Here is the prosecution:
The Iowa Attorney General’s office says [Henry] Rayhons had intercourse with his wife when she lacked the mental capacity to consent because she had Alzheimer’s. She died on Aug. 8, four days short of her 79th birthday, of complications from the disease. One week later, Rayhons, 78, was arrested. He pleaded not guilty….These prosecutors are sick. The lawmakers also. Whatever went on between this couple is none of anyone's business.
By many accounts, Henry and Donna Rayhons were deeply in love. Both their families embraced their marriage. The case has produced no evidence thus far that the couple’s love faded, that Donna failed to recognize her husband or that she asked that he not touch her, said Rayhons’ son Dale Rayhons, a paramedic and the family’s unofficial spokesman.
Based on evidence generated so far, state prosecutors are likely to portray Rayhons as a sex-hungry man who took advantage of a sweet, confused woman who didn’t know what month it was, forgot how to eat a hamburger and lost track of her room.
This case is clear: if she gave him a power-of-attorney while she was competent, then he can do whatever he wants to her for the rest of her life when she is no longer competent. That's what a lawyer would do.
Interesting idea, but I doubt that it would work. The prosecutor would describe that as a sexual slavery contract, which is forbidden under law. Furthermore the rape law makes no exception for such things.
These types of cases are why I'm convinced that the law needs to be completely abrogated by juries. I have taken to just voting "not guilty" for whatever crime someone is charged with when it comes down to he-said/she-said, or police's against defendent, or anything else with laws like this BS one. I just sit there, listening, then vote "Not Guilty". Had a judge tell us that we had to find the defendent guilty. Nope - Not Guilty. If the Founding Fathers wasnted Judges to be gods, they wouldn't have created a system designed with checks. We are the last line of defense now...
I am of the same mind as the last commenter, will vote not guilty in any he said, she said or any case involving BS laws.
We would probably be kicked off the jury before the trial starts.
Agree with previous posters regarding jury duty. Just remember to keep your mouth shut about being Pro-nullification.
Explain your decision in terms of finding/not finding a witness credible. Never admit that you do not consider something legislatively illegal to actually be a crime. Never say the law is a bad law, just refuse to convict.
In this case, I do not think that any dishonesty is required. You could say, "I do not disagree with the rape law, or even the judge's interpretations of the rape law. I just did not think that the prosecution proved the necessary criminal intent."
Post a Comment