Should Sexual Misrepresentation Be A Crime? Yes!

[manifold]

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

Is that a fact?

Where is your evidence to support this conclusion?

How exactly do you define wrong?

 

[eagleseven]

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

Is that a fact?

Where is your evidence to support this conclusion?

How exactly do you define wrong?

Wrong is everything that disagrees with me, of course!

 

[Anguille]

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

Is that a fact?

Where is your evidence to support this conclusion?

How exactly do you define wrong?

There is nothing wrong with being a manifold either.

 

[manifold]

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

Is that a fact?

Where is your evidence to support this conclusion?

How exactly do you define wrong?

There is nothing wrong with being a manifold either.

Nikfail.

 

[Luissa]

If you live in any of the big cities, this happens more often that you can imagine. A man goes into a bar, perhaps with friends, has a few drinks, maybe looking for a little action, becomes engaged in a stimulating conversation with a "beautiful" woman, has a few more drinks with her, and before he knows it, she's blowing him in his car and he goes for third base and POW!! the woman has a penis.

Now seriously, many guys would claim that that would never happen to them. That they would know if a woman were a man. Perhaps that might be true in any other setting, completely sober, but that doesn't matter. Heterosexual males do not typically change gender preference no matter what condition they're in.

I've asked this question quite often and some of the guys said they would beat the shit out of the he/she under those circumstances. Some have reacted more violently, and of course some took it to an extreme level which ended up in murder, or at least manslaughter were it was not premeditated. More like a crime of passion. Imagine kissing a woman who is a guy? Imagine getting a bj from a woman who turns out to be a guy? I mean this is a primal instinct reaction to the ultimate deception. Gender relations. Can the victim be genuinely prosecuted given these circumstances? And should the deceiver be charged?

There are several issues here. Considering the nature of sexual relations with another person, something very personal, I truly believe that such a deception could be considered rape or at the very least sexual assault because whatever sexual act was performed on the unsuspecting individual they did not yet have the opportunity to completely confirm the gender of the other person, believing that they were in the right arena. Thus they only consented to having sex, some form of sex with what they were led to believe was a particular gender. Ethically, that individual should have disclosed their true identity no matter how badly they needed affection from the same sex. They knew that they would not have gotten that far with someone had they disclosed that information. That's to begin with.

Sexually Provoked: Recognizing Sexual Misrepresentation as Adequate Provocation
Bradford Bigler*
53 UCLA L. Rev. 783 (2006)

Research suggests that a serious sexual misrepresentation can spark an emotional firestorm in the deceived. But, as a matter of law, can this emotional firestorm be considered a reasonable heat of passion? In short, when may a killer assert the provocation defense given a serious sexual misrepresentation? The law currently addresses this question in a haphazard way. Despite the recurrent deception theme found in many provocation cases—such as those involving the concealment of adultery, sexual identity, or sexual health status—the law applies to these cases a patchwork of legal theories that masks the role of the deception in bringing about a reasonable heat of passion. This ad hoc approach leaves the provocation defense both doctrinally disconnected and normatively unappealing. This Comment thus proposes treating sexual misrepresentation as legally adequate provocation when (1) a defendant engages in a sexual act while reasonably deceived, (2) regarding a fact reasonably material to consent, and (3) the discovery of which would cause a reasonable person a severe mental or emotional crisis upon discovery.

* Editor, UCLA Law Review, Volume 53. J.D. Candidate, UCLA School of Law, 2006; B.S., United States Military Academy, 1999. The author is a Captain in the United States Army on active duty, and is studying under the Army’s Funded Legal Education Program, pending transfer to the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. The opinions expressed in this Comment reflect the views of the author only, and not the views of the Judge Advocate General or the Department of the Army.

Issue 53/3/2-1 | UCLA Law Review


Hate crimes against individuals should be taken seriously, absolutely! But there are acceptions that simply cannot be ignored. Homosexuals who are attacked after performing sexuals act with the consent of those who believed they were actually of a particular sex, should realize that they are placing themselves in danger for very natural primal reasons.

If a white person went into a primarily black community and began to shout racial slurs, you can pretty much expect to eventually get mauled. What's interesting about that is that once such an event gets past freedom of speech, which in this case never seems to stick, that person who most likely ends up in the hospital, will be prosecuted. Not the people who attacked them. They were defending their honor. But why, case after case, does the individual who was sexually deceived bare the burden of assault charges, having attacked the homosexual, even to the slightest degree? The above UCLA review does well to address this issue.

Anne Marie

I guess we have to make every time someone lies to get laid a crime?If we did that most of the male population of this country would be in jail!
And by the way if you can't tell someone is in drag, you should get your eyes checked.

