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.
Stephen Lee Davies, 43, of Pembroke Dock, claimed he was innocent because he suffered from sexsomnia. He was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl staying at his home. The jury took just over an hour to find him not guilty. A sleep consultant gave evidence at the trial confirming that what Mr Davies said was probably true. His wife, and a former partner, also gave evidence on how they became used to being "groped" in the night. They said he would have sex with them in his sleep and remember nothing in the morning The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler. She woke up in the middle of the night because he had sex with her. Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will. The rape itself happened and was not denied. He was cleared of the rape charge because he suffers from "sexsomnia".
Makes sense since it was clearly unintentional so the rape charge cannot be used. It'd be interesting what alternative charges they can put forward in this case, since I don't think there is any legal precedent for this as it is really quite unusual to unintentionally have sex with somebody against their will.
If he knew he'd done that regulary before, WHY THE FUCK did he let her share his bed? If she was sick and it was cooler, surely he could have swapped beds...
Wtf man, that's pretty sad for that girl... I guess there's no way to tell whether he was awake or not. The girl must have said something to clear his name, i suspect something more sinister going on. Who suggested she sleep in his bed
It's clearly indicated someone else told the girl to go the bed since the room was cooler, it says Mr. Davies was already asleep. Please read before commenting
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
He wasn't the one who told her to sleep in his bed. But yeah I agree, if he can't control it and isn't even awake while it is happening you can hardly charge him with rape.
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
Unless he was already asleep like it says before she moved and had no idea.
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
The article says he was already asleep in the bed, so it sounds like someone else told her to sleep there.
They would have found him guilty if he was the one who had told her to sleep in his bed.
And it's unlikely that he was lying since otherwise her testimony would have contradicted his.
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
The article says he was already asleep in the bed, so it sounds like someone else told her to sleep there.
They would have found him guilty if he was the one who had told her to sleep in his bed.
I don't know who told her to sleep there. I read several articles about this and none described the night thoroughly. I also totally ninja edited provocateur and rarak by putting the "he didn't know she was there" thing in after the first reply. Was my mistake.
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
The article says he was already asleep in the bed, so it sounds like someone else told her to sleep there.
They would have found him guilty if he was the one who had told her to sleep in his bed.
I don't know who told her to sleep there. I read several articles about this and none described the night thoroughly. I also totally ninja edited provocateir by putting the "he didn't know she was there" thing in after the first reply.
im just trying to figure out how the court reporters could glaze over something that's pretty damn important...??? jesus
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
The article says he was already asleep in the bed, so it sounds like someone else told her to sleep there.
They would have found him guilty if he was the one who had told her to sleep in his bed.
I don't know who told her to sleep there. I read several articles about this and none described the night thoroughly. I also totally ninja edited provocateur by putting the "he didn't know she was there" thing in after the first reply.
Yeah I don't know it all seems rather fishy to me. Just feel sorry for the girl, can't imagine the disgust she must've felt realizing an elderly man is molesting her.
It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
Well there was a very famous case back in 2005 i think it was, Where a guy who was getting wasted at a party had very little sleep the night before, He woke up having sex with a girl at the party, she reported to the police that it was as if she had woken the man up when she was trying to get him off her, the man later turned himself into police,
His life was obviously ruined people calling him a rapeist even though it was well documented that he had sexsomnia , 2 of his X girlfriends appeard in court if i recall correctly and gave evidence that he used to have sex with them and not remember the next day
Because the women had said "it was as if i woke him up" the man was later cleared.
My oppinion on the story : As far as i am aware some newspapers in england reported that he went down and made a cup of tea, then came up and had sex with her again, that to me is the only sketchy part but then again i have a cousin who sleep-eats all the time, and i know people who sleepwalk heavy so..
Once again a jury of our peers hopefully could make better sense of it then i could.
On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote: Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
good spelling on ridiculous, i don't think he invited her as in the op it says she was told to sleep there cause it was cooler + it also says that he did not know she was there due to him being asleep when she came in
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
The article says he was already asleep in the bed, so it sounds like someone else told her to sleep there.
They would have found him guilty if he was the one who had told her to sleep in his bed.
I don't know who told her to sleep there. I read several articles about this and none described the night thoroughly. I also totally ninja edited provocateur and rarak by putting the "he didn't know she was there" thing in after the first reply. Was my mistake.
Perhaps you ninja'd them, but it also says so in the first article. Since the article is very short, I don't see why people would reply condemning a man without gathering more information.
If he knew he suffered from "sexomania" then why did he invite the girl to sleep in his bed? IMO, this is total bullshit and this guy should be locked up.
If he has no control over it then he's not to blame but he's still a risk to the public. He is responsible for taking appropriate steps to prevent this. However if someone else put the girl in his bed I find it difficult to find fault with him. Perhaps put a sign on his door.
On July 05 2011 22:52 vijeze wrote: This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in the last couple of weeks. This is just retarded, it's still rape? Isn't it?
Not really, it is a true thing that happens in england, some people are very bad sexsomniacs, and others will just roll over and go back to sleep, i have watched 2 documentarys on the matter and i can assure you this is a very real problem, I really dont think he could be held accountable for his actions if indeed he did not know the girl was there.
Just imagin waking up the next day and being told you are a rapeist when you were sober the night before went to sleep normal and then you woke up being a rapeist not really fair id say.
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
The lack of witnesses is probably why nowadays rape cases don't need witnesses. So long as the act is confirmed (via admission or testing), if the alleged victim says it was not consensual and their testimony is found to be credible, it will generally result in a conviction.
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.)
On July 05 2011 22:55 KwarK wrote: If he has no control over it then he's not to blame but he's still a risk to the public. He is responsible for taking appropriate steps to prevent this. However if someone else put the girl in his bed I find it difficult to find fault with him. Perhaps put a sign on his door.
Oh god, what would that sign read? "Enter at own risk, we are not responsible for your virginity!"
>Hear about this on radio >See thread about it on TL >Post kewl storie about it.
And ya, pretty crazy... the guy on the radio said any guy could totally use this as an excuse for ANYONE.... whether it works or not, still got a good shot (according to him)
On July 05 2011 22:55 KwarK wrote: If he has no control over it then he's not to blame but he's still a risk to the public. He is responsible for taking appropriate steps to prevent this. However if someone else put the girl in his bed I find it difficult to find fault with him. Perhaps put a sign on his door.
LOL put a sign on his door... I hope that at least they require him to get help after court. Poor girl I wonder if she tried to wake him up during.. or is it hard to wake someone up with sexsomnia? MAAAAAAAN this is just fucked all around.
At the end of the day, he still forcibly had sex with an unwilling 16 year old girl, correct?
Sure it sucks for him, but don't forget the victim.
I just want to know who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to tell this underaged girl to go share a bed with a 43 year old man WHO KNOWS ABOUT THIS CONDITION.
To me this is a compeltely wrong judgement. Why would he even allow a young girl to stay overnight at his house if he knows about his problem? Why didn't he tell her to not come even remotely close to him?
And on top of that why is he a free man with his condition? If I start running around beating people up while asleep you better put me in a straight jacket and lock me up until my problem is solved. And what if from now on every rapist just claims that he was asleep? He could even make her a tea and call her a dirty bitch so this isn't that far fetched.
wow rapists all across the world must be so pissed they didnt think of this. no wait seriously i just bang whatevers in my bed. no i dont wake up if they scream. how do i get there pants off? cant remember. you are free to go sir. WINNING.
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
The lack of witnesses is probably why nowadays rape cases don't need witnesses. So long as the act is confirmed (via admission or testing), if the alleged victim says it was not consensual and their testimony is found to be credible, it will generally result in a conviction.
Could you link to a source? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read more about that. The idea that a single person's word against another's is enough for conviction is deeply disturbing to me.
This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
The lack of witnesses is probably why nowadays rape cases don't need witnesses. So long as the act is confirmed (via admission or testing), if the alleged victim says it was not consensual and their testimony is found to be credible, it will generally result in a conviction.
And yet it is not possible to find out the truth for certain, only in probabilities. Is there reason to lie? Does the victim lie? Was it consensual sex and self-inflicted injuries? Or rape without injuries? Or even a weird case like this one.
On July 05 2011 23:16 yosisoy wrote: This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
And yes, this situation is retarded.
Do you understand that this is real condition? No one made up nothing. jesus christ how people can be stupid.
lol since this has gone on for a while with his wife and partner, then before he let a 16 year old girl into his bed maybe he should've said "oh i may grope you unintentionally at night when i sleep as i suffer this sleep disorder."
edit: whoops didn't realise he was already asleep when she got into his bed. yeah fair enuf then. as retarded as the situation sounds, this is a legit condition that happens very VERY rarely
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
The lack of witnesses is probably why nowadays rape cases don't need witnesses. So long as the act is confirmed (via admission or testing), if the alleged victim says it was not consensual and their testimony is found to be credible, it will generally result in a conviction.
Could you link to a source? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read more about that. The idea that a single person's word against another's is enough for conviction is deeply disturbing to me.
In most rape cases, there are usually zero witnesses except for the accused and the accuser. So more often than not it is one person's word over another.
And on top of that why is he a free man with his condition? If I start running around beating people up while asleep you better put me in a straight jacket and lock me up until my problem is solved. And what if from now on every rapist just claims that he was asleep? He could even make her a tea and call her a dirty bitch so this isn't that far fetched.
That would only be an accurate comparison if you beat up people in your bed in your sleep. In which case, inviting people into your bed knowingly of your condition would be a crime.
However, as I understand it, he did not invite her into his bed. So the crime is not his to bear, but to the person who told her to do that.
Although this is always considering that he isn't lying about his condition, and that he didn't invite her into his bed. In which case the burden would change.
On July 05 2011 23:16 Ocedic wrote: So if he knew of his sexsomnia problems because of his experiences with his wife... why would he still have the girl sleep on his bed?
Im pretty sure the most basic requirement of anythread is to at least read the orginal post if nothing else, hopefully that!
the brain 1 big mystery you are asleep but still do not sleep, who knows?
hope there can be found someone to blame, really sucks for the girl
did you guys ever say answered someone while being half asleep with eye's open and not remembering it 2 hours later?:D or should i be locked up the rest of my life now?
On July 05 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote: To me this is a compeltely wrong judgement. Why would he even allow a young girl to stay overnight at his house if he knows about his problem? Why didn't he tell her to not come even remotely close to him?
And on top of that why is he a free man with his condition? If I start running around beating people up while asleep you better put me in a straight jacket and lock me up until my problem is solved. And what if from now on every rapist just claims that he was asleep? He could even make her a tea and call her a dirty bitch so this isn't that far fetched.
My girlfriend will be so glad to learn this is a real condition. Who else was home? Why was this 16yo girl staying with them and why was she comfortable enough to go crawl into this mans bed? How does the wife feel about this unconscious adultery? Where is the rest of this story? Most importantly, why didn't she stop him?
Looked at the wiki article, sounds like such a bullshit condition invented just to get people out of shit. That said I haven't studied it in any way so it's possible it's legit.
On July 05 2011 23:13 Detwiler wrote: wow rapists all across the world must be so pissed they didnt think of this. no wait seriously i just bang whatevers in my bed. no i dont wake up if they scream. how do i get there pants off? cant remember. you are free to go sir. WINNING.
For crying out loud, how ignorant can you be? The guy has a serious issue, read the OP and the following posts. So he can't be held responsable for it.
If a guy with mental issues kills someone, he can't be held accountable for it, that's why he's sent to treatment (or mental hospital) and not to jail. He isn't left at home because he's a danger. However this sexsomniac guy isn't a social danger, so he still can't be held accountable for what he did, since his issues are beyond his will, but doesn't deserve to be locked down in a psychiatric ward. It's not like he's going out and raping women (case in which he'd be a social danger), he's just doing it in his sleep with whoever is sharing his bed.
On July 05 2011 23:22 ComaDose wrote: My girlfriend will be so glad to learn this is a real condition. Who else was home? Why was this 16yo girl staying with them and why was she comfortable enough to go crawl into this mans bed? How does the wife feel about this unconscious adultery? Where is the rest of this story? Most importantly, why didn't she stop him?
All very good questions, indeed.
Assuming he was indeed asleep...why the hell would a 16 year old crawl into his bed? I mean, it's not like with 4 year olds who can't sleep and wanna be with someone??? a) if she knows him well enough, then why didn't she know about the condition? b) if she doesn't know him well enough, what on earth is she doing in his bed then?
On July 05 2011 23:22 Detwiler wrote: wikipedia is not a real reference. just sayin...
There are more than seventeen references linked to this page. Wade through those and I'm sure some of them will meet your high standards.
Also, I don't see how any male can find it hard to believe that sexual actions can be completely impulsive. I can understand being skeptical about the circumstances in the story, but doubting that you can have sex unconsciously seems really foolish to me.
im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
Ahh that would be so bad in practice if they did that. Think about it.
On July 05 2011 23:16 yosisoy wrote: This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
And yes, this situation is retarded.
Do you understand that this is real condition? No one made up nothing. jesus christ how people can be stupid.
My made-up condition could be real too. Would it be cool with you if he murdered her in his sleep due to a condition? You are responsible for your actions! Even if you are asleep! If you do things in your sleep that harm others you are a danger to society and anyone around you should be notified of your condition.
"who told this girl to sleep in a bed with a sexomniac?" Are you fucking kidding me? there is no such thing as a sexomniac.. I don't care if his retarded ex wife got used to being groped in her sleep... fucking bullshit. the only thing I wonder is if the girl struggled against this dude.. cause if she just laid there and a guy who was "asleep" had sex with her.. then it wasn't rape.
Haha I've tried to have sex with my girlfriend while asleep, groping included. So no, it's not a made up condition. If people can drive cars while asleep they can certainly have sex.
On July 05 2011 22:51 teekesselchen wrote: It's the major problem of all jurisdisdiction. Nobody can know what happened for sure, often enough not even victims and witnesses (beeing neutral, even towards oneself, can be an almost impossible, some would say always impossible, thing).
I think clearing the charges is, in general, the best way to go, even though it can be very cruel. "I'ld rather let free a hundred criminals than punishing a single innocent" - I don't know where this quote comes from, but I always agreed with it.
The lack of witnesses is probably why nowadays rape cases don't need witnesses. So long as the act is confirmed (via admission or testing), if the alleged victim says it was not consensual and their testimony is found to be credible, it will generally result in a conviction.
Could you link to a source? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read more about that. The idea that a single person's word against another's is enough for conviction is deeply disturbing to me.
In most rape cases, there are usually zero witnesses except for the accused and the accuser. So more often than not it is one person's word over another.
Edit: Plus whatever evidence they can find...
There is usually a lot of evidence to suggest whether sex was consensual or not, bruises, tears in the vaginal wall, etc. It's very difficult to get someone convicted with zero evidence when it really is just one person's word. Innocent until proven guilty applies there.
On July 05 2011 23:13 Detwiler wrote: wow rapists all across the world must be so pissed they didnt think of this. no wait seriously i just bang whatevers in my bed. no i dont wake up if they scream. how do i get there pants off? cant remember. you are free to go sir. WINNING.
For crying out loud, how ignorant can you be? The guy has a serious issue, read the OP and the following posts. So he can't be held responsable for it.
If a guy with mental issues kills someone, he can't be held accountable for it, that's why he's sent to treatment (or mental hospital) and not to jail. He isn't left at home because he's a danger. However this sexsomniac guy isn't a social danger, so he still can't be held accountable for what he did, since his issues are beyond his will, but doesn't deserve to be locked down in a psychiatric ward. It's not like he's going out and raping women (case in which he'd be a social danger), he's just doing it in his sleep with whoever is sharing his bed.
oh he has a condition huh. i have a condition too. my doctor says its best treated with weed. i will let you in on a little secret i have no condition. but i have a doctor that says i do. im the ignorant one? please. maybe when you have lived a bit longer your faith in people will wear out and you can start to see the truth of things in the world. but you are naive and thats cute. hold on to it and the world will seem a much prettier place than it is.
On July 05 2011 23:37 Feyer wrote: "who told this girl to sleep in a bed with a sexomniac?" Are you fucking kidding me? there is no such thing as a sexomniac.. I don't care if his retarded ex wife got used to being groped in her sleep... fucking bullshit. the only thing I wonder is if the girl struggled against this dude.. cause if she just laid there and a guy who was "asleep" had sex with her.. then it wasn't rape.
A lot of people do a lot of things while asleep. I have long conversations that I never recall in the morning when woken up in the middle of sleep.
The amount of ignorance of the medical condition in this thread is astounding. Do some basic research and you'll find that they're in a deep state of unconsciousness, it's not as simple as pinching them lightly on the arm to wake them up. There have been documented cases of this before; obviously you haven't heard what the jury said that convinced them to let a man off a rape charge when they had no personal interest in clearing him.
On July 05 2011 23:16 yosisoy wrote: This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
And yes, this situation is retarded.
Do you understand that this is real condition? No one made up nothing. jesus christ how people can be stupid.
strangely enough i have this condition. This guys described condition seems different than mine cause i can usually remember what happened like a dream. Let me describe what its like so you understand, its like being aware of what you are doing in all senses that you have, sight, touch, etc, but not having any brain processing capabilities. You are just along for the ride that your body is taking you on and you dont have enough awareness to know its wrong etc. I have woken up in the middle of doing it before when my wife has swatted me and its a strange feeling when your reasoning abilities and full thought ability slowly comes in and you realize fully what was just going on and what you were doing.
its totally possible to do this stuff without having control over it. This guy must have the condition in spades though cause i would wake up well before someone was thrashing underneath me, usually one swat is all it takes or the act of me moving will wake me up aswell.
and obviously you wouldn't have teen girls in the bed with you when you have this condition, almost seems like a set up.
I dont get how someone with this condition would think sharing a bed with ANYBODY who isn't their partner, let alone a 16 year old girl, would be a good idea. If he has 2 people testifying that he had this condition he must have known about it. Extremely suspicious.
On July 05 2011 23:47 lolsixtynine wrote: The amount of ignorance of the medical condition in this thread is astounding. Do some basic research and you'll find that they're in a deep state of unconsciousness, it's not as simple as pinching them lightly on the arm to wake them up. There have been documented cases of this before; obviously you haven't heard what the jury said that convinced them to let a man off a rape charge when they had no personal interest in clearing him.
I find the amount of moral ambiguity in this thread astounding. there are some acts that are intrinsically wrong. wrong by the very nature of what it is. there are no excuses for such acts. none. i would put raping 16 year old girls on that list. seems alot of people around here wouldnt. on the bright side on bad days when i look in a mirror and i dont like what i see. i can look at this thread find comfort in the fact that im not bad enough to let a child rapist slide.
On July 05 2011 23:16 yosisoy wrote: This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
And yes, this situation is retarded.
I know of a least 2 cases where people have been declared "not guilty" after having killed in their sleep. One of them was in Arizona where the man killed his wife, the other was in Toronto where a man drove 20-something miles and killed his parents in law.
So yeah, I guess you could make up such a condition...
Hmmm... thats pretty bad. Not the decision but the situation. I think that he should be required to inform everyone that he is a sexsomniac (everyone he lives with btw) and he should not be allowed to share a bed with anyone but his partner. Though this is a real thing people, its not made up for this its more common than you think (though not super common anyway). Its been a diagnosis for a number of years and applies equally for women and men.
Similar to how bipolar disorder involves manic periods in which sex with strangers is common and oftentimes unprotected just do to the mental state of mind.
On July 05 2011 23:42 MHT wrote: Yeah thats rape alright, doesn't matter if he was asleep or not had had sex with a girl against her will. Shit happens.
*warning, Sarkasm* Agreed. Next time you wake up in the morning with a girl in your bed that you have no idea how she got there, and you're being charged for rape..yeah, its your own fault. *Sarkasm over*
Who really should be charged here is the muppet who told the girl to go sleep in the bed of someone with these issues.
