Weird news - Too many calls caused dismissal of rape charges

Rape is a heinous crime, and is also one of the most reported (and as many probably unreported) crimes. Trying it legally and prosecuting can be difficult, with little evidence available in many cases. There may not be witnesses, and in the past, the word of the lady was given high value with the presumption that a lady would not lie about something that would affect her so much, which might affect her reputation and so on. At the same time, there are also the black sheep, and it is also true that there would be cases where the accused was almost asked to prove his own innocence, with the charge against him being in the open, and could be false in order for some kind of revenge. In recent times, courts have also become more careful, not automatically taking the version of the lady, but trying to view all the circumstances and then evaluating whether the case did indeed hold water (link to article):

The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man by a trial court in a rape case, saying the woman's testimony was "untrustworthy", full on contradictions and she had called him 529 times between the date of alleged rape and the filing of the complaint. A bench of Justices Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said it was in agreement with the trial court's view that the woman's testimony was "highly unreliable", "untrustworthy" and "inspires no confidence", while dismissing her appeal against the man's acquittal. The trial court had acquitted the man on January 5. The high court noted in its judgement that there were several contradictions in the woman's statement regarding how she met the man, how the alleged incident took place and why there was delay in reporting. The other inconsistencies in her allegation the court noted were that even after getting her phone back from the man, who had allegedly taken it, she did not call the police for over 30 days and in-between called him 529 times.

Weird News - Top-notch hospital forced to pay $190 million because of doings of its doctor

The position of a Doctor is one of great responsibility. A Doctor commands life and death over their patients, and in addition is outside some of the restrictions imposed by society and laws. For example, Doctors of many specialties are exposed to the human body (with patients removing their clothes in front of them) since this is required for diagnosis of medical problems and treatments. At the same time, the expectations from Doctors in terms of ethical behavior is high, and any transgressions will be treated the same way other such transgressions are treated, or at a higher level. And when all this happens inside a medical facility such as a hospital, the facility is dragged into this kind of case as well.
Consider the case of a gynecologist, a Doctor who looks at problems in women that need them to remove their clothes, and there is a deep expectation that there will be no violation of their decency by the Doctor. When a Doctor violates such a trust, then legal cases and criminal prosecution will result, along with penalties for the same. When these have happened in a medical institution, then it is quite probable that it will have to pay penalties as well (link to article)

BALTIMORE — A gynecologist who used tiny cameras to secretly record videos and photos of his patients has forced one of the world’s top medical centers to pay $190 million to 8,000 women and girls, lawyers said Monday.

Dr. Nikita Levy was fired after 25 years with the Johns Hopkins Health System in Baltimore in February 2013 after a female co-worker spotted the pen-like camera he wore around his neck and alerted authorities.

Levy committed suicide days later, as a federal investigation led to roughly 1,200 videos and 140 images stored on computers in his home. 

The hospital is one that has a very high reputation, and this case would have hurt its reputation, as would have the damages. At the same time, there would have been immense harm caused to the women who were the patients of this Doctor, wondering whether they have been violated in a place that they least expected.

Weird news - Debate about taxpayers paying for a sex change operation

This is the season where there is a lot of pressure to control costs, not to spend in ways that seems excessive and out of control. So when there are cases which show taxpayers money being spent on something that seems outrageous, there can be a lot of resentment about such expenses. Further, there is a section of the population that believes that Governments really do not make too much effort to cut expenses and watch their spending, and that it is only public outrage that causes politicians to make efforts to check the flab in Government spending.
This gets more interesting when this relates to expenses on people who are in jail, since a section of the population would not want excessive money to be spent on such people; after all they have committed some crime or the other and that is why they are in jail. If then there is un-necessary money being spent on them, it is just an example of how Governments do not try to control money. This would be all the more true when you consider the following case where a convict is asking for state money for a sex change operation (link to article):

In a potentially groundbreaking ruling, a federal judge has ordered Massachusetts to let a transgender prisoner undergo a sex-change operation — and make taxpayers foot the bill. In 1993, Kosilek, who then went by Robert, was convicted in the 1990 murder of his wife, Cheryl Kosilek. Also in 1993, Kosilek officially changed his name to Michelle. Diagnosed with severe gender identity disorder, Kosilek has been living as a woman in an otherwise all-male prison in Norfolk, Mass., for the last two decades. Wolf now says that even though his ruling is "unprecedented," the surgery is the only way doctors see to adequately treat Kosilek's condition, and that denying her request would amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Wolf, who was appointed to the bench in 1985 by Ronald Reagan, writes that the government can't deny an inmate necessary medical treatment just because it is controversial and "unpopular."

