|
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 05 2011 22:38 Denia1 wrote:
Makes sense since it was clearly unintentional so the rape charge cannot be used. It'd be interesting what alternative charges they can put forward in this case, since I don't think there is any legal precedent for this as it is really quite unusual to unintentionally have sex with somebody against their will.
You can't put forward alternative charges rofl. What the hell, try someone for something, doesn't stick then try out some new charges? Anyone accused of shit would never get any peace then. Thank god the US legal system doesn't work that way. You can't try someone for another crime using evidence used in a previous trial, and seeing as the prosecution will have used all available evidence for the first one....there won't be another.
|
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote:
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).
As far as can be ascertained, his condition is limited to having sex with someone in the same bed.
He is therefore under no obligation to inform others of his condition unless he is aware that they are likely to share his bed, which doesn't seem to be the case.
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote:
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.
What's to say you won't develop sudden onset Alzheimer's? Shouldn't we pre-emptively take away your driver's license? To say it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont.
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote:
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.
No, it's like saying that someone who has hay fever doesn't need to get treatment if it doesn't bother them or the people around them.
|
On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles 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. 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.
I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang?
If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory.
This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in.
Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random.
My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case.
With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
|
Clearly you are more authorized than doctors who have cumulatively spent centuries studying the phenomena of sleep-walking to comment on what is actually going on.
On July 07 2011 13:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
You can't put forward alternative charges rofl. What the hell, try someone for something, doesn't stick then try out some new charges? Anyone accused of shit would never get any peace then. Thank god the US legal system doesn't work that way. You can't try someone for another crime using evidence used in a previous trial, and seeing as the prosecution will have used all available evidence for the first one....there won't be another.
You can reuse evidence from other lawsuits, you just can't charge someone for the same, or substantially similar, crime. [Substantially similar apparently meaning, but I am not sure, of the similar type of crime, i.e., theft crimes, homicides, etc., where evidence supporting a charge of one would also be used to support the other]
|
On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles 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. 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. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
|
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?
What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
|
On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles 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. 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. I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang? If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory. This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in. Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random. My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case. With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught. Do you remember any dreams you've had? If you do, do they tend to make sense and such?
|
On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will.
Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading.
(In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'.
|
On July 07 2011 14:03 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you. You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will. Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading. (In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'.
In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
|
On July 07 2011 14:28 Disquiet wrote:In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
That's... unusual. I'd be inclined to agree that your legal system treats it disproportionately.
|
Looking past the science of the "condition" it is still really strange that:
- there was a 16 year old staying there
- she was told that the best way to deal with a cold is to get in bed with a sleeping man.. get some more blankets?
- the person who told her that didn't know his condition? what is their relationship then
- a little girl gets into bed with a sleeping man who isn't her father
- i'm really curious how a sleeping man undresses somebody who is resisting
He knows his condition clearly so he has an obligation to take steps to prevent situations like this. It is unlikely the child just showed up at his house and he was asleep the whole time and never knew the kid was there.
Really fucking sketchy situation to me. At least the cat is out of the bag I suppose...
|
On July 07 2011 14:57 On_Slaught wrote:
Looking past the science of the "condition" it is still really strange that:
- there was a 16 year old staying there
- she was told that the best way to deal with a cold is to get in bed with a sleeping man.. get some more blankets?
- the person who told her that didn't know his condition? what is their relationship then
- a little girl gets into bed with a sleeping man who isn't her father
- i'm really curious how a sleeping man undresses somebody who is resisting
He knows his condition clearly so he has an obligation to take steps to prevent situations like this. It is unlikely the child just showed up at his house and he was asleep the whole time and never knew the kid was there.
Really fucking sketchy situation to me. At least the cat is out of the bag I suppose...
I could not have said it better.
All i can add is that if "someone" told her to sleep in he's bed (while he is sleeping in that bed), does she - at the age of 16 - not have the common sense to realize that that advice is beyond strange?
I cannot make logical sense of this story what-so-ever and therfore cannot decide who is guilty/ at fault here.
For starters, how did she not wake up while he (trying to imagine this now), got ontop of her, started having intercourse, (while shes not arroused if you know what i mean) - with cloths on (if she did not have clothes on - well then...
Sorry, i am not really contributing to this thread, i have more questions, and no answers.
Maybe just stick to:
Really fucking sketchy situation to me.
|
On July 06 2011 00:43 rapidtransit247 wrote:
On the other hand...the conclusion to the South Park episode NAMBLA comes to mind. "Dude, they have SEX with CHILDREN."
Shut the fuck up.
She's as much a child as he is. Also, he wasn't conscious...
There was a whole court, i. e. people who are much smarter than you and have looked at the case more thoroughly.
You can't compare an unintentional singular incident with this organisation of perverts and sickos that should absolutely prohibited.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 07 2011 14:28 Disquiet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:03 MozzarellaL wrote:On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you. You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will. Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading. (In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'. In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life. Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
Sounds more like assault should be treated more seriously in Australia than anything else to me...
|
On July 07 2011 14:28 Disquiet wrote:
In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
You still haven't clarified what you meant by 'bashing someone's face in'. According to this website, you could potentially get a maximum of 25 yrs for breaking a face.
and here, it does not say rape is a life imprisonment crime (only 20 years). In fact, its sentencing is comparable to that of aggravated assault (of the type which would break a face)
|
You don't even know if he was under the effects of the condition at the time. His ex-wife said this happened once or twice a month. What are the chances that the sexsomnia took over on the day some random 16 year old girl sleeps next to him? Based on probability, 1 in 15.
It's possible that he did in fact knowingly and consciously rape the girl, and then used his medical condition as an excuse to defend himself. Besides, several of the articles say he called her a "horny b****" and went downstairs to boil water, came back, and assaulted her some more. Another article says he called her by her name and texted her the next day. Does this mean he knew her from before? Or was the article just spreading BS?
My point is, its possible that the man knew what he was doing, and got away with it by invoking a medical condition as a defense.
|
On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
|
On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works. Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep?
|
On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:46 Mojar wrote:
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
I'm guessing you've never experienced it then. :p
|
On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote:
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
![[image loading]](http://www.learningthings.com/mmLEARNINGTHINGS/Images/PPB_DK_HOW_DOES_IT_WORK_100.GIF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