On July 05 2011 23:16 yosisoy wrote: This condition is hilarious. Can I make up a condition where I kill people and forget about it? And then have my friends and family confirm that I indeed do that often?
And yes, this situation is retarded.
Do you understand that this is real condition? No one made up nothing. jesus christ how people can be stupid.
My made-up condition could be real too. Would it be cool with you if he murdered her in his sleep due to a condition? You are responsible for your actions! Even if you are asleep! If you do things in your sleep that harm others you are a danger to society and anyone around you should be notified of your condition.
Also, that should be no one made up anything.
This has actually happened, he went scot free for the same reason.
People can do a lot of crazy shit in their sleep you know?
On July 05 2011 22:40 Asrathiel wrote: If he knew he'd done that regulary before, WHY THE FUCK did he let her share his bed? If she was sick and it was cooler, surely he could have swapped beds...
This. The guy clearly planned this. Why didn't the jury realize this?
By the way, I'm sick of various authorities not recognizing clear-cut cases such as this and using sex offender charges as political weapons or statistics as basis for pork barrel projects. Especially those wankers who compiled a list of "sex offenders", most of whom were 16 or 17 year olds whose only sin was to have sex with partners 1 year younger.
a) If a 16 year old girl I didn't fully trust was 'ill' and needed to sleep in my room because it's 'cooler', I'd gladly sleep in the 'warmer' room. I don't need to have sexsomniac or read about that crap on Wikipedia to know that's fucking common sense.
b) Age of consent? Why is that even being discussed? You're forgetting the last word in that phrase: "consent". There was NO consent whatsoever.
On July 05 2011 23:22 ComaDose wrote: My girlfriend will be so glad to learn this is a real condition. Who else was home? Why was this 16yo girl staying with them and why was she comfortable enough to go crawl into this mans bed? How does the wife feel about this unconscious adultery? Where is the rest of this story? Most importantly, why didn't she stop him?
All very good questions, indeed.
Assuming he was indeed asleep...why the hell would a 16 year old crawl into his bed? I mean, it's not like with 4 year olds who can't sleep and wanna be with someone??? a) if she knows him well enough, then why didn't she know about the condition? b) if she doesn't know him well enough, what on earth is she doing in his bed then?
Everything about this is just weird.
Unusual, for sure, but I doubt there's anything weird about the situation. She probably knew him to be totally normal and decent man, i.e. a person who does not rape other people. It might be unusual, but is it really such a feat to sleep in a bed (which was probably large as he has a wife) with another person in it?
The story is interesting for sure, but people are sometimes blessed with some privacy, and the whole story will probably never be revealed to the public. But I think people are assuming too much about the events. Neither of the stories tell anything about what happened after she woke up, so question like "why didn't she stop him" is already assuming things. Maybe he was spooning her, and she just ran off as soon as she woke up. Or if the sex indeed lasted till the end, maybe from her perspective, the two choices she saw were "get raped" and "get raped and beat up".
And can you really imagine a situation where 41 year old man says to a teen girl "oh btw, I have sex with people while sleeping" or anyone else for that matter "you know uncle Stephen, he fucks people in his sleep". At least I personally don't know much about my friends' and family's sex habbits.
I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
What I can't help but wonder is how the fuck you rape someone in your sleep. It's not exactly the easiest thing to get your dick into a girls vag unless shes already wet and presenting it to you. If she had any clothing on how is he going to do this in his sleep? Why can't she just wake him up?
On July 06 2011 00:33 Wr3k wrote: What I can't help but wonder is how the fuck you rape someone in your sleep. It's not exactly the easiest thing to get your dick into a girls vag unless shes already wet and presenting it to you. If she had any clothing on how is he going to do this in his sleep? Why can't she just wake him up?
On July 06 2011 00:33 Wr3k wrote: What I can't help but wonder is how the fuck you rape someone in your sleep. It's not exactly the easiest thing to get your dick into a girls vag unless shes already wet and presenting it to you. If she had any clothing on how is he going to do this in his sleep? Why can't she just wake him up?
We're not talking about lying flat unconscious sleep. You can be in a state of sleep with your eyes open and your muscles working. I am a terrible liar when asleep, I can be woken, hold long conversations about how I'll get up in just a minute, make promises, agree to things to do later that day, argue etc and have zero recollection of it later. You just get used to it and tell people to ignore you when you're in that state and leave a note for when you wake if they need you to do something.
The only reason you'd think this is a made up condition is because you've never shared a bed with someone for an extended period of time. It's pretty easy to wake up in the middle of having sex, or, more often, to be awake but in a completely unaware mental state. It's not hard to imagine someone who is completely unaware through the whole thing.
On July 06 2011 00:33 Wr3k wrote: What I can't help but wonder is how the fuck you rape someone in your sleep. It's not exactly the easiest thing to get your dick into a girls vag unless shes already wet and presenting it to you. If she had any clothing on how is he going to do this in his sleep? Why can't she just wake him up?
We're not talking about lying flat unconscious sleep. You can be in a state of sleep with your eyes open and your muscles working. I am a terrible liar when asleep, I can be woken, hold long conversations about how I'll get up in just a minute, make promises, agree to things to do later that day, argue etc and have zero recollection of it later. You just get used to it and tell people to ignore you when you're in that state and leave a note for when you wake if they need you to do something.
Once I walked (probably 20 minutes on foot) to the shops when I was like 5-6 (so I have no memory of this) and neighbours found me and took me home. I did a lot of crazy stuff. I am glad however I don't walk around my street raping people....that I know of...
This exact situation was raised in the book "Invisible Man." I'm of the opinion that you can't really be responsible for a crime you can't remember committing. How effective can a punishment be for a crime you can't remember? It's not exactly going to deter you from doing it again, since you did it unconsciously.
That being said, there are some cases where you would be responsible... like if the unconscious crime was a result of your own actions (drinking for instance). But as for a crime committed because you went to bed? I'd say the worst you could accuse the person of is negligence.
On July 05 2011 23:13 Fenrax wrote: To me this is a compeltely wrong judgement. Why would he even allow a young girl to stay overnight at his house if he knows about his problem? Why didn't he tell her to not come even remotely close to him?
And on top of that why is he a free man with his condition? If I start running around beating people up while asleep you better put me in a straight jacket and lock me up until my problem is solved. And what if from now on every rapist just claims that he was asleep? He could even make her a tea and call her a dirty bitch so this isn't that far fetched.
This was rape and he has to be punished for it.
from the information given, it seems that he was recently ( as in during the court hearing) declared a sexsomniac, whether or not he knew is not known.
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
I dont buy this. I "suffer" from this :D and my wife just shoves me off the bed and says get the hell off.(she is 115 lbs). When your sleeping its not hard to get tossed. There is more to the story then told
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
he was aware of his condition, why would he invite a young girl to sleep next to his bed?
a responsible men would have offered the bed and move elsewhere. a responsible men would not have taken the risk of his "sexomniac" getting in the way.
On July 06 2011 00:53 SuperYo1000 wrote: I dont buy this. I "suffer" from this :D and my wife just shoves me off the bed and says get the hell off.(she is 115 lbs). When your sleeping its not hard to get tossed. There is more to the story then told
Uh yeah I weigh 115 pounds as well and I dont think while I am half asleep I would be able to throw a full grown man off of me like it was no big deal. And the article clearly states that she was sick at the time...
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
He went to bed, and he fell asleep. How can one blame him for something he did while unconscious, that he doesn't even remember doing?
On July 06 2011 00:57 jinorazi wrote: he was aware of his condition, why would he invite a young girl to sleep next to his bed?
a responsible men would have offered the bed and move elsewhere. a responsible men would not have taken the risk of his "sexomniac" getting in the way.
guilty, partially, 90%.
Just read the first page: apparently he was asleep when she got into the bed, and someone else told her to go sleep in the bed.
After reading some of the responses, I wonder, are the posters in this thread even reading the article at all? From what I understand, the sleep consultant, the defendant's former partner and his wife all gave evidence that the defendant in question was a sexsomniac. Someone told the ill 16 year old to sleep in his bedroom while he was already asleep. Why is the sleeping sexsomniac to blame here?
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
He went to bed, and he fell asleep. How can one blame him for something he did while unconscious, that he doesn't even remember doing?
if i get hammered go home crash and my roommate comes into my room and i rape her do i get off even though i cant remember?
So he's a known sexsomniac.. and he invites a girl into his bed. Specifically one who's sick and most likely won't be able to fight back. Creepy and fucking weird.
On July 06 2011 01:05 Misanthrope wrote: So he's a known sexsomniac.. and he invites a girl into his bed. Specifically one who's sick and most likely won't be able to fight back. Creepy and fucking weird.
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
He went to bed, and he fell asleep. How can one blame him for something he did while unconscious, that he doesn't even remember doing?
if i get hammered go home crash and my roommate comes into my room and i rape her do i get off even though i cant remember?
Getting hammered and going to sleep are hardly the same thing. Beeing drunk or having an actual condition of this kind also makes a huge difference, had the circumstances been that he was simply a heavy drinker he would have been charged with rape, and rightfully so.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
it would make sense if he suddenly started fucking people in sleep just days before that, but HE WAS AWARE OF HIS CONDITION... "Hello sweetie, my bedroom is cooler, and I promise I won't rape you "
*next morning* "oh, I raped you?"
Clever dude.
Edit: ah, ok, so HE didn't invite her... but something weird still happened in that house.
Why was a 16 ur old girl even in the same house as a middle aged couple's? How was she related to them, and where was the wife during this? Also, sexsomnia sounds like it might be really inconvenient, although not in this case, but perhaps during childhood when you have sleepovers or something...I would not want to sleep near a guy with that @_@
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
On July 06 2011 01:14 niteReloaded wrote: hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaa
what a stupid world
it would make sense if he suddenly started fucking people in sleep just days before that, but HE WAS AWARE OF HIS CONDITION... "Hello sweetie, my bedroom is cooler, and I promise I won't rape you "
*next morning* "oh, I raped you?"
Clever dude.
"Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there."
From the BBC article.
For the last time, he did NOT invite her to his bed, someone else did. He was already asleep when she went to his bedroom.
I think it is time to begin reporting people who did not read the articles/OP....
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
This would be a fine point if he HADNT RAPED A LITTLE GIRL I dont care what his condition is. Rape is rape you dont get to just walk away. If im schizo and i kill somebody i still go away. Maybe not hard time but i still go away. Its not right that he just gets off. Like yeah i raped her my bad.
Once I had a dream that I was pissing into the bathroom handbasin, I woke up the next morning and there was piss stains on it o_O. To achieve that, I had to jump up onto the bench and crouch and piss while in my sleep. So yeah, weird crap can happen in your sleep. But still...sex? lol
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
He went to bed, and he fell asleep. How can one blame him for something he did while unconscious, that he doesn't even remember doing?
if i get hammered go home crash and my roommate comes into my room and i rape her do i get off even though i cant remember?
Getting hammered and going to sleep are hardly the same thing. Beeing drunk or having an actual condition of this kind also makes a huge difference, had the circumstances been that he was simply a heavy drinker he would have been charged with rape, and rightfully so.
Alcoholism isnt a medical condition? of course it is. could you black out and have no memory. of course. is it still rape even though you had no control over yourself? absolutely.
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
Blindly accepting it? There are 3 people confirming his condition. Anyways, he was found not guilty because theres a reasonable doubt. He wasn't proven innocent because that isn't necessary in the court of law
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler.
EDIT: My bad, I didn't read through the entire article.
On July 06 2011 00:29 Hypemeup wrote: I dont see a problem with this. If he was not the one to tell her to sleep in his bed he obviously had no intent of this happening. It is not really careless to assume that noone will go to sleep in your bed after you have fallen asleep. Poor girl though, I really hope she does not get to hurt by this.
This.
I don't see why everyone is looking for someone to blame whenever something bad happends. We can't know for sure that whoever invited the girl into this fellas bed knew about his condition either. A sad story for everyone involved.
Im not looking for some one to blame. I know who to blame. The guy who raped the little girl. WTF is wrong with people.
He went to bed, and he fell asleep. How can one blame him for something he did while unconscious, that he doesn't even remember doing?
if i get hammered go home crash and my roommate comes into my room and i rape her do i get off even though i cant remember?
Getting hammered and going to sleep are hardly the same thing. Beeing drunk or having an actual condition of this kind also makes a huge difference, had the circumstances been that he was simply a heavy drinker he would have been charged with rape, and rightfully so.
Alcoholism isnt a medical condition? of course it is. could you black out and have no memory. of course. is it still rape even though you had no control over yourself? absolutely.
Alcohol is still required regardless. This guys medical condition isn't triggered by consuming anything. Whoever told the girl to go sleep in the guys bed with him was retarded. Even if the guy didn't have a medical condition who tells a teenage girl to go sleep in a bed with a grown man without him knowing about it?
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler.
Really? Why wouldn't he just trade sleeping environments with her? Why would he even sleep next to a 16 year old girl if he has had a history of doing this in the past?
Honestly he should have the rape charges go through on him. He may not have had the intention to rape her before he went to sleep, but he should have known the potential consequences.
Its like letting a contagious tuberculosis patient go into a crowded subway, its not the patients fault for infecting 80 people with TB...
another person who did not read the article. he was already asleep and was not aware she had been sleeping in his bedroom
On July 06 2011 01:29 Chimpalimp wrote: Really? Why wouldn't he just trade sleeping environments with her? Why would he even sleep next to a 16 year old girl if he has had a history of doing this in the past?
Reading comprehension fail. Over and over it's been said that he was not in any way responsible for the girl getting in his bed, yet every third post is some dude like you who didn't do their reading.. -_-
Ridiculous how he can get away with this. If he knew about his condition and so did his family members they should have never let her stay in her house. Sure you may not want to tell people, but just make a poor excuse to keep her safe from your house.
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
Blindly accepting it? There are is a 3 people confirming his condition. Anyways, he was found not guilty because theres a reasonable doubt. He wasn't proven innocent because that isn't necessary in the court of law
Not accepting that is how he acts (that has been substantiated), but rather that it is a legitimate condition to be asleep and yet try to fuck someone.
And even despite that I think it's at the very least highly questionable that he is able to remove his pants, whip his cock out, take off her pants and plug it in, let alone do that without her screaming, shouting and attacking him.
So that's kinda weird, also it raises a few questions: why was she staying at his house? Why would she get into the bed of an older man that it seems like she didn't know very well, and without even waking him to let him know about it? And you would think she might be able to wake him during the rape?
Btw I don't want to make it sound like it was her fault she got raped but I mean, come on, a bit of common sense and this likely wouldn't have happened. Also I wonder what he does when there isn't anyone in bed with him, he must have some odd mornings.
This happened in Canada with the same result. A guy passed out on a L shaped couch at a party, a girl passed out on the other part of the L shaped couch. He had sex with her in his sleep (the midnight marauder, as we like to call it). Ex girlfriends testified about the condition and he got off because in the UK and Canada, in order to be found guilty, you have to have intended your actions. It is essentially a defense of involuntariness.
I'm not sure if there are criminal negligence charges that he could be convicted of, or if he could even be found negligent at all. Probably he could not if he didn't know she entered the bed.
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
Blindly accepting it? There are is a 3 people confirming his condition. Anyways, he was found not guilty because theres a reasonable doubt. He wasn't proven innocent because that isn't necessary in the court of law
Not accepting that is how he acts (that has been substantiated), but rather that it is a legitimate condition to be asleep and yet try to fuck someone.
And even despite that I think it's at the very least highly questionable that he is able to remove his pants, whip his cock out, take off her pants and plug it in, let alone do that without her screaming, shouting and attacking him.
At least 3 people in this thread have expressed that they have similar behavior while asleep. The only thing we agree is fishy is that she was not able to wake him up. She didn't scream, shout, or attack him. The only thing fishy is her behavior, which in itself provides reasonable doubt as to whether the man can be convicted. All you need is reasonable doubt.
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
Blindly accepting it? There are is a 3 people confirming his condition. Anyways, he was found not guilty because theres a reasonable doubt. He wasn't proven innocent because that isn't necessary in the court of law
Not accepting that is how he acts (that has been substantiated), but rather that it is a legitimate condition to be asleep and yet try to fuck someone.
And even despite that I think it's at the very least highly questionable that he is able to remove his pants, whip his cock out, take off her pants and plug it in, let alone do that without her screaming, shouting and attacking him.
You've never heard of what sleep walkers can do in their sleep? I thought there was no question that its possible. Also, doing it without her screaming, shouting or attacking him seems more of an indictment on the girl's claims than anything else.
On July 06 2011 01:14 AzTec wrote: Holy shit this thread scares the hell out of me.
Perfect reminder of why you NEVER want to end up in a court of law.
Even if you're completely innocent, have stellar witnesses, and a medical professional to back you up there will still be people who think you're lying, guilty, etc.
It's downright scary how convinced some of the people in this thread are that this well documented disorder either isn't real, or that anyone can pretend they have it and get off scot free.
I'd be more worried of people blindly accepting it rather than questioning it, especially something as excessively bizarre as this regardless of whether or not it is infact legit.
Blindly accepting it? There are is a 3 people confirming his condition. Anyways, he was found not guilty because theres a reasonable doubt. He wasn't proven innocent because that isn't necessary in the court of law
Not accepting that is how he acts (that has been substantiated), but rather that it is a legitimate condition to be asleep and yet try to fuck someone.
And even despite that I think it's at the very least highly questionable that he is able to remove his pants, whip his cock out, take off her pants and plug it in, let alone do that without her screaming, shouting and attacking him.
You've never heard of what sleep walkers can do in their sleep? I thought there was no question that its possible. Also, doing it without her screaming, shouting or attacking him seems more of an indictment on the girl's claims than anything else.
Its not even that uncommon a condition. Its been found now in multiple courts worldwide to be a condition, and I even know people personally who have admitted to it.
This is a really easy court decision to make. Its so cut and dry not-guilty that I doubt it will ever be heard by a higher court. (or can criminal matters be appealed?)
Not guilty, that i can accept. But he haves a condition that may possibly harm other people, and he should take the necessary cautions that is needed to protect others from himself.
If a mentally ill person harms another, he may be comvicted to mental health care (i.e. a psychiatric ward), to cure the ill and making him non-dangerous for the public.
The court should tell him that he by law is to take the necessary cautions needed (for instance by making sure his family knows about his condition so they don't invite unknowingpeople to his bed). Can the court do that, even though he is found not guilty?
Can OP please edit so that we can stop with the pointless comments from people who didn't read the article about how the guy "invited her" into his bed?
I don't get it, this is an actual thing? Sexsomnia? Would it happen if his mother happened to be in the bed too? What's the scientific backing on this.... lol. I mean if I'm drunk and black and out sleep with someone it counts... it's not like you can just accidentally slip in...
EDIT: hmmm wikipedia is interesting. There was a mechanic in the British RAF that got acquitted after having sex with a 15 year old girl... I guess it affects women too.
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler.
Sry for being so frank, but this I just can't buy.
So, you are a 16 years old girl and you are ill. Then someone TELLS you to get in bad with an already SLEEPING (!!!!!) man. Two questions here: a) who the f...was this "someone" and why did this "someone" not know about the condition if he feels entitled to tell the girl to sleep next to this man? b) how on earth can a 16 year old girl get in bed with a man and NOT WAKE HIM when she does. You know...the casual "I'm sleeping right next to you, by the way".
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler.
b) how on earth can a 16 year old girl get in bed with a man and NOT WAKE HIM when she does. You know...the casual "I'm sleeping right next to you, by the way".
Big bed? There's a huge difference between the cuddly snuggly way you get into bed with your significant other, and getting in on the opposite side on the bed.
It's hard to wake a sleepwalker, but it's not impossible. It's amazing she couln't resist enough to wake him. I mean, a sleepwalker's reflexes can't be good enough to be able to forcefully subjulgate another person, even if she's considerably weaker ... right?
