NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/08/britain.lottery.rapist.ap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

Since I'm not exactly a lawyer or anyone familiar with the law, I'm not sure if the judge is breaking precedent (whatever weight that bears) by allowing this suit to commence even though the time period for filing said suit had passed.

In any case, is the man receiving his "Just Desserts" or does the suit go a bit too far? I'm in the position to go both ways on this one - the man did rape the woman, but he served his time in prison to the extend that the law demanded.

As such, I'm dropping this onto the cold, semi-awake lap of NSG. What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/08/britain.lottery.rapist.ap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

Since I'm not exactly a lawyer or anyone familiar with the law, I'm not sure if the judge is breaking precedent (whatever weight that bears) by allowing this suit to commence even though the time period for filing said suit had passed.

In any case, is the man receiving his "Just Desserts" or does the suit go a bit too far? I'm in the position to go both ways on this one - the man did rape the woman, but he served his time in prison to the extend that the law demanded.

As such, I'm dropping this onto the cold, semi-awake lap of NSG. What do you think?

Okay, seriously? This is NSG. You have to summarize the article for us or no one is going to read it. Hell, it just took a whole minute for the thing to load in Firefox.

Right then. Now that I've read it, that's bull. It's also bull to let an incarcerated person buy a lotto ticket, but that's beside the point.

Crimes like this generally allow for both a criminal trial and a civil suit.

In the criminal trial, someone is found either guilty or not guilty. If guilty, they get whatever punishment the government decides upon.

In the civil trial, the victim of the crime can seek monetary compensation for the harm done to them. This is above and beyond the criminal trial. In fact, in the US anyways, it can be carried out even if the person was found not guilty in a criminal trial. The burden of proof in a civil trial is lower than that in criminal law.

So the fact that he served his time in jail really has no bearing on whether or not the civil suit should be allowed.

On the question of whether or not it should have been allowed despite having passed the time limit, I'm not sure on that. My gut gets pulled in two different directions. On the one hand, I think those limits should be upheld even if the criminal comes into money - that she should have placed the suit within the time limit and then already had rights to the money when it came in.

On the other, I know that a civil suit like this can be quite expensive. Doing so when the offender has no money will likely put the victim in debt with no actual recompense. And she certainly couldn't have known that he would end up winning the lottery.

gotta love equitable relief.

Okay, seriously? This is NSG. You have to summarize the article for us or no one is going to read it. Hell, it just took a whole minute for the thing to load in Firefox.

Uh huh. *No one* links on NSG without a summary.

:rolleyes:

For those that care:

Woman is raped by man in 1989
Man is sent to prison; serves 16 years of a life sentence
Man winds up winning 7mil pound lottery in prison, receives earnings on release
Woman is allowed to sue man for punitive damages

Hell, it just took a whole minute for the thing to load in Firefox.

Get a better browser or a faster internet connection

Apart from that I think it is a bit BS I mean really is she doing it because she thinks it is fair and justice will be served or is she doing it because she is after a little more cash.

For those that care:

Woman is raped by man in 1989
Man is sent to prison; serves 16 years of a life sentence
Man winds up winning 7mil pound lottery in prison, receives earnings on release
Woman is allowed to sue man for punitive damages

Except that you left out the one part that actually matters. Filing the suit was outside the normal statute of limitations, but was permitted because of the unusual circumstances.

What is the rationale behind a statute of limitations?

Get a better browser or a faster internet connection

Apart from that I think it is a bit BS I mean really is she doing it because she thinks it is fair and justice will be served or is she doing it because she is after a little more cash.

she's suing the man who raped her. So what if she's after cash? She's more than entitled.

she's suing the man who raped her. So what if she's after cash? She's more than entitled.

So take every penny (or, in this case, quid?) from a man who's served his time?

So take every penny (or, in this case, quid?) from a man who's served his time?

what's "served his time" have to do with a civil suit? Criminal law and civil law are two seperate things that have pretty much nothing to do with one another.

Except that you left out the one part that actually matters. Filing the suit was outside the normal statute of limitations, but was permitted because of the unusual circumstances.

Yeah... I uh...

I prefer links so that people reading them can make their own judgements on what they read, rather than make their judgements on my short and obviously limited summary.

Get a better browser or a faster internet connection

:rolleyes:

what's "served his time" have to do with a civil suit? Criminal law and civil law are two seperate things that have pretty much nothing to do with one another.

I understand that she's entitled to file a civil suit. TBH, I'm less interested in the law side of the story than I am the ethics side of the story.

What is the rationale behind a statute of limitations?

Probably this sort of thing, in part. Otherwise... it's a good question. I know murder doesn't have a statute, but child molestation does. Possibly a safeguard against blackmail?

Hell, it just took a whole minute for the thing to load in Firefox.

I'm curious now. How long does it take Jolt to load for you?

I understand that she's entitled to file a civil suit. TBH, I'm less interested in the law side of the story than I am the ethics side of the story.

Would you have a problem with someone bringing such a suit against a rapist who won the lottery two days after committing the rape?

If not, what is the ethical problem here?

If the answer is yes, then your problem would appear to be with the existence of such civil suits, rather than the specific question of relaxing the statute of limitations in these circumstances.

she's suing the man who raped her. So what if she's after cash? She's more than entitled.

