re: #3 Dark_Falcon

In the California case, the state Supreme Court did not say the defendant was ‘not guilty’; What it said was: “The prosecutor offered two grounds on which to convict the defendant and one of those two grounds is invalid because its not in the law (which hasn’t been updated since the 19th Century). Since we by law cannot ask the jury as to the grounds upon which they convicted this man, we have no choice but to void his conviction. However, we recommend he be retried on the remaining grounds (that being that he had sex with the complainant while she was unconscious and thus unable to consent) and that the law be updated.”

The judges weren’t anti-woman, but they were limited in what they could do. Yes, the law should allow a person to be convicted of rape if he gains consent by pretending to be someone he isn’t, but in California at present the law only says that if the imposter pretended to be the victim’s spouse. Judges may not make the law, that job belongs to the legislature. Those seeking a change in the law are going to have to find a way to push their cause in Sacramento.

So, pointing this out, supports what?

Did you glean any new knowledge from the article as a whole?