On July 06 2011 01:50 lolsixtynine wrote: Can OP please edit so that we can stop with the pointless comments from people who didn't read the article about how the guy "invited her" into his bed?
Unfortunately the media reports about this are very contradicting. Every site writes something else. There is a note now that it wasn't him who told her to sleep in his bed.
By now I am not sure about what happened at all. Did someone tell her to sleep in his bed at all like the guardian says? If yes, who did it?
Metro.co.uk for example now writes this: "The court heard how the 16-year-old stayed in Mr Davies' bed after falling ill, while Mr Davies - who did not know of the teen's presence - slept elsewhere in the house."
Does that mean that he didn't even know she was in his house? What other persons were in the house? Who invited her to sleep there? Why does a 16 year old kid stay in one house with a man who has such a problem? Why hasn't anyone told her about his dangerous psychic state? Then I also read things about him making tea (after/before sex?) while asleep on some sites.
I would be very glad if some UK person could clear up what actually happened! Atm it is quite impossible for me to update the OP because the mdeia reports are short and partially contradictory.
On July 06 2011 02:07 Sbrubbles wrote: It's hard to wake a sleepwalker, but it's not impossible. It's amazing she couln't resist enough to wake him. I mean, a sleepwalker's reflexes can't be good enough to be able to forcefully subjulgate another person, even if she's considerably weaker ... right?
I can easily subdue someone while asleep.
I can also operate a computer, have a conversation, walk up and down stairs, turn on lights, take a shower, have sex, etc. All without any conscious recollection.
This is madness! 1.Why was the girl allowed to stay for the night if he is a sexsomniac. 2. Why did he allow it,if so just go to sleep and lock the door? and btw who is this ''someone''
It's unlikely his sexsomnia had ever been a concern in the past, or even something out of the ordinary. I doubt he thought himself capable of rape, and therefore saw no need for precaution.
On July 06 2011 02:07 Sbrubbles wrote: It's hard to wake a sleepwalker, but it's not impossible. It's amazing she couln't resist enough to wake him. I mean, a sleepwalker's reflexes can't be good enough to be able to forcefully subjulgate another person, even if she's considerably weaker ... right?
I don't sleepwalk without recollection, but I often wake up and am in a very odd state of mind. Physically, I am pretty close to fully functioning, but my understanding of things is completely incorrect. It's not hard for me to imagine doing the same thing but not remembering the incident at all. (hell, as far as I know maybe that happens somtimes as well!)
E.g., one time I woke up at went to the window and my GF was like "what are you doing?" to which I replied with some incoherent sentence, but at the time I felt absolutely convinced that I had a reason for being there. After about a minute of trying to explain I became frustrated and laid back down.
Obviously there are so many things not right with this story, makes me think it's some sort of hoax or random gossip.
"The teenager told the court she had woken in the middle of the night to find Mr Davies having sex with her." That made me lol; you're sleeping and only wake up when you're in the middle of a pounding session? Yeah right.
On July 06 2011 02:07 Sbrubbles wrote: It's hard to wake a sleepwalker, but it's not impossible. It's amazing she couln't resist enough to wake him. I mean, a sleepwalker's reflexes can't be good enough to be able to forcefully subjulgate another person, even if she's considerably weaker ... right?
I can easily subdue someone while asleep.
I can also operate a computer, have a conversation, walk up and down stairs, turn on lights, take a shower, have sex, etc. All without any conscious recollection.
If you ever ladder while asleep, when you wake up be sure to message anyone you won against and tell them that you literally beat them in your sleep.
I'm baffled by the amount of people that have the guts to post despite not reading the whole thing, punishment for punishment's sake makes no sense and this is what would happen if this guy was to be charged of rape, he was unconcious ( i.e totally unaware of what has happening), how can you expect someone to change a condition that he has no control of by punishing him?
I have to add though, that a lot of the things described seem a tad bit to weird and we're probably lacking a good deal of information about the issue, so this whole thread is kinda moot.
On July 06 2011 02:16 Smorrie wrote: Obviously there are so many things not right with this story, makes me think it's some sort of hoax or random gossip.
"The teenager told the court she had woken in the middle of the night to find Mr Davies having sex with her." That made me lol; you're sleeping and only wake up when you're in the middle of a pounding session? Yeah right.
That is what happened in the case in Canada as well. Not everyone is a light sleeper. She was ill, maybe she had some Nyquil and it took a bit more to wake her.
In the Canada case the guy actually put a condom on in his sleep before having sex with her. When she woke up and screamed and pushed him away, he just stood there staring at the wall for the entire period of time it took her to get all her shit and run out of the room.
I'm mostly surprised by the number of people who have never heard about this condition. I've heard a lot about it over the last 10 years.
For everyone who has an issue with the not-guilty ruling, please read a bit about this:
On July 06 2011 02:16 Smorrie wrote: Obviously there are so many things not right with this story, makes me think it's some sort of hoax or random gossip.
"The teenager told the court she had woken in the middle of the night to find Mr Davies having sex with her." That made me lol; you're sleeping and only wake up when you're in the middle of a pounding session? Yeah right.
There's that other thread on TL about sleep sex (not sexsomnia, just having sex with sleeping people)...
If he invited her into his bed then he is guilty. If she went there on her own or was invited by someone else (lolwut?) then...I just don't know what to say besides...awkward?
I don't see a problem here, he never invited her in his bed, he suffers from an embarrassing disorder and probably doesn't make it public, and she was victim to sex against her will, and he did it unconsciously like he has before.
please do not demonize the man, who was looking after this girl and an unfortunate set of circumstances led to this, the real problem is if the person who sent her in their knows of his condition cause than maybe they could face some sort of minor charges
On July 05 2011 22:40 Provocateur wrote: If you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 16-year-old girl? An adult like him should know better.
You should NEVER pass up the chance to sleep in the same bed as a 16 year old girl, no exceptions.
On July 06 2011 02:27 Slago wrote: I don't see a problem here, he never invited her in his bed, he suffers from an embarrassing disorder and probably doesn't make it public, and she was victim to sex against her will, and he did it unconsciously like he has before.
please do not demonize the man, who was looking after this girl and an unfortunate set of circumstances led to this, the real problem is if the person who sent her in their knows of his condition cause than maybe they could face some sort of minor charges
One thing that no one seems to have considered is that he could have told her to sleep in his bed earlier in the day, but he was asleep when she decided to exercise that option. For instance, he could have said, "my room is cooler, if you would prefer to sleep there" with the intention of sleeping somewhere else should she choose to exercise that option. Perhaps she didn't realize her room was too hot until he was already asleep and didn't want to bug him.
Who knows. Anything could have happened - and if there is one thing I've learned about media coverage of rape-related criminal trials, it is that they pretty much always leave out information with the effect of making the accused seem worse than he actually is - whether he is found guilty or not guilty. Take everything you read with a grain of salt until you read the actual case judgement itself.
I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
On July 06 2011 02:36 Destro wrote: I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Um, what if he went to bed before she even turned up?
There's far to much we don't know circumstance-wise to be making comments like this.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
On July 06 2011 02:27 Slago wrote: I don't see a problem here, he never invited her in his bed, he suffers from an embarrassing disorder and probably doesn't make it public, and she was victim to sex against her will, and he did it unconsciously like he has before.
please do not demonize the man, who was looking after this girl and an unfortunate set of circumstances led to this, the real problem is if the person who sent her in their knows of his condition cause than maybe they could face some sort of minor charges
After reading this thread, I was going to post something almost exactly like this, thanks for pre-agreeing with me! Seriously, shit happens, poor poor girl, same for the dude. I hope she can find help for this. Props to the guys' ex's for coming through to verify that he does this shit unconsciously.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
The truth comes out!
Jinro becomes a senseless rampaging gorilla when he sleeps! :O
On July 06 2011 02:36 Destro wrote: I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Who knows why she was there? Maybe a friend of his kids, etc. How should he expect her to come into his bed randomly?
I understand your point but it's not like he should have to start tying himself up at night.
On July 06 2011 02:53 t3r.sAnkAri wrote: You would think this would be something he'd have to tell people about. If not before atleast now.
Well everyone knows now. Whether it was a lapse in judgement or an unfortunate miss turn, he's going to have to live out the rest of his life with this hanging over his head.
On July 06 2011 02:58 oursblanc wrote: Usually when you tell people that you've been known to have sex with your wife while still asleep they don't take it as a warning.
On July 06 2011 02:34 Gnial wrote: One thing that no one seems to have considered is that he could have told her to sleep in his bed earlier in the day, but he was asleep when she decided to exercise that option. For instance, he could have said, "my room is cooler, if you would prefer to sleep there" with the intention of sleeping somewhere else should she choose to exercise that option. Perhaps she didn't realize her room was too hot until he was already asleep and didn't want to bug him.
This wouldn't be considered a rape-worthy accusation either, and no jury on earth would consider this "beyond reasonable doubt".
While I can buy the sleep sex argument, I think that he should have showed better judgement in sleeping next to a 16 year old girl if he knows he sleep sexes people (since he has done it to his wife/others in the past)...I'm sure he came up with an explanation I just can't imagine it.
On July 06 2011 03:10 DystopiaX wrote: While I can buy the sleep sex argument, I think that he should have showed better judgement in sleeping next to a 16 year old girl if he knows he sleep sexes people (since he has done it to his wife/others in the past)...I'm sure he came up with an explanation I just can't imagine it.
On July 06 2011 03:15 nicebuffalo wrote: this is like if somebody intends to kill somebody its murder, but if it was an accident its manslaughter. is there a word for accidental rape?
Ramslaughter?
Edit: Ramdaughter seems a bit more appropriate. Idk though.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
hot_bid probably deserved it don't worry.
Jokes aside, it's quite concerning that someone allowed a 16 year old in a grown up man's bde while he is still sleeping in it. And then there's the sexomnia thing :S.
However I move a lot in my sleep and sleep boners are inevitable. I don't know how far it would be considered as rape but wtf. However I don't sleep in the nude either. Btw allowing a 16 year old in a bed where lie a naked male? Inappropriate!
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
On July 06 2011 02:36 Destro wrote: I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Um, what if he went to bed before she even turned up?
There's far to much we don't know circumstance-wise to be making comments like this.
she just broke into the house and slept?
obviously there was preplanning, and the onus was on him to inform her on his condition, or take it into consideration before inviting a 16 year old girl over...
On July 06 2011 02:36 Destro wrote: I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Um, what if he went to bed before she even turned up?
There's far to much we don't know circumstance-wise to be making comments like this.
she just broke into the house and slept?
obviously there was preplanning, and the onus was on him to inform her on his condition, or take it into consideration before inviting a 16 year old girl over...
"Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there."
Soo... it wasn't his idea, and he didn't even know about it.
On July 06 2011 02:58 oursblanc wrote: Usually when you tell people that you've been known to have sex with your wife while still asleep they don't take it as a warning.
On July 06 2011 02:34 Gnial wrote: One thing that no one seems to have considered is that he could have told her to sleep in his bed earlier in the day, but he was asleep when she decided to exercise that option. For instance, he could have said, "my room is cooler, if you would prefer to sleep there" with the intention of sleeping somewhere else should she choose to exercise that option. Perhaps she didn't realize her room was too hot until he was already asleep and didn't want to bug him.
This wouldn't be considered a rape-worthy accusation either, and no jury on earth would consider this "beyond reasonable doubt".
I agree that it almost certainly wouldn't meet the mens rea requirement.
I observed in the first 8 pages of this thread that there is a witch hunt for whomever told her to sleep in his bed, and that if that person knew he had sexomnia then they should be charged for her rape, or worse!!! Rabble rabble rabble.
I was merely suggesting that perhaps there is no such person, and we all need more information.
On July 06 2011 02:36 Destro wrote: I have a personal problem with how most western courts will deem something not guilty due to mental issues. Doing the crime is doing the crime. If he knew he had sexsomnia, not having her in the house would be the best course of action. If not rape, he is guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
Um, what if he went to bed before she even turned up?
There's far to much we don't know circumstance-wise to be making comments like this.
she just broke into the house and slept?
obviously there was preplanning, and the onus was on him to inform her on his condition, or take it into consideration before inviting a 16 year old girl over...
Do you know everything that is going on around you when you are asleep? I don't know what happened but I can think of multiple scenarios when someone ends up in your house without your knowledge. Some things sounds strange about this case but please stop acting you know specifics about this case that hasn't been released.
This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
Age 16 = he is not a pedophile even if done intentionally... Don't be an idiot and may I suggest you do as the white box at the top says?!
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep.......
Great.
Cause you know.
Everyone is exactly like you, and should be judged by exactly how you experience things.
Not to mention, as noted many times in this thread, when a person sleep walks, his or her body functions just fine. It's just the consciousness that is not functioning at the time.
You can't hit the toilet when you're half asleep because you consciously make it happen (or you're just disabled and not telling us). When you sleep walk, it doesn't need the directive of your consciousness. It's not like you're constantly reminding your heart to beat or your lungs to process oxygen.
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
Age 16 = he is not a pedophile even if done intentionally... Don't be an idiot and may I suggest you do as the white box at the top says?!
So even if this man was 43 years old, you'd be ok with him banging a 16 year old girl?? I don't care if the age of consent is 12 years old, anything under 18 should be jailbait if you're OVER 18, and the fact that people on TL are actually defending this sleepwalking rapist, is a little astounding to me.
HE RAPED HER IN HER SLEEP. MAYBE HE WAS ASLEEP< MAYBE HE WASNT> BUT IT HAPPENED........ Does he deserve your defense?
Judicial proceedings should be completely revamped to look at crime from the victim's perspective instead of the criminal's. You got raped? Ok the guy is a rapist, case closed take him away.
What's up with letting go idiots and various lunatics who stab people in the face seventy two times??? Oh the poor cretin wasn't aware of his actions, how pitiful. Let's stick him into a comfy asylum so he can escape in a couple of years and bash a random dentist's head in with a hammer (true story). This system is easily one of the greatest blunders of modern civilization.
I'm a sexsomniac, too. Often times I wake up and find myself groping a sizable boner.
On July 06 2011 04:14 Mastermind wrote: I am really confused why a 16 year old girl was told to sleep in the same bed as an adult male. That should not be going on...
Read everything again, like the admin note says, and be a little more careful this time.
It never says that she was told to sleep with him. It only says that she was told to sleep in that room if her room is too hot, and it doesn't even specify WHEN she was told this. She could have been told this the day before, and chose to exercise it the next day when it just so happened a guy was in it.
Lets end the witch hunt for this mystery person that everyone seems to think ordered her to sleep with him, because its a hunt that is just not based on any of the released facts. Thats not saying that it didn't happen - but lets not jump to assumptions.
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
Age 16 = he is not a pedophile even if done intentionally... Don't be an idiot and may I suggest you do as the white box at the top says?!
So even if this man was 43 years old, you'd be ok with him banging a 16 year old girl?? I don't care if the age of consent is 12 years old, anything under 18 should be jailbait if you're OVER 18, and the fact that people on TL are actually defending this sleepwalking rapist, is a little astounding to me.
HE RAPED HER IN HER SLEEP. MAYBE HE WAS ASLEEP< MAYBE HE WASNT> BUT IT HAPPENED........ Does he deserve your defense?
If it's within the age of consent there is nothing that prohibits sex with a 16 year-old. But it wasn't consensual because she was asleep, and he has a medical condition therefore, not rape.
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
Age 16 = he is not a pedophile even if done intentionally... Don't be an idiot and may I suggest you do as the white box at the top says?!
So even if this man was 43 years old, you'd be ok with him banging a 16 year old girl?? I don't care if the age of consent is 12 years old, anything under 18 should be jailbait if you're OVER 18, and the fact that people on TL are actually defending this sleepwalking rapist, is a little astounding to me.
HE RAPED HER IN HER SLEEP. MAYBE HE WAS ASLEEP< MAYBE HE WASNT> BUT IT HAPPENED........ Does he deserve your defense?
Yes. You shouldn't be held accountable for things that you didn't choose to do. At worst it's negligent to allow the situation to happen but in this situation he didn't know she was there or cause her to be there.
On July 06 2011 04:05 Zedromas wrote: This is just absolutely astounding....... This man is a pervert and a pedophile, and he's gonna get away with this bullshit?? Your dick just happened to find a nice tight hole while you slept?? Ridiculous. I can barely hit the toilet when I'm half asleep....... Absolutely a fucking disgrace, this man needs to go to jail and spend some time with Bubba.....
Age 16 = he is not a pedophile even if done intentionally... Don't be an idiot and may I suggest you do as the white box at the top says?!
So even if this man was 43 years old, you'd be ok with him banging a 16 year old girl?? I don't care if the age of consent is 12 years old, anything under 18 should be jailbait if you're OVER 18, and the fact that people on TL are actually defending this sleepwalking rapist, is a little astounding to me.
HE RAPED HER IN HER SLEEP. MAYBE HE WAS ASLEEP< MAYBE HE WASNT> BUT IT HAPPENED........ Does he deserve your defense?
Please read about actus reus, voluntariness, and automatism (all easily found on wikipedia) and then come back with an informed position.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
I was going to post something similar. My brother in law almost died from doing things in his sleep while people generally seem get their opinions about "sleepwalking" from comedy movies or whatever.
The faulty person in this story is obviously the one who put a 16yo girl in the bed of a sleeping man, and it is even worse if that person knew the problem that man had while sleeping.
On July 06 2011 04:18 Zedromas wrote: So even if this man was 43 years old, you'd be ok with him banging a 16 year old girl?? I don't care if the age of consent is 12 years old, anything under 18 should be jailbait if you're OVER 18, and the fact that people on TL are actually defending this sleepwalking rapist, is a little astounding to me.
It would actually be completely legal in Norway, since the age of consent is 16 here ...
Also, that attitude is why 19 year olds in the US can go to jail for 5+ years for having consentual sex with 17 year olds ... which is sick.
How is it that she did not realize she was being raped? The article says she woke and he had already had sex with her. O_o She must have been really sick.
On July 06 2011 04:25 fire_brand wrote: How is it that she did not realize she was being raped? The article says she woke and he had already had sex with her. O_o She must have been really sick.
Wow, I swear to God, this is my last post correcting the 50% of posters who apparently can't read.
On July 06 2011 04:25 fire_brand wrote: How is it that she did not realize she was being raped? The article says she woke and he had already had sex with her. O_o She must have been really sick.
Some people just don't wake as easily. It can be possible to completely undress and penetrate a sleeping woman who's completely healthy at the time. She woke and panicked and most likely ran the fuck out of there immediately. I very much doubt he restrained and held her down until orgasm.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
On July 06 2011 04:19 Kickboxer wrote: Judicial proceedings should be completely revamped to look at crime from the victim's perspective instead of the criminal's. You got raped? Ok the guy is a rapist, case closed take him away.
What's up with letting go idiots and various lunatics who stab people in the face seventy two times??? Oh the poor cretin wasn't aware of his actions, how pitiful. Let's stick him into a comfy asylum so he can escape in a couple of years and bash a random dentist's head in with a hammer (true story). This system is easily one of the greatest blunders of modern civilization.
I'm a sexsomniac, too. Often times I wake up and find myself groping a sizable boner.
Because if you only take one perspective, then that perspective always wins T.T.
You got raped? Ok the guy is a rapist. You didn't rape her? She's lying? Ok now we have a situation.
There's always two sides to a story. A very rudimentary idea that must always be taken into account, especially for very emotional situations like sexual harassment and murder. Although you are right in stating that some people do get away with things using very far fetched stories. Honestly theres no way to be certain 100 percent about what had actually happened without a completely unbiased source of information, like a camera.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
People are obviously different, I am 24 and I would sleep on the couch or on the carpet, but in the same bed as a friends mother? No way Josey.
wow, what a surprise. if you sleep in the same bed with some guy, you might end up having sex with him at night...... why didn't we think of that before.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
The guy should've been woken up at the very least. There's a big difference between getting into a bed with someone without their knowledge and getting into a bed with someone with their knowledge.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
The guy should've been woken up at the very least. There's a big difference between getting into a bed with someone without their knowledge and getting into a bed with someone with their knowledge.
