|
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. |
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason.
If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed.
In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free.
Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape.
|
Is there any evidence to suggest subconscious intent or are you just assuming there must be? Show me the scientific study that substantiates these claims. Because I have idle fantasies about killing all the time. Consciously I would never do it and as far as I know I haven't killed anyone in my sleep nor have I ever sleepwalked.
If I suddenly start sleepwalking am I now to be considered a threat to society because my mind wanders with intent which I later bury and use as inspiration to fuel my sick, twisted, mentalist antagonists/protagonists in my horriterribad stories?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape.
This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post.
You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious.
Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence.
|
On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:
Show nested quote +
If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed.
In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free.
Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape.
So you are telling me you've never had thoughts about inhumane things? Just because a person thinks about murdering someone doesn't mean he will. There are plenty of people who fantasize about killing other people but they don't do it because of rational choices. Your subconscious is not rational in that way, I mean do your dreams make rational sense when you wake up and think about them.
|
On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape.
You are an idiot, and this is why I am thankful that the people who make our laws are at least somewhat competent.
Subconscious intent doesn't exist. Do you know what the fuck the definition of subconscious is? Do you know what intent means? You cannot have subconscious intent. Intent is purposefully or knowingly doing an act.
If you kill your family in your sleep and it can be substantiated through evidence then you will be declared not guilty because you didn't fulfill the Mens Rea of the crime. You weren't cognitively aware or able to prevent yourself from doing it. Even if you had a fight with your family, fell asleep angry got up and killed your family as long as you can prove you were suffering from the disorder at the time you are free. It is similar to an insanity plea in the sense you are proving you didn't do it willfully, purposely, or knowingly. It is only fair to punish people who are actually criminals, who purposely set out to harm others. In the case of people who plead insanity and can't control their actions they are not guilty, but are put into mental hospitals for an undetermined amount of time until they are deemed safe.
In this guys case he didn't put himself in reckless situation, he didn't knowingly, or willingly rape the girl. What he instinctively did in his sleep and couldn't control he can't be held accountable for. As long as he doesn't do irresponsible things like purposely sleep with 16 year old's it is reasonable to assume he presents no reasonable threat to other people. So why would you imprison someone who had no malicious intent and presents no reasonable threat to others? Hint: You wouldn't.
Stop posting ignorant shit.
|
Does the concept of mens rea exist in German law?
|
On July 08 2011 09:15 MozzarellaL wrote:
Does the concept of mens rea exist in German law?
Yup, I just looked up the German translation. Every criminal act needs "mens rea" for laws to be applicable, except for where it is explicitly stated that a law is about negligence.
|
On July 08 2011 05:47 synapse wrote:
If the guy wasn't conciously doing it then I don't see why everyone is so surprised at this verdict >.>
Because (a) we have idiots who don't read the OP/links/thread, (b) we have idiots who think they know more about sleepwalking than the scientists of the medical community who study it, and (c) we have idiots who are just so outraged at the idea of a teenage girl being raped that they turn their brains off.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 08 2011 08:44 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape. This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post. You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious. Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence.
I am only of the opinion that no one ever kills his family unintentionally. Unintentional rape is something different and might happen, I didn't deny that. But I don't mind if I am wrong about that because it doesn't change my point at all.
Now this is all assuming that I am wrong and he really had absolutely no self control in his state:
Then what makes it a fact that this can only happen if someone goes into his bed without him knowing? Because it only happened when someone crawled into his bed without him knowing? That would be just stupid. Like seeing a wild animal kill a man who accidently stepped on his tail and assuming that this wild animal is perfectly fine as a pet as long as you don't step on his tail.
He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society.
|
On July 08 2011 10:11 Fenrax wrote:
He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society.
At most, he just needs a time-locked bedroom door.
Regardless, no part of that makes him guilty in any way.
|
We sure have a lot of armchair doctors here...