 

[Sunni Man]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

 

[Anguille]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

 

[sidneyworld]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

Your play on words is in itself deceptive and convoluted, Anguille. When you quote someone at the very least don't compromise their point with your fiction. No one is beating anyone up for simply lying in this scenario. The reaction comes from a man being fooled into allowing someone to perform a sexual act upon them that they believed was a woman. You can only be a homophobe from a distance. Phobia is defined as an unrealistic fear of something. Once there is actually any real interaction, you are now reacting to a bonefide reality. Like a heterosexual man by whatever circumstances or conditions discovers a guy just blew him in a moment of what he believed was heterosexual oral sex. I mean come on.

Sexually Provoked: Recognizing Sexual Misrepresentation as Adequate Provocation
Bradford Bigler*
53 UCLA L. Rev. 783 (2006)

Research suggests that a serious sexual misrepresentation can spark an emotional firestorm in the deceived. But, as a matter of law, can this emotional firestorm be considered a reasonable heat of passion? In short, when may a killer assert the provocation defense given a serious sexual misrepresentation? The law currently addresses this question in a haphazard way. Despite the recurrent deception theme found in many provocation cases—such as those involving the concealment of adultery, sexual identity, or sexual health status—the law applies to these cases a patchwork of legal theories that masks the role of the deception in bringing about a reasonable heat of passion. This ad hoc approach leaves the provocation defense both doctrinally disconnected and normatively unappealing. This Comment thus proposes treating sexual misrepresentation as legally adequate provocation when (1) a defendant engages in a sexual act while reasonably deceived, (2) regarding a fact reasonably material to consent, and (3) the discovery of which would cause a reasonable person a severe mental or emotional crisis upon discovery.

Anne Marie

 

[Sunni Man]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

I am not a homophobe.

As the word "phobia" basically means to be afraid of something.

Homos don't scare me at all.

But they do disgust me.

 

[manifold]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

What he said is that he doesn't think the guy is guilty of A&B. And you preface your post with "if the guy was indeed guilty..."

Are you retarded?

 

[Tech_Esq]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

We all knew that. You didn't need to confirm it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

Your play on words is in itself deceptive and convoluted, Anguille. When you quote someone at the very least don't compromise their point with your fiction. No one is beating anyone up for simply lying in this scenario. The reaction comes from a man being fooled into allowing someone to perform a sexual act upon them that they believed was a woman. You can only be a homophobe from a distance. Phobia is defined as an unrealistic fear of something. Once there is actually any real interaction, you are now reacting to a bonefide reality. Like a heterosexual man by whatever circumstances or conditions discovers a guy just blew him in a moment of what he believed was heterosexual oral sex. I mean come on.

Sexually Provoked: Recognizing Sexual Misrepresentation as Adequate Provocation
Bradford Bigler*
53 UCLA L. Rev. 783 (2006)

Research suggests that a serious sexual misrepresentation can spark an emotional firestorm in the deceived. But, as a matter of law, can this emotional firestorm be considered a reasonable heat of passion? In short, when may a killer assert the provocation defense given a serious sexual misrepresentation? The law currently addresses this question in a haphazard way. Despite the recurrent deception theme found in many provocation cases—such as those involving the concealment of adultery, sexual identity, or sexual health status—the law applies to these cases a patchwork of legal theories that masks the role of the deception in bringing about a reasonable heat of passion. This ad hoc approach leaves the provocation defense both doctrinally disconnected and normatively unappealing. This Comment thus proposes treating sexual misrepresentation as legally adequate provocation when (1) a defendant engages in a sexual act while reasonably deceived, (2) regarding a fact reasonably material to consent, and (3) the discovery of which would cause a reasonable person a severe mental or emotional crisis upon discovery.

Anne Marie

Bullshit. Another PMS defense. Great, just what we needed.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Jury nulification is a time honored and patriotic American tradition



Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you have a point with this post or you thought we all needed a primer in jury nullification?

 

[Sunni Man]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first

Jury nulification is a time honored and patriotic American tradition



Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Luissa]

So if I beat up a man who is using the penis enhancement drugs I should be acquited because he was pretending to be something he is not? I guess that would be true if he lied about being married also?

 

[Anguille]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

Your play on words is in itself deceptive and convoluted, Anguille. When you quote someone at the very least don't compromise their point with your fiction. No one is beating anyone up for simply lying in this scenario. The reaction comes from a man being fooled into allowing someone to perform a sexual act upon them that they believed was a woman. You can only be a homophobe from a distance. Phobia is defined as an unrealistic fear of something. Once there is actually any real interaction, you are now reacting to a bonefide reality. Like a heterosexual man by whatever circumstances or conditions discovers a guy just blew him in a moment of what he believed was heterosexual oral sex. I mean come on.

