposing such a sentence. Especially considering the sentence that politician got.
  1.  
    Al makes a powerful point
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016 edited
     
    The problem is that a plea of guilty was entered and accepted by the court. This is not subject to appeal, nor is there an automatic review of the trial. Basically, it's "You said that you were guilty and we believe you. We've shown mercy in sentencing you."

    Undoing this is difficult and could take years, if ever. Basically, you'd have to show that SA was delusional to the extent that he could not tell reality from fantasy--and that the court was negligent in ignoring the question of mental competency.

    It's not going to happen.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
     
    Of course not. The question only is : was it a fair proceeding?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou forgot to mention the sentences.


    Posted By: DuracellDiscussion: TANJ!
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2016
     
    Posted By: AsterixThe problem is that a plea of guilty was entered and accepted by the court. This is not subject to appeal, nor is there an automatic review of the trial. Basically, it's "You said that you were guilty and we believe you. We've shown mercy in sentencing you."

    Undoing this is difficult and could take years, if ever. Basically, you'd have to show that SA was delusional to the extent that he could not tell reality from fantasy--and that the court was negligent in ignoring the question of mental competency.

    It's not going to happen.


    It happens here a bit-I'm involved in a case where a guy pleaded guilty to driving a B Double under the influence of Speed and Marijuana (causing much chaos and damage), and then successfully appealed on the basis that he didn't understand what he was doing when he made the guilty plea.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2016
     
    I would find it surprising if a psych examination wasn't ordered in the case of SA, given the prison time involved--and his delusions of being the holy father in heaven and having dinner with JC. Maybe that's normal for Utah, though.
  2.  
    Separation of church and state my arse.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2016
     
    Which side is church?
  3.  
    Most of Utah
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2016
     
    And the utah side?
  4.  
    You're thinking of Montana - that's the udder side
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2016
     
    Cheeky.