Who are you guys to decide what is or is not a medical condition ? How long have you studied sleepwalking ?
|
"It is an instinctive behaviour, they are not conscious at the time," he added.
finally it gets recognized. The fact is that a grown adult in the unconscious state found her sexually attractive.
What do you think a 16 year old girl is doing in the same bed as him anyway? think about it? none of the excuses makes sense. Yes, the links do say they shared the same bed because it was cooler. A 16 year old girl is sexual and knows to be wary of that situation OR they putting themselves there subconsciously on purpose.
Additionally, how did he have sex with her? Were her clothes already off? How could he have undressed her without her waking up? She only woke up after he had sex with her? none of this makes sense. Sounds like a histrionic girl, which are renowned for their daddy issues and put themselves in such situations.
P.S. age of consent in the UK is 16. so if they had agreed to it together it would not have been rape whatsoever. Oh t obe a high school professor over there..
|
On July 08 2011 10:11 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 08:44 Myles wrote:On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape. This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post. You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious. Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence. I am only of the opinion that no one ever kills his family unintentionally. Unintentional rape is something different and might happen, I didn't deny that. But I don't mind if I am wrong about that because it doesn't change my point at all. Now this is all assuming that I am wrong and he really had absolutely no self control in his state: Then what makes it a fact that this can only happen if someone goes into his bed without him knowing? Because it only happened when someone crawled into his bed without him knowing? That would be just stupid. Like seeing a wild animal kill a man who accidently stepped on his tail and assuming that this wild animal is perfectly fine as a pet as long as you don't step on his tail. He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society.
The reason everyone thinks your comments don't make any sense is because you don't reasonably reach your conclusions, by any means. To that end, you've gotten unlucky - because even if you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes you can get lucky and come to the correct (or at least a reasonable) conclusion anyways. But you have not. You have come to the wrong conclusion, a conclusion that makes no sense, and which you have backed up by nothing but the comment that anyone who sleepwalks is a danger to society.
You say things like "he raped a little girl, therefore he is a danger to society". But the courts found he didn't rape a child, or a teenager. What he did wasn't rape. It was an unfortunate circumstance.
You also say things like, "the intent of killing someone in your sleep is completely different than having sex in your sleep". What? Are you joking? How can the intent of your actions change based solely on what the action is? Its comments like this that make me think you must actually be trolling, like others have said. But I'm still holding faith that you have come to a ludicrous conclusion, and are refusing to change your position based solely on stubbornness.
There are cases in Canada where people have killed their wife, or child, but have been found to be in a automatistic state and so were not convicted. In one case, the guy stabbed his wife over 20 times with a knife. But he got off. Do you know why? Just google automatism and you will see. The same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you're sleepwalking is the same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you are blackout drunk, which is the same reason why you can't get convicted of murder if someone else is holding a gun to your head, and why you can't get convicted of murder for drunk driving. There is a LACK OF INTENT. You can plug your ears and go hide in a dark corner, pretending it doesn't exist. But whenever you come out of that dark corner to post on team liquid we're gonna tell you that you're wrong - because you are, and you're being an idiot.
