Judge orders woman to pose nude for photographs (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/02/nu....ap/index.html
Anyone think this would ever happen to a man?

 

[Carl Johnson]

I don't think that the sex of the defendant has much to do with it. If this were a man accused of sexual misconduct I'd be all for the judge ordering a strip show for the jury if necessary.

 

[Chris Lock]

Finally my faith in the legal system is restored.
What's the URL for the photos? Is she hot?
>Anyone think this would ever happen to a man?
Does Michael Jackson count? Don't forget his famous quote about the warrant that allowed authorities to "view & photograph my penis ... & whatever [parts] they want".

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Wouldn't you think the testimony of a court appointed doctor would be more than suffecient to determine if the claims are correct? It seems like forcing a permanent nude document of a defendant is going a bit far, and could be avoided.

V

 

[Bill Catherall]

I was thinking the exact same thing Vince.

Anyone think this would ever happen to a man?

Actually I do...and it's probably more likely.

 

[DennisHP]

Where do they get these kinds of judges? (rehetorical question)

 

[Brian Perry]

Anyone think this would ever happen to a man?

Weren't Bill Clinton's private parts examined for a "unique" characteristic during the Paula Jones trial? I know it was at least discussed.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

THey took pictures of MJ's equipment because they wanted to give the kid a lineup

No joke

 

[Jack Briggs]

The continuing crisis ...

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I'm sure in this case they could get a doctor of forensics to verify the descriptions of any tell tale features without the humiliation of creating photographic records for the judge, and whoever else to peruse. Assuming the woman is innocent until proven guilty, this is a gross invasion of privacy.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

I'm sure in this case they could get a doctor of forensics to verify the descriptions of any tell tale features without the humiliation of creating photographic records for the judge, and whoever else to peruse. Assuming the woman is innocent until proven guilty, this is a gross invasion of privacy.

How is the person supposed to be proven guilty if the jury cannot examine evidence? If the kid says 'she has a birthmark in the shape of a platypus' then they need to see if there's a birthmark.

 

[Bill Catherall]

Shayne, the doctor's testimony can be submitted as evidence and can be just as convincing. This article even states that it is undecided that the pictures will even be given to the jury for scrutinizing. So really...what's the point of the pictures?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

That's not true at all. Defendants need not put on a display that shows they are insane to the jury in order to be declared insane. A plantif doesn't have to physically show they have been raped to the jury to have a case. Murder victims don't have to show each of their wounds to the jury...
Testimony of medical professionals are absolutely acceptible for this type of evidence-- doctors are probably the most common profession called into the witness stand (I would imagine Coroner would be the most common). Heck, courts allow testimony of "expert witnesses", who have examined nothing about the specific case, all the time.
The whole jury system is based on presented various forms of evidence- not necessarily showing them everything first hand. Eye witness testimony is another example- the jury is not required to witness the crime directly- rather listen to the evidence from those who did.
If it became important in a trial that I have an ulcer, wouldn't the sworn testimony of a doctor be more than enough to make that point-- or should they open me up right there in the courtroom.
-Vince

 

[Andy_S]

You know within a week those pictures would end up on the 'net too.

 

[DennisHP]

Good thing CNN reported this instead of Foxnews. It has more credibility with CNN.

 

[felix_suwarno]

how come a woman rape a boy? if he didnt want to have sex with her, no erection, right? i mean, if he had erection, then he was willing to have sex with her, and i dont consider that he was raped.

is there an article describing how the rape was done?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

If the boy is underage, even if he consents it is still statutory rape.

 

[Scooter]

Good thing CNN reported this instead of Foxnews. It has more credibility with CNN.

Oh my....so wrong about that dude!

 

[Max Leung]

if he didnt want to have sex with her, no erection, right?

Ummm...errrr...males are easily stimulated into getting an erection. It's pretty much involuntary, physiologically speaking, given the right stimulation, regardless of the male's feeling on the subject. Plus, slip a man viagra, and he'd get an erection, wanted or not! And, don't forget that male pre-adolescents, who are close to puberty, get unwanted erections all the time! I remember teachers in school presenting humourous books on puberty. One picture I found hilarious is a cartoon depicting a kid looking down at his swimming trunks, with a rocket trying to get out of it.
A man is ready for sex, anytime, anywhere...but that doesn't mean he'd want to!

 

[Duane Robinson]

Or that he gets to. :frowning: