[Puffer Fish]

Police officer jailed for rape

Who said consensual sex is always legal?

A police officer has been jailed for having consensual sex with a woman, because he was seen as "taking advantage of her", and because it involved emotional abuse and manipulation. The police officer had misused his position, taking advantage of a grieving woman he was assigned to provide emotional support to, and was already married to another woman.

The "victim" was 21 years old.

The police officer, Ian Mynott, was 41 years old, worked for the Kent police.

He has been sentenced to 21 months in prison.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world ... g-25731019


Sounds like he didn't actually do anything illegal, but the authorities are using a very stretched interpretation of existing laws to get him punished, because he did something that is viewed as morally wrong.


Admin Edit: Rule 16

[ingliz]

Sounds like he didn't actually do anything illegal

Wrong as is usual.

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law.

Misconduct as a breach of public trust.

The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification.

— Crown Prosecution Service

The sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons by a public officer is a criminal offence.

[Puffer Fish]

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law.

Misconduct as a breach of public trust.

"Misconduct" is a very broad and vague concept.

You talk about "breach of public trust", but no one was actually "defrauded" here.
The victim who was taken advantage of in a vulnerable moment, nevertheless agreed to it.

It was her emotions that were defrauded, not her mind or intelligence.

That is definitely not the type of meaning that the concept "breach of public trust" normally implies.

You're just playing semantic word games with that.


I wonder how progressives feel about punishing people for "sexual misconduct", when it involved completely consensual sex, and the victim was fully 21 years of age.

[Saeko]

He was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers, not "the authorities".

Let's also not forget how incredibly difficult it is to even bring charges against a police officer in the US let alone convict one.

[Puffer Fish]

He was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers, not "the authorities".

Then I guess that must make everything okay. Never mind what the actual issues of the law were...

You make my point. We as a society are willing to punish people even though those people may not have clearly broken predefined agreed upon laws.

Vaguely worded and open-ended laws can be subject to all sorts of interpretation.

I would bet you he was not aware he was breaking any laws. Although he should have been aware what he was doing was wrong, which is why they are punishing him.

[Fasces]

I would bet you he was not aware he was breaking any laws

Is ignorance of the law an excuse, then?

[Puffer Fish]

Is ignorance of the law an excuse, then?

I'd argue he did not break any clear laws. Claiming that he "broke the law" in this situation is not entirely clear or obvious.

All sorts of different things could be perceived as being against the law, depending on the interpretation of it.
That is why I find statements like "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" to be disingenuous.

What you are describing is NOT "rule of law".

You might as well pass a law saying that doing "anything bad" is crime.

[pugsville]

I'd argue he did not break any clear laws. Claiming that he "broke the law" in this situation is not entirely clear or obvious.

All sorts of different things could be perceived as being against the law, depending on the interpretation of it.
That is why I find statements like "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" to be disingenuous.

What you are describing is NOT "rule of law".

You might as well pass a law saying that doing "anything bad" is crime.

Convicted criminal. He was found guilty of acting illegally and breaking the law.

As trained police officer breaching his duties.

No excuses/

[Puffer Fish]

Convicted criminal. He was found guilty of acting illegally and breaking the law.

As trained police officer breaching his duties.

No excuses/

Seems all you have to bring to this discussion is circular logic.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

12 different people came.to the same conclusion after looking at all the evidence.

Also, this happened in a society where cops routinely get away with almost anything.

And it happened in a society where hardly any rapes lead to convictions.

All of this makes me believe that the evidence presented at the trial was very compelling.

Why should anyone ignore that?

[pugsville]

Seems all you have to bring to this discussion is circular logic.

It's the facts.

It's a crime. He was convicted.

[Puffer Fish]

It's the facts.

It's a crime.

It's not a clear crime. It was interpreted as being a crime under a very broad and vague meaning of a word.

It's not a crime any more than it would be a crime to do anything bad if a law were passed making it illegal to "do anything bad".