Weird news - Being sentenced to a prison term for a Facebook entry

Earlier this year, England was struck by a large number of riots in multiple cities across the country. The riots were totally unexpected and stuck the country with horror at the ferocity, and it took the confused administration and police some time to tackle the riots and to bring order back. Post the riots, there was a massive push to strike back with ferocity at the people involved in the rights, with talk of removal of benefits to those who were involved, as well as passing sentences that were at the higher end of the typical sentences for such crimes.
These riots were also fanned by social media, with Twitter and Facebook being used for organizing people and passing on information about possible locations of riots. This usage of social media is also considered as involvement in the crime, so you had the police and investigating agencies getting involved in finding out who said what on Facebook, and using such investigation as a part of the case against them. Consider this case where a person was sentenced to 4 years for such a crime (link to article):

A British court on Wednesday sent a stern warning to thugs using social media to incite riots by sentencing a man to four years in jail after he admitted inciting public disorder on Facebook during riots in England.
Jamie Counsel, 25, set up a page called Bring the Riots to Cardiff, later changed to Bring the Riots to Swansea. The sentence should be a warning that anyone using modern media to incite riots would face stiff punishment, said the judge at Cardiff Crown court.

Weird news - Mom tries to sell off her daughter's virginity, daughter is only 13 years old

Some time back, there were a couple of stories about how teenagers (college students) were offering their virginity in an online auction so that they could generate enough money to pay for their studies (or atleast that is what they claimed). There was a lot of controversy about those attempts, with most people accusing them of being immoral, but the law could not really do much about those cases.
Seems like those cases inspired this lady to act in this manner, and in this case, the law would get totally involved, and there would not be any moral or ethical doubt. Parents have the reputation of being able to do anything to help their children, to protect them; protecting them from sexual predators brings out one of the strongest protective instincts in parents. So what do you say when you see a mother trying to sell the virginity of her own daughter, that too somebody who is only 13 years old and is mentally unable to make these decisions by herself (link to article):

A Salt Lake City woman has been charged with offering her 13-year-old daughter's virginity to a man in exchange for $10,000.
The woman was charged Monday in Utah's 3rd District Court with two counts of aggravated sex abuse and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. KTVX Channel 4 reports that court documents claim she made the offer after the man asked about oral sex with the girl.

Weird news - An eye for an eye - Iranian man to be blinded for throwing acid in girl's face

This is a moral dilemma for many people. What do you consider the just punishment for a man who stalked and pursued after a girl, and when she said No, was angry enough that he decided to punish her for this refusal by throwing acid in her face. Now, getting acid on the face is a grievous and horrible fate, since the acid causes immense pain by burning the skin, and in her case, went into the eyes, blinding her. The acid also dissolves some of the structures of the skin, causing the face to become disfigured, and a huge number of victims of acid attacks never fully recover even after a number of plastic surgeries.
This happened in Iran, where there was a twist. The judicial system is based on the Sharia, which allows the victim to claim the same punishment on the accused as he has done, and the victim demanded this revenge. She refused to accept blood money, and pushed for reciprocal punishment, and the judicial system of Iran is delivering, where the accused is due to get 5 drops of Sulphuric acid in each eye, which will cause blindness. Causing blindness did not cause as much pain as the prospect of being blinded, and the accused is very repentant. However, this is also seen as a form of punishment that is barbaric, and is being opposed by many other countries who have filed protests (link to article):

A human rights group on Saturday urged Iranian authorities not to put acid in the eyes of a man found guilty of blinding a woman who scorned him. Majid Movahedi is scheduled to be blinded by having five drops of acid in each eye Saturday, according to Amnesty International.
Movahedi was convicted in 2008 of throwing a bucket of acid on Ameneh Bahrami.
The attack blinded Bahrami, who sought to have authorities render the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye" in accordance with Islamic law. The rights group is urging Iran to forgo the acid punishment. "It is unbelievable that the Iranian authorities would consider implementing such a punishment," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, an Amnesty International deputy director.