Ahem...

A judge ruled Tuesday that the 78-year-old victim, known only as Mrs. A, can seek punitive damages from Iorworth Hoare for an attempted rape in 1989.

Not sure what the British legal definition of attempted rape is, but there is a difference...

...I don't like the precedent this sets. The crime occured 19 years ago. There are plenty of ways that a person can improve their financial situation besides winning the lottery.

Should any victim be allowed to bring suit decades later simply because the criminal managed to improve their financial situation? What if the guy had managed to start a successful business upon release? Would those earnings be treated the same as these lottery winnings??

If so, where does one draw the line? If not, then how is this an equitable application of the law?

I'm curious now. How long does it take Jolt to load for you?

Somewhere between 2 seconds and eternity, depending on how much of a fuss it wants to put up.

Ahem...



Not sure what the British legal definition of attempted rape is, but there is a difference...

...I don't like the precedent this sets. The crime occured 19 years ago. There are plenty of ways that a person can improve their financial situation besides winning the lottery.

Should any victim be allowed to bring suit decades later simply because the criminal managed to improve their financial situation? What if the guy had managed to start a successful business upon release? Would those earnings be treated the same as these lottery winnings??

If so, where does one draw the line? If not, then how is this an equitable application of the law?

I think that the fact that this was a lottery winning, something so unpredictable, so unexpected, so unlikely as to not have factored into anyones considerations as at all possible, makes this a fairly unique circumstance.

Which I think is the point. If he merely had managed to come into some money through more predictable means, we may say to her "sorry, you took the chance that this would occur", but the fact that it was so remote, so unforseeable, so manifestly unfair to tell her "sorry, you should have considered the fact that he could win the lottery" that we accept that the principle of equity should apply.

I think that the fact that this was a lottery winning, something so unpredictable, so unexpected, so unlikely as to not have factored into anyones considerations as at all possible, makes this a fairly unique circumstance.

Which I think is the point. If he merely had managed to come into some money through more predictable means, we may say to her "sorry, you took the chance that this would occur", but the fact that it was so remote, so unforseeable, so manifestly unfair to tell her "sorry, you should have considered the fact that he could win the lottery" that we accept that the principle of equity should apply.

Which was the point the judge was making, and I can understand the argument, but I certainly wouldn't call it "fair".

Meh...

This sounds familiar, didn't we already do this one?

This one sends me in a feedback loop, I don't believe in eternal punishment that just keeps popping up in unique ways, but he's a fucking rapist (or, I guess, attempted rapist) and it's a lottery ticket...I don't know, I can see it both ways in this, and I guess if I had to chose I'd have to admit that snagging his winning is more about a kind of vengeance than it is anything else, which I don't see as productive. The spanking should hurt you more than the person you're spanking (in a way)...unless it's sexy spanking. Sexy spanking is different.

I just don't think taking delight in the punishment is different enough from taking delight in the crime.

I'm going to go with unfair on this, the statute of limitations ran out. I'm not sure how it works abroad, but isn't this judge making shit up based on his emotions? I mean, the law is the law, and a judge presides over its proper application, not its creation, or do they do it differently there?

If the laws are contracts between people and a government isn't the government breaking that contract?

I also found his excuse to be pretty flimsy, just because the guy's financial situation changed, despite what they thought could happen, she should be allowed to sue? In the end it doesn't really matter what changed it.

I'm going to go with unfair on this, the statute of limitations ran out. I'm not sure how it works abroad, but isn't this judge making shit up based on his emotions? I mean, the law is the law, and a judge presides over its proper application, not its creation, or do they do it differently there?

If the laws are contracts between people and a government isn't the government breaking that contract?

I also found his excuse to be pretty flimsy, just because the guy's financial situation changed, despite what they thought could happen, she should be allowed to sue? In the end it doesn't really matter what changed it.

Hazily, I think there's something in UK law about the 'spirit not the letter' of the law. This is why I asked about the rationale behind the statute of limitations.

A judge can decide based on what the law was intended to do rather than the exact letter by which it was written. This allows miscarriages of justice due to pedantry to be overturned.

Of course, you can then question that precedent higher up but my guess is that the spirit of the statute of limitations does not necessarily cover this specific case in the view of the judge.

Hazily, I think there's something in UK law about the 'spirit not the letter' of the law. This is why I asked about the rationale behind the statute of limitations.

A judge can decide based on what the law was intended to do rather than the exact letter by which it was written. This allows miscarriages of justice due to pedantry to be overturned.

Of course, you can then question that precedent higher up but my guess is that the spirit of the statute of limitations does not necessarily cover this specific case in the view of the judge.

Yeah, I suppose we do that here too. It just seemed like a stretch, since I doubt many cared so much about the way someone could make a better life, so much as someone not having to worry the rest of their lives over when that guy I did X to is going to sue me.

Except that you left out the one part that actually matters. Filing the suit was outside the normal statute of limitations, but was permitted because of the unusual circumstances.

Actually, the really, really, really important part that nothing in that article mentions is that fact that there was a House of Lords decision (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7217251.stm)on this exact case a few weeks ago that said that the Limitation Act can be set aside in exceptional circumstances.

