#Public Prosecution Service

[coochiequeens]

“Is it safe for one violent perpetrator, who is biologically male, to disrupt the lives of hundreds of incarcerated women for up to 14 years?"

By Genevieve Gluck December 4, 2023

A trans-identified male in the Netherlands charged with committing a brutal murder has been placed in a women’s prison ahead of his final hearings. Known only as “Daniela D.,” the 32-year-old Chilean national is accused of having stabbed a man 214 times, targeting his eyes, ears, and genitals.

The incident is said to have occurred on December 23 of 2022 during an altercation that took place at the home of Danny Roth. Daniela was reportedly working as a prostitute at the time in the Rotterdam region, with Roth being an occasional client.

Details of the moments leading up to the killing are unclear, though Daniela’s lawyer has attempted to forward “a case of self-defense excess.” with Daniela testifying that Roth had taken drugs which caused him to hallucinate.

“Danny took a hallucinogenic pill, a coffee-colored capsule. He dragged me by the hair to the kitchen. He threw a knife at me and I deflected it with my hand. He shouted ‘fucking whore’ and proceeded to punch me in the face and it really hurt. I have silicone all over my body and it was causing injuries,” Daniela said. He stated that he repelled the attack with his hand, sustaining an injury, and during the struggle Roth dropped the knife. Grabbing it from the floor, Daniela then began stabbing the man.

However, a forensic expert argued that Daniela’s claims do not align with the blood patterns spattered across the wall. According to an analysis of the crime scene, the victim’s blood was dusted high up across the walls. In Daniela’s version of events, the expert said, the blood would have mainly been on the ground and not “in an upward direction all around.”

An autopsy also showed that while there was alcohol and cocaine in Roth’s body, there were no traces of other substances, such as the purported “hallucinogenic pill” his system.

Additionally, Daniela made a disturbing admission in a recorded phone call shortly after the assault.

“I stabbed both eyes, so that he cannot recognize me when the police show him a photo. I stabbed his ears, so that he cannot hear questions from the police,” Daniela told a friend. “And I broke the bottle on his head. I didn’t want to stop hitting him.”

The Public Prosecution Service presented a different scenario from the story told by Daniela and pointed to the significant amount of cuts all over Roth’s body as an important indication of anger.

“The stabbing was deliberate and targeted. That is not fear, but anger and revenge. It is not self-defense but an attack.” A coroner determined that Roth’s penis was slashed with a knife after he was already dead.

Roth’s body was found on December 26, three days after the fatal attack, by a friend and a neighbor who stopped by wondering where he was. Roth had not shown up for appointments, and his family had become concerned when they could not contact him over the holidays. Roth’s body was discovered lying on the floor, surrounded by a pool of blood.

The victim’s sister testified in court and strongly condemned Daniela while requesting the maximum possible sentence.

“I hope your hand still hurts every day. When you go to sleep, I hope you see his face. You had an overwhelming anger, from the top of your head to your toes. So bad that the most gruesome horror film is nothing like it,” Roth’s sister told the accused.

Daniela D. has been residing illegally in the Netherlands since February 2022, where he has been involved in the sex industry. The court heard that he came from a broken home and that he had been “bullied” as a youth by peers who did not accept his gender identity.

The Public Prosecution Service is seeking a sentence of fourteen years in prison. The court in Dordrecht will announce its final verdict on December 5.

Despite being fully intact, Daniela is being detained in Ter Peel women’s prison, and it is anticipated that should he be convicted, he will serve his sentence in a women’s institution.

Journalist Sybilla Claus, writing for Brabants Dagblad, called the situation “unacceptable” for female inmates.

“Is it safe for one violent perpetrator, who is biologically male, to disrupt the lives of hundreds of incarcerated women for up to 14 years? The director of the largest women’s prison, Ter Peel, between Venlo and Helmond, thinks it’s fine. He had the extremely violent Chilean suspect, with male genitalia, placed there among the 226 women,” Claus wrote.

“They have the right to their own protection, privacy and dignity… Research shows that a large proportion of imprisoned women have been victims of physical and/or sexual violence as children and afterwards, and end up in an abusive relationship.”

Claus emphasized that “there are few female criminals in the Netherlands. There are three women’s prisons … which house around 3,000 women annually. Most are released within three months, because they commit lighter crimes,” she wrote. “Behavioral scientist Katharina Joosen interviewed about four hundred former women inmates. She described in 2015 that half have a criminal or addicted partner and have been treated for serious psychological problems due to trauma.”

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The Nova Scotia government has approved the creation of 27 new positions in the Public Prosecution Service.

That's the arms-length agency that prosecutes criminal matters in the province. The new hires will include both Crown prosecutors and support staff and four of the new Crown positions will be designated for lawyers from diverse communities.

Justice Minister Brad Johns said following Thursday's cabinet meeting that the positions address a long-standing need and will be hired soon.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[pastadoughie]