|
On July 08 2011 12:32 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 10:11 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 08:44 Myles wrote:On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape. This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post. You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious. Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence. I am only of the opinion that no one ever kills his family unintentionally. Unintentional rape is something different and might happen, I didn't deny that. But I don't mind if I am wrong about that because it doesn't change my point at all. Now this is all assuming that I am wrong and he really had absolutely no self control in his state: Then what makes it a fact that this can only happen if someone goes into his bed without him knowing? Because it only happened when someone crawled into his bed without him knowing? That would be just stupid. Like seeing a wild animal kill a man who accidently stepped on his tail and assuming that this wild animal is perfectly fine as a pet as long as you don't step on his tail. He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society. The reason everyone thinks your comments don't make any sense and is because you don't reasonably reach your conclusions, by any means. To that end, you've gotten unlucky - because even if you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes you can get lucky and come to the correct (or at least a reasonable) conclusion anyways. But you have not. You have come to the wrong conclusion, a conclusion that makes no sense, and which you have backed up by nothing but the comment that anyone who sleepwalks is a danger to society. You say things like "he raped a little girl, therefore he is a danger to society". But the courts found he didn't rape a child, or a teenager. What he did wasn't rape. It was an unfortunate circumstance. You also say things like, "the intent of killing someone in your sleep is completely different than having sex in your sleep". What? Are you joking? How can the intent of your actions change based solely on what the action is? Its comments like this that make me think you must actually be trolling, like others have said. But I'm still holding faith that you have come to a ludicrous conclusion, and are refusing to change your position based solely on stubbornness. There are cases in Canada where people have killed their wife, or child, but have been found to be in a automatistic state and so were not convicted. In one case, the guy stabbed his wife over 20 times with a knife. But he got off. Do you know why? Just google automatism and you will see. The same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you're sleepwalking is the same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you are blackout drunk, which is the same reason why you can't get convicted of murder if someone else is holding a gun to your head, and why you can't get convicted of murder for drunk driving. There is a LACK OF INTENT. You can plug your ears and go hide in a dark corner, pretending it doesn't exist. But whenever you come out of that dark corner to post on team liquid we're gonna tell you that you're wrong - because you are, and you're being an idiot.
backwards people with low education tend to hold on to "magical" standards of conduct, as the salem witch hunters before them.
Honestly though, it runs like this:
Bad habits in Reasoning. - The usual false conclusions of mankind are these: a thing exists, therefore it has a right to exist. Here there is an inference from the ability to live to its suitability; from its suitability to its rightfulness. Then: an opinion brings happiness; therefore it is the true opinion. Its effect is good; therefore it is itself good and true. to the effect is here assigned the predicate beneficent, good, in the sense of the useful, and the cause is then furnished with the same predicate good, but here in the sense of the logically valid. The inverson of the sentences would read thus: an affair cannot be carried through, or maintaned, therefore it is wrong; an opinion causes pain or excites, therefore it is false... Nietzsche, Human, All too Human.
the point is people will choose to deny or accept things on the basis of pleasing or not, of whethe its good for them and their sense of morals/justice/whatever to accept or deny it, and not on the grounds of whether it is factual and true or false.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 08 2011 12:32 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 10:11 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 08:44 Myles wrote:On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote: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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape. This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post. You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious. Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence. I am only of the opinion that no one ever kills his family unintentionally. Unintentional rape is something different and might happen, I didn't deny that. But I don't mind if I am wrong about that because it doesn't change my point at all. Now this is all assuming that I am wrong and he really had absolutely no self control in his state: Then what makes it a fact that this can only happen if someone goes into his bed without him knowing? Because it only happened when someone crawled into his bed without him knowing? That would be just stupid. Like seeing a wild animal kill a man who accidently stepped on his tail and assuming that this wild animal is perfectly fine as a pet as long as you don't step on his tail. He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society. The reason everyone thinks your comments don't make any sense is because you don't reasonably reach your conclusions, by any means. To that end, you've gotten unlucky - because even if you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes you can get lucky and come to the correct (or at least a reasonable) conclusion anyways. But you have not. You have come to the wrong conclusion, a conclusion that makes no sense, and which you have backed up by nothing but the comment that anyone who sleepwalks is a danger to society. You say things like "he raped a little girl, therefore he is a danger to society". But the courts found he didn't rape a child, or a teenager. What he did wasn't rape. It was an unfortunate circumstance. You also say things like, "the intent of killing someone in your sleep is completely different than having sex in your sleep". What? Are you joking? How can the intent of your actions change based solely on what the action is? Its comments like this that make me think you must actually be trolling, like others have said. But I'm still holding faith that you have come to a ludicrous conclusion, and are refusing to change your position based solely on stubbornness. There are cases in Canada where people have killed their wife, or child, but have been found to be in a automatistic state and so were not convicted. In one case, the guy stabbed his wife over 20 times with a knife. But he got off. Do you know why? Just google automatism and you will see. The same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you're sleepwalking is the same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you are blackout drunk, which is the same reason why you can't get convicted of murder if someone else is holding a gun to your head, and why you can't get convicted of murder for drunk driving. There is a LACK OF INTENT. You can plug your ears and go hide in a dark corner, pretending it doesn't exist. But whenever you come out of that dark corner to post on team liquid we're gonna tell you that you're wrong - because you are, and you're being an idiot.
