NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13932

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13932 talk.abortion:58118
Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!intercon!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!copper!mercury.cair.du.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:59:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Lines: 72
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>>he sees.
>>>
>>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>>
>>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape.
>
>*WRONG*. All crimes require a criminal intent, or _mens rea_. The man
>under hypnosis has none. He acts merely as an instrument of the evil
>hypnotizer.
>
Kebbin, if you'll *read* what I wrote, you might notice that I said
*act* of rape, not crime. Now go get a dictionary and see if you can
discover the difference.
Idiot.

>>He may get off on the
>>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>>he's still guilty of the act.
>
>"Guilty" of the act (which means nothing), but _not_ guilty of the *crime*.
>
No shit Kibble. Maybe that's why I said ACT of rape, not crime. You
really should sign up for that remedial English course soonest.

>>My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>>fault'.
>
>No, they're not the same. There is a verdict of "guilty but insane". But
>that's different. That just affects sentencing, not the question of
>guilt or innocence.
>
>Besides, Mr. Medicine Man, being temporarily under hypnotic suggestion isn't
>technically the same as being "insane", is it? Is "insane" even a proper
>medical term?
>
It may not be technically the same, but I bet the courts would accept
the defense. And Kibble, I wasn't *talking* about a medical diagnosis,
was I? I was talking about a verdict in a court case.

>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>body from being violated?
>>
>>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>If she has the legal right to kill in self-defense (which has not been
>demonstrated to my satisfaction to be the case in ANY state of the Union),
>the evil hypnotizer is guilty of felony murder as well as rape, since he
>caused the whole situation. In fact, depending on how the statute was written,
>the evil hypnotizer might even be guilty of TWO counts of criminal sexual
>assault as well as the felony murder (since he forced the dart-victim into a
>sexual encounter without HIS consent as well). In any case, I don't think
>he'll be getting out of prison anytime soon... :-|
>
Does this mean you've finally found a state in which it is *not* legal
to kill a rapist to halt the rape?
Besides Kebbin, you might notice up there that I said 'as far as I'm
concerned'. Did I meantion law? Did I say she had a legal right? No, I
didn't.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.