This judge isn't making the law, he's following it.

What is the rationale behind a statute of limitations?
To stop you being sued years after the event, when you might not remember it, can't get witnesses together, and other things that might prevent a fair trial. It's essentially a long stop, so you can't be sued out of the blue for something you did 30 years ago.

Ahem...



Not sure what the British legal definition of attempted rape is, but there is a difference...

...I don't like the precedent this sets. The crime occured 19 years ago. There are plenty of ways that a person can improve their financial situation besides winning the lottery.

Should any victim be allowed to bring suit decades later simply because the criminal managed to improve their financial situation? What if the guy had managed to start a successful business upon release? Would those earnings be treated the same as these lottery winnings??

If so, where does one draw the line? If not, then how is this an equitable application of the law?

Forgive me if I don't feel sympathy for the guy. "I rape her, and now she's suing me!" Diddums.

A major problem with a civil law suit is that whether you can be compensated is usually dependent on whether the defendant can pay up. In 1989, he had nothing, and so she could not get anything. Now, he has some money, and she is simply claiming the compensation for an act he did against her that she could get then. I'd say that's fair.

I cannot support this in any way.

This man comitted a heinous crime. Rightly and justly, he was punished for it, and had his freedom taken from him for sixteen years.

The victim had quite fair call to require compensation - up to ten years ago, when the statute of limitations ran out.

But now, they propose to punish him again for the "crime" of good fortune. This man has paid the fair price our society requires for his crime, and the legal avenues for his punishment were exhausted.

To do evil in response to evil is not good. To ignore the law in order to continue to punish someone already punished is not justice.

We must either allow those convicted of crimes to serve their sentences and then continue their lives, or bring back the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread - at least the latter would be more honest than eternal persecution.

I hope she wins the case.

It's also bull to let an incarcerated person buy a lotto ticket, but that's beside the point.
Of course it's not.
Given the extreme improbability of winning, I think it was a sign of destiny or whatever.

BTW, it was *attempted* rape.
Also, the guy is a pervert beyond understanding. Trying to rape a 62-old granny! But why? How hard can it be to find a 60-year-old woman who wants to shag on her own?


P.S. Bullitt, you should quote articles if they're too short to summarize.

Uh huh. *No one* links on NSG without a summary.

:rolleyes:

For those that care:

Woman is raped by man in 1989
Man is sent to prison; serves 16 years of a life sentence
Man winds up winning 7mil pound lottery in prison, receives earnings on release
Woman is allowed to sue man for punitive damages

*shrugs*
He did lasting emotional harm to her -- harm that lasts her lifetime, not just during his prison sentence. In essence, he gave her a life sentence from which there is no parole.

One part of me says, "Yes, go for it."

The other part says that making exceptions in the law for emotional reasons -- not so good.

So take every penny (or, in this case, quid?) from a man who's served his time?

She's still serving hers. I don't get how people assume that a prison term morally excuses others from the lasting mental and physical harm they do others.

Then again, who knows what will be decided? Wasn't there just a thread about a man who intentionally crashed his bike into a 17 year old after yelling at her to move because he wasn't stopping, he killed her, and was only fined ₤2,200?
Yup. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560243

Seems a bit messed up to me.

"It will be even rarer for such a defendant, years later, to buy a lottery ticket which wins him 7 million pounds or otherwise comes into an unexpected fortune which makes him suddenly worth pursuing after all," the judge said.
Moot point. "Unexpected fortunes" doesn't magically make the limitations on compensation go away. Not only that but he won the money before those limitations ran out. Just because she isn't up on her news is not a good reason to let her flout the law.

Moot point. "Unexpected fortunes" doesn't magically make the limitations on compensation go away. Not only that but he won the money before those limitations ran out. Just because she isn't up on her news is not a good reason to let her flout the law.

There was no mention wrether he won the lottery before or after the timelimit was out.

I'm personally torn on this issue though... I consider rape the worst thing a human can do to another (yes, even worse than murder) and as such the guy deserves everything he gets.

On the other hand, this case sets a quite nasty precedent. If emotions can influence a judge to overrule the law like this, it kind of kills any reason for ex-convicts to try and rebuild their lives: They're just going to get sued their shirt off if they actually manage to make any money.

So I'll call this undecided for me. My heart says the guy doesn't deserve the money, but my mind says the woman doesn't either.

I love that they refer to it as "compensation."

How the fuck do you compensate someone after raping them?

(Yes, I know it's just a generic term, but it still irritates me.)

But I voted not fair. No matter how disgusting the crime committed you can't just change the rules for an individual just because it 'feels right.' Judges are supposed to rule by the law, not make it up as they go along.

I say:

Although the man's a sicko, taking away the money he won AFTER he's served his sentence isn't right. He's served it out. Also, it was attempted rape.

She's still serving hers. I don't get how people assume that a prison term morally excuses others from the lasting mental and physical harm they do others.

Because that's the very reason for a prison sentence? Hell, it's the very reason for the judicial process: To hand out just and appropriate punishment for a crime. To further punish anyone after they've served their time would be to deliver excessive and unjust punishment, which is as just as wrong as a excessively light penalty.

