[tlj009]

I found this that seems to add a little insight.

‘Sharia law’ measure sparks debate » Features » Tahlequah Daily Press

The sole reason for adding Sharia law was apparently a case in New Jersey.

"One case cited by both sides in the debate over Sharia law concerns a New Jersey rape incident. The people involved were Muslims from Morocco. The judge recognized that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the plantiff, over her objections, in November 2008 and again in January 2009. However, he did not find that sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct had occurred.

Judge Joseph Charles wrote in his opinion, “The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited. After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.”'

If it hasn't been done already, I think that Judge Joseph Charles needs to be removed. And I tend to agree that the law is likely a waste of paper. But it was passed by 70% of the voters. Being a waste of paper doesn't seem to be a valid reason to dismiss it.

[JerryLove]

+1

What is the criminal intent when, stoned out of my gourd, I stab someone to death?

This would seem to be an "ignorance of the law" assertion: which doesn't hold water in US jurisprudence.

.. and in fact it did not. The Judge's decision was overturned by a higher court. The law was unnecessary.

[tlj009]

.. and in fact it did not. The Judge's decision was overturned by a higher court. The law was unnecessary.

Which leaves the conclusion that the law is currently unnecessary but there is a remote possibility that it may be necessary in the future. After all, if it happens in one court, it could happen in another. But it certainly seems foolish, to me, to pass laws because there is a slim possibility that something may happen.

And just as another jab at the judge, for removing the restraining orders, the judge ought to be on trial himself.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

"One case cited by both sides in the debate over Sharia law concerns a New Jersey rape incident. The people involved were Muslims from Morocco. The judge recognized that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the plantiff, over her objections, in November 2008 and again in January 2009. However, he did not find that sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct had occurred.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with it, though. The judge wasn't applying Sharia law, he was simply saying that the defendant lacked mens rea. Which is in keeping with Western legal custom, not Islamic law.

[tlj009]

I'm not sure that has anything to do with it, though. The judge wasn't applying Sharia law, he was simply saying that the defendant lacked mens rea. Which is in keeping with Western legal custom, not Islamic law.

Probably right. All I have is the one article indicating that one case was the reason. I didn't even bother looking up a separate article about that case. But from the limited knowledge that I have, I think that the judge should be hung.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I'm not sure that has anything to do with it, though. The judge wasn't applying Sharia law, he was simply saying that the defendant lacked mens rea. Which is in keeping with Western legal custom, not Islamic law.

Having been found liable for something some other adult did of their own accord and entirely without my knowledge or consent (facts to which the magistrate agreed, but apparently didn't care)...

Oh nevermind.