many people were confused about some of my previous posts, so for the sake of clarity i am condensing everything! tumblr has extremely transphobic moderation practices, often flagging completely innocent posts as explicit, solely for containing trans women in them or mentioning transgenderism. while letting untagged porn in sfw tags (ive literally seen porn tagged as "sfw agere") and blatent hatespeech, especially twards trans people (just look at the "gender critical" tag) go completely unchecked recently the CEO of tumblr had a big public hissyfit about people (rightfully) calling him transmysogenistic, going into random trans womens dms to harrass them, and saying that predstrogen saying she "hopes he explodes with hammers and then explodes again and hammers fly everywhere" is a death threat and saying he is calling the FBI on her (repeatedly misgendering her and calling her "it") and many bloggers, apon speaking out about it or even making harmless jokes (one trans woman posted a picture of a car and a hammer with the caption "reblog to scare matt" and got nuked for it) and many are very very angry (rightfully) about this whole affair and tumblr in general. if you would like to look into it i reccomend scrolling the "predstrogen" tag as she is the case most people are talking about at the moment. So, what can we do? this is clearly an ongoing issue, and, dispite having lost a lawsuit about their transphobic moderation in the past (see : https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21274288-tumblr-nycchr-settlement) its clearly not gonna stop with just user complaints, as staff members are perfectly content to just go scorched earth on users who even so much as lightly poke fun at them well if you want to help you should contact the human rights commision (i will give clear details further down) ! you dont have to be in the US, nor be an adult to file, and it only takes a few minutes. this is the best and most effective method to fix this, because it hits tumblr where it hurts. human rights acencies have a lot of legal and financial power and tumblr CAN NOT just ignore them, and given that this will be the seccond time this is happening, the commisions shouldnt be playing nice anymore eaither. its really important that AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE FILE, and with different examples! while maybe your case might not be enough to prop up a lawsuit on its own, we need to prove a general trend. so every little bit counts! to respond to another question abt this ive gotten, as for what exactly to report, you should a) write about an act of discrimination youve recieved on tumblr that was eaither administered by a staff member OR that staff refused to give adequate moderation action in for example : a terf posted some blatent hatespeech targeted twards you, and you reported them, and staff looked at the issue and refused to persecute it. example 2 : you were unfairly flagged, deleted, or otherwise punished by a staff member and you are queer ( AND the post they banned you for has some kind of tie to your gender, ex : a sfw transition progress photo ) OR b) if you have not personally recieved something like that, please look for other peoples stories (THEY SHOULDNT BE HARD TO FIND, within the last couple of hours trans people have been being banned LEFT AND RIGHT for trying to speak on this. i would reccomend checking some of the tags related to what happened with predstrogen) and you should describe that incident as best as possible (be sure to disclose that you are speaking for someone else, ideally you should tell the story of someone you know, if possible.) you can also mention any reports you have made twards people posting blatent hatespeech that, opon reveiwing tumblr refused to prosecute dispite it being very obviously against terms of service. just so nobody gets confused about the filing process, im laying it out in more plain languadge!!

first you should email the SF HRC (san francisco human rights commision), at hrc.info@sfgov.org and say something along these lines :

Hello, I am [full name] from [country or state] and I am filing a complaint against Tumblr, witch is owned by the parent company Automattic Inc. located at 60 29th St, San Francisco, CA 94110.

Tumblr has had previous issues with the NYC DHR for their moderation being unfairly biased against trans women (see : https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21274288-tumblr-nycchr-settlement).

Despite a legally binding agreement with the NYC DHR, staff members still regularly harrass users based on their gender or sexual orientations. For example : on [date of most recent infraction] [describe incident] (if you are describing an incident that did not happen to you specifically, say something like) This incident involves the user [username] who I am not affiliated with (or/) who I am filing on behalf of.

I can be reached for further inquiries about this incident at [email you want to talk over] or [phone number you want to talk over]. (if you would like to be anonymous) However, In the event of legal prosecution against Automattic I would refer to be kept anonymous, where possible, in court proceedings. alternatively, you can also call the SF HRC at : 415-252-2500, you can use the above text as a starting point for this as well, next you want to fill out the form for the NYC DHR (new york city department of human rights) here : https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/about/report-discrimination.page for company you wanna put : Automattic and/or Tumblr for address you wanna put : 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003 for phone number you wanna put : (646) 513-4321 and for category of discrimination you can put : Discriminatory harassment and basis of discrimination you can put : Gender; Gender identity you can then use a similar script on the written section of the form. when describing a specific incident, you should attach as many screenshots and links as possible! (for links, include both a live link and an archival link, so take a capture with the internet archive and have that as an alternative, incase a staff member gets petty.) this should only take a few minutes at most, and it helps alot! you can fill this out if you are a minor, and you dont have to be a us resident, please please take the time!!! and, just to clarify because there are many posts going around that are confused about this tumblr moved offices to san francisco recently, so their main HQ is at : 60 29th St, San Francisco, CA 94110 they DO still have an office in new york city, and thats where their PREVIOUS HQ was, the address is : 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003

[probablyasocialecologist]

Palestinian human rights organizations have shown that one in five Palestinians has been arrested and charged in Israeli military courts since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. Each year, this figure adds approximately 500–700 Palestinian children, some as young as 12, who are detained and prosecuted in Israeli military courts.

[...] During the ongoing genocidal war across historic Palestine, Israeli carceral violence and arrest campaigns have only intensified. In the months prior to October 7, an approximate 5,200 Palestinians were detained in Israeli prisons. As of mid-March, that number exceeds 9,000. Over the past five months alone, Israeli occupying forces have arrested over 7,600 Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to an unknown number of detained Gazans. Conditions are worsening for the imprisoned. Immediately following the war’s outbreak, the Israel Prison Service (IPS) placed prisoners in total isolation, prevented them from leaving their cells, and restricted access to water and electricity. The agency ceased providing what had already been poor-quality medical care and has dispensed inadequate food, enacting a starvation campaign against prisoners. Guards inflict violence, torture, and degrading treatment such as reportedly forcing captives to “bark.” IPS also banned visits for family members and delegates from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and severely restricted lawyer visits—cutting prisoners off from the outside world. My research inside Israeli military courts and prison visitation rooms—both as an anthropological researcher and a family member of prisoners—highlights the systematic nature of this violence and its justification through legal codes. Through an intricate web of military laws and orders, Palestinians become racialized—a sociopolitical process through which groups are seen as distinct “races” ordered in a social hierarchy. The Israeli carceral system racializes Palestinians as inherently “criminal” and thus deserving of punishment. Following the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, the Israeli military was vested with the ultimate authority of government, legislation, and punishment over the Palestinian population. This includes prosecuting Palestinians in military courts and charging them under the nearly 1,800 military orders that govern every aspect of daily life: conduct, property, movement, evacuation, land seizures, detention, interrogation, and trial. The orders include provisions for indefinitely detaining Palestinians without charge or trial through a policy inherited from British colonial practices. Over 3,500 Palestinians are being held in this state as of early March. Other provisions regulate the arrest and interrogation of Palestinians and how long they can be denied lawyer visits. With a near 100 percent conviction rate, Israeli military courts hand down absurdly high sentences, sometimes amounting to dozens of life sentences. Torture inside Israeli prisons and detention facilities is sanctioned by Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) rulings that permit the exercise of violence under pretexts of “security” and protecting “public order.” Enmeshed within this carceral reality is Israel’s labeling of most Palestinian prisoners as “security prisoners.” This designation masks the political nature of their imprisonment and sanctions violations against them. As opposed to Palestinian “security prisoners,” incarcerated Jewish settler-citizens receive rights such as making telephone calls, going on home visits under guard, the possibility of furlough, and conjugal visits. These rights are denied to the mostly Palestinian security prisoners, who are viewed and racialized from the start as criminals.

