|
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 10:22 Eleaven wrote:
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
It's called insurance, insurance profits by discrimination.
|
On July 07 2011 09:50 Slaynte wrote:
consenting to sleep next to a man =/= consenting to sex
No, but consenting to sleep next to a naked man without his knowledge does beg some questions about the circumstances in the first place.
On July 07 2011 09:56 Aruno wrote:
What saved the guy from being jailed is the previous girlfriends willing to testify for him
Indeed. And the fact that they were willing to do so suggests, on its own, that it is less probable that he is the 'creep' that some people are trying to portray him as.
|
Well, what did the victim have to say? A pretty important role in the matter, you'd think would be more pressed to give her perspective.
|
On July 07 2011 10:29 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 10:22 Eleaven wrote:
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
It's called insurance, insurance profits by discrimination.
So discrimination is okay as long as there's ample profit.
Gotcha!
Anyway, i don't really want to get involved in this, the thread has been locked in the circular stage for a long time now, and it can't really be helped.
Thanks for your time
|
On July 07 2011 10:32 Eleaven wrote:
So discrimination is okay as long as there's ample profit.
It's not discrimination; it's statistical reality that women are, on average, safer drivers.
If it didn't have a foundation in sound math, then one or more insurance companies would destroy the competition by offering lower rates for men.
/offtopic
|
On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote: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.
In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk.
That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this.
1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16)
2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her)
2a.
3. You recklessly committed the act.
In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough.
If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference:
Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter.
Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges.
Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
Scenario 4 (What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault.
Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless.
For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you.
Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes.
Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl.
The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering).
Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo.
|
On July 07 2011 10:43 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote: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. In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk. That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this. 1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16) 2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her) 2a. 3. You recklessly committed the act. In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough. If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference: Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter. Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges. Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation. Scenario 4 ( What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault. Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless. For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you. Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes. Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl. The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering). Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo. I agree with you, actually I learned this in one of my crim classes several months back but I forgot the details you pointed out, thanks for clearing things up!
|
On July 07 2011 10:43 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote: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. In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk. That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this. 1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16) 2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her) 2a. 3. You recklessly committed the act. In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough. If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference: Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter. Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges. Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation. Scenario 4 ( What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault. Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless. For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you. Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes. Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl. The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering). Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo.
I'd add that once you have been charged with a certain offense i.e rape, it is then very difficult for the prosecution to have the charge adjusted after evidence has been presented.
I can give you a clear indication of this working in practice, though not on a sexual assault case. I was once arrested on "suspicion of Intent to supply" (they thought i was a dealer) I spent the night in the nick, i was interviewed the next day when i was sober and then released on bail. I went back a month later to be charged and because there simply wasn't much evidence in their favour they dropped the charge to "possession" because they knew that when it went to court it would be very easy for me to get off scott free on an intent to supply charge. Dropping the charge to possession meant that I was without a doubt guilty.
Its a common practice for prosecutors to go for the lowest charge they can prove and nothing more so that they don't go for Murder/rape in a case thats not clear cut and have an innocent verdict allow a criminal to go free. In this case, it seems the facts were on the side of the defendant and that he was not responsible for his actions. Therefore really they should have perhaps tried to convict whomever sent the girl to his bed with some form of negligence.
|
I find it difficult enough getting laid when I'm awake. This guy is a player.
|
On July 07 2011 10:43 Gnial wrote:
Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
What if you got into bed with the girl, and knowing that due to your condition, there'd be a high chance of fucking her, you did so as to have sex with her without needing to gain her consent?
|
Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
|
On July 07 2011 11:08 MozzarellaL wrote:
What if you got into bed with the girl, and knowing that due to your condition, there'd be a high chance of fucking her, you did so as to have sex with her without needing to gain her consent?
If the prosecution can demonstrate such intent (though that might be difficult), then that would be rape.
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Your opinion is worthless without relevant scientific training.
The medical community disagrees with you.
|
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Wow, have you ever even had sex with a woman?
|
On July 07 2011 11:38 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is. Wow, have you ever even had sex with a woman? I think he's basing that off of watching porn hehe.
|
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
what is this bullshit i don't even ...
|
You know, sexsomnia or not, if someone got into bed with me, and I turned in my sleep, and snuggled up to her - as I do with my GF, and i'm sure the vast majority of people do... would that in anyway be 'my fault'?
Certainly not rape, or any penetration, but why did that girl jump into bed with a naked man? It was bound to end in embarrassment.
|
so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict.
For the most part, other people with such things happening, be it schizophrenia or something else beyond their control, which makes them a danger to others, are institutionalized until such time as a doctor can testify that they are no longer a threat to themselves are others. be that through medication, counciling, whatever.
so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
|
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:
so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict.
You're reading wrong. The man is not guilty because he was unconscious, and was not in any way responsible for the girl being in a position where she might be affected by his condition.
It's the same reason why you would not be responsible for sexual harassment if you cuddle up with someone who climbs in bed with you while you are asleep without your knowledge.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
He is no threat to others. He should not be sharing a bed with people who have not consented to having sex with him, but he didn't choose to do so in this case.
|
On July 07 2011 13:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:
so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict. You're reading wrong. The man is not guilty because he was unconscious, and was not in any way responsible for the girl being in a position where she might be affected by his condition. It's the same reason why you would not be responsible for sexual harassment if you cuddle up with someone who climbs in bed with you while you are asleep without your knowledge. Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized. He is no threat to others. He should not be sharing a bed with people who have not consented to having sex with him, but he didn't choose to do so in this case.
that doesn't make sense to me, he clearly knew that he has this medical condition, yet failed to inform the girl. had he done so the entire incident would most likely have been avoided. and if i understand his condition correctly, its basically like sleep walking except having sex instead of walking around baking omellettes (it has happened). whats to say his condition wont advance to the point of getting out of bed and leaving the confines of his house/apartment? to say that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. In my mind that's like saying someone who is hearing voices shouldn't get treatment because the voices are telling him to do good things.
|
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:
so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict.
For the most part, other people with such things happening, be it schizophrenia or something else beyond their control, which makes them a danger to others, are institutionalized until such time as a doctor can testify that they are no longer a threat to themselves are others. be that through medication, counciling, whatever.
so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
It's not like he unconsciously lurked around and broke into random houses at night to have sex with others. As long as he takes precautions on not sleeping with a girl (or guy) who had no intent to have sex with him, it should be fine
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
