Life after prison - What happens if Chris is One Day released from prison

[TheTrumanShow]

It's terrible what happened but this , all of this had to stop. And Chris had to get some real help. I think him going to prison (preferably for something else) is the best thing that could have happened.

 

[RolexJoe]

He'll either fade into obscurity or just go back to his ways while enablers pat him on the back

I was wondering if Chris was going to have to register as a sex offender after he is released from prison. I figure he will but I'm not sure

 

[mikaylatoads]

I was wondering if Chris was going to have to register as a sex offender after he is released from prison. I figure he will but I'm not sure

If Barb is found legally sane and thus capable of providing consent, then I'd imagine not.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

If Barb is found legally sane and thus capable of providing consent, then I'd imagine not.

They don't even have to do that, they just have to NOT find her mentally/physically incapacitated. The default assumption, as part of Chris' assumed innocence, is that Barb is not incapacitated. I know that's a subtle difference, but basically as long as nothing is proven otherwise, it defaults to Barb's consent being assumed. Chris does not have to *prove* she consented, he merely has to prevent the prosecution from proving she didn't or was not able to. The prosecution also has the option of not even attempting to prove this (which would be part of a betterish-case plea deal for Chris).

 

[silentium]

They don't even have to do that, they just have to NOT find her mentally/physically incapacitated. The default assumption, as part of Chris' assumed innocence, is that Barb is not incapacitated. I know that's a subtle difference, but basically as long as nothing is proven otherwise, it defaults to Barb's consent being assumed. Chris does not have to *prove* she consented, he merely has to prevent the prosecution from proving she didn't or was not able to. The prosecution also has the option of not even attempting to prove this (which would be part of a betterish-case plea deal for Chris).

Don't American sexual assault and rape laws have clauses for coercion? I e where consent may have been given but it can be proven without reasonable doubt that the accused had a lot of power over the victim and therefore "forcing" them to consent to avoid consequences

Bc if not then that's dumb as shit. One of the things that many European countries are doing right by including in their rape laws. Otherwise you end up with a lot of cases like this where it's pretty clear that one party did not want to have sex but still consented. Manbabies being afraid of false rape claims are blowing it way out of proportion compared to how much good it does

 

[SuspiciousOnCummer]

He'll either fade into obscurity or just go back to his ways while enablers pat him on the back

Late as fuck but time will tell and recently he there were letters written by the man himself , talking about Jesus and other delusions as he also threatens to use his divine authority to punish weens who steal his belongings other than that there has not been much updates as i'm writing this but other than that and learning how much of a degenerate Isabella Janke is.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Don't American sexual assault and rape laws have clauses for coercion? I e where consent may have been given but it can be proven without reasonable doubt that the accused had a lot of power over the victim and therefore "forcing" them to consent to avoid consequences

Bc if not then that's dumb as shit. One of the things that many European countries are doing right by including in their rape laws. Otherwise you end up with a lot of cases like this where it's pretty clear that one party did not want to have sex but still consented. Manbabies being afraid of false rape claims are blowing it way out of proportion compared to how much good it does

Generally not in criminal cases. Some of the more far left states have some criminal penalties if it's done by an employer, but mostly it's seen as "You still had a choice". Things are very different in tort law -- you can open a civil suit claiming bad business practices and this has become very common, hence the extreme levels of sexual harassment training and liability-reduction that happen at American companies now.

The exception is for teenagers -- most US states have an age of consent of 16, but there's usually an exception (like in most countries) if the older party is in a position of authority. In most states that ends at 18, though a few have changed the law to include 18-year-olds if they are still in high school. There's been some attempts to extend that to college students of any age but to the best of my knowledge that's failed everywhere.

In Chris' case, of course, the issue is with an elderly person. Elderly people protections usually don't kick in unless the person is so incapacitated that they are incapable of acting independently -- i.e. nursing home patients. Barb was old but she still was obviously able to walk around, navigate, make decisions, answer phone calls, etc.

The problem with the "power over you" argument is that it would basically turn any marriage with a single breadwinner into a rape scenario.

 

[MalasaThalassa]

Chris should go on joe rogan's podcast

 

[Turbocuck]

Chris should go on joe rogan's podcast

"That's crazy. Have you ever drank your own cum?"

