Our Threatened Freedom
When Is Rape Not Rape? (03:30)
R.J. Rushdoony: 00:01 When his rape not rape?
R.J. Rushdoony: 00:03 This is R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.
R.J. Rushdoony: 00:08 The New York Magazine reported earlier this year on a case of truly blinded justice. I have debated whether or not I should discuss it for a few months and finally have decided to report on it. Let me say first of all that not all judges, by any means, are like this one, but enough are to make it necessary to comment on it.
R.J. Rushdoony: 00:31 A young woman, a bank teller, was robbed and raped by a hoodlum. She was held at knife point. Her face covered by the rapists jacket and raped. It is reported that the New York judge asked the young woman, 24 years old, a single question. Had she seen the rapist penetrate her? Since her face was covered, she said no. The criminal was acquitted of rape and first degree robbery, but convicted only of non-violent robbery and sexual abuse. Both of which carry much lighter penalties.
R.J. Rushdoony: 01:08 Now, when is robbery and rape at knife point non-violent? And where are we told that if the victims face is covered, rape becomes only sexual abuse? The prosecutor rightly argued in court that if actual vision of the rape were necessary, no one could be prosecuted for raping a blind woman. The judge did not buy this argument.
R.J. Rushdoony: 01:36 The district attorney’s office felt that future rape prosecutions were all threatened, stating, “I’ve never heard of a woman watching penetration in a rape case.” A source close to the judge said that the sexual abuse might have been with a dildo or hands. How often does that happen? And what is the difference?
R.J. Rushdoony: 01:57 By positing hypothetical alternatives, almost any crime can be explained away. All that can be said about such thinking is that surely our muggers, thieves
R.J. Rushdoony: 02:32 Twice recently I heard about men who were robbed of considerable sums of money. In one case, a man borrow $20,000, in another owed $15,000, and in both cases refused to pay. In both cases, they got away with it. When the two aggrieved party’s looked into the legal costs, plus the court situation, they realized two things. First, it would cost them too much money and time to go to court. Second, even if they won, and there was no assurance, that they would be able to collect. In another case, a man went to court over $25,000 ten years ago, won a judgment, and still has not been able to collect. Justice and the law are parting company, and when they do freedom is in trouble.
R.J. Rushdoony: 03:25 This has been R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.
Learn more about R.J. Rushdoony by visiting: https://chalcedon.edu/founder