Obama refused to support rape victims

Superfreak said:
Why did Obama vote present?
Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of information on this. From the April 28, 1999, report in the State Journal-Register, which is now a PAGE NOT FOUND

Sometime between the vote on the Senate bill and the House bill, a constitutional issue was raised.

The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve."

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-132729
 
Dixie said:
In other words, Obama didn't favor the version passed because he felt it violated the constitutional rights of the rapist.
Click to expand...

The version that passed had identical wording to the bill he co-sponsored in regards to sealing records. I posted links and even the language of the 2 bills.

Why is it impossible to have an adult conversation with you Dixie? You keep making such asinine statements. There is nothing in the bill Obama co-sponsored that protects rapists. And the Illinois Press Association makes a valid argument. If my daughter were raped, I would what to protect her records. AND, if my son was accused of rape and found innocent, I would want the same protection for him.
 
Bfgrn said:
The version that passed had identical wording to the bill he co-sponsored in regards to sealing records. I posted links and even the language of the 2 bills.

Why is it impossible to have an adult conversation with you Dixie? You keep making such asinine statements. There is nothing in the bill Obama co-sponsored that protects rapists. And the Illinois Press Association makes a valid argument. If my daughter were raped, I would what to protect her records. AND, if my son was accused of rape and found innocent, I would want the same protection for him.
Click to expand...

The only difference is, Obama's version protected the constitutional rights of the convicted rapist at the expense of the rape victim, which is why the governor vetoed it.
 
Dixie said:
The only difference is, Obama's version protected the constitutional rights of the convicted rapist at the expense of the rape victim, which is why the governor vetoed it.
Click to expand...

Explain HOW, in detail Obama's version protected the constitutional rights of the convicted rapist at the expense of the rape victim???
 
Bfgrn said:
Explain HOW, in detail Obama's version protected the constitutional rights of the convicted rapist at the expense of the rape victim???
Click to expand...

It's already been explained several times. You just keep repeating the same nonsense and coming back to this. Why don't you try explaining why the bill Obama sponsored was vetoed by the governor, if he signed a bill that said the exact same thing?
 
Damocles said:
It incentivizes those who do not wish to submit to tests to lie about causality so that they are not forced to endure a further violation enforced by the government on their body.

Evidence is gathered through the regular means, however the rights of the victim are protected. In this new law they'll be forced to undergo testing they may believe increases their sense of violation. The government forces them to endure what they may not wish to endure.

It seems strange that people who are upset about an ultrasound that they may have to take before they abort would champion this...
Click to expand...

Reposting Damo's explanation for Bfoon.
 
Dixie said:
Reposting Damo's explanation for Bfoon.
Click to expand...

Here is the elephant in the room. NO rapist will be convicted without the rape victim submitting to the invasive tests and examinations the bill Obama co-sponsors mandates. NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. There is no 'evidence gathered through the regular means'. The ONLY means are specific rape kit procedures, tests and examinations.

Are you really THAT thick Dixie?????????
 
Here's a much more recent declaration of support for rape victims, for you fans of "current" events:

 
Bfgrn said:
Here is the elephant in the room. NO rapist will be convicted without the rape victim submitting to the invasive tests and examinations the bill Obama co-sponsors mandates. NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. There is no 'evidence gathered through the regular means'. The ONLY means are specific rape kit procedures, tests and examinations.

Are you really THAT thick Dixie?????????
Click to expand...

The bill we are discussing has nothing to do with prosecution or conviction. It strictly deals with what happens AFTER convictions.
 
Dixie said:
The bill we are discussing has nothing to do with prosecution or conviction. It strictly deals with what happens AFTER convictions.
Click to expand...

Damo's reply DOES discuss prosecution or conviction. You are all over the place Dixie. You are getting desperate.
 
Want a Real Reason to Be Outraged?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/kristof-Outrageous-Policies-Toward-Rape-Victims.html

A bit of background: A rape kit is the evidence, including swabs with DNA, taken at a hospital from a woman’s (or man’s) body after a rape. Testing that DNA costs $1,200 or more. Partly to save money, those rape kits often sit untested for years on the shelves of police storage rooms, particularly if the victim didn’t come outfitted with a halo.

