|
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 19:00 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying.
Your QFT makes no sense whatsoever. It was an absolutely horrible post. All he did was repeat what he already said but this time bold it. Then he quoted himself because only repeating himself was apparantly not enough despite the enlarged font.
And because someone might not have catched that he knows such a cool term as "mens rea" the first 73 times he wrote it this time he wrote it cursively.
Of course in such a post the icing on the cake, the good ol' caps lock, cannot be missing so he capsed all the "NOT" for whatever reason. Or maybe because otherwise they don't deny enough?
|
On July 08 2011 19:37 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:00 Gnial wrote: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. 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. Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying. Your QFT makes no sense whatsoever. It was an absolutely horrible post. All he did was repeat what he already said but this time bold it. Then he quoted himself because only repeating himself was apparantly not enough despite the enlarged font. And because someone might not have catched that he knows such a cool term as "mens rea" the first 73 times he wrote it this time he wrote it cursively. Of course in such a post the icing on the cake, the good ol' caps lock, cannot be missing so he capsed all the "NOT" for whatever reason. Or maybe because otherwise they don't deny enough?
That is ridiculously aggressive thinking. He did make several good points, even if he felt he had to repeat himself. It is very important to understand the laws which are being tested and he laid them out plain and simple in addition to his own evaluation of the matter.
If your problem with his post is that he used latin and formatting, all gods forbid, you might want to just step back and shake off these feelings you're having. Take a little more rational go at the conversation.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 08 2011 19:48 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:37 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 19:00 Gnial wrote: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. 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. Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying. Your QFT makes no sense whatsoever. It was an absolutely horrible post. All he did was repeat what he already said but this time bold it. Then he quoted himself because only repeating himself was apparantly not enough despite the enlarged font. And because someone might not have catched that he knows such a cool term as "mens rea" the first 73 times he wrote it this time he wrote it cursively. Of course in such a post the icing on the cake, the good ol' caps lock, cannot be missing so he capsed all the "NOT" for whatever reason. Or maybe because otherwise they don't deny enough? That is ridiculously aggressive thinking. He did make several good points, even if he felt he had to repeat himself. It is very important to understand the laws which are being tested and he laid them out plain and simple in addition to his own evaluation of the matter. If your problem with his post is that he used latin and formatting, all gods forbid, you might want to just step back and shake off these feelings you're having. Take a little more rational go at the conversation.
Participating in a conversation that consists of caps lock style and letting me get insulted in every post? I pass.
|
The man and wife are guilty of being irresponsible and not informing the girl. Unfortunately, I doubt that it's punishable by law.
The parallel I would draw is, for example, you wouldn't let someone who has TB cough on you, just like you don't sleep in the same room with a sexsomniac. It may seem silly at first, but think about it.
She should've been properly informed of his condition and the couple should've taken necessary precautions to prevent this, as they were clearly aware of the possibility. Sexsomnia is, AFAIK, a legit medical condition, and their responsibility was to inform her. Unfortunately, things turned out the way they did, but I don't think he can be punished under current rape laws.
|
Do you really know when you have sexomnia? Like you would think in your lifetime you would only regularly share a bed with your wife or girlfriends. In which case it might not be a big deal should you touch them at night. It only becomes obvious and cause for concern when an incident like this happens.
If nobody really understood the guy to have raging sexomnia without discrimination for relationship, age or consent, then they're not being irresponsible.
|
'I suffer from sexsomania, sorry I just blasted my load on your leg'. Hahaha. Seriously? What an utterly inept justice system.
|
|
|
Fanrax and the other guy that think you are usually rational and aware of what you are doing in your sleep etc. I have some real life experience with a person with big sleepwalking issues. Sometimes he remembers what he was dreaming if for example someone wakes him up when he is doing things and it's usually crazy dreams, like for everyone else I assume.
Like when he was walking around carrying a chair dreaming about being a giant with a tree in is hand or whatever it was.
He damaged himself many times and the worst occasion was when he jumped out from a window that happened to not be on the ground level floor. I'm almost certain that he does not think he can fly and such but for some reason he keeps doing these things.