There was no mention wrether he won the lottery before or after the timelimit was out.
I just realize I read the dates wrong. Ignore the latter half of what I wrote.

I say:

Although the man's a sicko, taking away the money he won AFTER he's served his sentence isn't right. He's served it out. Also, it was attempted rape.

I'll ask again, what does the fact that he served his criminal sentence have to do with ANYTHING?

I'll ask again, what does the fact that he served his criminal sentence have to do with ANYTHING?

Better wording would be: It happened what, 16 years ago. The guy has been punished already. By the letter of the law, he's served his time and shouldn't be treated as criminal anymore.

That's the way I see it anyway - as long as I ignore what the crime was that is, i.e. keep emotions out of the equation.

Better wording would be: It happened what, 16 years ago. The guy has been punished already. By the letter of the law, he's served his time and shouldn't be treated as criminal anymore.

That's the way I see it anyway - as long as I ignore what the crime was that is, i.e. keep emotions out of the equation.

who is treating him like a criminal?

who is treating him like a criminal?

Neo, I'm sorta surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but could it be that she was suing the man to get a deal from him, like "one million and this goes away", rather than an actual attempt to win this for more? Does this make sense?

And on a psychological thing here... He won that money WHEN HE WAS DOING HIS TIME. The fact that he got into jail made him buy that ticket with those numbers under those conditions and at that time... So, there may be a cause-and-effect thing this woman may be thinking as well...

Ryadn: Agree, OP should include SOME detail of case, if only "Convicted rapist wins lottery." The clincher is that the thread title is uninformative too.

Try the page again (close and re-open). It loaded in under 10 secs for me, Firefox 3 user. Doesn't appear to be any Flash on it (I no Flash.) I'd try Flashblocker plugin if I did Flash!

==============

All posters:

I agree with all posters who say this sets a bad precedent. Criminals who have served their time need the same incentive (more probably) to get a good job and earn money as non-crims, being sued once they get money (after stat of limitations) would incentivate them to "earn" undeclared (illegal) money.

Here's a thought: lotteries are inherently unfair. But they're opt-in! Are lottery tickets a rebellion against the idea of Just Rewards ?

(Dang Jolt, ignored me for 20+ minutes. Bah.)

Let me make a case for banning convicts from buying lottery tickets:

Serving time is about consequences. If a convict wants to get a high-school diploma to improve their chances of getting a good job on release, that should be encouraged, and suitable study materials, classes etc made available to them. If they want to get a university degree for the same reason, likewise but by the standards a free citizen would have to meet: eligibility for the course, ability to pay if in a country where tuition costs money, eligibility for student loans if in a country which has them. This is work they do to earn better prospects in the future.

But a lottery ticket is a waste of money unless you win. No convict should be allowed this "wishful thinking" that maybe consequences don't follow from actions in a fair and predictable way. That's a rebellion (even if only in the mind) against the consequences their own actions have brought apon them. The free person is allowed this wishful thinking (I indulge once in a blue moon) ... the ex-con whose parole has passed without re-offence should be permitted it ... but convicts should not. They're supposed to be facing the consequences of their actions squarely, that they may make better decisions in the future. This sliver of hope, a lottery ticket, is a sliver of denial of consequences. Even though it's a tiny sliver it runs counter to personal responsibility.

No lottery tickets for serving felons (minor or major crime makes no difference) and perhaps as a condition of parole. This I will attempt to defend.

This is NOT an argument for banning lottery tickets for convicts to MAKE THEIR PUNISHMENT WORSE. Anyone who reads it so isn't reading properly.

I agree with all posters who say this sets a bad precedent. Criminals who have served their time need the same incentive (more probably) to get a good job and earn money as non-crims, being sued once they get money (after stat of limitations) would incentivate them to "earn" undeclared (illegal) money.

Let's flip it on the other way though. Let's say she had sued him, won, and secured a judgment against him, which would allow her to attach any future income. If that were the case, would he have even bought the ticket in the first place?

slightly off-topic but perhaps relevant: Considering the crime was 'only' attempted rape and not actual rape, it must have been a particularly brutal attack for him to get 16 years. 16 years is usually what murderers get. He must have messed her up really bad. How many other attempted rapes have gotten this sentence?

Which makes me wonder whether the severity and brutality of his crime played a factor in the judges decision.

Crimes like this generally allow for both a criminal trial and a civil suit.

In the criminal trial, someone is found either guilty or not guilty. If guilty, they get whatever punishment the government decides upon.

In the civil trial, the victim of the crime can seek monetary compensation for the harm done to them. This is above and beyond the criminal trial. In fact, in the US anyways, it can be carried out even if the person was found not guilty in a criminal trial. The burden of proof in a civil trial is lower than that in criminal law.

So the fact that he served his time in jail really has no bearing on whether or not the civil suit should be allowed.

On the question of whether or not it should have been allowed despite having passed the time limit, I'm not sure on that. My gut gets pulled in two different directions. On the one hand, I think those limits should be upheld even if the criminal comes into money - that she should have placed the suit within the time limit and then already had rights to the money when it came in.

This.