I dont have much inclination discussing much longer when people call me an idiot so my answer will be short. Oh and please tell me that I shall stop being an idiot then, will you? That would be SUCH a smart remark and it would back up your arguments even more than calling me names!
Anyway and black out drunk people igored, letting a man free who killed his wife or children is nothing but the result of a bad justice system. If they are not responsible for their actions they need to be sent into involuntary commitment. I actually can't believe that you think it is a good idea to send someone who stabbed his wife 20 times straught back to the street.
Similar thing with a guy who fucked a minor girl against her will.
And if you use quotation marks use them for quotes and not for horrible summaries! That's not what they are meant to do.
|
On July 08 2011 16:38 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 12:32 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 10:11 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 08:44 Myles wrote:On July 08 2011 08:32 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 05:28 Gnial wrote:On July 08 2011 04:14 Fenrax wrote:On July 07 2011 13:34 ninini wrote:On July 07 2011 09:15 Myles wrote:On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:
[quote]
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. This is clearly the best post in this thread so far. I just couldn't put my finger on what felt so fishy on this case but this is it. He can differentiate between his wife saying "yes" and "no", have conversations in a coherent fashion and go downstairs and make tea so his level was awareness was high enough to tell him that sex with a child/teenager is a no-go. I think the post you love so much has so many faulty assumptions in it I don't even know where to begin. I'll roll with just a few of them. First, it assumes that every single episode of his sleep-walking occurs with the same level of cognition. Why would you assume that? Second, it assumes that he knew that the 16 year old girl was...the 16 year old girl. Was there a light on? He didn't even know she was in the bed if she got in when he was sleeping (which is what happened, the court made a finding of fact on that), if he moved in his sleep and touched someone his unconscious mind might have assumed it was his wife. (ex-wife or not, you can forget that shit in your sleep, for instance if you dream you are still married). Even further, he might have touched her in his sleep while dreaming he was in a brothel in Thailand or something and thought she was a consenting hooker. You don't know otherwise - why would you argue like there is certainty with respect to this? Third, he assumes that having sex with the 16 year old girl is proof that the guy thought about having sex with the 16 year old girl beforehand. That connection just isn't there. To repeat, there is nothing to suggest that he knew whom he was having sex with at the time. He could have thought it was anyone - especially since the girl wasn't even supposed to be there. All it is proof of is that he thought about having sex with someone - anyone. This post that you so admire is trying to infer that he intended to commit a non-consensual rape of a specific 16 year old based on the fact that he committed the act, and nothing more. The assumptions he makes are essentially saying that the act is proof of the intent. He certainly made the choice to have sex with someone. But we don't know whether he thought it was consensual or not, or whom he thought it was. You can't infer from any of the available information that he thought about having sex with her specifically. To use this reasoning is either to confuse actus reus and mens rea, or to display a patent misread of the facts presented in the shitty articles. If you kill a monster in your dream, only to wake up and realize it is your family...you never intended to kill your family. Being convicted of a charge based on an INTENT to kill your family would not make ANY sense, since that intent was never there. The same goes for this. Read my post above - you can confuse things in your sleep that you wouldn't otherwise do. To say otherwise would be to purposely ignore science, fact, and reason. If someone kills his family in his sleep his subconsciousness certainly knows what's happening and thus there is a subconscious intent, too. And if you wouldn't account that subconscious intent as relevant for a conviction then the murderer would certainly be sentenced to go to a mental asylum for a very long time until he is healed. In this case however the rapist gets no conviction at all. Neither jail nor an asylum. He is a free man based on the assumptions that there is no danger coming from him anymore in the future and that he raped a girl unconsciously. These two assumptions contradict. If he has enough self control to prevent this from ever happening again then he could have had enough self control to prevent this from happening for the first time, too and thus needed to be convicted as a rapist. If he doesn't have enough self control then it is irresponsible to let that