Grandmother ordered to wear an ankle tag for 7 weeks after selling a goldfish to a 14 year old boy

As part of an initiative to protect animal rights, it was decreed that pets cannot be sold to young children below the age of 16, unless they had been accompanied by an adult, so that they properly understand how to take care of the child. If a person flouted the role, they were subject to being fined. In one case, investigators found that a pet store was not sticking to this rule, and so they were subject to a setup where a 14 year old boy was sent to buy a goldfish. The store owners were found guilty after they sold the goldfish to the boy without any checks or controls. And they were fined, so far so good. However, what made matters different was that the owners of the store, a 47 year old man and his 70 year old mother were also ordered to do hours of community service, and the 70 year old lady was judged not able to do the community service, so was sentenced to a night curfew, attested to by attaching an ankle tag to her (what this turned out was that the granny was attached an ankle tag for 7 weeks, for selling a goldfish to a 14 year old, provoking outrage) (link to article):

"What gets me so cross is that they put my mum on a tag. She's nearly 70, for goodness sake. You would think they have better things to do with their time and money," he said. But Trafford Council in northern England defended the decision to prosecute, noting that the gerbil sold to the teenager with learning difficulties, who was also 14, was put in a cup of coffee.
The story was highlighted by a number of British newspapers. The Daily Express said it made a "farce" of Britain's legal system, adding in a front-page headline: "Proof Britain really has gone mad."

Weird laws of Wyoming - Part 2

It is so much fun to read about laws that do not appear to make any sense at all, like some of these laws. They must have been made for some specific cases, but somehow ..

You may not take a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit.: Wow. Maybe the rabbits are very unattractive at such periods.
It is against the law to write a poem containing any line that rhymes with Wyoming.: Mighty proud state.
It is illegal for anyone to play chess with their grandmother.: It would be very bad for the ego if the grandmother constantly wins the chess matches.
All new buildings that cost over $100,000 to build must have %1 of funds spent on art work for the building.: Trying to ensure that a building remains artistic, but that should be the decision of the persons who own the building
If one is drunk in a mine, he or she could land in jail for up to a year.: Wow. Do they send alcohol detectors inside mines.
Any person who fails to close a fence is subject to a fine of up to seven hundred and fifty dollars.: Can't figure out a reason, unless this was set in rural areas where wild animals could get inside.
Skiing under the influence of alcohol is prohibited.
Using a firearm to fish is strictly forbidden.: Imagine trying to shoot rapidly moving fish ? You could set a competition for the one who can shoot a fish at 10 yards vs. 50 yards
It is illegal to wear a hat that obstructs people's view in a public theater or place of amusement.: This one makes sense to some degree, but what happens when a short person is sitting behind a taller person ? Do you outlaw that also ?

Weird laws of Wyoming - Part 1

It is so much fun to read about laws that do not appear to make any sense at all, like some of these laws. They must have been made for some specific cases, but somehow ..

In Sheridan, Wyoming, a policeman can bite a barking dog, in order to quiet him.: Which policeman would actually want to bite a barking dog ?
All clocks must be set 10 minutes fast.: Might as well set a new time zone that is 10 minutes ahead at that.
Blind men are not allowed to fly helicopters between the hours of 9am and 6pm.: The assumption being that they are allowed to fly helicopters at other times, or maybe helicopters cannot be flown at other times
Girls under the age of 12 must not have hair that is longer than their arms.: Hooray for those with longer arms
It is against the law for women to stand within five feet of a bar while drinking.: Such a law would have been struck down based on discrimination laws, but maybe no one actually bothered with challenging such a law
Junk dealers are not allowed to undertake business transactions with drunks.: Mighty strange.
Newcastle: Couples are banned from having sex while standing inside a store's meat freezer.: In such a cold location, how could a couple even think of having sex ? Maybe there is the fear of contaminating the meat.
Stupid people are not allowed to take IQ tests.: Hah hah.

Weird laws of New York (United States of America) - Part 2

The last post was the about first set of weird laws (Weird laws of New York state). Here is part 2 of the series:

It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing “body hugging clothing”.: It might entice people to go to crime :-)
Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.: Protecting their right to individuality, but if it becomes a business, then it is a commercial matter
Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.: All that pressure on the city streets through the high heels could cause holes
Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting.: Ouch, who would want to do that anyway ?
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone’s head for fun.: What happens if I am not doing it for fun, and want to hurt them ? Is that legal ?
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.: No wonder when somebody falls off a building, the police take them away.
New Yorkers cannot dissolve a marriage for irreconcilable differences, unless they both agree to it.
A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.: Can be very difficult to clean the clothes afterwards
While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.: No wonder social interaction is a zero, but you can still fart in the elevator
Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 PM.: Atleast nobody should see you wearing one, else they will be confiscated
It is illegal to have permit dancing in an establishment that sells food without a cabaret license.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.: Wow, this one I cannot figure out any sort of sense. Could it be that hanging clothes could ruin the look of a location ?