On the other, I know that a civil suit like this can be quite expensive. Doing so when the offender has no money will likely put the victim in debt with no actual recompense. And she certainly couldn't have known that he would end up winning the lottery.

Irrelevant. Especially if they knew that felons given a "life" sentence after their SEVENTH(!) conviction for sexual assault/rape will get out in 16 years. Sue when it's due. The money will follow, and if it doesn't, the lawyers should eat it. After all, how hard a civil suit could this possibly be?

If she were truly seeking compensation for the damage done, she should have filed the suit and got her monetary judgment. Wages or future wages would have been garnished, and she'd have rights to any income the convict acquired over time.

Yes, suits are expensive and take time, but unless its the civil trial lawyers who are craving a piece of that sweet lottery action (and when would they not?), to allow the suit now is patently against the statute of limitations. To file it now looks greedy on the part of lawyers who didn't file when eligibility existed just because the convict was broke at the time.

Let's flip it on the other way though. Let's say she had sued him, won, and secured a judgment against him, which would allow her to attach any future income. If that were the case, would he have even bought the ticket in the first place?

Why not? Lottery tickets aren't overly expensive.

If she'd sued him against future earnings and now claimed part of hs winnings from that, I'd have no problem with it. To act as she has? Let's call it what it is: GREED.

slightly off-topic but perhaps relevant: Considering the crime was 'only' attempted rape and not actual rape, it must have been a particularly brutal attack for him to get 16 years. 16 years is usually what murderers get. He must have messed her up really bad. How many other attempted rapes have gotten this sentence?

Which makes me wonder whether the severity and brutality of his crime played a factor in the judges decision.

Did you read the article? The guy had six sexual assault priors.

Why not? Lottery tickets aren't overly expensive.

If she'd sued him against future earnings and now claimed part of hs winnings from that, I'd have no problem with it. To act as she has? Let's call it what it is: GREED.

...and an appalling lack of foresight.

To file it now looks greedy on the part of lawyers who didn't file when eligibility existed just because the convict was broke at the time.

Not to defend my profession...but allow me to defend my profession. It wasn't just that he was broke "at the time."

He was broke at the time, and facing a life sentence as a serial rapist. It's not only that he was broke "at the time". It was that he was broke at the time, and almost certain to remain so. Asking a lawyer to take that case is asking him to do that work for what is almost certainly nothing, especially since the odds of the lawyer ever actually getting his fee were about the same as him, quite literally, winning the lottery. And I won't fault anyone for refusing to take a job when they're almost certainly not going to get paid for it.

Not to defend my profession...but allow me to defend my profession. It wasn't just that he was broke "at the time."

He was broke at the time, and facing a life sentence as a serial rapist. It's not only that he was broke "at the time". It was that he was broke at the time, and almost certain to remain so. Asking a lawyer to take that case is asking him to do that work for what is almost certainly nothing, especially since the odds of the lawyer ever actually getting his fee were about the same as him, quite literally, winning the lottery

Fair enough. And it's reasonable that the victim hadn't the money to hire a lawyer without expectation of recompense at the end. That would not have prevented her from filing on her own behalf - a case like this isn't brain surgery.

Let's flip it on the other way though. Let's say she had sued him, won, and secured a judgment against him, which would allow her to attach any future income. If that were the case, would he have even bought the ticket in the first place?

You're playing a causality game. If a butterfly had flapped its wings in the Amazon ten years earlier, would he even have bought the ticket in the first place?

I don't remember which poster brought it up (snapping this away before Jolt goes all broody again) but: why would she sue him and attach his future earnings? It would cost her money to bring that civil suit, against expectations of future wealth (he'd be allowed enough income after release to live on) which might not even cover her costs.

Perhaps she should have, anyway. He might have got a book deal after release. People are idiots like that, making people rich by buying their book detailing all the terrible things they did to deserve not to be rich. ;)

Fair enough. And it's reasonable that the victim hadn't the money to hire a lawyer without expectation of recompense at the end. That would not have prevented her from filing on her own behalf - a case like this isn't brain surgery.

Here's a problem with extending legal aid to civil cases (which I'd advocate to some extent): if it was free to her to bring that suit "just in case" then she would probably do it. The 99% of cases where it would not pay off would be paid for by the public. I no like!

Did you read the article? The guy had six sexual assault priors.
naw. why should I read the article when it's more fun to make shit up?

my point still sort of stands: his prior convictions might have helped convince the judge to let the civil case go ahead.

Fair enough. And it's reasonable that the victim hadn't the money to hire a lawyer without expectation of recompense at the end. That would not have prevented her from filing on her own behalf - a case like this isn't brain surgery.

even what is a relatively simple case on the elements is still not something I'd ever recommend a non lawyer ever attempt on their own.

Hell, as a general rule, not even lawyers represent themselves.

naw. why should I read the article when it's more fun to make shit up?

my point still sort of stands: his prior convictions might have helped convince the judge to let the civil case go ahead.

:rolleyes:

Your point does not stand. It sits down, walks over to a different point, and raises it.

You asked about how severity/brutality affected the length of the convict's sentence, not about whether the judge let the civil case go ahead. Next question: do you read your own posts?