But if she thinks he's OK with it and has been told it's fine there is no reason to wake him up and announce her presence. Some people just don't wake as easy as other people, so her getting into his bed is no guarantee he'll wake up. There is a big difference between people and people.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
People are obviously different, I am 24 and I would sleep on the couch or on the carpet, but in the same bed as a friends mother? No way Josey.
you think she would have been able to wake him up and be like "hey yo get your penis out of me." also who ever said go sleep in that guys bed who has sex when he is asleep wasn't really thinking. and kinda sucks for the guy, when you have sex and can't remember any of it :X
I suffer from this condition as well, and honestly you don't remember anything, you go to sleep, you wake up and hear stories in the morning from wife/girlfriends about having sex the night before, not just crawl on top humping but full out hours long drawn out kinky sex and you don't even believe them the first few times.
still not sure how he got her into position.. :O and unless she was sopping wet already how did he even penetrate.. I wish things like this either just weren't reported on, or if they are reported give the facts and details. If she woke up within 2 seconds of him getting the tip in, and runs away screaming that makes SOME (not much) sense, but the article paints the illusion that she woke up during full blown intercourse.
The condition is real enough but im still baffled by the logistics of this after like 8 hours of thinking.. and.. media.. please.. get the facts before going to print
The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
On July 06 2011 05:11 Irrelevant wrote: I suffer from this condition as well, and honestly you don't remember anything, you go to sleep, you wake up and hear stories in the morning from wife/girlfriends about having sex the night before, not just crawl on top humping but full out hours long drawn out kinky sex and you don't even believe them the first few times.
Worst kind of sex.
"Are you serious? We haven't had sex in weeks and when we finally do, I don't remember one bit of it?"
On July 06 2011 05:11 Irrelevant wrote: I suffer from this condition as well, and honestly you don't remember anything, you go to sleep, you wake up and hear stories in the morning from wife/girlfriends about having sex the night before, not just crawl on top humping but full out hours long drawn out kinky sex and you don't even believe them the first few times.
The best sex you ever had and you don't even remember it. T_T.
Sorry, I don't think it's ever appropriate to let a 16 year old girl (because she is a GIRL) and a 40+ year old man sleep in the same bed - doesn't matter how big the bed is. Even sleeping in the same room is borderline inappropriate unless they're relatives. That's just how I was raised I guess.
A lot of this story doesn't make sense. Was he restraining her during his "sleepwalk sex"? How did she not manage to get out of the situation when she regained consciousness?
I can't help but think the 40+ year old man is a pervert and got away with rape. Even if it was an "accident of sub-consciousness", then lets at least recognize the man has a crazy and untrustworthy subconscious, and maybe the court should put a restraining order on letting children (16 year-olds are children when it comes to emotional and mental maturity) sleep in his house. Could be a safe idea.
Also if your country has no laws against 40 year-old men sleeping with 16 year-olds, well, that's kind of insane, and your country needs to change that ASAP.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
On July 06 2011 05:37 Leporello wrote: Sorry, I don't think it's ever appropriate to let a 16 year old girl (because she is a GIRL) and a 40+ year old man sleep in the same bed - doesn't matter how big the bed is. Even sleeping in the same room is borderline inappropriate unless they're relatives. That's just how I was raised I guess.
A lot of this story doesn't make sense. Was he restraining her during his "sleepwalk sex"? How did she not manage to get out of the situation when she regained consciousness?
I can't help but think the 40+ year old man is a pervert and got away with rape. Even if it was an "accident of sub-consciousness", then lets at least recognize the man has a crazy and untrustworthy subconscious, and maybe the court should put a restraining order on letting children (16 year-olds are children when it comes to emotional and mental maturity) sleep in his house. Could be a safe idea. Also if your country has no laws against 40 year-old men sleeping with 16 year-olds, well, that's kind of insane, and your country needs to change that ASAP.
16 is the age of consent in a lot of countries. Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Infact, the vast majority of the world considers 16 to be the age of consent, the next majority considers 14-15 to be the age, and only a very small percent consider it to be higher (18) like your country.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
In Canada a sexomniac put on a condom before sex, and was found to have been unconscious during the act, so the lack of lube thing isn't necessarily valid because, for all we know, he did use lube.
And we don't know what the position was either. Posturing for missionary position might be difficult, but maybe that isn't what happened.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
In Canada a sexomniac put on a condom before sex, and was found to have been unconscious during the act, so the lack of lube thing isn't necessarily valid because, for all we know, he did use lube.
And we don't know what the position was either. Posturing for missionary position might be difficult, but maybe that isn't what happened.
Which is why i stay steadfast in wishing shit like this either just wasn't reported.. or reported with some of the important facts.. but i guess if the facts were there there'd be no discussion and less hits on news sites..
Meh. This is why i stay out of tl general i guess (and the news in general.. its just full of shit and half truths at best)
On July 06 2011 05:11 Eleaven wrote: still not sure how he got her into position.. :O and unless she was sopping wet already how did he even penetrate.. I wish things like this either just weren't reported on, or if they are reported give the facts and details. If she woke up within 2 seconds of him getting the tip in, and runs away screaming that makes SOME (not much) sense, but the article paints the illusion that she woke up during full blown intercourse.
The condition is real enough but im still baffled by the logistics of this after like 8 hours of thinking.. and.. media.. please.. get the facts before going to print
Technically it's rape no matter if it's a few seconds or a couple of hours. I fail to see your point.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
In Canada a sexomniac put on a condom before sex, and was found to have been unconscious during the act, so the lack of lube thing isn't necessarily valid because, for all we know, he did use lube.
And we don't know what the position was either. Posturing for missionary position might be difficult, but maybe that isn't what happened.
Which is why i stay steadfast in wishing shit like this either just wasn't reported.. or reported with some of the important facts.. but i guess if the facts were there there'd be no discussion and less hits on news sites..
Meh. This is why i stay out of tl general i guess (and the news in general.. its just full of shit and half truths at best)
Yeah, lets just ignore every victim out there and print every single detail of a crime (or not write anything about it). Great idea...
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
people have done far stranger in their sleep, like driving cars, and cooking food. even the simple act of getting to your feet in your sleep is pretty difficult when you think about it.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is the question, why did a 16 year old girl try to sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man?
I don't find this strange at all.
Imagine it's a big bed, not a single where you're forced to snuggle like you do with your significant other. There is a big gap between the two sides of the bed, so there is no contact going on. When I was hanging out at my cousins over a weekend to LAN. My cousin who is 24 didn't want to drive all the way to his apartment, and instead went to sleep in his parents bed when his father was at work and his mother was still sleeping. There was no contact possible because the bed is big enough, and there is nothing weird about that.
There is a big difference between going to bed with a sexual partner in a single where you cuddle and snuggle until you fall asleep and sleeping in the same king/queen sized bed with someone on opposite sides.
People are obviously different, I am 24 and I would sleep on the couch or on the carpet, but in the same bed as a friends mother? No way Josey.
It was his own mother, not a friends.
yea yea was referring to the sleep rape, sorry for not being more clear
It is pretty strange the 16 year old would elementarily get in bed with this man, if that is what I assume to be true. A little odd, just like this mans "disease".
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. They never have false-perceptions as to what the relationships will amount to. Right. And there's nothing bad that could come from a 16 year-old having casual sex with a 40 year-old man, she can go on without worrying about any sort of social-stigmas haunting her.
And when 16 year--old girls want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
Oh this is what i was trying to say, but refreshed and noticed you'd already hit the nail on the head.
if you follow the news at all in the last 10-20-30-40 years, you'd know straight away that the law has nothing to do with sense or morality, rather control and (in some cases) profit/ease of distribution. Especially relevant to US laws lol
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm
Pleasure isn't meaningless. This man wasn't conscious either.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm
Pleasure isn't meaningless. This man wasn't conscious either.
straw man to the maximum good sir
No, the strawman in this argument is your idea that sex is a simple pleasure.
Sex is anything but simple, and it most often is life-changing, especially to someone of a young age.
EDIT; I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Whomever told the 16 year old child to get into the bed should be charged with negligence causing bodily harm or something along those lines. If the person who told the 16yr old to go sleep there knew of the guys condition then there is premeditation to add in there too.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm
Pleasure isn't meaningless. This man wasn't conscious either.
straw man to the maximum good sir
No, the strawman in this argument is your idea that sex is a simple pleasure.
Sex is anything but simple, and it most often is life-changing, especially to someone of a young age.
Sex isn't most often life changing at all. Please stop putting your minority views onto the rest of the world. Sex is largely engaged in for pleasure. Also your putting words into my mouth, "strawmanning" me again by wording your response in such a way to seem like i'd said sex was simple.
I stated that sex (and the pleasure derived from it) isn't meaningless.
you responded "durrr sex isnt a simple pleasure" (which kind of agrees with what im saying, but from a very very very conservative and ignorant standpoint)
Don't make things up please. also, for your perusal i've attained a link that goes over some of the basics of animal sexuality:
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
On July 06 2011 06:43 Leporello wrote:I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless.
On July 06 2011 06:43 Leporello wrote:I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless.
Nice logical fallacy.
the guy seems pretty backwards and ultra conservative (+ maybe a little mentally off balance..) i think we should just leave him alone now..
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
I do agree with your last sentence though. Maturity never stops, but I think 18 does a lot better than 16, and that the laws should reflect that.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote: The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse.
No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood).
As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness.
Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o.
"nothing strange" indeed.
Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
Girls aren't always dry. Also sleepwalkers have been able to do complex actions such as driving. Taking her clothes off, spitting into her vagina, and sticking it inside of her wouldn't be as complex as driving.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
To summarize: I don't think 16 year olds should be treated as adults. I think any man having sex with a 16 year-old girl should be arrested for a crime.
In response to this position I have been called, in this thread, "conservative", "kindergarden", "mentally unbalanced". I understand we have philosophical differences, and that semantical arguments get messy. But, uh, I feel like I kept the high-ground.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
But if a 16 year-old wants to have sex with a 40 year-old and 16 is the age of consent in that state, country or whatever then they are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. They do have the right to choose their partner regardless of age, when they have reached the age of sexual consent. Just because you object and frown upon the age gap doesn't mean that 16 year-olds shouldn't have the right to choose who they have sex with.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
What evidence? What facts? Prove to me that a 16 year-old has the maturity of an adult. That is the only evidence your argument needs. I don't care that your country's laws are different than mine, I think they should change. That's my opinion that started this whole thing.
Also, you call me a troll, and yet you previously called me "mentally unbalanced". And yet are still responding to my posts.
I'm starting to wonder how much this issue personally means to you? You got some jail-bait or something? Are you robbing the cradle?
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
But if a 16 year-old wants to have sex with a 40 year-old and 16 is the age of consent in that state, country or whatever then they are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. They do have the right to choose their partner regardless of age, when they have reached the age of sexual consent. Just because you object and frown upon the age gap doesn't mean that 16 year-olds shouldn't have the right to choose who they have sex with.
THANK YOU. Very reasonably put. Yes, I disagree and frown upon that law and think the age should be raised from 16 to 18. It's laughable that such a simple and reasonable opinion could draw such vitriol from some people. I'm astounded, and a bit disappointed.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
Is that really your perception of how the discussion has passed?
My response was to:
1) Point out that in most other countries age 14-16 was the age at which one would be considered old enough to decide about having sex.
2) Point out that your own country was inconsistent by itself and before trying to claim moral highground you would need to solve that.
3) Point out that at age 16 you are in a legal sense "adult" or at least adult enough to know that your actions has consequences and thus you can be judged on the same basis for as an adult.
4) When you chose to ignore all that (except responding with something along the lines of "18 or kid") I pointed out that what you had was an opinion an unless this is a dictatorship you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to do or not (I probably could've explained that clearer, my apologize, consider it done now instead) unless you could provide some solid argument to back up your opinion - YOU are the one to make a claim, YOU should be the one to back it up, not have me disprove it before you prove why it is a sensible claim.
5) Yes I compared you to a kid in the kindergarden - that is the only name I've called you and it was not until after you actually DID argue like a kid in kindergarden ("Yes, I do. And I did.")
6) I think I've already made it clear that in my view a 16 year-old is definitely old enough to decide if he/she wants to have sex. Who she wants to have sex with is none of my concern, as long as they are old enough to give consent as well. Funnily enough, the majority of the world shares my view and not yours. Speaking further in my advance is that a 16 year old is old enough to be convicted of murder with the same punishment as an adult would recieve, thus we already concider them legally mature enough to understand consequences (even in the states) of their actions.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
What evidence? What facts? Prove to me that a 16 year-old has the maturity of an adult. That is the only evidence your argument needs. I don't care that your country's laws are different than mine, I think they should change. That's my opinion that started this whole thing.
Also, you call me a troll, and yet you previously called me "mentally unbalanced". And yet are still responding to my posts.
I'm starting to wonder how much this issue personally means to you? You got some jail-bait or something? Are you robbing the cradle?
Quite the opposite, i was freshly 16 when i met my now wife nearly 6 years ago. She was turning 20 at the time. Best set of decisions in my entire life, and i made them at 16. (you probably think she's a paedophile or something?) I was 6ft2, fully biologically mature, and running my own business. I just wish you'd cut all this crap about 16 year olds being useless, immature, unstable etc. It's simply not true, and the ONLY thing your basing it on is your countries age of consent.
I also know of many many other people who were sexually active at the ages of 14-16 without any regrets. And as a bonus they don't have any of this "i object to it so its obviously morally wrong and against god" attitude.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable.
Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view.
You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote: This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is how I feel about it. And these are only some of my concerns with the story.
With so little to go on, there is really nothing to say.
On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote: Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
Is that really your perception of how the discussion has passed?
My response was to:
1) Point out that in most other countries age 14-16 was the age at which one would be considered old enough to decide about having sex.
2) Point out that your own country was inconsistent by itself and before trying to claim moral highground you would need to solve that.
3) Point out that at age 16 you are in a legal sense "adult" or at least adult enough to know that your actions has consequences and thus you can be judged on the same basis for as an adult.
4) When you chose to ignore all that (except responding with something along the lines of "18 or kid") I pointed out that what you had was an opinion an unless this is a dictatorship you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to do or not (I probably could've explained that clearer, my apologize, consider it done now instead) unless you could provide some solid argument to back up your opinion - YOU are the one to make a claim, YOU should be the one to back it up, not have me disprove it before you prove why it is a sensible claim.
5) Yes I compared you to a kid in the kindergarden - that is the only name I've called you and it was not until after you actually DID argue like a kid in kindergarden ("Yes, I do. And I did.")
6) I think I've already made it clear that in my view a 16 year-old is definitely old enough to decide if he/she wants to have sex. Who she wants to have sex with is none of my concern, as long as they are old enough to give consent as well. Funnily enough, the majority of the world shares my view and not yours. Speaking further in my advance is that a 16 year old is old enough to be convicted of murder with the same punishment as an adult would recieve, thus we already concider them legally mature enough to understand consequences (even in the states) of their actions.
1) This was already known. I know my opinion isn't the same as what most country's laws state. In fact, that's directly what my opinion addressed. Country's should change their laws on this.
2) Laws usually are inconsistent.
3) I don't entirely agree. There is a difference between knowing what the laws are and knowing how much those laws and your decisions can effect your life. This is what maturity is about, and 16 year-olds generally lack it.
4) I have ignored it because it's meaningless. None of those things change my opinion that 16 year-olds aren't mature enough to be legally adults, in my opinion.
5) You told me I don't have the right to an opinion. So I guess the feeling is mutual. Say something simple and nonsensical, and you'll get a likewise response.
6) GOOD. THAT is what you should've told me from the get go. I respectfully disagree with your opinion though. The only "evidence" that could factor into this argument would be a scientific study that showed 16 year-olds possess significantly better decision-making skills than younger age groups, and is at near on-par with adults. I do agree that there is inconsistency in America's "age of consent" laws. I agree with that entirely, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on other country's laws as well.
Otherwise, we both just have opinions. Try to respect mine.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable.
Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view.
You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable.
Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view.
You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
You were far from reasonable. And still are.
It's hard to apply reason to your madness.
Of course, you'll never actually respond to any point made, since you don't have a fully formed opinion yet. you have a shambling grasp of the situation, but no real appreciation for the diversity of it. This is usually dubbed "ignorance"
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable.
Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view.
You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
You were far from reasonable. And still are.
It's hard to apply reason to your madness.
Of course, you'll never actually respond to any point made, since you don't have a fully formed opinion yet. you have a shambling grasp of the situation, but no real appreciation for the diversity of it. This is usually dubbed "ignorance"
Points you've made? No I missed them entirely. Your points have mostly been that I'm a bible-thumping christian conservative.
I'm none of those things.
So yeah, call me ignorant again. Just let me know when I make dumb, insulting, blind assumptions about who you are.
I don't need to tell you you're "ignorant". Get it?
Also, regarding your personal experience. I think it's nice, and I'm glad you found your love at that age and that it worked out. There is perhaps leeway when the age-gap is small enough. Maybe the laws could reflect on that. But if your law states that a 16 year-old can have legal consensual sex with a 40 year-old, I'm sorry, but that's really, really immoral in my eyes.
How big was the house such that the other person/people could not hear the girl screaming for help? And also, elbows, fists, fingers, and fingernails are much harder than someone's sensitive facial organs...
She must have been smothered so much that she could not move her limbs or cry for help.
Another possibility is, and I'm not trying to be cute here at all is she was rather conflicted here. I wonder (as is natural at the age to be so curious) if she couldn't pull herself away from what was exciting and she kind of became conflicted.
On July 05 2011 22:40 Asrathiel wrote: If he knew he'd done that regulary before, WHY THE FUCK did he let her share his bed? If she was sick and it was cooler, surely he could have swapped beds...
in the article they clearly say he was already asleep when she went to his bed..
Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
Well, the articles don't go into detail, so the picture some people have of a fully completed intercourse don't necessarily need to be what actually happened. There are scenarios which fit the discription without even having to be overly complicated and avoiding all those problems people have pointed out on the last few pages. Also, people manage to do pretty complicated things while sleepwalking.
I think the most probable thing that happened is something along the line of the guy starting to do things, her waking up, shoving him away and running of afterwards. There is really no indication of him holding her down for prolonged amounts of time while completing intercourse, or something like that. That is just the interpretation you have of the story.
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
You should read the other comments since other people keep saying the same thing, and it keeps being addressed over and over.
This thread should probably just be closed since the comments are in a repeated cycle, with intermittent derailing arguments.
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: Stephen Lee Davies, 43, of Pembroke Dock, claimed he was innocent because he suffered from sexsomnia. He was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl staying at his home. The jury took just over an hour to find him not guilty. A sleep consultant gave evidence at the trial confirming that what Mr Davies said was probably true. His wife, and a former partner, also gave evidence on how they became used to being "groped" in the night. They said he would have sex with them in his sleep and remember nothing in the morning The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler. She woke up in the middle of the night because he had sex with her. Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will. The rape itself happened and was not denied. He was cleared of the rape charge because he suffers from "sexsomnia".
On July 05 2011 22:34 Fenrax wrote: Stephen Lee Davies, 43, of Pembroke Dock, claimed he was innocent because he suffered from sexsomnia. He was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl staying at his home. The jury took just over an hour to find him not guilty. A sleep consultant gave evidence at the trial confirming that what Mr Davies said was probably true. His wife, and a former partner, also gave evidence on how they became used to being "groped" in the night. They said he would have sex with them in his sleep and remember nothing in the morning The girl had been staying at Mr Davies’s home in Swansea when she became ill and was told to share his bed because his room was cooler. She woke up in the middle of the night because he had sex with her. Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will. The rape itself happened and was not denied. He was cleared of the rape charge because he suffers from "sexsomnia".