I don't know more about this "rape" case than what is in the OP but a good sign that someone was actually asleep when doing X is probably when their behavior was quite irrational. If they "made coffee" perhaps they didn't use water, or coffee. If they took a bath perhaps they did it with some clothes on. If they took out the trash perhaps they threw away the vacuum cleaner. If they tried to stab someone perhaps they stabbed with a remote control or if was an actual knife perhaps they also stabbed a pillow 10 times, and so on.
|
i wonder if i'm the only person who thought that said ''sexo-maniac''...
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 09 2011 04:18 Akta wrote:
Fanrax and the other guy that think you are usually rational and aware of what you are doing in your sleep etc. I have some real life experience with a person with big sleepwalking issues. Sometimes he remembers what he was dreaming if for example someone wakes him up when he is doing things and it's usually crazy dreams, like for everyone else I assume.
Like when he was walking around carrying a chair dreaming about being a giant with a tree in is hand or whatever it was.
He damaged himself many times and the worst occasion was when he jumped out from a window that happened to not be on the ground level floor. I'm almost certain that he does not think he can fly and such but for some reason he keeps doing these things.
And if that friend started hurting others don't you think someone should do something about it?
|
Has anyone realized that of all the cases of registered sexsomnia, the only real thing we have to go on is like their word? It seems kinda funny.
|
On July 09 2011 05:49 djbhINDI wrote:
Has anyone realized that of all the cases of registered sexsomnia, the only real thing we have to go on is like their word? It seems kinda funny.
Yea, especially this one, which featured testimony from the defendant's wife and ex-girlfriend, and a medical professional who observed his brain waves while sleeping.
|
Sounds like BS, girl potentially knew of his condition and took advantage of it. Sounds like the jury agreed. Considering they reached a verdict, there really does not need to be 27 pages of discussion; let the judicial system do its job people.
|
On July 08 2011 19:59 Plague1503 wrote:
The man and wife are guilty of being irresponsible and not informing the girl. Unfortunately, I doubt that it's punishable by law.
The man didn't give the girl permission to be in his bed in the first place.
On July 09 2011 00:13 SichuanPanda wrote:
'I suffer from sexsomania, sorry I just blasted my load on your leg'. Hahaha. Seriously? What an utterly inept justice system.
 Did you actually read anything?
On July 09 2011 05:39 Fenrax wrote:
And if that friend started hurting others don't you think someone should do something about it?
Steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again, sure. In this case, the man did not know about or give pemissions the girl climbing in his bed. What can he possibly do about it?
Here's the question you need to ask yourself: When you have teenage guests staying at your house who are not your sexual partners, do you think it's reasonable to expect them to climb into bed with you without your permission while you are asleep (and nude)? There was no way the man could have reasonably expected this would happen, and it would not have happened in any circumstances that weren't extremely sketchy like these ones.
If instead the man was having some construction done on his bedroom floor, and she walks in without permission and trips, resulting in injury, is he responsible for negligently causing her injury for not warning her? No, because she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
|
On July 08 2011 19:37 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:00 Gnial wrote: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. 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. Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying.
If you are going to look at a documented medical condition, then look at someone who has a history of said medical condition and then also look at laws that pertain to the case in the sense they absolve him of wrong doing and then quote someones personal opinion based on, "HEY I AM USUALLY AWAREZ OF WUT I DO IN SLEP LULZ!" and then instead of going with the sooner, side with the latter because he writes a few paragraphs of inane bs, then that's what you are going to get called.
It's one or the other.
|
On July 09 2011 07:37 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:37 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 19:00 Gnial wrote: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. 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. Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying. If you are going to look at a documented medical condition, then look at someone who has a history of said medical condition and then also look at laws that pertain to the case in the sense they absolve him of wrong doing and then quote someones personal opinion based on "HEY I AM USUALLY AWAREZ OF WUT I DO IN SLEP LULZ!" and then instead of going with the sooner, side with the latter because he writes a few paragraphs of inane bs, then that's what you are going to get called. It's one or the other.
Exactly. Even then we were patient. Noone started calling you an idiot or a troll until you made multiple stupid posts which showed you either didn't read, or didn't understand, the comments you were responding to.