I have another objection (I wrote it up while Jolt was picking it's teeth and whistling, it's cooking with rocketfuel now and will almost certainly flip back soon, Bah):

"It will be even rarer for such a defendant, years later, to buy a lottery ticket which wins him 7 million pounds or otherwise comes into an unexpected fortune which makes him suddenly worth pursuing after all," the judge said.

But what about an "expected fortune" then judge? What about an unearned fortune like an inheritance?

Suppose we have a convicted rapist who is the only son of a wealthy old woman. At the time of her death, her Will bequests 7 million pounds to her son, who has been begging on the street since his release from jail. Should it make a difference if this woman dies at 82, within the statute of limitations of her son's crime, or at 88, well after the limitation has expired?

Now the survivor of the crime has to choose between sinking money into trying to "attach" that inheritance, without knowing if it will go to the penniless bum or to the orphaned cats home.

Surely there isn't some way for her to compel old woman to write her will some particular way? She has to gamble on it going to the rapist!

Perhaps not such a one-in-a-million case after all Judge.

Not to defend my profession...but allow me to defend my profession. It wasn't just that he was broke "at the time."

He was broke at the time, and facing a life sentence as a serial rapist. It's not only that he was broke "at the time". It was that he was broke at the time, and almost certain to remain so. Asking a lawyer to take that case is asking him to do that work for what is almost certainly nothing, especially since the odds of the lawyer ever actually getting his fee were about the same as him, quite literally, winning the lottery. And I won't fault anyone for refusing to take a job when they're almost certainly not going to get paid for it.

Fair enough. But it seems a bit disingenuous for lawyers who presumably know the legal system -- and know that someone with a "life" sentence may serve no such term in reality -- to not start a suit that will make any future income subject to garnishment. Hell, that might have just motivated the convict to buy that lottery ticket, just as much as whatever motivated him originally.

In addition, I'm not fond of the precedent this sets. Someone who, for better or worse, pays his debt to society and gets through the statute of limitations without a civil suit has done his time. Scumbag or not, bad policy to make lottery tickets acceptable furlough purchases or not, he served his time.

Fair enough. But it seems a bit disingenuous for lawyers who presumably know the legal system -- and know that someone with a "life" sentence may serve no such term in reality -- to not start a suit that will make any future income subject to garnishment. Hell, that might have just motivated the convict to buy that lottery ticket, just as much as whatever motivated him originally.

perhaps, but keep in mind also, you can't claim proceeds of income below a certain amount, you can't take from the liable party more than what would allow them to survive. So you're talking about a serial rapist who, sometime down the line, might get out and might earn enough to satisfy a judgment. It's a pretty big longshot. And a bet I wouldn't take.

even what is a relatively simple case on the elements is still not something I'd ever recommend a non lawyer ever attempt on their own.

Hell, as a general rule, not even lawyers represent themselves.

As a general rule, I'd agree. However, as someone who has represented himself in civil suit, I know it can be done and done well.

I utilised on-line law libraries, and got advice from low-cost and free legal aid clinics, and this was decisive in my winning the case. But if one is smart, and careful, it can be done.

Did you read the article? The guy had six sexual assault priors.

Imagine if one of the victims (or all five) had previously won civil cases after the criminal convictions, and secured a right to any future wealth the rapist might have.

She might have to share with the other victims, or even worse get none at all because they're done in order (dunno if they are or not, bugger research Jolt is working!)

You're right. More victims =/= better chance of getting money. Better chance of having it awarded maybe. Actually paid no.

:rolleyes:

Your point does not stand. It sits down, walks over to a different point, and raises it.

You asked about how severity/brutality affected the length of the convict's sentence, not about whether the judge let the civil case go ahead. Next question: do you read your own posts?

read my what?

I didn't ask anything. I raised the possibility that the brutality of the original crime may have played a part in the judge deciding to forego the statue of limitations allowing the civil case to proceed.

perhaps, but keep in mind also, you can't claim proceeds of income below a certain amount, you can't take from the liable party more than what would allow them to survive. So you're talking about a serial rapist who, sometime down the line, might get out and might earn enough to satisfy a judgment. It's a pretty big longshot. And a bet I wouldn't take.

Yeah, you're right. So where does that leave you on the original question -- break with precedent (or law) or establish the exception? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

read my what?

I didn't ask anything. I raised the possibility that the brutality of the original crime may have played a part in the judge deciding to forego the statue of limitations allowing the civil case to proceed.

Right. Then I asked whether or not you'd read the article because the guy had many prior convictions, and you said...

*sigh*...y'know what, skip it.

Yeah, you're right. So where does that leave you on the original question -- break with precedent (or law) or establish the exception? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Me? Fuck no, I prefer to talk about things like this on NSG, where my opinions don't have any practical consequences.

Me? Fuck no, I prefer to talk about things like this on NSG, where my opinions don't have any practical consequences.

Oh, well, I was just asking you your opinion in a RATHER DRAMATIC FASHION. Sorry 'bout that.

*shrugs*
He did lasting emotional harm to her -- harm that lasts her lifetime, not just during his prison sentence. In essence, he gave her a life sentence from which there is no parole.

She's still serving hers. I don't get how people assume that a prison term morally excuses others from the lasting mental and physical harm they do others.