Weird laws of New York (United States of America) - Part 1

These are a fair number of weird laws, laws that have managed to remain being on the books long after the specific purposes for which they were implemented have passed; now these are used for fun:

A law from the early 1900’s prohibits men from going topless on the Boardwalk.: Ouch. There goes the display of the toned muscles and flat eight-pack abdomen
Eating while swimming in the ocean is prohibited.: Should not pollute the oceans, right ?
People may not slurp their soup.: In public, others may not like slurping of the soup
Pinball machines are not to be played on Sunday.: Sunday is meant to be a day of rest and prayer, and having fun should not be allowed
Raw hamburger may not be sold.: Otherwise what happens to the business of all those vendors and shops
A man can’t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.: Well, New York was always a fashion conscious area, and it would hurt the tourist business :-)
Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk.: Overtime to the cleaning crew otherwise
It is illegal to eat in the street in residential neighborhoods, and the only beverage you can drink on the beach is water in a clear plastic bottle.: Cleanliness again, and if you want to enforce it, there goes half the population
If one wishes to bathe in the city limits, they must be clothed in a “suitable bathing suit”.: Maybe I can decide what is suitable
It is illegal for a father to call his son a “faggot” or “queer” in an effort to curb “girlie behavior.: May hurt the tender minds of the son
You may only water your lawn if the hose is held in your hand.: No contraptions please, show the plants that you are putting in the effort to water them
In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile.: Of course, but what about the people who can see and cause all the accidents
You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.: Well, anti-smoking campaigns are getting tougher

Weird laws in England / Great Britain (part 2)

It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned
In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants
Picking up abandoned baggage is an act of terrorism.
It is still an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8am.
Londoners are not allowed to keep a pigsty in the front of their homes.
The Library Offences Act of 1898 makes it illegal to gamble in a library.
The Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 states that no one, “except persons acting in obedience to lawful authority, may discharge any cannon or other firearm of greater calibre than a common fowling-piece, within 300 yards of any dwelling house, to the annoyance of any inhabitant thereof”.
One may not drive a cow while drunk.
In Scotland it is illegal to be a drunk in possession of a cow.
Ban on firing a cannon close to a dwelling house (Met Police Act 1839)
Ban on the use of any slide upon ice or snow (Town Police Clauses Act 1847)
Prohibition of driving cattle through the streets of London (Metropolitan Streets Act 1867)
In London, it is illegal for a person with the Plague to flag down a taxi. No cab may carry corpses or rabid dogs.
It is illegal to sell most goods on a Sunday. It is however legal to sell a carrot. It is also legal to sell it at any price, and to give free gifts with it, such as anything else one might want to buy on a Sunday.

The following are legal though:
- a male may urinate in public, so long as it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle, and his right hand is on the vehicle.
- all English males over the age of 14 are to carry out approximately two hours of longbow practice a week, supervised by the local clergy.

Man in US jailed 83 days for missing jury duty

The United States has a system of justice that depends on jury trials for a large number of cases, based on the belief that a citizen should be judged by a jury constituted of 12 of their fellow citizens, and it is these citizens who can be depended upon to deliver a judgment. A condition of that is that every citizen can be called for jury duty, and it is only those who can show some sort of valid reason who are excluded from being on the jury. However, it was shocking when it was found that a person was jailed for 83 days for avoiding jury duty (link to article):

A man arrested for allegedly failing to appear for jury duty was released on Saturday after spending 83 days in jail, a length of detention that a judge called "unacceptable." Douglas Maupin was released a day after The Dallas Morning News brought his plight to the attention of a Collin County judge.
All American citizens and permanent residents are required to report for jury duty from time to time to supply potential jurors for court cases. District Judge Chris Oldner said he was unaware of Maupin's detention until Friday, even though the case was assigned to his court. The judge who signed the original 2003 warrant had retired, and officials said the case was assigned to the court of his replacement but the offense didn't fall under that court's responsibility.

This is part of the blind nature of the legal system. Maupin was caught as part of an earlier warrant issues in 2003 and when caught for speeding, this warrant showed up and he was jailed; further, he could not afford the bail amount.