26 March 2024

[ukrfeminism]

We’ve been chatting for about half an hour when Eloise lowers her voice to a whisper. Until now she’s been confidently talking through the ups and downs of being a 19-year-old woman in a world she finds unsteady. 

She’s annoyed that, on TikTok, the advertisements she gets are keyrings with rape alarms and “stabby kitties” (a cat-shaped metal keychain with pointed ears sharp enough to cause damage), feels that modern feminism sometimes goes a bit too far, but having grown up in the age of nudes, she doesn’t really trust men. Which is unsurprising considering the story she tells me next.

“So a boy I know was asking a girl at his school for nudes,” she says, quietly. “And then when she refused, he threatened to rape her.” The boy was 14 and had recently posted an Andrew Tate video to his Instagram page, which was Eloise’s first encounter with the online influencer. 

“It said stuff like how women are your property and that it doesn’t matter if women say they’ve been sexually assaulted; if you’re with them that’s your right. I didn’t like it,” she adds.

Tate has made several appearances in the headlines this week. On Tuesday, a Romanian court rejected his appeal to ease the ban on him leaving the country as a legal case against him – in which he’s charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women – continues. He denies all charges against him. The following day, Ipsos polling for King’s College London’s Policy Institute and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership found that one in five men aged 16-29 who have heard of Andrew Tate have a positive view of him.

Separately – or, arguably, perhaps not – another survey published in the same week underpinned a renewed focus on the attitudes and beliefs of Generation Z, this time from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The research asked just over 3,000 adults of varying ages – 50.6 per cent of whom were female – about their understanding of rape and serious sexual offences, and the law on consent, and drew troubling conclusions.

Overall, 74 per cent of people surveyed understood that it can still be rape if a victim doesn’t resist or fight back, but the number fell to just over half (53 per cent) of 18-24-year-olds who had the same understanding. Less than half of respondents from this age group recognised that victims might not report a sexual offence to police immediately, that being in a relationship or marriage doesn’t mean consent can be assumed, or that if a man has been drinking or taking drugs, he’s still responsible if he rapes someone. More than 70 per cent of over-65s recognised that even if no physical force is involved a person might not be free or able to consent to sex, compared to just 40 per cent of young people.

Previous generations have become used to hearing that rape myths and misconceptions continue to persist, but that’s precisely why this week’s grim trinity of headlines stings. “There tends to be a public assumption that things are generally always getting better,” says author and feminist campaigner Laura Bates. “Actually, views like these are incredibly widespread among young people.” 

Bates regularly works with schools, talking to pupils who often tell her that “rape is a compliment”, that “it’s not rape if she likes it” or, “it’s your boyfriend, you have to have sex with him”.

She adds: “Attitude surveys have to be taken seriously because they are a real red flag that we’re going backwards – we’re seeing much more extreme and concerning misogynistic attitudes among the youngest generations than we are among the oldest. We have to face up to that and ask, why is that happening?”

Gen Z has never been neatly contained. Growing up as the first digital natives in the chokehold of crisis – climate, Covid, cost of living – has seen them praised for their social awareness, but disenfranchised and forgotten by politics. Their extremely online nature has given them unprecedented access to the world and other people – but, of course, that’s a double-edged sword.

“The internet has made everyone’s voices louder, but that means the most misogynistic people in the world are heard more too,” says Niya Clement-Hickson, a 26-year-old marketing designer from London. He says his generation has been “kind of ruined” by social media.

“You’d be surprised at just how many people around my age will argue that Andrew Tate is not as bad as he seems.”

When I spend an hour talking to 16-year-old Tate fan Manus from Ohio on TikTok, he says exactly that. He’s relatively timid and seems unsure of what he thinks at times, but came across Tate aged 12, being drawn to his motivational speeches, humour, and attitude towards making money. “[Tate] kinda showed me how people really are in reality,” he says. On Tate’s assertions that women are the property of men, he says those beliefs are simply from the Bible (though Manus himself is Muslim).

He maintains he’s never seen Tate speak violently about women, and when I send him leaked voicenote recordings of Tate saying that he enjoyed raping a woman, Manus is certain it’s fake “probably to make him look bad”. I ask for his views on feminism and he responds that feminists now want “superiority” and “more rights”. What rights exactly? “More rights in general,” he says, vaguely.

This opinion is not a rarity – there’s a pervasive idea circling comments sections and pub corners that the pendulum has “swung too far”. “Some of us warned that when you continue to suppress their identity by telling young boys that they are inherently toxic, they’ll start acting irrational,” one comment under an Andrew Tate post this week read. But it’s not just boys who hold this idea. Early last year, a survey from Ipsos UK and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London echoed this and some of Eloise’s views that feminism has gone too far. They found that 52 per cent of Gen Z and 53 per cent of millennials believe that we’re now discriminating against men. Less than half of Gen Z respondents said they defined themselves as a feminist.

Was it coincidence then, to see that shortly after the research was published in March 2023, the year of the girl was in full swing? A persistently pink summer was punctuated with girl dinners, #tradwives – modern women who believe in traditional gender roles – and stay-at-home girlfriends sharing their daily rituals on news feeds. New York magazine’s The Cut declared it “Woman in Retrograde” as the year came to a close; a cluster of reactionary elements to a significant demise of mainstream feminism.

This shift back to traditional behaviours is also present in younger men, says Niya. “A lot of guys feel that their role is all about providing money, being a protector. But they feel they deserve to get something out of the interaction. They just can’t deal with being told no.”

In terms of consent, does he hear attitudes that put women in danger? “Absolutely,” he replies. Niya didn’t learn about consent in school – “I don’t think it was ever talked about beyond ‘don’t have sex until you’re old enough’” – and thinks this is quite common for men of his age. For Maya, who’s 24 and neurodivergent, the line of consent is difficult to pinpoint and somewhat shaped by social media. There’s a “disconnect” from what she really wants – and is able to articulate – in the moment.

“I think that we do have less and less sex and more and more porn,” Niya adds. “And I think that once porn is your main and in some cases, only engagement with sex and women, then that is going to completely screw up how you see sex.”

Do all roads lead to porn? Probably. Clare McGlynn, who is a professor of law with particular expertise in sexual violence and online abuse, says: “We know that algorithms promote more extreme content, more hate – and many, many younger people, men and women, are getting this. Millions of people, as we speak, are watching mainstream online pornography that is racist, sexist, misogynist and violent in its content. Of course, it’s shaping attitudes and lives.”

