I changed my mind about the tattoo. Past A should not be able to reach out from the past to torture Present A, who would be getting no benefit from the pain.
I thought they’d say we’re not sure he did it, and acquit quickly.
The medical examiner testified that the lack of DNA from her private parts didn’t prove there was no intercourse. She said often, like maybe half the time, no DNA is recovered. That seems odd to me but it was unrebutted so the jury has to take it into question.
I would think that even those who agree with the daughters would admit that this case is riddled with reasonable doubt.
<<<
Having said that, they failed to reach a verdict today which surprises me.
<<<
It saddens me.
I suspect this is going to end up with a hung jury.
LOL. Pun intended?
There is probably 1 juror who won’t agree with the others…Hopefully they won’t retry it if it’s a hung jury.
I can’t see the prosecutor retrying if there’s a hung jury.
This is an interesting article about the jury selection phase that I hadn’t seen before. Unfortunately it doesn’t indicate whether people who answered these questions one way or the other sere seated.
Apologies, but every time you guys type about a hung jury, I giggle just a little bit. Carry on.
^^^^
That one is going right over my head. What is the pun?
“Past A should not be able to reach out from the past to torture Present A, who would be getting no benefit from the pain.”
In essence, though, isn’t that what advanced medical directives do? Past A gets to override Present A if Present A is unable to express him/herself?
Past A may write in an advanced medical directive - if I fall into a vegetative state, do whatever it takes to keep me alive, put me on every machine possible, don’t pull any plugs. Now it may be that Present A, in that state, might desperately actually wish to have the plug pulled - but unless Present A is able to communicate, there’s really no choice but to have the past actions of Past A (as told to others and/or as dictated in an advanced medical directive) drive decision-making.
Let me ask you this. Suppose this was “just” about cuddling. Do you believe that Mrs. Rayhons would reasonably have consented to cuddling, hugs, etc. from Mr. Rayhons? On what basis do you believe that?
"This determination WAS made on the basis of the facts in this particular case. The doctor and the care facility examined Mrs. Rayhons, whom they had been caring for 24/7 for a couple of months, and determined that sex was no longer appropriate. "
Even if that’s the case, I still have a hard time coming down on a 78 yo man who by all outward indications clearly loved his wife. And a husband having relations with the wife is not even remotely close to the orderly, or some other stranger, having such relations. Feel free, however, to string the guy up by … something or other. I find it very sad.
An advanced medical directive applies when there are choices to be made, and each choice has at least an arguable benefit for Present A, or at least the choice is not clearly worse in every aspect than the alternative choice. There’s an arguable benefit for being kept alive even when the patient is in great pain, for example, so we can follow a patient’s directive to be kept alive, even though we might ourselves choose differently.
But if the choice doesn’t even have an arguable benefit, then I’d say the advanced medical directive does not apply. If I had the medical power of attorney for someone, I would not authorize a treatment for them that had no possible benefit for them and that would hurt, no matter what their advanced medical directive said. And I doubt that any medical practitioner would agree to perform a medical treatment that had no possible benefit and would cause the patient pain. That’s not medicine; that’s torture.
In the tattoo case, the tattoo has no benefit whatsoever to Present A, not now, not in the future. It causes pain, for no benefit. I say no tattoos for A. If the situation were different, and Present A’s brain damage were going to heal, then that would be a different story. If the tattoo for some reason had to be completed now or never, and Present A were going to wake up a week from now and look in the mirror at his tattoo, then I’d authorize the tattoo because there would be a benefit for future A. In the same way, I’d authorize painful medical treatment for brain-damaged Present A if it meant that he’d wake up a week from now and be cured.
Present A has no beliefs and no wishes in your scenario. Present A is in a vegetative state. People in vegetative states do not have desperate wishes or any wishes.
If she’s in a seriously diminished mental state, she can’t consent to anything. But her caretakers can reasonably consent, for her, presuming she appears to enjoy the cuddles and hugs. Cuddling and hugs are not the same as sex. If they were, then parents could have sex with babies.
I guess the problem is, a nurse could likely see whether a patient enjoyed (or was at least neutral towards) cuddling or hugs with a spouse, but one doesn’t normally invite onlookers to witness sex.
“Let me ask you this. Suppose this was “just” about cuddling. Do you believe that Mrs. Rayhons would reasonably have consented to cuddling, hugs, etc. from Mr. Rayhons? On what basis do you believe that?”
That’s not what I asked. I asked a different question. Whether or not she is capable of consenting now, is it a reasonable assumption in this case that this lady would (generally speaking) consent to cuddling / hugs from her husband, that such touch would be welcomed by her?
What makes this a bad case, CF, is that we are talking about an apparently loving husband. This case would be different if it were a husband who was known to be abusive, or an ex-husband, or a male patient in the other wing who had only known her a few days. The assumption that married people implicitly consent to sex is a big one.
Are you asking whether when she was healthy, Mrs. Rayhons would consent to cuddling and hugs from her husband? Yes, of course, we know that she did.
And one favored by marital rapists all over the country. However, it’s an assumption that we got rid of over 20 years ago.
^^It’s may be a matter of semantics, but I disagree that we “got rid of that assumption 20 years ago”. What changed was the law stating that a husband could never rape his spouse. In my opinion, that is a far cry from what you stated.
I still bet that the default assumption is that married people implicitly consent to sex unless there is a “no”.
PS- I am not sure about “yes mean yes” states and whether that applies to only unmarried couples or not.
California 262 is the part of the code dealing with rape by the spouse of the victim. So, in cases where someone is charged with a violation of California 262, Rape of A Spouse, a current marital relationship is not sufficient to establish consent.