While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited. After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action….
The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things):
Defendant’s conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did. As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 26, 2010 at 5:53 pm
gumply
Sharia Law, what is that?
What difference does it make anyways? An Islamist president goes right along with sharia law. We don’t have terrorist acts we have isolated incidents, we don’t even have terrorists we have misguided misunderstood muslims. And after all it’s our fault anyways we antagonized them into wanting to kill us the Quran had nothing to do with it. When they said kill all the infidels they were only kidding, can’t you tke a joke?
July 27, 2010 at 9:55 am
JAMES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
July 27, 2010 at 10:18 am
gumply
Thanks James, I was just being facetious! I know all about Sharia law and I seen all kinds of films depicting it. Horrible, heinous and sick!
July 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm
nina
bad judge –
courts are for rule of law
not to enforce rules of religion
glad it was overturned
October 29, 2010 at 11:12 am
Consider it a gift from me to you. - Page 2 - Expedite Trucking Forums
[…] go on move along…….thank you…….. Bad judge – and America prevails once again!!! link: New Jersey Judge Accepts Sharia Law as Man’s Defense in Spousal Rape Case; Appellate Court Rul… The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things): […]