By most accounts, hundreds of thousands of these untested kits are stacked up around the country. In Illinois, 80 percent of rape kits were going untested as of 2010, Human Rights Watch reported at the time — embarrassing the state to begin a push to test all rape kits.

In Michigan, the Wayne County prosecutor, Kym Worthy, said she was shocked to discover more than 11,000 rape kits lying around untested — some dating to the 1980s. Worthy said that her office is now going through the backlog and testing those that are running into statute of limitations deadlines.

So far, of 153 kits tested, 21 match evidence in a criminal database and may involve serial rapists. But Worthy, who herself was raped while she was in law school, says the broader problem is indifference to sex crimes.

“Sexual assault is the stepchild of the law enforcement system,” she said. “When rape victims come into the criminal justice system, they are often treated poorly. They may be talked out of pursuing the case.”

The bottom line, Worthy said, is that “sexual assault is not taken as seriously as other crimes.” That — more than any offensive words — is the real scandal.

Kamala Harris, the attorney general of California, eliminated the rape kit backlog in state crime labs after she took office. “If you don’t test it, you’ve got a victim who is absolutely petrified, and you’ve got a rapist who thinks he got away with it,” she said. “There could be nothing worse as a continuing threat to public safety.”
 
Bfgrn said:
Damo's reply DOES discuss prosecution or conviction. You are all over the place Dixie. You are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

Wonder why there's no link from The Dix to prove the bill "has nothing to do with prosecution or conviction. It strictly deals with what happens AFTER convictions"?
 
Bfgrn said:
Damo's reply DOES discuss prosecution or conviction. You are all over the place Dixie. You are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

That's because the provision in Obama's bill dealt with an issue related to prosecution and conviction. He sought to have this protectionary element included for the benefit of rapists, in a bill intended to help rape victims. You're really trying to drive a square peg through a round hole here, as was Obama with the amendment. The bill was supposed to protect rape victims privacy, to allow them to keep the details of the evidence private by sealing the information. Obama was okay with allowing that, under the condition that rapists could demand their accuser undergo mandatory tests and they be submitted to law enforcement without consent. His position was to stand up for the rights of the convicted rapist, and not to protect the rape victim.

I notice you are lacking an answer to my previous question about why the governor vetoed Obama's version. Is that forthcoming?
 
Bfgrn said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/kristof-Outrageous-Policies-Toward-Rape-Victims.html

A bit of background: A rape kit is the evidence, including swabs with DNA, taken at a hospital from a woman’s (or man’s) body after a rape. Testing that DNA costs $1,200 or more. Partly to save money, those rape kits often sit untested for years on the shelves of police storage rooms, particularly if the victim didn’t come outfitted with a halo.

By most accounts, hundreds of thousands of these untested kits are stacked up around the country. In Illinois, 80 percent of rape kits were going untested as of 2010, Human Rights Watch reported at the time — embarrassing the state to begin a push to test all rape kits.

In Michigan, the Wayne County prosecutor, Kym Worthy, said she was shocked to discover more than 11,000 rape kits lying around untested — some dating to the 1980s. Worthy said that her office is now going through the backlog and testing those that are running into statute of limitations deadlines.

So far, of 153 kits tested, 21 match evidence in a criminal database and may involve serial rapists. But Worthy, who herself was raped while she was in law school, says the broader problem is indifference to sex crimes.

“Sexual assault is the stepchild of the law enforcement system,” she said. “When rape victims come into the criminal justice system, they are often treated poorly. They may be talked out of pursuing the case.”

The bottom line, Worthy said, is that “sexual assault is not taken as seriously as other crimes.” That — more than any offensive words — is the real scandal.

Kamala Harris, the attorney general of California, eliminated the rape kit backlog in state crime labs after she took office. “If you don’t test it, you’ve got a victim who is absolutely petrified, and you’ve got a rapist who thinks he got away with it,” she said. “There could be nothing worse as a continuing threat to public safety.”
Click to expand...

You are retreating back to a prosecutorial argument again, and the bill in question wasn't about prosecution or conviction. It was about protection of a rape victim's privacy AFTER conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top