“There’s certainly a pressure on young boys and men, for example, to be taking and sharing nudes – they’re part of a culture that is encouraging them to,” McGlynn explains. During a study, she looked at what material was presented on the homepage of popular sites – she found landing pages which were filled with sexually violent material. “So it’s also not them even actively choosing that material; we’re part of a culture that is grooming young men, teaching them expectations around sex – and asking them to accept and normalise it.”

What appears clear from the survey conducted by the CPS is a dangerous lack of understanding of what constitutes a crime. “I do lectures on criminal law and I’ve had students come up to me afterwards and say that they didn’t know they had been sexually assaulted or raped,” McGlynn adds.

Laura Bates says that we’re in the midst of a “crisis of sexual violence among young people”. 

“Deeply misogynistic misinformation is being spread to young people online at a rate that most people just have absolutely no idea about,” she says. “And there is a massive knock-on effect.

“Some will look at these surveys and go, well, what does attitude matter? But you have to draw a connection between these really worrying attitudes about rape and the fact that nearly 80 per cent of young people told Ofsted inspectors recently that sexual assault is normal and common in their friendship groups.”

So what can be done? More responsibility and accountability from social media companies, says Bates. Tate’s content – some of which reportedly shows him attempting to beat a woman with a belt; she later hides behind a locked door – has been viewed more than 11 billion times on TikTok, she says, adding: “That’s more than the population of the planet.” Last year, advocacy group HOPE found that more 16-17-year-old boys had watched Tate’s content than had heard of Rishi Sunak. “I think it’s really important that the government supports high quality, age-appropriate sex and relationships education,” she adds. 

Actively listening to and engaging with boys – as seen in initiatives like the state of New York’s Starting the Conversation campaign – is also important. Boys must have a safe and judgement-free environment to express themselves: the more their experiences of rape culture are internalised, the more difficult they are to see.

The Online Safety Bill, which was enacted in October last year, she says, was a missed opportunity for change. While it asks for more transparency on social media platforms and imposes sanctions for those not following the act, along with criminalising cyberflashing and sending unsolicited nude images, “it went 250 pages without mentioning women and girls once, until campaigners changed that”, Bates says.

“It’s so much more effective to focus on prevention of radicalisation than trying to unpick it once it’s happened,” she says. “Young people really are prepared to listen and prepared to change their minds, it’s just a shame this isn’t happening in every school.”

“It does make me worried about how safe the world is going to be,” says Eloise, who will begin her twenties in the summer. “What if people really start thinking that women are property again?” Then, she’s quiet again. “I really hope it can change.”

[socialjusticeinamerica]

Dr. Anthony Fauci said behavior like that of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and other conservative figures is the reason he continues to receive death threats more than a year after stepping down from public service.

The nation’s former top infectious disease expert spoke to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday after he testified at a contentious congressional hearing on the origins of COVID-19.

Greene, a vaccine conspiracy theorist, sparked fireworks at the hearing with her antics, including by refusing to call Fauci “doctor” and calling for him to be prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.”

Fauci said incidents like this one typically cause a spike in violent threats against him.

“It’s a pattern, Kaitlan, that whenever somebody gets up — whether it’s news media, Fox News does it a lot — or it’s somebody in the Congress who gets up and makes a public statement that I’m responsible for the deaths of x number of people because of policies or some crazy idea that I created the virus, immediately, it’s like clockwork, the death threats go way up,” Fauci said.

“So that’s the reason why I’m still getting death threats, when you have performances like that unusual performance by Marjorie Taylor Greene in today’s hearing, those are the kinds of things that drive up the death threats because there are a segment of the population out there that believe that kind of nonsense,” he added.

Earlier in the interview, he suggested the hostility at Monday’s hearing was not productive, pointing out that he had “testified literally hundreds of times” before Congress during his nearly 40 years as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

He said the vitriol that played out in the hearing “was really quite unfortunate, because the purpose of hearings are to try and figure out how we can do better so that next time, if and when we are faced with a pandemic, we’d be better prepared and we could benefit, if mistakes were made, we identify them, and we try to correct them for the future.”

“That’s not what we saw today, as shown by the clip you showed with Marjorie Taylor Greene,” he added. “I mean, that was nothing about trying to do better, unfortunately.”

Until his departure from public office in 2022, Fauci was the lead advisor to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[infiniteglitterfall]

I guess this might be why the UK seemed to go so antisemitic so quickly

I'm researching the 1947 pogroms in the UK. (Actually, I'm researching all the pogroms and massacres of Jews in the past 200 years. Which today led me to discover that there were pogroms in the UK in 1947.)

From an article on "The Postwar Revival of British Fascism," all emphasis mine:

Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism [in the UK in 1947], fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine.

Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine.

One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point. ...[The photo of two British sergeants hanged by the Irgun in retaliation for the Brits hanging three of their members] promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits.

MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”

The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence. The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.

The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace. On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport. Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight. In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.

And an important addendum:

I've read a whole bunch of articles about the pogroms in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Eccles, Glasgow, etc.

Not one of them has mentioned that the Irgun, though clearly a terrorist group, was formed in response to 18 years of openly antisemitic terrorism, including multiple incredibly violent massacres. Or that it consistently acted in response to the murders of Jewish civilians, not on the offensive. Or that at this point, militant Arab Nationalist groups with volunteers and arms from the Arab League countries had been attacking Jewish and mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhoods for months.

I just think the "Jewish militants had been attacking the British occupiers" angle is incredibly Anglocentric.

Yeah, they were attacking the British occupiers. But also, that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

Everyone involved hated the Brits at this point. If only al-Husseini and his ilk had hated the Brits more than they hated the Jews, Britain could at least have united them by giving them a common enemy.

[marvelsmostwanted]

In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office: President Biden shares the Founders’ belief that the President’s power is limited—not absolute—and must ultimately reside with the people. He is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This No One Is Above the Law Amendment will state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.

Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Congress approved term limits for the Presidency over 75 years ago, and President Biden believes they should do the same for the Supreme Court. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come.

President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal judge.

I took a Legal Studies course literally one time and one of the things I remember the professor saying was that he supported 18 year term limits for the Supreme Court. Here’s the article he wrote about it at the time (2017).