man free. Now, that aside, I liked the post above so much because I just believe that this was how it was. He should have been convicted of rape. This has got to be a troll. I'm literally face-palming at the lack of logic expressed in this post. You're really going to say that you're subconscious knows and thus you have intent? Do you understand how sleep and the brain works? You're frontal cortex, the part of the brain which allows us higher thought, is not active when you're asleep. You can't make rational decisions without this part of your brain and aren't thinking at all in the way we do when we're conscious. Also, he's not a free man based on the assumption that he can control himself. It's based on the fact that if someone doesn't get into his bed without him knowing it then this can't happen. If the man allows someone to sleep next to him and doesn't tell them of his problem then he is guilty of at least negligence. I am only of the opinion that no one ever kills his family unintentionally. Unintentional rape is something different and might happen, I didn't deny that. But I don't mind if I am wrong about that because it doesn't change my point at all. Now this is all assuming that I am wrong and he really had absolutely no self control in his state: Then what makes it a fact that this can only happen if someone goes into his bed without him knowing? Because it only happened when someone crawled into his bed without him knowing? That would be just stupid. Like seeing a wild animal kill a man who accidently stepped on his tail and assuming that this wild animal is perfectly fine as a pet as long as you don't step on his tail. He walks around the house in this state. He walked down the stairs and made tea and then came back. He even had longer conversations with his wife in this state. And then he raped a child/teenager in this state. Going out of the house in this state is very realistic. If the requirement for no intention is given then this man is a danger to society. The reason everyone thinks your comments don't make any sense is because you don't reasonably reach your conclusions, by any means. To that end, you've gotten unlucky - because even if you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes you can get lucky and come to the correct (or at least a reasonable) conclusion anyways. But you have not. You have come to the wrong conclusion, a conclusion that makes no sense, and which you have backed up by nothing but the comment that anyone who sleepwalks is a danger to society. You say things like "he raped a little girl, therefore he is a danger to society". But the courts found he didn't rape a child, or a teenager. What he did wasn't rape. It was an unfortunate circumstance. You also say things like, "the intent of killing someone in your sleep is completely different than having sex in your sleep". What? Are you joking? How can the intent of your actions change based solely on what the action is? Its comments like this that make me think you must actually be trolling, like others have said. But I'm still holding faith that you have come to a ludicrous conclusion, and are refusing to change your position based solely on stubbornness. There are cases in Canada where people have killed their wife, or child, but have been found to be in a automatistic state and so were not convicted. In one case, the guy stabbed his wife over 20 times with a knife. But he got off. Do you know why? Just google automatism and you will see. The same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you're sleepwalking is the same reason you don't get convicted of murder when you are blackout drunk, which is the same reason why you can't get convicted of murder if someone else is holding a gun to your head, and why you can't get convicted of murder for drunk driving. There is a LACK OF INTENT. You can plug your ears and go hide in a dark corner, pretending it doesn't exist. But whenever you come out of that dark corner to post on team liquid we're gonna tell you that you're wrong - because you are, and you're being an idiot. I dont have much inclination discussing much longer when people call me an idiot so my answer will be short. Oh and please tell me that I shall stop being an idiot then, will you? That would be SUCH a smart remark and it would back up your arguments even more than calling me names! Anyway and black out drunk people igored, letting a man free who killed his wife or children is nothing but the result of a bad justice system. If they are not responsible for their actions they need to be sent into involuntary commitment. I actually can't believe that you think it is a good idea to send someone who stabbed his wife 20 times straught back to the street. Similar thing with a guy who fucked a minor girl against her will. And if you use quotation marks use them for quotes and not for horrible summaries! That's not what they are meant to do.
counterpoints: Its not because she was a minor specifically that he had sex with her. had a dog been in the bed, he'd be cleared of beastiality charges instead. Thats the point. he didnt do any of it with purpose or intent.