 

[Guardsman42]

Generally not in criminal cases. Some of the more far left states have some criminal penalties if it's done by an employer, but mostly it's seen as "You still had a choice". Things are very different in tort law -- you can open a civil suit claiming bad business practices and this has become very common, hence the extreme levels of sexual harassment training and liability-reduction that happen at American companies now.

The exception is for teenagers -- most US states have an age of consent of 16, but there's usually an exception (like in most countries) if the older party is in a position of authority. In most states that ends at 18, though a few have changed the law to include 18-year-olds if they are still in high school. There's been some attempts to extend that to college students of any age but to the best of my knowledge that's failed everywhere.

In Chris' case, of course, the issue is with an elderly person. Elderly people protections usually don't kick in unless the person is so incapacitated that they are incapable of acting independently -- i.e. nursing home patients. Barb was old but she still was obviously able to walk around, navigate, make decisions, answer phone calls, etc.

The problem with the "power over you" argument is that it would basically turn any marriage with a single breadwinner into a rape scenario.

The USA is actually a mix bag of consent and coercion based consent being illegal. <Which is all manner of backwards>.

The coercion-based model 'requires that the sexual act was done by coercion, violence, physical force or threat of violence or physical force in order for the act to amount to rape'.

Which ..Virginia is Coercion based. So hell, maybe according to Virginia's backward ass law? Chris infact, did not commit rape. Because he didn't have to physically beat Barb into giving in. <And that is how that model of consent works. You can't claim you were raped unless you were essentially beaten into it.>

There is then the whole aspect of we just won't hear much about this sort of case publically and they might hope barb dies before they need to truly 'deal with it' because it's an incest case, possible rape.

 

[Bubblez McGee]

They don't even have to do that, they just have to NOT find her mentally/physically incapacitated. The default assumption, as part of Chris' assumed innocence, is that Barb is not incapacitated. I know that's a subtle difference, but basically as long as nothing is proven otherwise, it defaults to Barb's consent being assumed. Chris does not have to *prove* she consented, he merely has to prevent the prosecution from proving she didn't or was not able to. The prosecution also has the option of not even attempting to prove this (which would be part of a betterish-case plea deal for Chris).

They don't just have to prove that she wasn't mentally/physically incapacitated or show that the prosecution failed to prove that she was, but also have to either show that she wasn't *mentally defective* or that the prosecution failed to prove that she was. Those might sound like the same thing, but they're not. The following is how Virginia defines "mentally defective", as taken from Virginia's policy crime definition document regarding consent. (Although it mentions Arkansas code, it's still referencing Virginia's laws and policies.) I've attached an image of the entire page , which also includes the definition for "mentally incapacitied":

There is a lack of consent if a person engages in a sexual act with another person by forcible compulsion or
with a person who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless, mentally defective or
mentally incapacitated, or because of a victim’s age. Arkansas Code §§ 5-14-103; 5-14-125.
“Mentally defective” means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders the person:
incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of a sexual act; or
unaware a sexual act is occurring.


This makes the defense's job more difficult. It's not just a matter of showing that Barb could do things like walk around, answer phone calls, etc. If the prosecution brings in a diagnosis of dementia or one that shows that Barb had reduced mental capacity to where she didn't didn't understand what was happening, then a conviction becomes much more likely. The document also states: "it is an affirmative defense that the actor reasonably believed that the victim was capable of consent." So his lawyers can't just try and prove that Chris didn't know Barb's mental faculties were lacking, but that his belief was reasonable. What Chris sees as reasonable and how the rest of the world, including members of the jury -or the judge, if it's a bench trial -define the word, might be two very different things.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

They don't just have to prove that she wasn't mentally/physically incapacitated or show that the prosecution failed to prove that she was, but also have to either show that she wasn't *mentally defective* or that the prosecution failed to prove that she was. Those might sound like the same thing, but they're not. The following is how Virginia defines "mentally defective", as taken from Virginia's policy crime definition document regarding consent. (Although it mentions Arkansas code, it's still referencing Virginia's laws and policies.) I've attached an image of the entire page , which also includes the definition for "mentally incapacitied":

There is a lack of consent if a person engages in a sexual act with another person by forcible compulsion or
with a person who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless, mentally defective or
mentally incapacitated, or because of a victim’s age. Arkansas Code §§ 5-14-103; 5-14-125.
“Mentally defective” means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders the person:
incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of a sexual act; or
unaware a sexual act is occurring.