This is supported by legal experts. It is possible and within reach to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments and enforce an ethics code. We just have to vote blue up and down the ballot because Republicans will never agree to regulating their own corrupt justices.

[nigesakis]

Dave K on what the characters' modern jobs would be (Q&A 4)

Franklin: failed politician who own a basketball team

Crozier: provost at a public university who does one "fantastic" ethics course per year

James: specialist surgeon ("surgeon energy" "like being that good at something")

Hickey: a lot of things ("people in daily life remind me of Hickey") (nodded at every idea from the comments including life coach, tv producer, youtube channel, tattoo artist, real estate broker, therapist

Silna: public defender who becomes a prosecutor, "still with the spirit of a public defender but prosecuting, um… bad actors."

Goodsir: modern take of an ethnographer ("like a Studs Terkel or someone on TikTok who stops [...] houseless people in the street to ask them what they carry with them and why")

Little: commercial architect, would rather design houses but isn't successful

Hodgson: children's television host

Irving: family man, deacon at local church, running successfull business

Blanky: incident commander for the coast guard

Collins: carpenter who sculpts

Jopson: advocate, example named is for the rights of houseless veterans ("doing service for people who really needed it")

Hartnell: high school science teacher who the students have crushes on

Bridgens: teacher

Lady Jane: starting a company for themed river cruise ships where you learn about things like local literature etc ("massive success")

Tozer: cop or gym teacher / also agreed with comment: firefighter

Gore: professional mountaineer (agreed with comment)

Sophia: journalism (agreed with comment)

[coochiequeens]

Just men using their authority and the legal system to silence people who tell the truth about their crimes.

By Genevieve Gluck December 2, 2023

A prominent LGBT activist and former member of Dutch Parliament has filed multiple defamation claims against his critics despite resigning amid accusations he sexually abused multiple young boys. Sidney Smeets, formerly an elected representative for the States General for the Democrats 66 (D66) party, had also come under fire for defending men involved in a pro-pedophile organization whose leaders have since been jailed for sex crimes.

On November 29, medical professional Jan B. Hommel stated that he had been notified of a legal complaint lodged against him by Smeets for a prior comment he made on social media calling the former MP a “pedophile.”

Hommel defended his use of the term, citing “testimonials from various boys, as have been frequently reported in various media,” referring to allegations of child sexual abuse made against Smeets in early 2021 which ultimately led to his decision to step down from his role in parliament.

In addition to Hommel, social commentator Sander van Dam stated that he had received a phone call from the police in regards to calling Smeets a “groomer.”

“Just received a call from the police who told me that I can soon expect a summons from the Public Prosecution Service regarding a report that Sidney Smeets has filed against me. They have time for that. What a country,” van Dam wrote.

Former Rotterdam district councilor Rick Timmer was also made to defend himself in court in December of last year for calling Smeets a ‘kleuterneuker,’ which roughly translates in English to ‘toddler-fucker.’ In March 2023, Timmer was ordered to pay a fine of €750 ($816).

Smeets first resigned from his position representing D66 in April of 2021 following allegations that he had been sexually inappropriate with “dozens” of boys.

A social media post which kicked off the controversy was made by a 17-year-old claiming to be speaking up on behalf of the victims. He stated that Smeets would “often reach out to underage boys” on X (formerly Twitter), and said that he had known “dozens of boys” who had been approached by him in a sexual capacity. The teen further lamented the fact that Smeets, who he called a “pedo,” was representing “LGBTI rights” in a position of authority.

One of the victims told Hart van Nederland that he was 16 years old when he connected with Smeets on gay hook-up app Grindr. The boy had told Smeets that he was a minor, and the lawyer invited him to to his home. “He was quite direct and soon started kissing me and leading my head to his dick,” he told the newspaper. “I sucked him and I was outside again soon.”

The unnamed victim said that Smeets also shared photos of underage boys with him, and told the teen that it was his “worst fantasy” to have sex with someone under the age of 16. According to the victim, Smeets inquired as to whether he knew anyone “under 16” that the teen “trusts.”

Another victim who spoke to the press described a similar pattern: he met Smeets through Grindr, and accepted the invitation to his home on multiple occasions, where Smeets would show him pornography to “get [him] in the mood.” On one occasion the boy, then 16, says he was pressured into performing sexual acts.

“Several people state that they have experienced contact with me as undesirable… I was very shocked about that, because it was never my intention,” Smeets said in a statement publicly announcing his resignation in April 2021. He did not deny the allegations, but said he was stepping down “to prevent the prestige of the House and the interest of the party from being harmed.”

In addition to being accused of grooming and child sexual abuse, Smeets has a history of defending a notorious pro-pedophile activist group. In 2014, Smeets was one of several signatories to a public appeal requesting that Vereniging MARTIJN be permitted to continue their pro-pedophilia advocacy. However, in April that year the Supreme Court banned the organization.

Smeets also spoke in defense of the group’s leader, Marthijn Uittenbogaard, in 2021. Uittenbogaard was charged with a criminal offense after he was found to be disregarding court orders by continuing Vereniging MARTIJN despite its official annulment. Smeets argued that Uittenbogaard was distributing pro-pedophilia materials on his own behalf as an individual rather than as a representative of the organization.

In 2022, Uittenbogaard and associate Norbert de Jonge were handed brief prison sentences for continuing the “activities of the banned association Martijn” by placing publications on various websites and making statements in favor of “pedosexuality” via a mailing list and on X (formerly Twitter). While released on appeal of his six-month prison sentence, Uittenbogaard fled the Netherlands.

Both Uittenbogaard and and his husband Lesley Luijs were detained in Ecuador, where they had been luring children to their hotel in order to sexually abuse them. The men were sentenced to ten years in prison by Ecuadorian authorities earlier this year.

The disgraced former MP additionally acted as a legal representative for a prominent member of Vereniging MARTIJN in 2020. Nelson Maatman was arrested in February that year on charges related to the possession of child pornography. According to the Public Prosecution Service, more than 10,000 images depicting minors in a sexual context were found on Maatman’s devices.

“You can make moral judgements about that, but you have to wonder whether it is child pornography. The Public Prosecution Service says so, but it is clear that this man was not looking for child pornography,” said Smeets in defense of Maatman.

