CA Judge Derek Johnson's breach of judicial ethics

New Posts

believe09

believe09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,094
Reaction score
506
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — A Southern California judge is being publicly admonished for saying a rape victim "didn't put up a fight" during her assault and that if someone doesn't want sexual intercourse, the body "will not permit that to happen."
Click to expand...


:banghead:

The judge ultimately apologized and stated his comments were inappropriate, but DEFENDED himself by indicating he was in an argument with a prosecutor who was looking to max a defendant's sentence for an especially brutal crime.

Johnson made the comments in the case of a man who threatened to mutilate the face and genitals of his ex-girlfriend with a heated screwdriver, beat her with a metal baton and made other violent threats before committing rape, forced oral copulation, and other crimes.
Click to expand...

The judge gave the man 6 years instead of the 16 the prosecutor wanted:

Johnson said he believed the prosecutor's request of a 16-year sentence was not authorized by law. Johnson sentenced the rapist to six years instead, saying that's what the case was "worth."
Click to expand...

I think we have several issues here-one leads to the all too familiar archaic belief that women can shut down a rape and prevent intercourse...like the vagina has a trap door or something.

I bet an intrepid reporter could start digging around into this judge's past and find a little history related to this subject. JMVHO

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-judge-says-victims-body-prevent-rape-023033459.html
 
There are no words. I'd like to see the judge in a position in which he could test his own theory that the body shuts down and prevents rape. Does his own body support his theory?
I think if I add more than that, I might get a TO.

:furious:
 
<modsnip> indeed! From the article:

"I'm not a gynecologist but I can tell you something: if someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case."

The commission found that Johnson's view that a victim must resist to be a real victim of sexual assault was his opinion, not the law. Since 1980, California law has not required rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting.
Click to expand...

He should have stopped there.
 
I am still unable to formulate a coherent comment that won't earn me a time out.

It may take me days.....but look out when I can!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"The California Commission on Judicial Performance voted 10-0 to impose a public admonishment."

Glad it was 10-0.
 
Oh, I have plenty to say. Right there is why we don't have stiffer penalties against rapist and child molester's. It's men like this that keep women surpressed and subservent.
 
Where do these insane notions come from? Is this what straight men tell one another when they are alone?
 
Insane, stupid, misogynistic and all the other things that LindaNJ7 is afraid of getting a time out for. All true. But...

Let's keep it in perspective, this is one idiot who was unanimously admonished by his peers. There are bad apples in every barrel, it doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten.
 
Sounds like he was taking a page from Todd Akin.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
sounds like he would blame a child for being molested just like he seems to blame a female for not fighting enough.



all i can do is shake my head on such stupidity. perhaps we should send judges to classes that teach about rape and body's reactions. i know there are probably more judges that would not agree with this one but if we sent all then none of the ones that do need it can't say they were focused on.
 
Dear body shuts down and prevents rape Judge,

Do society and yourself a favor and get yourself a truckload of cheetos, sit down in your recliner and watch Jerry Springer repeats for the rest of your less than coherent days.
 
Should be admonished with a very large gavel.
 
I really want to know where he learned this. I dont think he just created this view on his own. Did he read it somewhere? Did a doctor, another judge, a family member tell him this? How long has he thought this to be true? Since he was a teen? In college? Last months judges meeting? I think it is very important to interview this judge and see where he learned this incorrect information. Is it in some outdated book/manual that he refers too? Is he really that unaware of what a female body can or cannot do? Or he just being an a$$?
 
Just wondering what his theory is on if the body shuts down to prevent anal rape and if this judge would like to offer himself up to scientific research. What a complete moron.
 
Mother have mercy - Johnson is a former prosecutor in the Orange County DA's sex crimes unit. I wonder how many sexual assault cases he refused to prosecute back then because he didn't believe the victim "put up a fight"? This so-called judge makes me sick. He has no business serving on a bench. I hope he gets voted out next election.
 
Is he in a relationship?
If he's told himself all these years that if he can get it in it's a sign that she wants it I pity his partners.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/local/la-me-1213-judge-rape-20121214

"That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn't necessarily willing, she didn't put up a fight," the judge said.

The judge, who has been on the Orange County Superior Court since 2000, also declared the rape "technical" and not "a real, live criminal case."

"To treat this case like the rape cases that we all hear about is an insult to victims of rape," the judge said. "I think it's an insult. I think it trivializes a rape."
Click to expand...

I can't believe someone, let alone a judge with his work history, could say this. This is the definition of adding insult to injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 184 more.
Total: 4,637 (members: 185, guests: 4,452)

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
4,452
Total visitors
4,637
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,377
Messages
17,968,198
Members
228,762
Latest member
genepool48
Back
Top