I don't quite get where people come from when they say this. Don't be mistaken - what he did to her has obviously and totally destroyed her life in its entirety. Even though he did serve his prison time, he shouldn't be given pardon for this.

However, what I don't get is people understand what it is like to be a rape victim, yet completely pass over his 16 years of prison service, along with the years of dealing with his criminal case, and take it for granted. Assuredly, what he did was wrong. Yet, is it not fair to say that this man has suffered physically and emotionally by serving a decade and a half in prison?

I'm uncertain of how prisons are across the pond, so I can't exactly speak for him. However, I know that the prisons where I live are dank, overcrowded, underfunded cesspools that suck in inmates and (occasionally, and in some prisons, more than others) don't let them go without at least a few psychological and physical scarring.

I'm not saying to totally discount her suffering, either... But I believe that his service in prison at least deserves some of the merit that she is receiving.

It's not fair. She's doesn't deserve any of his money.

What is the rationale behind a statute of limitations?

To protect pedophile priests, child molesters, rapists and abusers. As far as I know only murder has no statute of limitations, oh, and, maybe, treason.

It's not fair. She's doesn't deserve any of his money.

Well there's a surprise. :rolleyes:

To protect pedophile priests, child molesters, rapists and abusers. As far as I know only murder has no statute of limitations, oh, and, maybe, treason.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for Neo Art to explain statutes to us. *nudges*

To protect pedophile priests, child molesters, rapists and abusers.

You know, for you to think that, there's no chance you know how statutes of limitations actually WORK.

Well there's a surprise. :rolleyes:



What's that supposed to mean? He already went to prison, he shouldn't be bothered anymore. His debt has been paid has it not?

What's that supposed to mean?

:eek::D

Well, I hate lottery because it's unjust. People should be awarded money based on their deeds, not luck.
But I can understand the lottery companies. They exploit (the average) human desire to gamble to make money selling tickets. They give just a fraction of the money back in prizes so it's their win. And there will always be gambling people, we can't change that.
As for the case, he won the money after the whole rape case. It's unfair to sue him. The victim is just trying to get more money.
I understand that the victim is furious. I would, probably, be too. But justice should not work that way.

And we may look at the bright side of this: I doubt he'll rape anyone again. Now that he can pay ladies to have sex with him. :D

And I also think rape damage is overrated.
It's a bad thing, yes. It's extremely uncomfortable, yes.
But a lifetime of emotional damage? Oh, come on! Adults are not kids! It won't affect them for the rest of their lives! (Even some kids wouldn't be affected, I'm sure)
I am all for harsh sentences for repeated rapes. (Not as much for first/second time rapists maybe.) But these "lifetime damage" claims are just ridiculous.

And I also think rape damage is overrated.
It's a bad thing, yes. It's extremely uncomfortable, yes.
But a lifetime of emotional damage? Oh, come on! Adults are not kids! It won't affect them for the rest of their lives! (Even some kids wouldn't be affected, I'm sure)
I am all for harsh sentences for repeated rapes. (Not as much for first/second time rapists maybe.) But these "lifetime damage" claims are just ridiculous.

You must be joking. I'm a man, so I can't vouch for how hard it must be for women to cope with rape, but honestly... it is probably like suddenly losing a friend to a horrible accident.

Hell, there are even people on the street in California just because they were raped. It's debilitating.

I have another objection (I wrote it up while Jolt was picking it's teeth and whistling, it's cooking with rocketfuel now and will almost certainly flip back soon, Bah):



But what about an "expected fortune" then judge? What about an unearned fortune like an inheritance?

Suppose we have a convicted rapist who is the only son of a wealthy old woman. At the time of her death, her Will bequests 7 million pounds to her son, who has been begging on the street since his release from jail. Should it make a difference if this woman dies at 82, within the statute of limitations of her son's crime, or at 88, well after the limitation has expired?

Now the survivor of the crime has to choose between sinking money into trying to "attach" that inheritance, without knowing if it will go to the penniless bum or to the orphaned cats home.

Surely there isn't some way for her to compel old woman to write her will some particular way? She has to gamble on it going to the rapist!

Perhaps not such a one-in-a-million case after all Judge.

What if the victim died within the time limit statute of limitations (or any time prior to the criminal's inheritance of money and release, really), the criminal was released from prison and inhereted this... well, inheritance.

Would any next-of-kin or dependants of the victim be able to sue the rapist (or even his estate) for the money, even if the victim is dead?

I'm not even nearly caught up in law, so this may be a meaningless hypothetical... still, considering the judge believes that this case is unusual, it logically follows that other such unusual cases would be heard as well.

You must be joking. I'm a man, so I can't vouch for how hard it must be for women to cope with rape, but honestly... it is probably like suddenly losing a friend to a horrible accident.
Oh, yes. If the knowledge, that you had sex which you did consent to, is your friend, sure.
But aside from that there is no permanent damage! It's like being mugged. You'll get your "money" back, your wounds will heal. If you get pregnant then that's a different story, of course.
Remember, I am not saying that rape is not bad. It's just that the perceived damages are extremely overrated. (I'm not even saying that the sentences are overrated!)