At the time, critics on social media noted that Smeets had been interacting with Maatman on Facebook, where he had been “liking” his posts.

Maatman would later be detained in Mexico after allegedly attempting to arrange for the purchase of a child. Maatman was arrested in Mexico City on June 5, after an anonymous tip was handed to the Mexican prosecutor’s office indicating that he intended to purchase an adolescent and sell child sexual exploitation material.

Upon arrest, police found Maatman in possession of 4 terabytes (4000GB) of child sexual abuse material across a number of external storage devices. Maatman also had photos of children in his clothing pocket, a weapon, and drugs.

The party for which Smeets was previously a representative, D66, actively promotes the concept of “gender identity” and was involved in drafting a proposed sex self-identification legislation in May 2021.

The proposal would allow teenagers, beginning from 16 years old, to change the sex marker on their birth certificate. On social media, Smeets has repeatedly stated his support for gender identity ideology, by posting photos of the transgender pride flag, for instance, or sharing videos of clownfish.

At the time, critics on social media noted that Smeets had been interacting with Maatman on Facebook, where he had been “liking” his posts.

Maatman would later be detained in Mexico after allegedly attempting to arrange for the purchase of a child. Maatman was arrested in Mexico City on June 5, after an anonymous tip was handed to the Mexican prosecutor’s office indicating that he intended to purchase an adolescent and sell child sexual exploitation material.

Upon arrest, police found Maatman in possession of 4 terabytes (4000GB) of child sexual abuse material across a number of external storage devices. Maatman also had photos of children in his clothing pocket, a weapon, and drugs.

The party for which Smeets was previously a representative, D66, actively promotes the concept of “gender identity” and was involved in drafting a proposed sex self-identification legislation in May 2021.

The proposal would allow teenagers, beginning from 16 years old, to change the sex marker on their birth certificate. On social media, Smeets has repeatedly stated his support for gender identity ideology, by posting photos of the transgender pride flag, for instance, or sharing videos of clownfish.

Smeets has also expressed derision at women who oppose gender identity ideology, branding them “evil” and “sickening” TERFs, an acronym meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” used in an attempt to discredit opponents or to advocate for violence against them.

In June, Smeets showed his support for a controversial animated video released by Oxfam designed to celebrate Pride month. The promotional video appeared to depict a version of renowned author JK Rowling, with red eyes and a snarl, wearing a badge that read “TERF.”

He also hurled the term at outspoken Dutch women’s rights advocate Lydia Daniel, who has become a target for trans activists and is awaiting confirmation of whether she will face charges in response to a hate speech report filed against her by a trans-identified male for stating “a woman is an adult human female.” Daniel attracted Smeet’s ire after she protested during a public meeting of the Dutch Democratic Party (D66) in May and challenged the party’s leader, Sigrid Kaag, on whether she was aware that “women’s rights are being destroyed.”

Earlier this year, D66 came under fire after it was discovered that the official website for the Young Democrats, the “independent” youth wing of the political group, had published statements sympathetic to pedophilia which endorsed the production of “virtual child pornography,” and even the teaching of pedophilia as a sexuality in schools.

[ninyard]

I've been thinking about the Aaron trial a LOT and kinda fell into a rabbit hole about it and thing is. Aaron is guilty. Like 100% guilty. The prosecution can't prove first degree murder but they don't need to because they can charge him with 2nd degree, aka "murder of passion". It was a charged moment and Aaron responded by killing the dude. Yes he deserved it and yes it's still murder, with considerable jail time.

There are 3 ways for Aaron to get off here (not including Moriyama interference). One, jury nullification. The jury basically decides that yes he did it BUT he shouldn't go to jail for it so we're gonna vote as if we're not convinced he did it. Incredibly rare but legal. Two, Aaron's lawyer successfully argues that Aaron was acting in self defense on Andrew's behalf. They could potentially try to have Drake charged with SA and CSA posthumously, and use the details of that trial as evidence in Aaron's. Three, and this ties into 2, JAG (military legal branch) tells the SC courts they don't want a public trial. From here it becomes internal politics, and might result in a plea deal in exchange for the whole thing getting shoved under the rug.

it seems to me like jury nullification is one of those old laws that don't really hold up in a modern setting, like if you suggested it now, i don't know if they'd actually go forward with it?

the best i've come up with is that he's aquitted for accidental death or self defence and the jury are swayed by andrew, neil and higgins' testimonies, or he's found either guilty or not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. just throwing some random thoughts out into the world. (let's disregard first degree murder.)

voluntary manslaughter in SC can't be given without "heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation" present. "The heat of passion refers to the defendant experiencing some type of uncontrollable emotion, such as rage or terror. The heat of passion does not excuse a homicide, but it does remove malice. Legal provocation refers to circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control."

IM NOT A LAWYER but i think it might be hard to prove this - it happened SO quickly that there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove that it was an intentional act of passion with reasonable provocation.

involuntary manslaughter can't be given without "criminal negligence" or essentially a reckless or hazardous disregard for safety etcetc. in SC code of laws it says "criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section."

AGAIN IM NOT A LAWYER but i think there's probably ways to argue that there was no criminal negligence on aarons behalf because it wasn't technically reckless. i think aarons lawyers would argue that it wasn't a homicide at all but was an accident because aarons behaviour wasn't technically reckless (in some ways). regardless even if he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter there's no minimum sentence for it in SC so it's possible he'd avoid going to jail at all because of his character/how unlikely it is he'll reoffend/his prospects in life/his clean record and all that. he'd have parole terms and probably some community service and a fine or something but i think he'd easily avoid jail time even if he was found guilty.

he could still possibly be aquitted on the question of whether ANY category of murder happened beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecution would have to prove that aaron intentionally swung the racquet with or without intent to kill. i think there's an argument there for an accidental death - which would definitely make this ask even longer so i won't get into my NOT LAWYER thoughts on how/why.

i'm not saying andrew and neil WOULD commit perjury. but they WERE the only people in the room when it happened, and if they can't say that for certain aaron swung the racquet at drake then there's a doubt there about whether it was homicide or not. nobody is denying the murder occured - but the prosecution HAVE to prove that aaron was WILLFULLY negligent and that led to drake's death. just a thought.

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday formally moved to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift in generations of U.S. drug policy.

A proposed rule sent to the federal register recognizes the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledges it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The plan approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.