This makes the defense's job more difficult. It's not just a matter of showing that Barb could do things like walk around, answer phone calls, etc. If the prosecution brings in a diagnosis of dementia or one that shows that Barb had reduced mental capacity to where she didn't didn't understand what was happening, then a conviction becomes much more likely. The document also states: "it is an affirmative defense that the actor reasonably believed that the victim was capable of consent." So his lawyers can't just try and prove that Chris didn't know Barb's mental faculties were lacking, but that his belief was reasonable. What Chris sees as reasonable and how the rest of the world, including members of the jury -or the judge, if it's a bench trial -define the word, might be two very different things.

View attachment 2823868

It would be a bit of a tall order to show that Barb was so addled that she literally didn't understand what was happening, especially without her cooperation. This isn't "she's a bit batty" level. Though maybe they're hoping that she dies to they can spin a narrative about her without her being around to contradict them.

 

[Guardsman42]

It would be a bit of a tall order to show that Barb was so addled that she literally didn't understand what was happening, especially without her cooperation. This isn't "she's a bit batty" level. Though maybe they're hoping that she dies to they can spin a narrative about her without her being around to contradict them.

Or they just want to drag it out, so she dies, and doesn't have to take the stand out of respect to her.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Don't American sexual assault and rape laws have clauses for coercion? I e where consent may have been given but it can be proven without reasonable doubt that the accused had a lot of power over the victim and therefore "forcing" them to consent to avoid consequences

Bc if not then that's dumb as shit. One of the things that many European countries are doing right by including in their rape laws. Otherwise you end up with a lot of cases like this where it's pretty clear that one party did not want to have sex but still consented. Manbabies being afraid of false rape claims are blowing it way out of proportion compared to how much good it does

That sounds like it'd be super abusable in the current climate of America, basically giving the accuser the upper hand in any she said/he said situation, especially if celebrities or anyone famous is involved.

But in the case of potential physical repercussions or someone in a position of authority over young adults or vulnerable adults (Like Chris was, depending on Barb's mental state) then it makes sense.

I guess it depends how it's worded legally.

 

[silentium]

That sounds like it'd be super abusable in the current climate of America, basically giving the accuser the upper hand in any she said/he said situation, especially if celebrities or anyone famous is involved.

But in the case of potential physical repercussions or someone in a position of authority over young adults or vulnerable adults (Like Chris was, depending on Barb's mental state) then it makes sense.

I guess it depends how it's worded legally.

Explain then how it's a problem in literally none of the western European countries that have such statutes.

 

[Josterman]

If Barb is found legally sane and thus capable of providing consent, then I'd imagine not.

That would pretty much prove that the justice system is broken since she is a know liar.
although considering Chris lives in a red state and boy he is going to down hard probably.

 

[Ophelia]

That would pretty much prove that the justice system is broken since she is a know liar.
although considering Chris lives in a red state and boy he is going to down hard probably.

People have posted about how “red state” doesn’t necessarily apply to the area Chris lives in. Anyway, red or blue, no state wants a massive amount of attention about Chris and his crimes. He doesn’t even work as an anti-trans straw man.

 

[HumanHive]

Chris should go on joe rogan's podcast

And somehow the topic of DMT still comes up.

 

[Josterman]

And somehow the topic of DMT still comes up.

That would be a laugh riot and get Alex Jones

People have posted about how “red state” doesn’t necessarily apply to the area Chris lives in. Anyway, red or blue, no state wants a massive amount of attention about Chris and his crimes. He doesn’t even work as an anti-trans straw man.

well considering the LGBTQ community hates Chris The state would be doing them a favor

 

[Ophelia]

That would be a laugh riot and get Alex Jones

well considering the LGBTQ community hates Chris The state would be doing them a favor

Putting Chris front and center as an example of the big bad evil trans monster Fox viewers love to hate helps no one in the alphabet community. They don’t want people like Chris and Yaniv come to mind when someone hears about a trans person.