Im confused. Who told her to go sleep in that dudes bed?
Noone knows. That is a mystery here, because it always says "was told to", and never "xyz told her" It is near along with the mystery of why she agreed to that.
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
Think about what a person can do while sleep walking and then think if that same person could have sex while asleep. It is definitely possible, I know this first hand, but it isn't like he couldn't be woken up. I firmly believe that if the girl had tried to stop him that he would have woken up. That being said...
There is clearly not enough information to know what exactly happened. If the man actually did manage to have sex with the girl then it is rape and I don't see how that can be argued.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully.
It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
I dont care about the discussion you guys are having too much, but I hate it when people just spew out "TROLL?!?" any time someone disagrees with them. Im used to seeing this kind of ad hominem argumentative style go on in 90% of internet forums out there, but Im pretty disappointed to find people jumping to the "UR A TROLL" argument on teamliquid
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
bro, there's this condition called sleepwalking too.
Walking requires quite a bit of coordination. Probably more than sex.
Sleep conditions like this are well documented ..some of you are foolish. Sure, any logical person can see there's a possibility he is guilty as fuck. But there's no court that is going to convict him...
Some sleep walkers can perform very complex activities.
If I may say so I do believe that Leprollo has been the more polite one in this conversation although neither of you could be called "reasonable" as neither of you have been able to be reasoned with.
Leprollo has one opinion, Eleaven has another. Neither of you are going to be able to convince the other to change your opinions.
Also yeah... I think the whole issue is pretty fucked but if the guy has a disease then he has a disease. It's a horrible set of circumstances.
As a matter of fact, I starting to forget all the time I had sex at night...yep, forgot now. Must have been because I was asleep. Great. Now I'm a sexsomniac, all I need to do is find some attractive woman to stick in my bed, without me knowing of course.
On July 06 2011 09:42 TheDougler wrote: If I may say so I do believe that Leprollo has been the more polite one in this conversation although neither of you could be called "reasonable" as neither of you have been able to be reasoned with.
Leprollo has one opinion, Eleaven has another. Neither of you are going to be able to convince the other to change your opinions.
Also yeah... I think the whole issue is pretty fucked but if the guy has a disease then he has a disease. It's a horrible set of circumstances.
His style was admittedly much more subtle and subversive, but don't mistake it for politeness.
anyway, bridge under the water, he apologised over PM, and i graciously accepted
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
bro, there's this condition called sleepwalking too.
Walking requires quite a bit of coordination. Probably more than sex.
Sleep conditions like this are well documented ..some of you are foolish. Sure, any logical person can see there's a possibility he is guilty as fuck. But there's no court that is going to convict him...
Some sleep walkers can perform very complex activities.
True about the sleep walking. Then, if we are comparing this to a sexsomniac, if you punched a sleep walker in the face and shouted at them to get the fuck off you, would they wake up?
Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians.
A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system.
So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex. You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
I dont care about the discussion you guys are having too much, but I hate it when people just spew out "TROLL?!?" any time someone disagrees with them. Im used to seeing this kind of ad hominem argumentative style go on in 90% of internet forums out there, but Im pretty disappointed to find people jumping to the "UR A TROLL" argument on teamliquid
I'll have to agree with this. Trolling=/=disagreeing
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is why the 16 year old didn't know about the man's condition. If I had that condition and had a young girl staying in my house I would make sure she knew to not come into my room while I'm sleeping. He wouldn't have to tell her what his condition is just make sure she knew not to come into his room while he's sleeping. Whoever it was that told the girl to go get into the guy's bed should've know something about it too.
On July 06 2011 00:41 vVvTime wrote: The only reason you'd think this is a made up condition is because you've never shared a bed with someone for an extended period of time. It's pretty easy to wake up in the middle of having sex, or, more often, to be awake but in a completely unaware mental state. It's not hard to imagine someone who is completely unaware through the whole thing.
This echoes my thoughts exactly. This is not uncommon in the least. It's happened to me quite a few times.
I think most would find it way easier to believe if you've ever spent a long time sharing a bed with a partner.
what soooooo many of you are missing, is to be labeled a sexsomniac you need to go through mental testing, no one can just claim they have this condition and get off, he was clinically diagnosed with the disorder, he didn't just say he was a sexsomniac and got off, he has a condition and the girl wasn't aware of it, he wasn't aware she was there, end of story.
also alot of you are saying no way could you have sex asleep, just look at carl sagan's explaination of the 4th dimension, you can't percieve something you have no knowledge of, you have no idea what is capable in your unconscious sleeping state, and neither do I, as I don't suffer from such a horrible disorder
We had a case around here a few years back a "sleep walker" got into a car crash without ever knowing she got into a car(the other driver was at fault in the causing of the crash), and a local clerk was telling the news that she would come into the store every night around the same time and do/buy the same stuff every time then leave and had no idea that she was sleeping.
It's stated that the man in question sleeps in the nude. So the 16-year-old girl voluntarily climbed into bed with a naked 40-year-old man? And full-blown intercourse supposedly occurred, even though the man's past lovers suggest he only groped them? Something in that story is really off.
And also, if we had a gender flip, how would people view this? If a 16-year-old boy climbed into bed with a naked, sleeping sexsomiac woman, would anyone bat an eye when she's found not guilty?
I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
Because in most civilized countries, you aren't given the maximum punishment just because you did something, but also because you must have had the criminal state of mind when performing the illegal act. Why should someone who goes around intentionally raping women because he enjoys it, be treated the same as some college student who mistakenly believed the woman wanted to have sex?
Also, raising the defense of insanity is not a 'get out of jail free' card. It never has been and will not be one in the future.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
I feel like you are really dumb, or at least incapable of reading comprehension.
The guy in question has a confirmed medical illness that is impossible to control and does not ordinarily cause any problems. At most he should be required to share a bed only with intimate partners and never with underage children.
If by contrast you killed someone in your sleep, you would also be found not guilty, but it is likely that the court would require you to obtain treatment and take other preventative measures to avoid a recurrence in the future. And that's only if you actually had some sort of condition; it's virtually impossible to fool medical professionals who would monitor your brain wave activity in a sleep clinic to check for it.
Just like the Casey Anthony case, this seems to yet again be a case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a career for himself by attempting to get the baddest crime in the book on a guy who is at best only guilty of a lesser crime.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
You are wrong about two things. Firstly he didn't make it up, it's a real illness. Secondly, there is such thing as what you described as "murdermania", and we don't punish them. They are treated in a mental institution and if they are cured, they get placed back into society.
On July 06 2011 09:02 Ancestral wrote: Inserting a penis into a vagina isn't the same as putting a hot dog in a bun. It takes a little coordination and there is some resistance, even if you are the most beautiful arousing man in the world.
Also I assume the girl was wearing clothing. I don't think it would be easy to stay asleep while someone is removing your clothes and penetrating your vagina. This story just doesn't sound real. And if she were struggling, he would have woken up.
bro, there's this condition called sleepwalking too.
Walking requires quite a bit of coordination. Probably more than sex.
Sleep conditions like this are well documented ..some of you are foolish. Sure, any logical person can see there's a possibility he is guilty as fuck. But there's no court that is going to convict him...
Some sleep walkers can perform very complex activities.
Yeah this is what I was thinking of, some people have been known to even drive in their sleep and not remember a thing, there was also this intriguing documentary about how people have even murdered other people while asleep.
It's very unfortunate for the girl, but it's well within the realm of possibility that he's telling the truth.
On July 06 2011 10:17 MozzarellaL wrote: Just like the Casey Anthony case, this seems to yet again be a case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a career for himself by attempting to get the baddest crime in the book on a guy who is at best only guilty of a lesser crime.
............................................................... W T F.............................................................
Sex without consent is AT BEST a lesser crime? WTF are u smoking?? If this logic were true then every prison in the world would be empty.
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Someone, PLEASE, explain to me why so many people on TL are jumping to this slime bucket's defense? I've read many posts (Like Jinro's) proclaiming that sleep-walking is some sort of terrible affliction that deserves some sort of exception in the law. He fucked a 16 year old girl without her consent. I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely.
Age of consent be damned........that debate will rage on for another 150 years.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
I feel like you are really dumb, or at least incapable of reading comprehension.
The guy in question has a confirmed medical illness that is impossible to control and does not ordinarily cause any problems. At most he should be required to share a bed only with intimate partners and never with underage children.
If by contrast you killed someone in your sleep, you would also be found not guilty, but it is likely that the court would require you to obtain treatment and take other preventative measures to avoid a recurrence in the future. And that's only if you actually had some sort of condition; it's virtually impossible to fool medical professionals who would monitor your brain wave activity in a sleep clinic to check for it.
On July 06 2011 10:17 MozzarellaL wrote: Just like the Casey Anthony case, this seems to yet again be a case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a career for himself by attempting to get the baddest crime in the book on a guy who is at best only guilty of a lesser crime.
............................................................... W T F.............................................................
Sex without consent is AT BEST a lesser crime? WTF are u smoking?? If this logic were true then every prison in the world would be empty.
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Someone, PLEASE, explain to me why so many people on TL are jumping to this slime bucket's defense? I've read many posts (Like Jinro's) proclaiming that sleep-walking is some sort of terrible affliction that deserves some sort of exception in the law. He fucked a 16 year old girl without her consent. I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely.
Age of consent be damned........that debate will rage on for another 150 years.
hey, let's throw somebody in prison for something they had completely no control over
On July 06 2011 10:17 MozzarellaL wrote: Just like the Casey Anthony case, this seems to yet again be a case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a career for himself by attempting to get the baddest crime in the book on a guy who is at best only guilty of a lesser crime.
............................................................... W T F.............................................................
Sex without consent is AT BEST a lesser crime? WTF are u smoking?? If this logic were true then every prison in the world would be empty.
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Someone, PLEASE, explain to me why so many people on TL are jumping to this slime bucket's defense? I've read many posts (Like Jinro's) proclaiming that sleep-walking is some sort of terrible affliction that deserves some sort of exception in the law. He fucked a 16 year old girl without her consent. I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely.
Age of consent be damned........that debate will rage on for another 150 years.
So your argument can be summed up as: 1. Look at him, he looks like a douche. Therefore he is a douche. Therefore he should be convicted for rape 2. The guy had no control over what he did, but that doesnt matter. He should be convicted just like other people who actually commit crimes with malice and intent
I want to get some clarification from you. So youre saying that because this girl was raped, nothing else matters right? You say, "I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely." This means you acknowledge that he was sleepwalking but you dont care about his lack of control of the situation. This implies that it is of your opinion that people who accidentally commit crimes should be punished as harshly as people who purposefully do.
So the guy who doesnt see the motorcyclist in his blind spot and runs him over while switching lanes should get life in prison right? Murderers get life in prison, you dont care about the circumstances and a guy was killed so the driver should also get convicted for murder right? The only difference between that example and the sexsomnia case is that the person driving the car has complete control over his actions while the 43-year old man in this rape case had absolutely no control or consciousness.
If you wanted to argue that he was lying, that might actually be a proper way to approach the prosecution instead of arguing against a complete legitimate medical condition. Even if you did that, do you think that the court didnt go through professionals and experts before coming to a decision?
On July 06 2011 10:17 MozzarellaL wrote: Just like the Casey Anthony case, this seems to yet again be a case of an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a career for himself by attempting to get the baddest crime in the book on a guy who is at best only guilty of a lesser crime.
............................................................... W T F.............................................................
Sex without consent is AT BEST a lesser crime? WTF are u smoking?? If this logic were true then every prison in the world would be empty.
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Someone, PLEASE, explain to me why so many people on TL are jumping to this slime bucket's defense? I've read many posts (Like Jinro's) proclaiming that sleep-walking is some sort of terrible affliction that deserves some sort of exception in the law. He fucked a 16 year old girl without her consent. I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely.
Age of consent be damned........that debate will rage on for another 150 years.
There defending him because unlike you they actually bothered to read the OP. Even if you didn't read the OP there's a message at the top of the page. I guess you don't have time to read about the facts so you just look at a picture and pass judgement. WTF are you smoking?
This is a legit problem the guy has. I'd have sex with my ex several times during our 5 year relationship during my sleep where I wouldn't remember a thing but she would.
Think of it as advanced sleep walking.
The moral of the story is don't share a bed with someone you don't want sexual relations with.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
I feel like you are really dumb, or at least incapable of reading comprehension.
The guy in question has a confirmed medical illness that is impossible to control and does not ordinarily cause any problems. At most he should be required to share a bed only with intimate partners and never with underage children.
If by contrast you killed someone in your sleep, you would also be found not guilty, but it is likely that the court would require you to obtain treatment and take other preventative measures to avoid a recurrence in the future. And that's only if you actually had some sort of condition; it's virtually impossible to fool medical professionals who would monitor your brain wave activity in a sleep clinic to check for it.
His first post on Tl was that?
Gotta be a troll or just plain dumb.
Wow, twice in one fucking thread. This is starting to piss me off enough that I dont want to retype a response. Instead, Im just gonna quote myself from 1 fucking page ago
On July 06 2011 09:26 Supamang wrote: I dont care about the discussion you guys are having too much, but I hate it when people just spew out "TROLL?!?" any time someone disagrees with them. Im used to seeing this kind of ad hominem argumentative style go on in 90% of internet forums out there, but Im pretty disappointed to find people jumping to the "UR A TROLL" argument on teamliquid
This guy sunprince made perfectly logical statements. You fucking just jump straight to "UR A TROLL." stop being a fucking hypocrite
If you would stop your rage and actually read: Nikj agreed with Sunprince. Nikj calls Healingpr00f a troll or just plain stupid. Nikj does so (I guess) due to the below explained reason:
What Healingpr00f wrote has been said like 10 times before in this thread, the first times people actually responded properly to it, but by now it is getting so blatant that people jump to the logical conclusion that 1) he didn't bother reading neither the OP and the articles nor the thread or 2) that he is in fact trolling... Due to the white box at the top of this thread, option 2 actually seems the most logical of the 2 options.
On July 06 2011 10:06 Healingpr00f wrote: I feel like this is really dumb. I dont think you can rape someone and then blame it on a some illness. If i murder someone and then say "oh.. er... i dont remember anything. also, i have murdermania" and my relatives says i often murder people without remembering, should I go free then? He should have the EXACT same punishment as anyone else raping a 16year old girl.
I feel like you are really dumb, or at least incapable of reading comprehension.
The guy in question has a confirmed medical illness that is impossible to control and does not ordinarily cause any problems. At most he should be required to share a bed only with intimate partners and never with underage children.
If by contrast you killed someone in your sleep, you would also be found not guilty, but it is likely that the court would require you to obtain treatment and take other preventative measures to avoid a recurrence in the future. And that's only if you actually had some sort of condition; it's virtually impossible to fool medical professionals who would monitor your brain wave activity in a sleep clinic to check for it.
His first post on Tl was that?
Gotta be a troll or just plain dumb.
Wow, twice in one fucking thread. This is starting to piss me off enough that I dont want to retype a response. Instead, Im just gonna quote myself from 1 fucking page ago
On July 06 2011 09:26 Supamang wrote: I dont care about the discussion you guys are having too much, but I hate it when people just spew out "TROLL?!?" any time someone disagrees with them. Im used to seeing this kind of ad hominem argumentative style go on in 90% of internet forums out there, but Im pretty disappointed to find people jumping to the "UR A TROLL" argument on teamliquid
This guy sunprince made perfectly logical statements. You fucking just jump straight to "UR A TROLL." stop being a fucking hypocrite
If you would stop your rage and actually read: Nikj agreed with Sunprince. Nikj calls Healingpr00f a troll or just plain stupid. Nikj does so (I guess) due to the below explained reason:
What Healingpr00f wrote has been said like 10 times before in this thread, the first times people actually responded properly to it, but by now it is getting so blatant that people jump to the logical conclusion that 1) he didn't bother reading neither the OP and the articles nor the thread or 2) that he is in fact trolling... Due to the white box at the top of this thread, option 2 actually seems the most logical of the 2 options.
Fair enough, my mistake. I didnt check their post counts or expand the spoiler
This girl was ill. Anyone else think that if this man had good intentions for her health then they should not have been sharing the bedroom. Why would he let anyone who is sick sleep in the same bed, it cannot be better for their recovery. Why wouldn't he sleep in the guest bedroom or on the couch? Letting her take the bedroom by herself would have been the rational choice for a person looking to help an ill person recover. He seems like a predator whose intentions seem very unclear.
On July 06 2011 11:40 GhoSt[shield] wrote: This girl was ill. Anyone else think that if this man had good intentions for her health then they should not have been sharing the bedroom. Why would he let anyone who is sick sleep in the same bed, it cannot be better for their recovery. Why wouldn't he sleep in the guest bedroom or on the couch? Letting her take the bedroom by herself would have been the rational choice for a person looking to help an ill person recover. He seems like a predator whose intentions seem very unclear.
Read before post. It is even on the top in a white box.
Edit:
On July 06 2011 10:52 Zedromas wrote: Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Yes. Surely the most important thing is what someone looks like. This is why whe should abolish having courts and juries for the fairest criminal system ever. If someone is accused of a crime, you simply have a trained faceologist look at him, and determine whether or not he looks strange. Also think about how much money the state could save by this! Do you have any idea how much a court process costs? You would not even have to pay the faceologist, one could make a system where he simply gets tips from both the prosecuting party and the defendant.
The whole thing also works in civil court, too. Just look at who of both parties looks better, and have them win the case. Also, this opens a whole new area of work for models in representing large companies in front of the faceologist.
can't help but feel like this should be treated the same way as people with deadly/serious diseases, it's your own responsibility to make sure nobody else gets subjected to it. Unless he expressly said that she should stay the hell away from him when sleeping he is as guilty as can be. (In my eyes, not in the eyes of ze law)
On July 06 2011 11:56 Hynda wrote: can't help but feel like this should be treated the same way as people with deadly/serious diseases, it's your own responsibility to make sure nobody else gets subjected to it. Unless he expressly said that she should stay the hell away from him when sleeping he is as guilty as can be. (In my eyes, not in the eyes of ze law)
So if someone has some serious disease (e.g. Ebola) and someone climbs into bed with them while they are asleep ( yes this is extreme, replace ebola with whatever deadly disease you like), we must charge them with murder if they managed to survive. Even though they had no part in the action putting the person in danger. This is outrageous should we punish anyone with a dangerous disease sleeping in his/her own bed because someone may climb into bed with them while they are sleeping (He did not tell her too).
It really shouldn't be called "Sexomnia." Sexomnia is more than likely a mix of the words "sex" and "insomnia," which implies that either he cannot sleep until he has sex, or cannot have sex till he's asleep. The name really should be something more along the lines of "sleepsexing" or "unconciousgropingandorviolatingsomeoneandhavingnomemoryofwhathappenedalledgedly."
On July 06 2011 11:56 Hynda wrote: can't help but feel like this should be treated the same way as people with deadly/serious diseases, it's your own responsibility to make sure nobody else gets subjected to it. Unless he expressly said that she should stay the hell away from him when sleeping he is as guilty as can be. (In my eyes, not in the eyes of ze law)
So if someone has some serious disease (e.g. Ebola) and someone climbs into bed with them while they are asleep ( yes this is extreme, replace ebola with whatever deadly disease you like), we must charge them with murder if they managed to survive. Even though they had no part in the action putting the person in danger. This is outrageous should we punish anyone with a dangerous disease sleeping in his/her own bed because someone may climb into bed with them while they are sleeping (He did not tell her too).
I'm pretty sure Hynda refers to the rules surrounding someone with HIV. It is punishable by law to have unprotected sex when you suffer from HIV, unless you tell your partner about it. And the punishment isn't just some slap on the wrist, it is prisontime, and IIRC (I'm a bit hazy on this part) punishable to the same degree as manslaughter.