The Drug Enforcement Administration will next take public comment on the proposal in a potentially lengthy process. If approved, the rule would move marijuana away from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. Pot would instead be a Schedule III substance, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids.

The move comes after a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department, which launched a review of the drug’s status at the urging of President Joe Biden in 2022.

Biden also has moved to pardon thousands of people convicted federally of simple possession of marijuana and has called on governors and local leaders to take similar steps to erase convictions.

“This is monumental,” Biden said in a video statement, calling it an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities. “Far too many lives have been upended because of a failed approach to marijuana, and I’m committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it.”

The election year announcement could help Biden, a Democrat, boost flagging support, particularly among younger voters.

The notice kicks off a 60-day comment period followed by a possible review from an administrative judge, which could be a drawn-out process.

Biden and a growing number of lawmakers from both major political parties have been pushing for the DEA decision as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted, particularly by younger people. Some argue that rescheduling doesn’t go far enough and marijuana should instead be treated the way alcohol is.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York applauded the change and called for additional steps toward legalization.

The U.S. Cannabis Council, a trade group, said the switch would “signal a tectonic shift away from the failed policies of the last 50 years.”

The Justice Department said that available data reviewed by HHS shows that while marijuana “is associated with a high prevalence of abuse,” that potential is more in line with other Schedule III substances, according to the proposed rule.

The HHS recommendations are binding until the draft rule is submitted, and Garland agreed with it for the purposes of starting the process.

Still, the DEA has not yet formed its own determination as to where marijuana should be scheduled, and it expects to learn more during the rulemaking process, the document states.

Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects.

Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser now with the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said there isn’t enough data to support moving pot to Schedule III. “As we’ve maintained throughout this process, it’s become undeniable that politics, not science, is driving this decision and has been since the very beginning,” Sabet said.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system is expected to be muted. Federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

Schedule III drugs are still controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and people who traffic in them without permission could still face federal criminal prosecution.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind many states in recent years, with 38 states having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use. That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion.

Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for marijuana businesses, according to industry groups. It also could make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

[rjzimmerman]

Opinion |Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law. (Washington Post)

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans— as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule.

[ukrfeminism]

Experts and lawyers involved in sexual offence cases in Britain have warned that suspected rapists are evading justice by claiming to have a rare sleepwalking disorder that causes them to engage in sexual activity while asleep.

They said there had “definitely” been cases where guilty people had been found not guilty, and warned of the potential for further miscarriages of justice – and harm to the public – without more robust challenges to “sexsomnia” claims put forward by defendants.

The warnings come after an investigation by the Observer uncovered a rise in the use of “sexsomnia” as part of defence cases in criminal trials. It found 80 cases over the past 30 years where defendants accused of rape, sexual assault or child sexual abuse claimed to have been sleepwalking or suffering from sexsomnia at the time.

But while there were only occasional cases in the 1990s and early 2000s, the analysis reveals at least 51 in the past decade and eight in the past year alone. The figures are likely to represent only part of the true total, with many not publicly reported. In about 60% of cases where sexsomnia was part of the defence, a not-guilty verdict was returned, the Observer’s analysis suggests. Overall, the average jury conviction rate for rape was 58% in England and Wales.

Charges against suspects have also been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service before they even reached court after defence lawyers raised sexsomnia behind the scenes. One law firm advertised how it “kept pressure” on the CPS after it decided to continue with the prosecution of a wealthy client charged with sexual assault. The charges were dropped before the case went to trial.

Dr Neil Stanley, an independent sleep expert who has provided expert evidence in trials where sexsomnia was raised as an issue, said that while some claims of the condition were undoubtedly genuine, others were not.

“It is being used cynically,” he said. “There are cases that are in the public domain where it is clear that they’re just chancing their arm. Because, of course, if it is sexsomnia, you’re found not guilty. Judges haven’t a clue. Juries haven’t a clue. So it’s worth a try.”

Stanley said attempted use of sexsomnia by defendants had “massively skyrocketed” in recent years and that such claims were very difficult to definitively disprove – meaning often “just saying, ‘I don’t remember. It could be sexsomnia,’ is enough”.

He said the current system was failing victims – and true sufferers of the condition – and called for reforms including more robust challenging of sexsomnia claims and a less adversarial approach to questioning expert witnesses, so they could provide more nuanced responses in the courtroom.

“The law seems not willing to admit that there’s a strong likelihood of miscarriages of justice. And given the severity of the offence, we should be very certain of having checks and balances in place so we take as many precautions as possible to stop miscarriages of justice,” he said. “In terms of sexsomnia, that is not happening.”

He added: “I know in my heart of hearts that there are cases where guilty men have got away with it. And that cannot be a legitimate consequence of the system. The system has to change.”

Sexsomnia is recognised in the DSM-5 diagnostic manual of psychiatric conditions and is a type of para­somnia, a disorder involving abnormal sleep behaviour. Sufferers engage in sex acts while in non-REM sleep. They might have their eyes open but will have no awareness or memory of their behaviour.

If a jury decides that an accused person was in such a state – known as “automatism” – when they committed an alleged offence, they will be found not guilty. But while lab tests and partner histories can be used to try to establish whether a sexsomnia claim is genuine, sleep experts and lawyers say the system is open to abuse because uncertainty in the science means it is impossible to say for sure whether someone was or was not suffering from sexsomnia.

Many of those successfully pleading sexsomnia in court had no known history of sleepwalking and no formal diagnosis. Other cases involved defendants performing a complicated series of actions in unfamiliar settings, which experts said were less typical of genuine sexsomnia.

In about a third of the cases, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and some were very intoxicated, but sexsomnia was cited as the primary factor behind their behaviour.

Sometimes, just a mention of the condition in court appears to sow a seed of doubt that can contribute to a not-guilty verdict. In one rape case, two expert witnesses said evidence for the defendant having sexsomnia was “weak” but that they could not categorically rule it out. The jury subsequently acquitted the man.

In at least one case, a man who avoided a rape prosecution after claiming to have sexsomnia went on to attack again. Joseph Short evaded charges in 2011 after saying he had no memory of an alleged rape. He was later jailed for 15 years for another violent attack. And a man convicted of strangling and beating his partner was acquitted of raping her and another woman after claiming to have been suffering from the condition.