It wasn't specific or obvious that what he did was illegal under the law.

In my opinion, the law does not give adequate notice that that thing is illegal, if you claim that law criminalizes that thing.


You seem to say you don't care about that, because if he was convicted, that's good enough for you.
But we know there can be all sorts of situations were a person ends up wrongfully convicted, due to a multitude of different reasons, so that alone is not really good enough, is it?

[late]

It wasn't specific or obvious that what he did was illegal under the law.

It would have been part of his training.

You keep trying to deduce reality...

That's not how it works.

[pugsville]

It's not a clear crime. It was interpreted as being a crime under a very broad and vague meaning of a word.

It's not a crime any more than it would be a crime to do anything bad if a law were passed making it illegal to "do anything bad".

It wasn't specific or obvious that what he did was illegal under the law.

In my opinion, the law does not give adequate notice that that thing is illegal, if you claim that law criminalizes that thing.


You seem to say you don't care about that, because if he was convicted, that's good enough for you.
But we know there can be all sorts of situations were a person ends up wrongfully convicted, due to a multitude of different reasons, so that alone is not really good enough, is it?

It WAS obvious. Really obviously illegal. A crime.
He was not wrongly convicted.

[Puffer Fish]

It WAS obvious. Really obviously illegal. A crime.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, it was really not.

He was not wrongly convicted.

That depends on your definition of "right" and "wrong".

Of course it's predictable the Left would have more trouble seeing what's wrong here, since your morality rests less on established ethical principles and more on outcome.

[pugsville]

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, it was really not.



That depends on your definition of "right" and "wrong".

Of course it's predictable the Left would have more trouble seeing what's wrong here, since your morality rests less on established ethical principles and more on outcome.

No, you have some crackpot ideas about legality and the treatment of women. They are crackpot ideas.

No reasonable rational person would agree with you here.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Misconduct" is a very broad and vague concept.

Not in this case.

It is not really vague or overly broad to say that 41 year old married men should not have sex with emotionally traumatized women in their care who are young enough to be their daughter.

Is this vague or unclear to you?

You talk about "breach of public trust", but no one was actually "defrauded" here.

….except the young woman and her family.

The victim who was taken advantage of in a vulnerable moment, nevertheless agreed to it.

Agreed to what?

It was her emotions that were defrauded, not her mind or intelligence.

That is definitely not the type of meaning that the concept "breach of public trust" normally implies.

You're just playing semantic word games with that.

The emotional abuse of a vulnerable person is clearly within the mandate involved with a breach of public trust if the abuser was put in that position by a public institution like the police.

I wonder how progressives feel about punishing people for "sexual misconduct", when it involved completely consensual sex, and the victim was fully 21 years of age.

Since the abusive cop was not charged with rape or sexual assault, your focus on the sexual aspect seems odd.

[Puffer Fish]

It is not really vague or overly broad to say that 41 year old married men should not have sex with emotionally traumatized women in their care who are young enough to be their daughter.

Is this vague or unclear to you?.

Well, you think that, but that is not so clear to many Progressives.

Besides, you seem unable to differentiate whether something is wrong and whether it should be illegal, criminalised by the law.

Just a hypothetical, if they were the same age, would that really change your view about this case?
Or if he had not been married?

Since the abusive cop was not charged with rape or sexual assault, your focus on the sexual aspect seems odd.

Oh come now... We all know he would never have been charged if he had not had sex with her.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, you think that, ….

Just a hypothetical, if they were the same age, would that really change your view about this case?
Or if he had not been married?

Again, is it unclear to you?

[
Oh come now... We all know he would never have been charged if he had not had sex with her.

Who cares?

Are you clear on the fact that he was not charged for having sex with her?

[ingliz]

Vaguely worded and open-ended laws can be subject to all sorts of interpretation

No.

The sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons by a public officer is an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, a common law offence derived from custom and judicial precedent.