I do agree, that he needs to be court ordered to deal with this problem, but confinement and imprisonment are both wrong. he does need to take the responsibility now to keep women, young or old, away from his sleeping place. Additionally, why hasn't anyone argued on the point taht he would've had to strip her naked, then have sex with her, all without waking her? Was she already naked? Why didnt she wake up? I mean, I read that in the link and thought 'wuuuut?..." doesnt make sense. Additionally, he probably never even considered he would do that in the first place since its such a common event for him he didnt even stop to think of it. yes, he was irresponsible, but for a similar reason a lot of people stop thinking about the things they do on a daily basis.
he needs court ordered help to deal with this. and apparently, 1 in 25 males do as well.
|
On July 05 2011 23:00 qrs wrote:
Everything else aside, the whole idea of telling a 16-year-old girl to go "share the bed" of a 43-year-old man because his room is cooler is incredibly inappropriate, sexsomniac or not. (I can't believe I'm the first one to say this.)
Maybe because it's not inappropriate. Except if they knew he had this problem.
The problem is why don't the people in his house know about this. Though it shouldn't be something you'd tell everyone.
As for intent. If you don't remember having sex with someone then why the hell would you premeditate to get to have sex with her. That's the most dumb reasoning I see. Since he gets nothing out of it there's no reason for him to sleep-rape someone.
If she only woke up during sex I suppose the damage had been done and not that many reasons or will to fight but still I wonder why she didn't fight him/scream.
|
can I point out for anyone who ignored it, that in wales (uk) age of consent is 16. and additionally, she got into HIS bed after he fell asleep. some people need to read the damn article.
|
OK apparently hardly anyone bothered to read what I posted, because most of this discussion is totally on the wrong footing.
(NB some people did realise the points that follow too, but unfortunately they went largely ignored as well.)
Let me summarise the point in bold before proceeding to quote myself for the benefit of everybody.
This is NOT about a man getting off the hook for rape because he was asleep. This has got NOTHING to do about there being an excuse for committing rape if you're asleep. This does NOT even smack of the idea that a man is justified to commit a rape by being asleep.
This is about a man who, because he was asleep, could not possibly have satisfied the definition of rape under the relevant UK law.
How is this so? How about reading the legislation which I quoted many pages ago and which so many people chose to ignore.
On July 06 2011 22:50 Trang wrote:
It amazes me that some people in this thread think they can make conclusions of fact when they did not hear the evidence in court.
Also can the OP please be amended. The statement 'The rape itself happened and was not denied' is essentially a misstatement of the law.
From what we know, it appears that it is not disputed that sexual intercourse occurred without consent. But rape is NOT as simple having sex without consent.
Under section 1(1) the Sexual Offences Act 2007 (UK), which is the relevant legislation, rape is defined as:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
If we assume that the man was indeed asleep (something that I do not propose to reject or accept because I do not propose to know the evidence heard in court) then he could not have possibly had the relevant state of mind of intentionally penetrating the girl.
Therefore, this is not about a man who has not denied that he has committed a rape and who was then found not guilty. It is not admitted in anyway between the man and the prosecution that he did commit rape, because he did not admit to intentionally penetrating the girl. In fact, whether he committed rape is the very thing in dispute. If it were not in dispute then there would not have been a jury trial for the purposes of determining guilt, and he would have pleaded guilty.
To couch the discussion in the OP as if he did not deny that he commited rape, and then go "oh but he was cleared of the charge anyway because of sexsomnia" is a misrepresentation of the issues, and should be fixed.
If you did not have the mens rea (which means the relevant state of mind, or if you're a TL veteran mens rea is an old school admin) required by the legislation that sets out the offence of rape, you did NOT commit rape. Therefore, it's not even a question whether you should be let off the hook despite committing rape. To start from the position that the rape happened is completely wrong at law. The fact is that no rape happened at all because he was asleep.
If you'd like to complain about the outcome, the issue is not how this case was decided, because it was decided according to law. The issue is what should the definition or rape be under the law?