Allison Summers KC, a barrister and head of Drystone Chambers, who has represented three clients who used sexsomnia as a defence, all of whom were acquitted, said the increase in defences using the condition could be in part because it had historically been “underdiagnosed generally” and that there were some “very genuine” cases.

But she said the presence of alcohol complicated things – “are they using the sleep defence to cover up what has happened?” – and that there was an issue of defendants “trying it on”.

“I think there are probably [defence lawyers] running these cases on fairly spurious evidence,” she added. “Juries are strange creatures and I suspect sometimes they give the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn’t.”

Summers said it was for defence counsels to investigate such claims and for prosecutors to robustly challenge them, but that this did not always happen: barristers instructed “rubbish” experts or failed to get relevant histories, or prosecutors did not properly interrogate claims in court. “It comes back to laziness and a lack of understanding,” she said.

Sexsomnia has also been used by defence teams in an attempt to discredit victims. Jade McCrossen-Nethercott, 31, from Croydon, is taking legal action against the CPS after it dropped her rape case days before it was due to go to trial after expert witnesses said she had sexsomnia.

McCrossen-Nethercott said the conclusion was made by an expert instructed by the defence who had never met her, and was based on her answers to a 15-question survey. “It was plucked out of thin air,” she said.

The CPS has since “apologised unreservedly” for its decision to drop the case and said “the expert evidence and defendant’s account should have been challenged and put before a jury to decide”.

McCrossen-Nethercott is now calling for “robust, rigorous and consistent” assessment of sexsomnia claims “across the board”, including a “thorough assessment, bed partner histories, extensive polysomnographies”.

“It has to be taken seriously to protect victims from being told they have it without significant evidence; to prevent perpetrators claiming they do when they don’t, but also for genuine sufferers, to prevent them being wrongly convicted,” she said.

Dame Vera Baird KC, the former victims’ commissioner for England and Wales, called for safeguards to be put in place to protect victims and the public. She said sexsomnia was being seen as an “escape route” by some defendants and that in cases where it arose, prosecutors needed to be consistent in applying for sexual risk orders, which can be made regardless of whether someone is convicted if they are deemed to pose a danger.

Such an order could require a person to warn future partners, or others sleeping under the same roof, about their condition, or face prison.

Baird, a barrister who was previously solicitor general and a Labour MP, said increasing the use of such orders might also deter people from using sexsomnia as a “get-out-of-jail card”. “A person who says, ‘Oh dear, I raped somebody without knowing it,’ is a danger to the public and cannot be left simply acquitted,” she said.

A CPS spokesperson said prosecutors always “robustly challenge legal defences when contrasting evidence is available” and that sexsomnia was no exception. It said any decision to drop a case in response to a claim of sexsomnia “must now be approved at the most senior level” and that victims always had the right to seek a review. However, it said it did not record data on how many cases had been dropped due to sexsomnia claims by the defendant.

The Ministry of Justice said the government had taken “decisive action” to ensure rape victims got justice and that “the validity and credibility of a defence” was for the courts to decide.

Claire (not her real name), a complainant in a recent case where the defendant was acquitted on multiple counts of sexual assault after claiming to have sexsomnia, said the verdict had a “devastating” effect. She said the man did not deny the acts took place but said he must have done them while asleep, and that he had never sleepwalked before, had no formal diagnosis, and had had “no tests done”.

The woman, a mother from Lancashire, said the process had left her “baffled”: “It’s like they’ve said, ‘Well yeah, he might’ve sexually abused you numerous times but he did it in his sleep, so it’s OK. So you’re just going to have to get on with your life and deal with it and he’s got away with it.’ It’s like they just took his word for it. There is nothing to stop him from doing it again and just saying, ‘I was asleep’.”

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Alberta's police watchdog recommended laying charges against three Lethbridge officers who used police databases to improperly access the personal information of two people, including NDP MLA Shannon Phillips, but the Crown's office has declined to prosecute, CBC News has learned.

[...] Despite calling the Crown's refusal to pursue charges "quite regrettable," Phillips says she is feeling vindicated after years of pursuing police accountability. 

"I think it sends a message to the public that in order to get even a sliver of accountability, even a tiny little ray of light on transparency and accountability in a police service, you have to fight, you have to pay a personal cost, you have to wait years, and even then it will be partial," said Phillips in a phone interview. 

"The system overall is quite broken." [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @abpoli

[gatheringbones]

[“Young people come into the juvenile system as witnesses to and victims of crimes. Detention, for example, is sometimes used to compel a child to participate in prosecution. Fourteen-year-old Miranda “spent a month in juvenile detention, even though she wasn’t charged with a crime. No, this time Miranda’s locked up because she agreed to testify against her pimp, and juvenile is where she must wait for the trial to start.”

Afraid that young people will run away rather than testify or return to their traffickers if released, prosecutors ask courts to issue material witness warrants (known in some jurisdictions as body attachments or courtesy holds) to detain them until they testify. Material witness warrants empower courts to detain young people indefinitely. Those being held on material witness warrants are generally not entitled to post bail to secure their release. In Miranda’s case, that meant being held for thirty-eight days in a secure facility. Miranda was released only because her trafficker pled guilty. Her testimony was no longer needed.

Legal system professionals recognize the damage caused by detaining young people as witnesses. But their determination to prosecute traffickers outweighs their concerns about placing young people in detention. As Judge William Voy said, “We need an alternative to the detention center . . . [but] we have responsibilities to keep the girls here to testify against pimps.” Some public defenders concur: “We want to hang onto them, to keep them from running, and sometimes the only way to do that is in a secure environment.”

Young people who come into the system as witnesses say they feel like little more than “a piece of evidence” against their traffickers. Che, for example, was subpoenaed to testify against her trafficker, “who had been the closest thing to family she had ever known.” To ensure that she appeared in court, Che was placed in a juvenile facility. She was later released to her mother in handcuffs and forced to testify, none of which gave her a “sense of justice.” Even when young people are willing to testify, the experience can be negative. At sixteen, Keiana Aldrich willingly testified against her twenty-six-year-old trafficker, believing that she had been promised counseling and safe housing in exchange for her testimony. But those services never materialized, her mother said: “She was treated like she did something wrong. . . . They didn’t offer her no counseling, no nothing. Here, come testify and that’s it, that’s the last I ever heard of from those people.”]

leigh goodmark, from imperfect victims: criminalized survivors and the promises of abolition feminism, 2023