Sexually Provoked: Recognizing Sexual Misrepresentation as Adequate Provocation
Bradford Bigler*
53 UCLA L. Rev. 783 (2006)

Research suggests that a serious sexual misrepresentation can spark an emotional firestorm in the deceived. But, as a matter of law, can this emotional firestorm be considered a reasonable heat of passion? In short, when may a killer assert the provocation defense given a serious sexual misrepresentation? The law currently addresses this question in a haphazard way. Despite the recurrent deception theme found in many provocation cases—such as those involving the concealment of adultery, sexual identity, or sexual health status—the law applies to these cases a patchwork of legal theories that masks the role of the deception in bringing about a reasonable heat of passion. This ad hoc approach leaves the provocation defense both doctrinally disconnected and normatively unappealing. This Comment thus proposes treating sexual misrepresentation as legally adequate provocation when (1) a defendant engages in a sexual act while reasonably deceived, (2) regarding a fact reasonably material to consent, and (3) the discovery of which would cause a reasonable person a severe mental or emotional crisis upon discovery.

Anne Marie

You still don't get it, do you, that anonymous sex is just that, anonymous. There is no guarantee that any assumptions made by either participants will prove to be true.

Sunni would vote not guilty because he's glad to see a homosexual beat up, not because he thinks the assailant had any justifiable cause.

 

[Anguille]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

What he said is that he doesn't think the guy is guilty of A&B. And you preface your post with "if the guy was indeed guilty..."

Are you retarded?

Not as retarded as you.

He said he would VOTE not guilty. He did not say he thought the guy was not guilty.

 

[Anguille]

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first or a homophobe first?

What if it was the case of a guy beating up a Muslim for being Muslim?

Your play on words is in itself deceptive and convoluted, Anguille. When you quote someone at the very least don't compromise their point with your fiction. No one is beating anyone up for simply lying in this scenario. The reaction comes from a man being fooled into allowing someone to perform a sexual act upon them that they believed was a woman. You can only be a homophobe from a distance. Phobia is defined as an unrealistic fear of something. Once there is actually any real interaction, you are now reacting to a bonefide reality. Like a heterosexual man by whatever circumstances or conditions discovers a guy just blew him in a moment of what he believed was heterosexual oral sex. I mean come on.

Sexually Provoked: Recognizing Sexual Misrepresentation as Adequate Provocation
Bradford Bigler*
53 UCLA L. Rev. 783 (2006)

Research suggests that a serious sexual misrepresentation can spark an emotional firestorm in the deceived. But, as a matter of law, can this emotional firestorm be considered a reasonable heat of passion? In short, when may a killer assert the provocation defense given a serious sexual misrepresentation? The law currently addresses this question in a haphazard way. Despite the recurrent deception theme found in many provocation cases—such as those involving the concealment of adultery, sexual identity, or sexual health status—the law applies to these cases a patchwork of legal theories that masks the role of the deception in bringing about a reasonable heat of passion. This ad hoc approach leaves the provocation defense both doctrinally disconnected and normatively unappealing. This Comment thus proposes treating sexual misrepresentation as legally adequate provocation when (1) a defendant engages in a sexual act while reasonably deceived, (2) regarding a fact reasonably material to consent, and (3) the discovery of which would cause a reasonable person a severe mental or emotional crisis upon discovery.

Anne Marie

Bullshit. Another PMS defense. Great, just what we needed.

Exactly. For Anne Marie the preservation of fragile male egos belonging to men uncertain of their own sexuality is more important than protecting people from violence.

 

[Anguille]

If I was on a jury, and hearing the case of a guy who beat up a cross dressing homo for deception.

I would vote "Not Guilty", and the guy would walk away Free!!!

If the guy was indeed guilty of assault and battery and you voted not guilty because you like seeing transvestites beat up, then you would have violated your duties as a juror. Are you and American first

Jury nulification is a time honored and patriotic American tradition



Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You left out this part of the Wiki article :

"Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.[9][10] Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.[11] Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 ~.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977).[12] Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.[13] They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.[14]"

 

[Mr Ripley]

Women sexually misrepresent themselves every day with the ton of make up they wear. Scrape all the colored animal fat off their faces and more often than not, you have a MUCH uglier woman. Should that be a crime? First, put all the pedophile priests in jail, folks, get your priorities in order.

As for jury nullification for beating up a tranny? Dude's a homophobe, he's learned his koranic lessons well. Sunni, how about instead beating the crap out of muslims who marry grade school aged children?