World News

22058 readers

46 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

104

Italian uproar over judge's 10-second groping rule (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

NSFW 15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

tl;dr: A caretaker groped a student. She described walking up a staircase when she felt her trousers fall down, a hand touching her buttocks and grabbing her underwear. According to the judges, what happened "does not constitute a crime" because it lasted less than 10 seconds.

Thought experiment: If someone hit that guy for less then 10s, wouldn't that be a crime, either? Or has the assault to be sexual for the 10s rule to apply? What if the guy was hit with a huge dildo then, would that render the 10s rule applicable? (Obviously an academic question, not encouraging anyone to hit anyone.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't get why judges are allowed to make shit up like this?

If there's no time limit specified in the law how can they just define one?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Judges in most European countries are supposed to "interprete" the law, so not apply it strictly as written, but add onto it whatever biases the particular judge might have.

It doesn't help that in some instances people are not allowed to speak for themselves, only their lawyers are allowed to speak, and if the lawyer forgets (or "forgets") to mention some aspect of the case, even if it had already been introduced into evidence, then it's like it never happened and the judge is free to ignore it.

Add to that only supreme court decision being considered as precedent, that supreme courts in many countries have been either coopted by the conservative right, or had their powers stripped, or simply blocked... and we get decisions like this.

it's like the old saying/joke-but-not-joke goes

Judge asking a victim: "And did you close your legs with all your strength?"