this post was submitted on
120 points (93% like it)
129 up votes 9 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

119
120

NJ judge OK's rape and abuse of wife by Muslim, citing religious belief; overturned on appeal (secularnewsdaily.com)

submitted ago by frogmeat

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 12 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]SynapticSpam 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would very much like to know the name of the family court judge.

[–]organic 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He didn't 'OK' a rape, he denied a restraining order because the defendant (the husband) did not act with 'criminal intent'. He was not being asked to rule on the legality of the behavior, only to the defendant's state of mind.

[–]bannana 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

only to the defendant's state of mind

This is not the only thing that determines the issuing of a restraining order. The first would be, is there criminal activity taking place? Otherwise every crazy stalker that thinks they have a relationship with their stalked would never have a problem. Just because someone is delusional be it from religion or mental disease doesn't mean they are not completely wrong. Just means they need psychiatric care.

[–]organic 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the clarification; not as familiar with the law as I should have been to make that comment, but I was just trying to correct the obviously erroneous title.

[–]frogmeat[S] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The judge declared that there was no crime committed. He came to this decision because even though the defendant beat up and repeatedly raped his wife, and did not dispute the beatings and the rapes, the defendant's religion said that it was OK for him to treat his wife in this manner. Thus, the judge indicated it was OK for the behavior to continue and no restraining order was necessary, since there was no criminal intent.

I don't know where you are, but beating up and raping one's wife (or anyone else) is, in fact, criminal activity in the US. Doesn't matter what your religion might be, or of what country you are a citizen. You come to the US, you obey US laws, just as when Americans go to other countries, we obey their laws.

[–]organic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This was family court, right? And the wife was asking for both a divorce and a restraining order. The divorce was granted, the restraining order denied and the denial of the restraining order was overturned on appeal. The decision sounded to me like the judge was not expecting the behavior to continue after there was no longer a marriage in place, and thus the restraining order was not necessary. IANAL but I thought family court and criminal courts were separate entities; it sounded like the one of the legal requirements for a restraining order is criminal intent, and his ruling was to the husbands intent, not judging him innocent of any further criminal prosecution.

Personally, it's pretty obvious the restraining order should have been granted.

[–]bannana 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really erroneous, by not issuing a restraining order he basically gave the go-ahead to the husband for business as usual. So ya, he said go beat and rape your wife since the court won't do anything about it.

[–]Workaphobia -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's a very slippery slope. I suppose every ruling against a plaintiff's motion endorses some behavior then.

[–]organic -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not the impression I got; he didn't rule against the divorce, only the restraining order.

[–]bannana 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The restraining order keeps him away until the divorce is final. He was attacking her. Is this not clear to you that this woman should be protected by the law?!?

[–]organic -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where did I say she should not have gotten the restraining order?

[–]sidewalkchalked 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well it seems to me that while they were married the guy felt he had the right, now they aren't married anymore so he knows he can't act that way. The restraining order wasn't tacked on because the judge was reasonably confident that the man wouldn't act that way outside the cultural context of marriage.

Saying that the judge "OK'd the rape and abuse" is just more bullshit. OP knew it was disingenuous as well.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 5479 on app-88 running 4208376.