I know there has been talk about abolishing this law as HIV is no longer a deathsentence, and tbh I think that in this case, the "disease" (I would rather go with condition as it is hard to really call it a disease in the traditional sense) is severe enough, nor holds severe enough ramifications to actually warrant the stigma.
On July 06 2011 12:16 ninjakingcola wrote: It really shouldn't be called "Sexomnia." Sexomnia is more than likely a mix of the words "sex" and "insomnia," which implies that either he cannot sleep until he has sex, or cannot have sex till he's asleep. The name really should be something more along the lines of "sleepsexing" or "unconciousgropingandorviolatingsomeoneandhavingnomemoryofwhathappenedalledgedly."
It's mixing the word sex with the somnia part of insomnia. I'm not entirely sure but I would guess that 'somnia' means sleep or something similar. Putting the 'in' in front makes it mean an inability to sleep.
On July 06 2011 11:56 Hynda wrote: can't help but feel like this should be treated the same way as people with deadly/serious diseases, it's your own responsibility to make sure nobody else gets subjected to it. Unless he expressly said that she should stay the hell away from him when sleeping he is as guilty as can be. (In my eyes, not in the eyes of ze law)
So if someone has some serious disease (e.g. Ebola) and someone climbs into bed with them while they are asleep ( yes this is extreme, replace ebola with whatever deadly disease you like), we must charge them with murder if they managed to survive. Even though they had no part in the action putting the person in danger. This is outrageous should we punish anyone with a dangerous disease sleeping in his/her own bed because someone may climb into bed with them while they are sleeping (He did not tell her too).
I'm pretty sure Hynda refers to the rules surrounding someone with HIV. It is punishable by law to have unprotected sex when you suffer from HIV, unless you tell your partner about it. And the punishment isn't just some slap on the wrist, it is prisontime, and IIRC (I'm a bit hazy on this part) punishable to the same degree as manslaughter.
I know there has been talk about abolishing this law as HIV is no longer a deathsentence, and tbh I think that in this case, the "disease" (I would rather go with condition as it is hard to really call it a disease in the traditional sense) is severe enough, nor holds severe enough ramifications to actually warrant the stigma.
I see your point. However, in regards to an HIV example the most comparable I can make this would be someone coming to you when you are seriously injured and bleeding and contracts the disease, but it is your fault you did not tell them even though you were unconscious due to lack of blood. That is as close a comparison as can be made I feel and is a terrible one at that. HIV is not really comparable to this disorder and if indeed that is what was being referred to is an extremely inaccurate analogy.
On July 06 2011 12:16 ninjakingcola wrote: It really shouldn't be called "Sexomnia." Sexomnia is more than likely a mix of the words "sex" and "insomnia," which implies that either he cannot sleep until he has sex, or cannot have sex till he's asleep. The name really should be something more along the lines of "sleepsexing" or "unconciousgropingandorviolatingsomeoneandhavingnomemoryofwhathappenedalledgedly."
It's mixing the word sex with the somnia part of insomnia. I'm not entirely sure but I would guess that 'somnia' means sleep or something similar. Putting the 'in' in front makes it mean an inability to sleep.
(According to Wikipedia) Somnus is the name of a Roman god that was the personification of sleep, that's where words like somnambulance come from. So sexsomnia would literally mean "sleep sex," while insomnia means "not sleep" due to the in- prefix.
On July 06 2011 10:52 Zedromas wrote: Sex without consent is AT BEST a lesser crime? WTF are u smoking?? If this logic were true then every prison in the world would be empty.
Yes, it is a lesser crime. In some states, it is required that you forcibly commit the rape (if you don't use force, it's a lesser crime). In all states, it is required that you intend to have sexual intercourse with the victim, without his or her consent. This is why if you are mistaken to consent, it is a lesser crime. I don't know what the distinctions are over in England, but based on precedent set over 100 years ago, the intent of the defendant matters (husband convinced two drinking buddies to come home with him and fuck his wife by telling them that she enjoyed getting gangbanged by random people, the two guys were like "oh ok, if you say so, let's go do it". Obviously the woman had no desire to be gangbanged, all three were charged with rape, and the other two guys' rape conviction was overturned because they lacked the requisite intent to rape).
Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Yea, but I also don't make wild assumptions on people just based on appearances. It's fine that you outed yourself as someone who does, I won't judge you.
Someone, PLEASE, explain to me why so many people on TL are jumping to this slime bucket's defense? I've read many posts (Like Jinro's) proclaiming that sleep-walking is some sort of terrible affliction that deserves some sort of exception in the law.
I'm not jumping to his defense.
He fucked a 16 year old girl without her consent. I don't care if he was sleepwalking, drunk, high on mescaline or heroin, half-concious, semi-concious; this guy needs to be punished, and severely.
Age of consent be damned........that debate will rage on for another 150 years.
As I was saying, if they charged him with the lesser crime of say, sexual assault, he would have probably been found guilty. Rape? No. he did not intend to rape her, there is no way he should be found guilty of rape. Just look at the UK statute on rape:
(1) A person (A) commits [rape] 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.
You have failed to explain why someone who goes around intentionally raping women because he enjoys it should be treated the same as some college student who mistakenly (but reasonably) believed the woman wanted to have sex, and until you do, your opinion is worthless to me and does not warrant further discussion.
On July 06 2011 12:16 ninjakingcola wrote: It really shouldn't be called "Sexomnia." Sexomnia is more than likely a mix of the words "sex" and "insomnia," which implies that either he cannot sleep until he has sex, or cannot have sex till he's asleep. The name really should be something more along the lines of "sleepsexing" or "unconciousgropingandorviolatingsomeoneandhavingnomemoryofwhathappenedalledgedly."
It isn't officially called sexomnia I believe, but this guy apparently coined the term at some time during his medical career. Here is the except about it from the Canadian Case where he provided medical expert evidence in a sexomnia case.
[10] Dr. Shapiro was qualified on consent as an expert in the fields of psychiatry, psychopharmacology, sleep disorders, including parasomnia and automatism, and the forensic implications of the same. Dr. Shapiro is a recognized international authority in the area of sleep disorders and has lectured and published extensively in the field as evidenced by his extensive curriculum vitae. Dr. Shapiro defined parasomnia as being classified into four types of sleep disorders. In his simplified version, he characterized those classifications as people who sleep too much, people who sleep too little, people who sleep at the wrong time, and, finally, things that go bump in the night. This latter category includes parasomnia. He defined this latter category as unexplained sudden arousals from sleep, where people are not aware of what they are doing. They act in ways that would not make sense otherwise. He pointed out that this group of disorders is more common among children than adults. Fourteen or 15 per cent of children might have experiences of parasomnia but it is widely thought to be about three per cent in adults. By and large, these sudden arousals arise in the deepest part of the sleep cycle. He described characteristics that might “span the range of abrupt arousals from deep sleep to talking in sleep, to getting out of bed, to walking, to actual eating while asleep and having sexual intercourse without being aware of it. In a few reported cases, there has been the actual driving of a motor vehicle while the person is asleep.
[11] During an event of parasomnia, the individual is not conscious of what they are doing. He characterizes this as being without logic or without reason. The phenomenon of sleepwalking is also referred to as somnambulism. Dr. Shapiro himself has coined the term “sexsomnia” to describe the occurrence of sexual behaviour during sleep, which arises while a person is in a parasomnic state.
[12] He went on to describe what he called the “architecture of sleep”. This consists of components of light sleep initially, then intermediate sleep and followed by deep sleep. In each of these cycles, the duration of dream time (R.E.M., or rapid eye movement) gets longer and longer. Parasomnic activity more often occurs during deep sleep. Parasomniacs have abrupt arousals from deep sleep, which nobody else has. There is a very distinctive change in the brainwave pattern from deep sleep to abrupt arousal, which is the one thing in his opinion that nobody can fake. The technology used to measure these changing brain waves is called polysomnography. The patient is hooked up to electrodes around the eyes and the chin. Measurements are also made of breathing and oxygen levels. Brainwaves are measured and recorded during deep sleep. This technology has been useful in distinguishing between false and legitimate parasomnia claimants, according to the evidence of Dr. Shapiro.
On July 06 2011 09:42 TheDougler wrote: If I may say so I do believe that Leprollo has been the more polite one in this conversation although neither of you could be called "reasonable" as neither of you have been able to be reasoned with.
Leprollo has one opinion, Eleaven has another. Neither of you are going to be able to convince the other to change your opinions.
Also yeah... I think the whole issue is pretty fucked but if the guy has a disease then he has a disease. It's a horrible set of circumstances.
His style was admittedly much more subtle and subversive, but don't mistake it for politeness.
anyway, bridge under the water, he apologised over PM, and i graciously accepted
For the record, Eleaven, I did no such thing.
Eleavan did, however, continue to insult me in his fashion via our PM discussion.
I did agree to drop it, but I see he's come back to the thread to make erroneous claims.
Why would I ever apologize to someone who called me a mentally-unstable christian-conservative troll, just because I have an opinion on the simple matter of what is the appropriate consenting age?
I did offer to apologize for him for calling him a "cradle robber", at one point, but that was all I apologized for. He likewise apologized for nothing and continued to assert that I was a horrible person.
Nice guy. And that's why I come here: to make friends.
Who thought it was a good idea for a SICK 16yo girl to sleep in close proximity to another person? Especially a 43yo man suffering from "sexsomnia". IMO that person should be convicted. Even if he didn't (accidentally?) rape her, she could've spread her illness to him.
The problem with most people posting on cases like these is they let their preconceived emotions dictate whether they feel the person is guilty or not. The man had evidence proving his condition including a legitimate doctor and his previous partners. This ruling seems completely legitimate to me.
On July 06 2011 13:46 Malarkey817 wrote: Who thought it was a good idea for a SICK 16yo girl to sleep in close proximity to another person? Especially a 43yo man suffering from "sexsomnia". IMO that person should be convicted. Even if he didn't (accidentally?) rape her, she could've spread her illness to him.
Hahaha, this is my favorite post so far. So you're saying that because she was sick, and could have spread her illness (you obviously gotta read between the lines to know its contagious), the guy whose bed she hopped into should be convicted of rape because her sickness might have spread to him?
Or are you saying she should be convicted? Perhaps for raping his immune system?
Or some mystery 3rd person setting the stage for her being raped, and for facilitating the spreading of disease?
I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
Since I don't get tired of saying it: he didn't invite a 16 year old over. She was put into his bed without his knowledge.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
Blame how the law is written if you have such a problem with it. You cannot be asleep and say that you intentionally did anything. To be convicted of rape, the law requires intentional penetration of the mouth, vagina, or anus, by the defendant's penis.
FYI insanity or any kind of mental disorder is not a defense to murder, or rape. You will still be sentenced. You will remitted into custody of a mental hospital for the criminally insane, where you will serve your sentence as if you were not insane, until such time as your sentence is up, or you have been deemed cured. The idea that you can claim insanity and get off scot free is a LIE perpetuated by the media.
long time lurker but never posted, just had to register for this since a lot of the posts in this thread are really irky.
My GF occasionally says in the morning i do this too, not actual sex, more groping. How do you propose i stop this, she says im more prone to doing it if i have been drinking heavily.
i do not recall any of it at all. that guy cant help it just as you cant help it when you sleep walk or sleep eat or talk.
On July 06 2011 21:21 Arunu wrote: long time lurker but never posted, just had to register for this since a lot of the posts in this thread are really irky.
My GF occasionally says in the morning i do this too, not actual sex, more groping. How do you propose i stop this, she says im more prone to doing it if i have been drinking heavily.
i do not recall any of it at all. that guy cant help it just as you cant help it when you sleep walk or sleep eat or talk.
Groping is pretty easy, just means moving your hand a bit generally. Rape on the other hand requires one to remove both parties pants and putting ya dick in.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
It was not a crime, and it IS a legit disease.
He did not invite her into his bedroom.
As someone who has had sex with his significant other in his sleep and had no recollection of it at all several times, I can tell you this is very real and not controllable. It's also very obvious to the partner that you are actually still asleep. I've also been known to walk over to my alarm that is in another room, turn it off, and lie back down in my sleep without waking up, completely unaware I've ever done it. To the point I have an alarm that takes several buttons to press so I'll wake up from it, and even then when my body gets used to it I have to hide it somewhere different.
IT IS NOT RAPE. He did not want to have sex with the girl, he had no motive or rational thought towards it happening. He also was not concious! It's the same as having a dream you don't remember. You can't help or control the dream, and you have no fucking clue what happened in that dream when you wake up.
She was the one who climbed into bed with him. He was not guilty in any way, shape or form.
On July 06 2011 21:21 Arunu wrote: long time lurker but never posted, just had to register for this since a lot of the posts in this thread are really irky.
My GF occasionally says in the morning i do this too, not actual sex, more groping. How do you propose i stop this, she says im more prone to doing it if i have been drinking heavily.
i do not recall any of it at all. that guy cant help it just as you cant help it when you sleep walk or sleep eat or talk.
Groping is pretty easy, just means moving your hand a bit generally. Rape on the other hand requires one to remove both parties pants and putting ya dick in.
I can tell you think you're making a good point, but you're not.
I have a history of activity while sleeping. I go sleep walking a lot - get up, walk up and down stairs, stand in the living room yelling, announce to my wife that "there's a monkey in the room!", even engage in sex - all without waking up. It's absolutely possible to engage in complex activities without being conscious.
On July 06 2011 01:32 EternaLEnVy wrote: Ridiculous how he can get away with this. If he knew about his condition and so did his family members they should have never let her stay in her house. Sure you may not want to tell people, but just make a poor excuse to keep her safe from your house.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
Blame how the law is written if you have such a problem with it. You cannot be asleep and say that you intentionally did anything. To be convicted of rape, the law requires intentional penetration of the mouth, vagina, or anus, by the defendant's penis.
FYI insanity or any kind of mental disorder is not a defense to murder, or rape. You will still be sentenced. You will remitted into custody of a mental hospital for the criminally insane, where you will serve your sentence as if you were not insane, until such time as your sentence is up, or you have been deemed cured. The idea that you can claim insanity and get off scot free is a LIE perpetuated by the media.
+1, If one was proven to be a danger to society though commiting criminal activity then one pays ones debts to society, either through financial restitution or in more serious cases, by removal from society for a time to be "rehabilitated" and learn the error of their ways, and also through working for the community (and nothing else) via prison work gangs (road gangs, licence plate manufacture etc).
If one can satisfy the court that one had no concious control over ones actions and "couldnt help it" that they commited the crime, then one cannot be considered a safe member of society and should be therefore removed for the safety of themselves and others. They should remain locked "safely away" until such time as they can be proven (by a mental physician) to be safe to re-enter society again.
IMO the criminally insane should NEVER be released until they have a mental physicians clearance as if released without said clearance they are a high threat of re-offending (and therefore causing further damage to society).
To take it even further... If one is considered to be criminally insane to such a degree that he cannot be cured and it is unlikely there will ever be a cure in his lifetime AND the nature of his insanity is to put others at serious risk of life, then the insane person should be (humanely) put down, the same as serial offenders of serious crime are dealt with (after all, why should the state continue to care and feed a person who will have no value whatsoever to society and will only ever be a burden.
If his insanity doesnt cause serious risk to life, then other perminant means are needed to ensure the threat is removed (chemical castration is one means to curb serial rapists who "just cant help themselves")
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
It was not a crime, and it IS a legit disease.
He did not invite her into his bedroom.
As someone who has had sex with his significant other in his sleep and had no recollection of it at all several times, I can tell you this is very real and not controllable. It's also very obvious to the partner that you are actually still asleep. I've also been known to walk over to my alarm that is in another room, turn it off, and lie back down in my sleep without waking up, completely unaware I've ever done it. To the point I have an alarm that takes several buttons to press so I'll wake up from it, and even then when my body gets used to it I have to hide it somewhere different.
IT IS NOT RAPE. He did not want to have sex with the girl, he had no motive or rational thought towards it happening. He also was not concious! It's the same as having a dream you don't remember. You can't help or control the dream, and you have no fucking clue what happened in that dream when you wake up.
She was the one who climbed into bed with him. He was not guilty in any way, shape or form.
It may not have been rape, but his actions (caused by his illness) still caused damage to society and may therefore do so again unless treated. So technically, yeah, he was charged with the wrong crime and was not be found guilty of rape per se, but should still be charged with sexual assault with the sentance being manditory therapy or drug treatment to ensure he cannot reoffend. (Plus if he is aware of his "condition" he should disclose it to all parties it MAY effect, roommates, & other female houseguest just on the "off chance" they sleep over and his nocturnal movements are set to "frisky". I dont care how "uncomfortable" this may make him)
Plus the victim is still entitled to civil damages regardles of any criminal outcome.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
Sleep walking aside, sexsomnia aside. I just believe there are crimes you dont just get to walk away from namely rape and murder. You rape some one you cant just say sad day for you i have a condition. For murder you have negligent homocide. I dont suppose theres anything like that for rape but if this happens there should be. Some crimes are so serious that it doesnt matter if you mean to do it or not if you did you get punished. I think rape falls in that catagory just my opinion.
On the plus side jinro responded to me <3 Jinro gl in all your matches =D
in cases where memory of the sexual act is not retained, the detection of used condoms and semen stains on the bed the morning after the sexual incident are signs of the affliction.
OK.. that was a quote from the wiki linked earlier on this post..... detection of used condoms? Amazing that while still asleep they can have the presence of mind to suit up!
And its been said before, but the wrongness is in 2 parts: 1. that a 16 year old is willing to share the bed of an old man - sexsomnia or not, and 2. that she was told to do so. If either of those 2 hadn't happened, then the whole situation wouldnt have happened.
Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
Yours occurs because of an action that you know will lead to you driving. - i.e you are responsible for your conscious actions
His occurs because of something that happens in his sleep, which he didn't provoke in anyway - it was someone else that created the situation by telling her to get into bed with him.
A better analogy would be... i know you get drunk, and then drive your car, so I spike your orange juice, and leave the keys to your car in front of you.... I also round up the person, tie them to the ground so that you will be certain to run them over.
... i.e put the blame and responsibility where it belongs... on the fool that told her to get into bed with him.
Though, since they can put interlockers in the car so u have to breath test to allow the car to start, maybe he could wear a chastity belt at night
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
It was not a crime, and it IS a legit disease.
He did not invite her into his bedroom.
As someone who has had sex with his significant other in his sleep and had no recollection of it at all several times, I can tell you this is very real and not controllable. It's also very obvious to the partner that you are actually still asleep. I've also been known to walk over to my alarm that is in another room, turn it off, and lie back down in my sleep without waking up, completely unaware I've ever done it. To the point I have an alarm that takes several buttons to press so I'll wake up from it, and even then when my body gets used to it I have to hide it somewhere different.
IT IS NOT RAPE. He did not want to have sex with the girl, he had no motive or rational thought towards it happening. He also was not concious! It's the same as having a dream you don't remember. You can't help or control the dream, and you have no fucking clue what happened in that dream when you wake up.
She was the one who climbed into bed with him. He was not guilty in any way, shape or form.
It may not have been rape, but his actions (caused by his illness) still caused damage to society and may therefore do so again unless treated. So technically, yeah, he was charged with the wrong crime and was not be found guilty of rape per se, but should still be charged with sexual assault with the sentance being manditory therapy or drug treatment to ensure he cannot reoffend. (Plus if he is aware of his "condition" he should disclose it to all parties it MAY effect, roommates, & other female houseguest just on the "off chance" they sleep over and his nocturnal movements are set to "frisky". I dont care how "uncomfortable" this may make him)
Plus the victim is still entitled to civil damages regardles of any criminal outcome.
problem with that is it deals with the brain and as far as i am concerned it is untreatable this is not something so simple as a disease it is a disorder in the genes that cause this to happen as well as brain activity if there was a way to stop it then i suppose you have a point but i would definitely not be a test subject for any sort of testing when i have a very rare disorder that just so happened to be a problem on a night when a person snuck into my bed without my permission or knowledge while i was asleep
please stop thinking he committed a crime when he didn't and was just an unfortunate event
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
Since sleep apnea can possibly cause it, maybe if ppl with that condition slept with an oxygen mask and have a deep sleep without the problem of not breathing for a while to wake them up constantly through the night, sexsomnia might be cured!