Please, go back to your very first post, and start re-reading from there, since the 7 or 8 times it has been explained is apparently not enough. Maybe after reading about the issue 15 or 16 times it'll sink in.
|
I have a friend who passes out at his computer on a regular basis. We're both late night gamers, but he just zones out and goes to sleep. His hands still do things while he's sleeping. He can build pylons in his sleep. Pretty cool.
However, because he's technically sleeping, he obviously can't tell if he's getting supply blocked or not, so he does not know when it's actually appropriate to build the pylons.
Just seems kinda similar to this "sleep-rape" story. He can plant his spine crawler, but he lacks the cognitive ability to differentiate between the right and wrong place to put it...
|
On July 09 2011 08:30 HackBenjamin wrote:
I have a friend who passes out at his computer on a regular basis. We're both late night gamers, but he just zones out and goes to sleep. His hands still do things while he's sleeping. He can build pylons in his sleep. Pretty cool.
However, because he's technically sleeping, he obviously can't tell if he's getting supply blocked or not, so he does not know when it's actually appropriate to build the pylons.
Just seems kinda similar to this "sleep-rape" story. He can plant his spine crawler, but he lacks the cognitive ability to differentiate between the right and wrong place to put it...
you sir, just won this thread.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 09 2011 07:37 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:37 Fenrax wrote:On July 08 2011 19:00 Gnial wrote: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. 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. Getting called an idiot and a troll is getting majorly annoying. If you are going to look at a documented medical condition, then look at someone who has a history of said medical condition and then also look at laws that pertain to the case in the sense they absolve him of wrong doing and then quote someones personal opinion based on, "HEY I AM USUALLY AWAREZ OF WUT I DO IN SLEP LULZ!" and then instead of going with the sooner, side with the latter because he writes a few paragraphs of inane bs, then that's what you are going to get called. It's one or the other.
I still highly doubt that he had no self control. That is just for your information and not relevant for the discussion. Just ignore my opinion on this in replies for now because it is both not relevant for the current discussion and not discussable in a productive manner in the current state of the thread. On a side note, Starcraft jokes are very inappropiate in such a thread (but paradigmatic of how people still seem to not accept rape as a serious crime even in a quite educated forum) and please stop calling me an idiot or ridiculing me, I am just trying to argue my opinions.
Assuming he had absolutely no self control, then the court should have taken other measures to prevent this from happening again.
What if someone kills another person who comes into his bedroom while asleep? Would you also go and say "You were asleep so no big deal dude, go home, everything's okay. You just have no self control in that state and that person shouldn't have come to your bedroom in the first place."? Probably not, right?
So where is the big difference to rape? Sure, rape is not as severe as murder but it is still one of the most serious and harmful crimes a person can commit. Therefore it is imo a big mistake by the court to just ignore this.
|
On July 09 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 19:59 Plague1503 wrote:
The man and wife are guilty of being irresponsible and not informing the girl. Unfortunately, I doubt that it's punishable by law. The man didn't give the girl permission to be in his bed in the first place. Show nested quote +On July 09 2011 00:13 SichuanPanda wrote:
'I suffer from sexsomania, sorry I just blasted my load on your leg'. Hahaha. Seriously? What an utterly inept justice system. Did you actually read anything? Show nested quote +On July 09 2011 05:39 Fenrax wrote:
And if that friend started hurting others don't you think someone should do something about it? Steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again, sure. In this case, the man did not know about or give pemissions the girl climbing in his bed. What can he possibly do about it? Here's the question you need to ask yourself: When you have teenage guests staying at your house who are not your sexual partners, do you think it's reasonable to expect them to climb into bed with you without your permission while you are asleep (and nude)? There was no way the man could have reasonably expected this would happen, and it would not have happened in any circumstances that weren't extremely sketchy like these ones. If instead the man was having some construction done on his bedroom floor, and she walks in without permission and trips, resulting in injury, is he responsible for negligently causing her injury for not warning her? No, because she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Whether he reasonably expected it to happen or not, if an under-age teenager gets into your bed while your asleep. You don't wake up and bang them unless you're a pedophile or a rapist. Guess what, he's a rapist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