As for any arguments along the lines of 'this outcome is wrong because I'm not buying that he was asleep'. If you're one of those people, I'll say to you what I already said in my previous post. You were not in court when the evidence was heard and given. You are no position to comment on what happened as a matter of fact.
The opening post desperately needs to be amended, because it's made completely misrepresented the position at law, which has spawned so much off the point discussion.
|
On July 08 2011 18:47 Trang wrote:OK apparently hardly anyone bothered to read what I posted, because most of this discussion is totally on the wrong footing. (NB some people did realise the points that follow too, but unfortunately they went largely ignored as well.) Let me summarise the point in bold before proceeding to quote myself for the benefit of everybody. This is NOT about a man getting off the hook for rape because he was asleep. This has got NOTHING to do about there being an excuse for committing rape if you're asleep. This does NOT even smack of the idea that a man is justified to commit a rape by being asleep.
This is about a man who, because he was asleep, could not possibly have satisfied the definition of rape under the relevant UK law.How is this so? How about reading the legislation which I quoted many pages ago and which so many people chose to ignore. Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 22:50 Trang wrote:
It amazes me that some people in this thread think they can make conclusions of fact when they did not hear the evidence in court.
Also can the OP please be amended. The statement 'The rape itself happened and was not denied' is essentially a misstatement of the law.
From what we know, it appears that it is not disputed that sexual intercourse occurred without consent. But rape is NOT as simple having sex without consent.
Under section 1(1) the Sexual Offences Act 2007 (UK), which is the relevant legislation, rape is defined as:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
If we assume that the man was indeed asleep (something that I do not propose to reject or accept because I do not propose to know the evidence heard in court) then he could not have possibly had the relevant state of mind of intentionally penetrating the girl.
Therefore, this is not about a man who has not denied that he has committed a rape and who was then found not guilty. It is not admitted in anyway between the man and the prosecution that he did commit rape, because he did not admit to intentionally penetrating the girl. In fact, whether he committed rape is the very thing in dispute. If it were not in dispute then there would not have been a jury trial for the purposes of determining guilt, and he would have pleaded guilty.
To couch the discussion in the OP as if he did not deny that he commited rape, and then go "oh but he was cleared of the charge anyway because of sexsomnia" is a misrepresentation of the issues, and should be fixed.
If you did not have the mens rea (which means the relevant state of mind, or if you're a TL veteran mens rea is an old school admin) required by the legislation that sets out the offence of rape, you did NOT commit rape. Therefore, it's not even a question whether you should be let off the hook despite committing rape. To start from the position that the rape happened is completely wrong at law. The fact is that no rape happened at all because he was asleep. If you'd like to complain about the outcome, the issue is not how this case was decided, because it was decided according to law. The issue is what should the definition or rape be under the law? As for any arguments along the lines of 'this outcome is wrong because I'm not buying that he was asleep'. If you're one of those people, I'll say to you what I already said in my previous post. You were not in court when the evidence was heard and given. You are no position to comment on what happened as a matter of fact. The opening post desperately needs to be amended, because it's made completely misrepresented the position at law, which has spawned so much off the point discussion.
QFT
Although continually correcting the people who didn't read any of the articles and who have no understanding of the criminal justice systems of Canada, U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan or Ireland, has been a nice way to fill my breaks at work.
Looking back at it, and the repeated trolling of Fenrax in particular, it probably wasn't worth the time.
Oh TL how hast you forsaken me!
P.S. Fenrax I stand by calling you an idiot, because in your 4 or 5 posts/responses you never dealt with ANY of the flaws highlighted by the many people who provided criticism to your opinion. You simply repeated things you had already said, and ignored everyone else. Your opinion doesn't make sense for the many reasons that have been outlined many times. You had ample opportunities to present at least some response, but your failure to do so is why I have branded you as such - and based on the current track record I am extremely skeptical that you'll give me a reason to change my opinion of you. That said, I do hope that you redeem yourself at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