Hell, there are even people on the street in California just because they were raped. It's debilitating.
Surely they must have more reasons. It may be possible that it all started with the rapes, but getting raped is not enough to destroy your entire life!

It's not fair. She's doesn't deserve any of his money.

What's that supposed to mean? He already went to prison, he shouldn't be bothered anymore. His debt has been paid has it not?

What debt?

If you mean "debt to society" you might want to explain what that is.

Oh, yes. If the knowledge, that you had sex which you did consent to, is your friend, sure.
Sex is rape if the consent is missing. That doesn't mean that rape, an individual rape, is always just sex-like-any-other-sex-but-he-didn't-ask. There are degrees of "aggravation" (that's a legal word) which can make it more harmful, and courts recognize this.

But aside from that there is no permanent damage! It's like being mugged. You'll get your "money" back, your wounds will heal. If you get pregnant then that's a different story, of course.

How different? The need to take a morning-after pill as part of rape treatment is enough to make it "a whole different story" ...?

Before you reply, just let me soften my head up. :headbang: Uh, ok I'm ready.


No, hang on. Just a couple more. :headbang: :cool: :headbang: . Uh, okeh, leds hab it.

Remember, I am not saying that rape is not bad. It's just that the perceived damages are extremely overrated. (I'm not even saying that the sentences are overrated!)


The "perceived" damages are perceived by the victim. Sure it varies between people and I'm glad that the time your were raped wasn't too scarring for you.

Surely they must have more reasons. It may be possible that it all started with the rapes, but getting raped is not enough to destroy your entire life!

It shouldn't be. Supportive friends and supportive rape crisis staff / counselling / shelters for those who were raped in their home. These things can help.

There will still be some damage from a severe case like this. Perhaps we should start referring to rape "survivors" instead of "victims."

What if the victim died within the time limit statute of limitations (or any time prior to the criminal's inheritance of money and release, really), the criminal was released from prison and inhereted this... well, inheritance.

So what? You mistake my hypothetical for a meaningless musing about my own ignorance. It isn't.

It goes to the reason the judge gave for making "an exception" in this case, and I point out that the same exception could well apply to inheritance.

Would any next-of-kin or dependants of the victim be able to sue the rapist (or even his estate) for the money, even if the victim is dead?

Inheritance is pretty unjust as well. So I don't give a hoot about that.

I'm not even nearly caught up in law, so this may be a meaningless hypothetical... still, considering the judge believes that this case is unusual, it logically follows that other such unusual cases would be heard as well.

You got it. A higher court will hopefully spot that and overturn this precedent.

EDIT: I retract that. See my next post.

Sex is rape if the consent is missing. That doesn't mean that rape, an individual rape, is always just sex-like-any-other-sex-but-he-didn't-ask. There are degrees of "aggravation" (that's a legal word) which can make it more harmful, and courts recognize this.
Sex is rape if the consent is missing. Just as rape is sex where the consent is missing. Nothing more, really.
Why aren't there degrees of "aggravation" in, for example, the theft of a child's lollipop?

How different? The need to take a morning-after pill as part of rape treatment is enough to make it "a whole different story" ...?

Before you reply, just let me soften my head up. :headbang: Uh, ok I'm ready.
Take your time....
Done?

No, hang on. Just a couple more. :headbang: :cool: :headbang: . Uh, okeh, leds hab it.
Yes, it is something different. There are no permanent physical consequences if there is no pregnancy (assuming there is no other permanent physical damage). It's basically the same as when you don't have to pay alimony if no baby was born.

The "perceived" damages are perceived by the victim.
You know how a kid who you take his favorite toy from perceives the "damages" you caused him?

It shouldn't be. Supportive friends and supportive rape crisis staff / counselling / shelters for those who were raped in their home. These things can help.
Many victims would be okay if people just stopped reminding them constantly that they were raped. The rape in itself doesn't do permanent harm. It's the things that follow (and the reactions of other people) that do.

Perhaps we should start referring to rape "survivors" instead of "victims."
Oh, please! You make it sound like they should be lucky to be alive!

Sorry if anyone else posted this link.

Better source (Guardian July 9) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/09/law.ukcrime)

This case has exhausted its appeals! It went to the Law Lords, who sent it back down to the High Court.

Jonathan Wheeler of London solicitors Bolt Burdon Kemp, who acted for successful claimants in the House of Lords judgment, said he was now personally processing up to 25 new cases previously debarred by time limits. "There's a lot of work there," he said. "This judgment shows how the House of Lords ruling is going to be applied."

Sex is rape if the consent is missing. Just as rape is sex where the consent is missing. Nothing more, really.
Why aren't there degrees of "aggravation" in, for example, the theft of a child's lollipop?

Hang on. There was a huge long thread about consent in "Is it Rape?"
I have the last post in that thread. It was from only a few hours ago.
If you like, we can go over there and debate this. :)

It's not the topic of this one. I'm sorry I participated in this HIJACK.

Hang on. There was a huge long thread about consent in "Is it Rape?"
I have the last post in that thread. It was from only a few hours ago.
If you like, we can go over there and debate this. :)

It's not the topic of this one. I'm sorry I participated in this HIJACK.

If you think it would be more appropriate then why not?
By all means, go ahead. It's your turn :)