|
Please stop posting that he shouldn't have invited her into his bed since that's apparently not what happened... read the OP and links BEFORE commenting. |
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
|
On July 07 2011 04:13 Akta wrote:
Most things been parroted already but there some angles I haven't seen discussed yet.
For example where I live it's rape to have sex with a sleeping person which could change this case a lot.
Another angle could be what if it was "only" oral sex(which as far as I know is also rape where I live) and the roles were the opposite, as in a guy waking up by a sexsomniac girl performing oral sex on him.
I know what I think personally, especially since my brother in law have such serious "sleep walking" problems that it almost killed him(injured for life). But those that think the society should punish this guy, would it matter if it for example was the girl that had sexsomnia instead?
Good point, countersue on rape on the girls part please. The guy was already there first and was sleeping before the girl got there. She was conscious and he was not, rape is on her.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep.
|
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
It's not common at all. No legal jurisdiction that I know of would accept that kind of argument in defense of a crime committed while 'black-out drunk'
|
On July 05 2011 22:41 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous Apparently the guy was asleep when the girl went to his bed: Show nested quote +Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there. Although that might not be true.
This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me.
If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt).
If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy...
|
On July 07 2011 09:18 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. It's not common at all. No legal jurisdiction that I know of would accept that kind of argument in defense of a crime committed while 'black-out drunk'
I think hes saying its common not to remember anything after being black out drunk.
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 07 2011 09:30 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:41 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous Apparently the guy was asleep when the girl went to his bed: Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there. Although that might not be true. This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me. If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt). If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy...
If he knew she had gotten into his bed and didn't do anything about it he'd be negligent for sure. I don't know enough about law to say if he would have gotten the rape charge because you might still be able to argue that the direct intent wasn't there, but it might not matter since he could have prevented it before hand.
|
On July 06 2011 10:52 Zedromas wrote:
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Can someone please ban this guy for obvious trolling? What does the look of someone have to do with anything in court? "Well you look really stupid so you get 10 years even if 5 years is the normal punishment for this crime.
@Topic: The whole story is really strange and I would really be interested in all the missing details, nevertheless a very intersting case.
|
What an unfortunate situation for the girl, and quite embarrassing for the man.
I don't understand why so many people seem so bloodthirsty, to think that someone must be punished for this. Misunderstandings happen with unfortunate results sometimes. That's life. We don't always need to burn someone at the stake for every bad thing that happens in the world.
If the man truly did it while in his sleep, punishing him for it would be as ridiculous as punishing someone for dreaming about raping someone.
|
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
|
On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
[/QUOTE]
in this case, the choice is on the girl. she knowingly crawled into a man's bed and slept with him. even if the man was awake, he probably still has a good defense because she gave consent to bed with him.
|
On July 07 2011 06:55 dybydx wrote:
sexomanic issues aside, i found it astonishing that our society find it plausible that a women (having reached age of consent) can consent to sleeping with a man and still maintain she did not give consent to sex.
its like having sex and claim that you don't want to get pregnant. surely you may not be in your clear intentions but if you do end up pregnant, don't blame anyone.
consenting to sleep next to a man =/= consenting to sex
|
On July 07 2011 09:49 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common. Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
in this case, the choice is on the girl. she knowingly crawled into a man's bed and slept with him. even if the man was awake, he probably still has a good defense because she gave consent to bed with him.
------------------------------------------------------------
You messed up that quoting pretty badly lol, I didn't even say that. 
|
What saved the guy from being jailed is the previous girlfriends willing to testify for him
|
On July 07 2011 09:34 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:30 TALegion wrote:On July 05 2011 22:41 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote:
Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous Apparently the guy was asleep when the girl went to his bed: Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there. Although that might not be true. This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me. If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt). If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy... If he knew she had gotten into his bed and didn't do anything about it he'd be negligent for sure. I don't know enough about law to say if he would have gotten the rape charge because you might still be able to argue that the direct intent wasn't there, but it might not matter since he could have prevented it before hand.
If he was aware of her getting into the bed with him and did nothing(which is NOT what happened) he should be charged with rape imo.
|
On July 07 2011 09:58 TranceKuja wrote:
If he was aware of her getting into the bed with him and did nothing(which is NOT what happened) he should be charged with rape imo.
Agree 100% with this.
If you assume that sexsomnia is a legitimate medical condition, and you assume that the girl willingly went into the man's bed without his consent or knowledge, the only reasonable verdict is not guilty.
Of course if those assumptions are lifted, things change considerably. If the man was aware that the girl was in his bed and did nothing about it, then having full knowledge of his condition he would have effectively chosen to rape her. And if the condition (sexsomnia) is fake then the answer is obvious (but I doubt anyone on TL is in a position to reasonably debate the legitimacy of sexsomnia).
|
On July 05 2011 22:50 SkytoM wrote:
more important is the question which idiot told her to sleep in the same bed with a sexsomniac... should get charged too imo.
This is what I thought when I read it. If they knew about it (possible that they didn't since it doesn't say who it was that instructed the girl) then they should probably be brought up on something.
|
On July 07 2011 06:37 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I don't see the source that says he was naked in the bed.
Several do. One example can be found here: http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/county/9120787.Sleep_sex_man_not_guilty_of_rape/
On July 07 2011 06:45 sorrowptoss wrote:"Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will." That's the problem.
It was also against his will, and she put herself into that position to begin with. In fact, it's probably mroe accurate to say that she sexually assaulted him by getting into bed with him while he was naked without his consent. If the genders were reversed, it's more likely that a 16-year-old boy who climbed into bed with a naked woman would be the one on trial.
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
In this case, expert medical testimony tells us that he was unconscious. It's not a matter of 'logic' or 'opinion', it's actually a medical question with a medical answer.
|
On July 07 2011 10:13 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 06:37 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I don't see the source that says he was naked in the bed. Several do. One example can be found here: http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/county/9120787.Sleep_sex_man_not_guilty_of_rape/Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 06:37 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:But I'd be lying if I said it was impossible to find a 16 year old who would do the same thing in her place. Sure, you can always find examples of people who defy the norm, but the idea I was suggesting is that a reasonable, typical 16-year-old should know better. And, as previously mentioned, if it was a 16-year-old boy climbing into bed with a naked woman, people would look at this very differently.
I wonder if there's any compiled statistics into this.
And it comes up so often, you're absolutely right, if the genders were reversed in this story it'd be viewed in such a different light. It's quite a shame that male misfortune is considered comical, whereas the female version of the same crimes are absolute tragedies that require so much discussion.
Gotta admit when i first started learning to drive, and realised discrimination laws didn't apply to White males i was rather annoyed. Paid double for car insurance just by ticking the "male" checkbox.
Not at all in the same league as this case, but the double standards have become very very tiring
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
