To re-post my post from
this thread:
I've just read a response from one of the judicial officials to the criticism that was aimed towards the three judges that ruled over the guy's case, that really sets things into perspectives and has made me reexamine my opinion about their decision.
Apparently the Israeli-Arab, a married man, has engaged in sexual intercourse with this woman under the claim that he was a Jewish bachelor, a single man looking for a long-standing relationship with her. (Which is kinda hilarious considering how fast the female has let him into her bed)
About one month and a half later, the female has filed charges against the man, claiming that she wouldn't have agreed to have sex with him if she'd have known he's a married Arab man looking for a one-night stand with her.
The actual problem, according to this judicial official, that has led to this controversial ruling, was the fact that the accused man has settled for a plea bargain, and has given a confession. The judicial system is not involved in the negotiations, the plea bargain, and the judges could only accept the confession and make the ruling in accordance with the law.
To quote the judicial official; "We must emphasize that the court was not required to reach a decision on the case, but has only accepted the defendant's confession after a few corrections of certain facts in the indictment by the persecution. The court is not involved in the negotiations for a plea bargain, and it's important that the public would realize that".
The official goes on to say that "After the plea bargain, as it was agreed on between the two parties, was filed and Cashuar's confession on rape was handed, the meaning of his confession was well-explained to him by the court and he was told that the maximal punishment for rape is 16 years and the minimal is 4 years."
In other words, this judicial official says that the fault and criticism from the public should be directed towards those who have agreed on that plea deal, and not on the judges who could only accept his confession and act in accordance with the law, as far as the law is concerned.
I personally think that this law should be removed from the face of Earth, with no relation to this specific case. It is one of those bra-burning lesbians laws that only seeks to empower the "weakened" female gender, as if they don't already rule the world abusing the human past.
It's like the law that says that if a man sleeps with a drunk woman he's raping her. (and it doesn't work the other way around)
Actually, if I'm not wrong, there is a law that states that if a drunk male sleeps with a drunk female he might be accused with rape as well.
On other news, and in the same theme, minister Limor Livnat has stated that she would vote against the adding of two new members to the Turkel committee, after it was declared that the two added members would be males, making it a committee of 7 male individuals.
She says that she finds the fact that there is no woman in that committee to be a discrimination against the female gender.
Here's the article:
Minister Livnat: Turkel's request chauvinistic - Israel News, Ynetnews