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
Heres a better one then. Im prone to randomly falling alseep. Diagonsed by a doctor its legit. Knowning this i decide to drive anyways. I fall asleep crash and kill sumbody. Am I at fault? Yes. Why? Because I should have known better than to be driving.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
I suggest you read the little white box at the top of this thread
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
That statement might be justified if he had previously wandered into other people's beds, but there is no indication of that... from the looks of things the previous incidents all occurred in his own bed (shared with his partner at the time)... as such, try putting your blame on the person who told her to get into his bed. She also isn't a 'little girl' shes 2 years (Aus) from being an adult, so I find it a bit strange that she willingly shared his bed anyway :S
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
I suggest you read the little white box at the top of this thread
I suggest you read my post.
I did read the OP i she shouldnt have been in the house period. Not that he allowed her or knew she was in his bed.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
I suggest you read the little white box at the top of this thread
I suggest you read my post.
I did read the OP i she shouldnt have been in the house period. Not that he allowed her or knew she was in his bed.
The negligence that occured was from the one that told her to share his bed
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
Sleep walking aside, sexsomnia aside. I just believe there are crimes you dont just get to walk away from namely rape and murder. You rape some one you cant just say sad day for you i have a condition. For murder you have negligent homocide. I dont suppose theres anything like that for rape but if this happens there should be. Some crimes are so serious that it doesnt matter if you mean to do it or not if you did you get punished. I think rape falls in that catagory just my opinion.
On the plus side jinro responded to me <3 Jinro gl in all your matches =D
people have been found not guilty for killing other people in their sleep. Homicidal sleepwalking is quite rare but it does happen. And due to it's rarity not many people are sure what to do about it, some have been found guilty some not guilty.
On July 06 2011 22:12 Detwiler wrote: Heres a better one then. Im prone to randomly falling alseep. Diagonsed by a doctor its legit. Knowning this i decide to drive anyways. I fall asleep crash and kill sumbody. Am I at fault? Yes. Why? Because I should have known better than to be driving.
Of course you are at fault. However, you should be tried for manslaughter or negligent homicide, not murder. The man in this case was tried for rape, not a lesser sexual assault crime (and these do exist). Rape requires intentional penetration. Not 'negligent penetration', or 'reckless penetration'.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
I suggest you read the little white box at the top of this thread
I suggest you read my post.
I did read the OP i she shouldnt have been in the house period. Not that he allowed her or knew she was in his bed.
The negligence that occured was from the one that told her to share his bed
That deffinately agrueable i just happen to not agree with it /shrug agree to disagree
I did read the OP i she shouldnt have been in the house period. Not that he allowed her or knew she was in his bed.
fair enough but what if he didnt knew he did this while he sleeps ? i know he did, the article mentions it , but i cant grasp the people saying it is rape. if you arent aware of it and only become aware of it when someone else mentions it to you after having seen you do it, the damage would have been done in his case.
I would still love if someone who has better information (maybe from the UK) could clear up some things:
- did anyone tell her to go into his bed (like Guardian says) - who invited her into his home? why did a teenage girl stay in an adults man's house? - who else was in the house that night?
On July 06 2011 22:26 Abenson wrote: Still, I think it's kind of weird - I would prefer a small, not big like 10 year prison sentences, but something instead of nothing.
Also, people need to read the full article first o.o
Something would imply he was guilty, as has been said before rape is intentional penetration.
So if it wasn't rape, what would you charge him for? By your definition, because the condition is 'weird', he deserves to be punished, but only a little? ok.....
Again, someone should be punished.. the stupid fool that told her to go to his bed... that has to be a criminally negligent action.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
It was not a crime, and it IS a legit disease.
He did not invite her into his bedroom.
As someone who has had sex with his significant other in his sleep and had no recollection of it at all several times, I can tell you this is very real and not controllable. It's also very obvious to the partner that you are actually still asleep. I've also been known to walk over to my alarm that is in another room, turn it off, and lie back down in my sleep without waking up, completely unaware I've ever done it. To the point I have an alarm that takes several buttons to press so I'll wake up from it, and even then when my body gets used to it I have to hide it somewhere different.
IT IS NOT RAPE. He did not want to have sex with the girl, he had no motive or rational thought towards it happening. He also was not concious! It's the same as having a dream you don't remember. You can't help or control the dream, and you have no fucking clue what happened in that dream when you wake up.
She was the one who climbed into bed with him. He was not guilty in any way, shape or form.
I understand what you're saying, but lets be clear. It IS rape. You can rape a girl without having any rational thought towards it. If you were 40 years old and lets say blackout drunk, and therefore had no control over your thoughts, don't remember what happened in the morning or why you did it, but had sex with a 16 year old (given age of consent laws) it WOULD be considered statutory rape, and if you were blackout drunk and had sex with a girl without her consent even if she was of age it would still be rape.
If the definition of rape changes in some peoples minds to "oh well he didn't know he was having sex with a girl so it's totally fine" then that's a dangerous road in my opinion.
However, yes, it is a disease so the rest of what you say is logical.
On July 06 2011 13:58 chaopow wrote: I dont know if its totally fair that people can get off of a huge crime when they claim they have a disease. If lawyers know a killer is guilty, they will probably ask them if they have any mental problems or disorders. No matter what disease he has, he still took lives that cant be replaced.
Its the same thing here. Also, if you claim and know you have sexsomnia, then dont invite a 16 year old girl over even if you have no bad intentions. He should be guilty.
It was not a crime, and it IS a legit disease.
He did not invite her into his bedroom.
As someone who has had sex with his significant other in his sleep and had no recollection of it at all several times, I can tell you this is very real and not controllable. It's also very obvious to the partner that you are actually still asleep. I've also been known to walk over to my alarm that is in another room, turn it off, and lie back down in my sleep without waking up, completely unaware I've ever done it. To the point I have an alarm that takes several buttons to press so I'll wake up from it, and even then when my body gets used to it I have to hide it somewhere different.
IT IS NOT RAPE. He did not want to have sex with the girl, he had no motive or rational thought towards it happening. He also was not concious! It's the same as having a dream you don't remember. You can't help or control the dream, and you have no fucking clue what happened in that dream when you wake up.
She was the one who climbed into bed with him. He was not guilty in any way, shape or form.
I understand what you're saying, but lets be clear. It IS rape. You can rape a girl without having any rational thought towards it. If you were 40 years old and lets say blackout drunk, and therefore had no control over your thoughts, don't remember what happened in the morning or why you did it, but had sex with a 16 year old (given age of consent laws) it WOULD be considered statutory rape, and if you were blackout drunk and had sex with a girl without her consent even if she was of age it would still be rape.
If the definition of rape changes in some peoples minds to "oh well he didn't know he was having sex with a girl so it's totally fine" then that's a dangerous road in my opinion.
However, yes, it is a disease so the rest of what you say is logical.
If you are blackout drunk, you are still conscious.. your decision making is impaired, but you are sitll responsible. If you are asleep, then you are not conscious, and you arent making decisions.
When you are drunk, it is intentional, when you are asleep, it cannot possibly be intentional.
This is obviously the case, because he was declared innocent, so it cannot possibly be rape
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
I suggest you read the little white box at the top of this thread
I suggest you read my post.
I did read the OP i she shouldnt have been in the house period. Not that he allowed her or knew she was in his bed.
I don't see where it's said that he allowed her to be in the house. We don't know the reason why she was there so you can't assume that he wanted that to happen. Also, I don't see why the girl shouldn't be in the house. Apparently this guy doesn't wander in the house and ''rapes'' everyone who is in his way so as long as you are not in the same bed(or room?) you are not in danger of anything. The only person to blame is the one that told the girl to sleep in the same bed as him.
On July 06 2011 22:29 Fenrax wrote: I would still love if someone who has better information (maybe from the UK) could clear up some things:
- did anyone tell her to go into his bed (like Guardian says) - who invited her into his home? why did a teenage girl stay in an adults man's house? - who else was in the house that night?
Additionally: why does a teenage girl who gets into another men's bed NOT wake the men to tell him "hi, I'm sleeping right next to you, btw"
I mean, if I was 40 I would be really freaked out if I woke up in the morning and finding a 16 (!) year old lying next to me.
Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
That statement might be justified if he had previously wandered into other people's beds, but there is no indication of that... from the looks of things the previous incidents all occurred in his own bed (shared with his partner at the time)... as such, try putting your blame on the person who told her to get into his bed. She also isn't a 'little girl' shes 2 years (Aus) from being an adult, so I find it a bit strange that she willingly shared his bed anyway :S
Messed up situation
Dude i dont know how old you are but im 26. 16 is a little girl to me and any other grown man.
OK, to clear some things up in terminology: rape (n.) the compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
It's not disputable that it was rape. The dispute is whether the rape was a crime, and as others have posted under the voluntariness part of actus reus this cannot be considered a crime.
It's not an apt metaphor to talk about driving a car when you know you have narcolepsy. It's like you fell asleep randomly in the passenger seat, and then the driver hopped into the backseat and put you in the driver's seat.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
That statement might be justified if he had previously wandered into other people's beds, but there is no indication of that... from the looks of things the previous incidents all occurred in his own bed (shared with his partner at the time)... as such, try putting your blame on the person who told her to get into his bed. She also isn't a 'little girl' shes 2 years (Aus) from being an adult, so I find it a bit strange that she willingly shared his bed anyway :S
Messed up situation
Dude i dont know how old you are but im 26. 16 is a little girl to me and any other grown man.
umm want to make something clear 16 is not a little girl regardless of what you may think she is a teenager and a growing woman not a little girl please be smart and think these things out before posting things age is not an issue here it could have been a 34 year old woman that went into his bed and this same thing could of happen
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
That statement might be justified if he had previously wandered into other people's beds, but there is no indication of that... from the looks of things the previous incidents all occurred in his own bed (shared with his partner at the time)... as such, try putting your blame on the person who told her to get into his bed. She also isn't a 'little girl' shes 2 years (Aus) from being an adult, so I find it a bit strange that she willingly shared his bed anyway :S
Messed up situation
Dude i dont know how old you are but im 26. 16 is a little girl to me and any other grown man.
umm want to make something clear 16 is not a little girl regardless of what you may think she is a teenager and a growing woman not a little girl please be smart and think these things out before posting things age is not an issue here it could have been a 34 year old woman that went into his bed and this same thing could of happen
EDIT: actually he said any other grown man, disregard.
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.
On July 06 2011 21:53 ShatterStorm wrote: Let me make an analogy, Say I have a compulsion to drink (an alcoholic) and when I am drunk, my judgement is impared to the point where I quite happily drive my car.
If I am aware of this predeliction to DUI and then run someone over, am I not responsible for the injury my drunken actions caused ? Should I keep a car if I KNOW I am prone to picking uo the keys and driving it when drunk (and cant help but get drunk often)?
Even if I "manage" my problem and ensure I have no access to a personal vehicle while drunk due to fitting an inhibitor to my vehicle, should it not also be my responsibility to warn guests (while I am sober) to not leave their car keys lying around "just in case"?
You can choose not to drink. If you can't then you need rehab. Problem solved
What do you suggest for him, that he chooses not to sleep? Poor analogy.
I suggest he doesnt let little girls stay in his house when its known hes prone to random acts of rape. The OP said 3 people testifed that hes does this that means it was known problem. As such he was negligant in allowing the girl to sleep in his house. He shouldnt have been allowed to just walk away from this.
That statement might be justified if he had previously wandered into other people's beds, but there is no indication of that... from the looks of things the previous incidents all occurred in his own bed (shared with his partner at the time)... as such, try putting your blame on the person who told her to get into his bed. She also isn't a 'little girl' shes 2 years (Aus) from being an adult, so I find it a bit strange that she willingly shared his bed anyway :S
Messed up situation
Dude i dont know how old you are but im 26. 16 is a little girl to me and any other grown man.
I'm 30.. but i'm not talking about little girl in terms of i'd want to sleep with her, i'm talking about the fact that shes not a 'little girl' like a 5 year old who couldn't work out that this was a bad idea.
The man isn't guilty whatsoever. He should receive zero flak for this situation, but I know he will (besides in this topic, that is) and it's a damn shame. Both whoever directed the girl to sleep in his bed and the girl herself are more at fault.
For starters, who tells a 16 year old to sleep in the same bed as a 43 year old because the room is a little cooler? What the hell? Who also does that without awaking the man to alert him to this fact, either the person who told the girl to sleep in his bed or the girl herself should have told him even if neither of them had any idea of his condition (If the girl was incredibly sick to the point she didn't have much cognitive awareness she is less at fault here, but if she were that sick you wouldn't throw her in bed with someone else that could have gotten sick as well) and furthermore if it was really just that the room was cooler and it was -THAT- important that she feels cooler then either they could have asked the man to sleep wherever the girl had initially planned on sleeping, gotten a couch/air mattress/padding so one of them could sleep on the floor.
The girl is at fault here because there's no way she was so sick that she didn't have cognitive thought (Because no one would tell her to sleep with the man then, because he'd have the off-chance of getting really sick as well, unless that person is just a douchebag, so yeah there's the chance, but likely not) meaning that she was aware enough to realize what was going on, she could have slept on the floor, asked the man to sleep on the floor or in another room, slept in her initial room, woken the man and at least warned him, or asked whoever initially told her to sleep in the room to facilitate any of that. Instead, she didn't, she jumped in bed and went to sleep.
I'm a little older than half that guys age and let me tell you, if I woke up and randomly found a 16 year old chick in my I would be filled with serious amounts of WTF. Nothing that was done was fair to the man in the least, he's had his name released to the World for an awful crime that came about due to a medical condition and the negligence of others, of course others want to entirely ignore that medical condition and just shun the man to the point of thinking he should be put in jail. "I would prefer a small, not big like 10 year prison sentences, but something instead of nothing" -- Hey idiot, I'm pretty sure 10 years is a long time, even if you are 90 right now, which I know you aren't that is still over 1/10th your life because you have an uncontrollable medical condition and due to other peoples negligence. The mere fact that he's gotten accused of this will surely follow him for the rest of his life and whoever had the girl over there and actually created the situation should feel terrible and should really be the one to blame here, again though I feel absolutely no sympathy for the girl whatsoever unless she was deathly ill to the point she wasn't really aware of what was going on in which case the person who told her to share the bed is even more at fault and should be charged criminally.
Also, it's jokes that people think the man should warn people of his condition, at least in the way they've been suggesting. "Hey, if you let your 16 year old stay over here I may just randomly rape her, sorry, I can't control it!" I'm not saying nothing should be done, but depending on if the guy has actually slept walk before or not there should be measures put in place to prevent this from happening. If it's that he doesn't sleep walk at all he should place a lock on his door and lock it before he sleeps (If he wants air circulation use an indoor screen door), if he does sleep walk and has high levels of use of his body to the extent of potentially finding a key, unlocking the door and going into another room and raping/groping someone then he should install a door much like the other but with a time lock. Only issue accounting for that would be if he had to use the restroom and it isn't attached to his room, then just have something ready to use... This is only for when he'd have guests over too (Unless they were living there) and only if his situation was that bad.
But really, the people who put any blame at all on the man disgust me. I hope you randomly do some shit you control in your sleep at some point and then get put in jail for the "not a long sentence" of 10 years (or more) and everyone laughed at you when you explain, "I couldn't control it, I was sleeping".
Kinda reminds me of when I and a gf were sleeping in the same bed, had watched something so ended up sleeping with my feet at her head and my head at her feet... Anyhow. During the night I first kicked her alittle, she woke up and said something to me only to see I was asleep, the next moment my leg 'leaped up and dropped down with heel first force on her chest'. Only luck it was her chest, only luck she was awake and managed to get an arm or two inbetween. ...I was awakened by a crying girl and I had no idea what had just happened.
And in more relation to this: friend and his gf were sleeping only a month or so relationship. During the night. she had woken up and he was already inside her, since she felt a wee bit on the mood she went full on and engaged in the act to return to sleep after. Now ehm, needless to say in the morning he had no clue, they joked alot about it.
On July 05 2011 23:30 Detwiler wrote: im sorry im just not buyin it. they said rape now im pretty sure that requires penetration which means hes has to get her clothes off then get in her. she obviously is going to fight and make a bunch of noise and in all this he doesnt wake up.wife dont wake up either? oh and he has no memory of it? im just calling bullshit on this. i will take the rapist for 1000 please.
OK, you dont know shit about sleep walking apparently.
At MLG Dallas, I got up, bitchslapped hot_bid and went back to bed.
Gon (one of the oGs coaches) told me he tried to wake me when I was sleep talking/nightmare/moving around etc once, and that didnt work. So he tried shaking me, that didnt work. So he tried slapping me, that didnt work.
He told me this as an apology and I laughed and was like "LOL, I remember 0 of this". You can still function when sleepwalking, you just arent actually aware of any of it.
Sleep walking aside, sexsomnia aside. I just believe there are crimes you dont just get to walk away from namely rape and murder. You rape some one you cant just say sad day for you i have a condition. For murder you have negligent homocide. I dont suppose theres anything like that for rape but if this happens there should be. Some crimes are so serious that it doesnt matter if you mean to do it or not if you did you get punished. I think rape falls in that catagory just my opinion.
On the plus side jinro responded to me <3 Jinro gl in all your matches =D
people have been found not guilty for killing other people in their sleep. Homicidal sleepwalking is quite rare but it does happen. And due to it's rarity not many people are sure what to do about it, some have been found guilty some not guilty.
From what I know, the people found guilty of sleep murder generally tried to fake it, and that's why they didn't get away with it. Usually evidence that shows they researched into other cases of sleep killing recently before the act itself occurred.
To all those who are saying he deserves something just for the act, you are forgetting a key fucking principle of law. Mens Rea. If you do NOT have the intent to commit a crime and can prove you didn't have the intent to do it, then you are not guilty of the crime. If you are unable to control yourself, or are not cognitively aware of what you are doing, then you can not be held liable for your actions, assuming you can prove said state never existed.
I don't give a fuck if he raped some girl, if he didn't do it on purpose then he shouldn't be charged. I would even put that farther then this case and say statutory rape is a bullshit crime. I really don't like the idea of strict liability crimes. I feel like its a loophole that shouldn't be there. In this case I am happy rape isn't some sort of strict liability crime because this guy actually getting in trouble would be a load of shit.
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
Well, I have experienced sexsomnia several times and before now never considered it dangerous or a disease. There are several others in this thread saying the same, so it seems quite common.
His acquittal is more to do with the technicalities of a rape charge without intent. He probably could have been convicted of various other assault charges if they had come about.
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
Your clarification makes you look even worse. Being aware of what you are doing completely matters in a criminal case. Furthermore, blacking out and sleeping are not the same. If you use drugs/alcohol and those cause you to black out and do something stupid, you are responsible unless you can prove you didn't willingly drink/use drugs that caused you to do it.
The guy suffers from a disorder, one that is not generally dangerous barring certain scenarios that can be avoided. It wasn't his fault the girl came into his bed, and its not like putting him in some sort of clinic would make a difference, he doesn't have a mind that makes him dangerous so there is nothing to treat. Not much more can be said except your opinion is completely wrong and to treat this guy like hes a murder or a serial rapist is completely unfair.
Why would the girl stay at his house in the first place? If the man knew he had this disease, he would probably try to get rid of any possibility of something like this to happen. The girl wouldn't have any idea about the disease but the man should really have done something.
And what exactly is this "was told to share his bed because his room was cooler". Who told her to share the bed then? Was it the man or is there another person in this house? And, again the question of why didn't the man do anything about it applies here. In his defense he claims he has a disease where he basically has sleep sex and does not remember it. It has happened to him in the past so I'm sure he is aware of it after his partners told him. Why would he let the girl sleep in the same bed as him? I'm sure any 43 year old with or without any diseases would not even risk the chance of being accused of something they didnt even do, but in this case, a rape actually did occur. Just being in the bed could lead to trouble/accusations. If he knew about this, he should have switched rooms or went to a different bed than the girl.
I feel like they missed putting a couple really important details on the news.
On July 06 2011 23:47 chaopow wrote: Why would the girl stay at his house in the first place? If the man knew he had this disease, he would probably try to get rid of any possibility of something like this to happen. The girl wouldn't have any idea about the disease but the man should really have done something.
And what exactly is this "was told to share his bed because his room was cooler". Who told her to share the bed then? Was it the man or is there another person in this house? And, again the question of why didn't the man do anything about it applies here. In his defense he claims he has a disease where he basically has sleep sex and does not remember it. It has happened to him in the past so I'm sure he is aware of it after his partners told him. Why would he let the girl sleep in the same bed as him? I'm sure any 43 year old with or without any diseases would not even risk the chance of being accused of something they didnt even do, but in this case, a rape actually did occur. Just being in the bed could lead to trouble/accusations. If he knew about this, he should have switched rooms or went to a different bed than the girl.
I feel like they missed putting a couple really important details on the news.
You didn't even read all of the available details.
He did not know she was in the bed. He was asleep when she got in.
On July 06 2011 23:47 chaopow wrote: Why would the girl stay at his house in the first place? If the man knew he had this disease, he would probably try to get rid of any possibility of something like this to happen. The girl wouldn't have any idea about the disease but the man should really have done something.
And what exactly is this "was told to share his bed because his room was cooler". Who told her to share the bed then? Was it the man or is there another person in this house? And, again the question of why didn't the man do anything about it applies here. In his defense he claims he has a disease where he basically has sleep sex and does not remember it. It has happened to him in the past so I'm sure he is aware of it after his partners told him. Why would he let the girl sleep in the same bed as him? I'm sure any 43 year old with or without any diseases would not even risk the chance of being accused of something they didnt even do, but in this case, a rape actually did occur. Just being in the bed could lead to trouble/accusations. If he knew about this, he should have switched rooms or went to a different bed than the girl.
I feel like they missed putting a couple really important details on the news.
You didn't even read all of the available details.
He did not know she was in the bed. He was asleep when she got in.
Then who told her to sleep in his bed becauase it was cooler? Also, why was the girl there in the first place, and my first point still stands here.
On July 06 2011 23:47 chaopow wrote: Why would the girl stay at his house in the first place? If the man knew he had this disease, he would probably try to get rid of any possibility of something like this to happen. The girl wouldn't have any idea about the disease but the man should really have done something.
And what exactly is this "was told to share his bed because his room was cooler". Who told her to share the bed then? Was it the man or is there another person in this house? And, again the question of why didn't the man do anything about it applies here. In his defense he claims he has a disease where he basically has sleep sex and does not remember it. It has happened to him in the past so I'm sure he is aware of it after his partners told him. Why would he let the girl sleep in the same bed as him? I'm sure any 43 year old with or without any diseases would not even risk the chance of being accused of something they didnt even do, but in this case, a rape actually did occur. Just being in the bed could lead to trouble/accusations. If he knew about this, he should have switched rooms or went to a different bed than the girl.
I feel like they missed putting a couple really important details on the news.
You didn't even read all of the available details.
He did not know she was in the bed. He was asleep when she got in.
Then who told her to sleep in his bed becauase it was cooler? Also, why was the girl there in the first place, and my first point still stands here.
That is the big question everybody has, and noone has an answer for. Which you would no if you had read any of the 20 pages of this thread, because it comes up at least once per page.
On July 06 2011 23:54 chaopow wrote:Then who told her to sleep in his bed becauase it was cooler? Also, why was the girl there in the first place, and my first point still stands here.
That information doesn't appear to be known.
I don't see why he should have to do anything more than go to sleep alone, which he did.
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.)
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.)
ya, rly, how the fuck is that ok?
The only reason you think it's inappropriate is because when you "share a bed" you snuggle and cuddle as opposed to sleep on complete opposite sides a large bed where there is no possibility of contact.
There is nothing sexual about sharing a bed and sleeping on opposite sides with someone.
On July 06 2011 00:33 Wr3k wrote: What I can't help but wonder is how the fuck you rape someone in your sleep. It's not exactly the easiest thing to get your dick into a girls vag unless shes already wet and presenting it to you. If she had any clothing on how is he going to do this in his sleep? Why can't she just wake him up?
We're not talking about lying flat unconscious sleep. You can be in a state of sleep with your eyes open and your muscles working. I am a terrible liar when asleep, I can be woken, hold long conversations about how I'll get up in just a minute, make promises, agree to things to do later that day, argue etc and have zero recollection of it later. You just get used to it and tell people to ignore you when you're in that state and leave a note for when you wake if they need you to do something.
This happens to everybody. You wake up by your alarm clock and turn it off in an instant, then you fall asleep again, because you were woken up at a bad time. It feels instinctual, but it's not. It's just that you haven't truly woken up, so your memory doesn't register that you turned it off. I have noticed that when I tell myself before I go to sleep that I have to get up when the alarm rings, I always do. I only oversleep when I don't care or when I'm not convinced that I have to go up at the exact time that the clock is ringing. So, as you can see, I make a conscious choice of going up or not going up, even if I may not be fully remember ever making a choice.
The human brain is like a computer, and you could say that the Hard Disk drive is the last thing that gets activated. This means that if you can "shut off" the disruptive sound before you fully activate your brain, you can fall asleep fast enough that you won't even register it, and thus it never happened according to your memory. It's the same if you're talking to someone in your sleep.
So all of this is situational and depends on where in the sleep cycle you are, and if you're a heavy sleeper it's obviously worse. If you wake up during the latter parts, you can regain your conscience in pretty much an instant, while it can take a longer time if you're waking up during the peak of your sleep cycle.
Even if he wasn't completely aware, i.e he didn't fake being half-asleep, you could still question his morals. I think it's complete BS that one wouldn't be able to control oneself and make a decision in this situation. Just because you don't remember making a decision, doesn't mean you didn't make the decision. Any person is responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter if you're drunk, asleep or whatever.
Also, about the girl not waking him up? I don't know about you, but if I was a girl, and woke up in that situation, I would definately make it a first priority to get out of the bed and then walk or take the first bus home. I don't think I would even consider the fact that he could have been asleep, so why would I try to wake him up?
Under these situations he shouldn't get a full penalty, but only because of the fact that someone else put her in his bed without him knowing it. This fact changes everything drastically, because he didn't put himself in a situation where he could be tempted. It was she who did it. If a hot girl laid down in my bed when I was already sleeping, and I voke up, I would definately feel tempted to have sex with her. I would also consider that she chose my bed as a way to hit on me. That's why you don't sleep in the same bed as people of different genders, (unless you're partners), because you don't want to tempt yourself into doing something stupid. If he had known from the get-go that she would sleep in his bed, he wouldn't have been cleared.
This is stupid. My brother is a sleepwalker. And although he is quite stronger than me, I can stop him wandering around without breaking a sweat. She should have been able to escape.
I don't know if this was brought up, but the source the OP used gives a conflicting report with another source. According to the other source, the man was sleeping elsewhere, and then somehow managed to sleepwalk to the room with the girl in it and then attack her.
"The court heard how the 16-year-old stayed in Mr Davies' bed after falling ill, while Mr Davies - who did not know of the teen's presence - slept elsewhere in the house."
On July 07 2011 02:34 BlazingGlory wrote: This is stupid. My brother is a sleepwalker. And although he is quite stronger than me, I can stop him wandering around without breaking a sweat. She should have been able to escape.
Most things been parroted already but there some angles I haven't seen discussed yet. For example where I live it's rape to have sex with a sleeping person which could change this case a lot. Another angle could be what if it was "only" oral sex(which as far as I know is also rape where I live) and the roles were the opposite, as in a guy waking up by a sexsomniac girl performing oral sex on him.
I know what I think personally, especially since my brother in law have such serious "sleep walking" problems that it almost killed him(injured for life). But those that think the society should punish this guy, would it matter if it for example was the girl that had sexsomnia instead?
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
Your clarification makes you look even worse. Being aware of what you are doing completely matters in a criminal case. Furthermore, blacking out and sleeping are not the same. If you use drugs/alcohol and those cause you to black out and do something stupid, you are responsible unless you can prove you didn't willingly drink/use drugs that caused you to do it.
The guy suffers from a disorder, one that is not generally dangerous barring certain scenarios that can be avoided. It wasn't his fault the girl came into his bed, and its not like putting him in some sort of clinic would make a difference, he doesn't have a mind that makes him dangerous so there is nothing to treat. Not much more can be said except your opinion is completely wrong and to treat this guy like hes a murder or a serial rapist is completely unfair.
Ugh, he suffers from a disorder? Please. People have to be responsible for their own actions. The girl can be responsible for the fact that, maybe, she shouldn't have gotten into his bed. But for god's sake, the dude HAS to be responsible for having sex with her, none of this "Oh. Well it's a disorder. Case closed."
On July 07 2011 04:22 ShAsTa wrote: Shouldn't he have been found guilty and the punishment reduced? Saying not guilty is almost like saying it didn't happen.
It didn't. He was charged of rape, and he did not commit a rape.
He did commit an involuntary sexual assault, but that's neither a crime nor what he was on trial for.
On July 07 2011 04:28 Shamrock_ wrote:Ugh, he suffers from a disorder? Please. People have to be responsible for their own actions. The girl can be responsible for the fact that, maybe, she shouldn't have gotten into his bed. But for god's sake, the dude HAS to be responsible for having sex with her, none of this "Oh. Well it's a disorder. Case closed."
You can't be responsible for an involuntary act.
If you had a flu and were passed out, and someone decides to climb into your bed with neither your knoweldge nor permission (duh, since you're unconscious), and gets sick, are you responsible?
Because that's the equivalent of what happened here. He had a condition that he knew about, but would not reasonably harm anyone who did not share a bed with him. The sexual assault only happened because a teenage girl decided to climb in bed with a naked 43-year-old without his knowledge.
Which states several things that really haven't been addressed yet in this thread.
"Davies, who said he always slept naked..."
Another former partner said she could have entire conversations with him, as well as full sexual intercourse, without him waking up.
I would also like to challenge the statement that someone told her to sleep there, because I have only seen that written once in ten articles from 'semi' reliable sources. I say semi because I have no personal knowledge of the bias in British publications, but the publishers were all respectable enough to use in a collegiate essay.
On July 07 2011 04:33 Jormundr wrote:I would also like to challenge the statement that someone told her to sleep there, because I have only seen that written once in ten articles from 'semi' reliable sources. I say semi because I have no personal knowledge of the bias in British publications, but the publishers were all respectable enough to use in a collegiate essay.
It's not even all that relevant to this particular case, as she shouldn't be getting in bed with a naked man almost three times her age anyway, let alone without informing him, regardless of who told her to. If someone told her to sleep outside during a snowstorm and she loses some toes to frostbite, does that mean the person who told her is responsible? Teenage girls don't obey commands like zombies, they're moral agents capable of making decisions (albeit with slightly less knowledge/judgment).
Again, I'm going to put it out there that if a 16-year-old boy climbed into bed with a 43-year-old woman and they ended up having sex, this would never go to trial (and the boy might even be on trial for raping a sleeping woman).
On July 07 2011 04:40 sunprince wrote: It's not even all that relevant to this particular case (though it might be relevant to another case if they were to prosecute someone else for criminal negligence), as she shouldn't be getting in bed with a naked man almost three times her age anyway, let alone without informing him.
Again, I'm going to put it out there that if a 16-year-old boy climbed into bed with a 43-year-old woman and they ended up having sex, this would never go to trial (and the boy might even be on trial for raping a sleeping woman).
Completely agree, however it could be nice because it might cut down on the number of people who are arguing that the person who told her to sleep with him is at fault.
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
Your clarification makes you look even worse. Being aware of what you are doing completely matters in a criminal case. Furthermore, blacking out and sleeping are not the same. If you use drugs/alcohol and those cause you to black out and do something stupid, you are responsible unless you can prove you didn't willingly drink/use drugs that caused you to do it.
The guy suffers from a disorder, one that is not generally dangerous barring certain scenarios that can be avoided. It wasn't his fault the girl came into his bed, and its not like putting him in some sort of clinic would make a difference, he doesn't have a mind that makes him dangerous so there is nothing to treat. Not much more can be said except your opinion is completely wrong and to treat this guy like hes a murder or a serial rapist is completely unfair.
Ugh, he suffers from a disorder? Please. People have to be responsible for their own actions. The girl can be responsible for the fact that, maybe, she shouldn't have gotten into his bed. But for god's sake, the dude HAS to be responsible for having sex with her, none of this "Oh. Well it's a disorder. Case closed."
You have to be kidding me. Have you ever heard of an insanity plea? The whole idea behind it is that there is no mens rea. Please look up the fucking term. MENS REA. Without willing and purposely doing it, he can't be held responsible. People should be responsible for their own actions, but only if they are in full control and knowingly do something harmful or negative.
From the way you are approaching this, if I kill someone in self defense then I should be convicted of murder because the act was committed by me. You are completely ignoring mitigating and extraneous factors and focusing on whether or not the ACT itself occurred. 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. Do you get why your logic is retarded now?
On July 07 2011 04:22 ShAsTa wrote: Shouldn't he have been found guilty and the punishment reduced? Saying not guilty is almost like saying it didn't happen.
On July 07 2011 04:40 sunprince wrote: It's not even all that relevant to this particular case (though it might be relevant to another case if they were to prosecute someone else for criminal negligence), as she shouldn't be getting in bed with a naked man almost three times her age anyway, let alone without informing him.
Again, I'm going to put it out there that if a 16-year-old boy climbed into bed with a 43-year-old woman and they ended up having sex, this would never go to trial (and the boy might even be on trial for raping a sleeping woman).
Completely agree, however it could be nice because it might cut down on the number of people who are arguing that the person who told her to sleep with him is at fault.
I've already tried about 10 times to correct people, but as evidenced by the person just posted directly below you, the idiots on TL tend to gravitate towards topics with the word "sex" in it.
Another former partner said she could have entire conversations with him, as well as full sexual intercourse, without him waking up.
I would also like to challenge the statement that someone told her to sleep there, because I have only seen that written once in ten articles from 'semi' reliable sources. I say semi because I have no personal knowledge of the bias in British publications, but the publishers were all respectable enough to use in a collegiate essay.
Atm I have the BBC and Guardian articles linked because those newspapers are afaik quite reliable. I can only repeat my request for more detailed information for the fourth time. There is no use in "updating" the OP from one unreliable information (she was told to sleep there) that is only in one article to another unreliable information that is in some other article (sleeps naked).
On July 06 2011 22:29 Fenrax wrote: I would still love if someone who has better information (maybe from the UK) could clear up some things:
- did anyone tell her to go into his bed (like Guardian says) - who invited her into his home? why did a teenage girl stay in an adults man's house? - who else was in the house that night?
On July 06 2011 22:38 Shamrock_ wrote: Surely if he is that unstable/insane, enough to have sex with a woman and not realize it, he's a burden and liability to society anyway and shouldn't be let free?
Congratulations on the most terrifying post in a thread full of winners.
Haha I'm sorry.
Lemme clarify then, in my opinion, regardless of whether he was AWARE of it or not, the fact that he's capable of doing it makes him dangerous -- right? I also think it's a little weird that the girl didn't...I dunno, wake up, scream, kick, protest, something like that, but the point is, if someone blacks out and beats someone up he will still get arrested for assault but when it comes to sex it's not the same.
Your clarification makes you look even worse. Being aware of what you are doing completely matters in a criminal case. Furthermore, blacking out and sleeping are not the same. If you use drugs/alcohol and those cause you to black out and do something stupid, you are responsible unless you can prove you didn't willingly drink/use drugs that caused you to do it.
The guy suffers from a disorder, one that is not generally dangerous barring certain scenarios that can be avoided. It wasn't his fault the girl came into his bed, and its not like putting him in some sort of clinic would make a difference, he doesn't have a mind that makes him dangerous so there is nothing to treat. Not much more can be said except your opinion is completely wrong and to treat this guy like hes a murder or a serial rapist is completely unfair.
Ugh, he suffers from a disorder? Please. People have to be responsible for their own actions. The girl can be responsible for the fact that, maybe, she shouldn't have gotten into his bed. But for god's sake, the dude HAS to be responsible for having sex with her, none of this "Oh. Well it's a disorder. Case closed."
You're either not reading the facts, are really dense, or just trolling. He has a medical condition which was already documented and has been PROVEN. He was not awake at the time when the girl climbed into bed with him. Common sense isn't common I guess.
On July 07 2011 05:04 Slaynte wrote: Are you blaming the victim for getting raped then?
I'm blaming the victim for taking actions that led to her being involuntarily sexually assaulted, in contravention of common sense. This doesn't in any way mean that she deserved what happened, but it certainly doesn't implicate the man either.
Blaming the victim is not necessarily fallacious (as long as it is within the proper scope of their actions), and I say this as someone familiar with victimology.
On July 07 2011 05:04 Slaynte wrote: Are you blaming the victim for getting raped then?
I'm blaming the victim for taking actions that led to her being involuntarily sexually assaulted, in contravention of common sense. This doesn't in any way mean that she deserved what happened, but it certainly doesn't implicate the man either.
Blaming the victim is not necessarily fallacious (as long as it is within the proper scope of their actions), and I say this as someone familiar with victimology.
If she knew he suffered from it, then yes, she should blame herself for being stupid. On a somewhat related note, why would she get into a bed with a 43 year old anyway? That's kind of weird. Sucks to be her, but I wouldn't blame her unless she knew the guy suffered from it. Then that's just Darwinism.
On July 07 2011 06:01 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: If she knew he suffered from it, then yes, she should blame herself for being stupid. On a somewhat related note, why would she get into a bed with a 43 year old anyway? That's kind of weird. Sucks to be her, but I wouldn't blame her unless she knew the guy suffered from it. Then that's just Darwinism.
She got into bed with a naked 43-year-old man, without informing him, or obtaining prior consent.
I don't see the source that says he was naked in the bed. She was told to do it so I guess that could be considered consent-ish. Not informing him could of just been because he was asleep and that would of been rude. I mean either way I think it's a bit odd to sleep in the same bed with such an age discrepancy, but I acknowledge that weird circumstances happen all the time, so I guess who am I to judge people for that. I would say most girls wouldn't sleep in the same bed as a 43 year old man in that instance regardless of how under the weather she felt. But I'd be lying if I said it was impossible to find a 16 year old who would do the same thing in her place.
If Mr. Davies was asleep before the young girl entered the bed (so without Mr. Davies knowing at all), he is innocent with attenuating circumstances. If not, then the case is horribly ambiguous and either way it would be unfair. "Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will." That's the problem.
sexomanic issues aside, i found it astonishing that our society find it plausible that a women (having reached age of consent) can consent to sleeping with a man and still maintain she did not give consent to sex.
its like having sex and claim that you don't want to get pregnant. surely you may not be in your clear intentions but if you do end up pregnant, don't blame anyone.
Ok, rarely, the "She was asking for it" stuff is bullshit. This is totally bullshit - on the girl's part. Why would she, a 16 year old, get into bed with a middle-aged man in the first place? This talk of sickness and relative heat of beds is more bullshit. A bed with another person in it will always have a higher temperature - this guys body heat would have more than made up the difference. She was totally asking for it by making an irrational choice in the first place.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
On July 07 2011 04:13 Akta wrote: Most things been parroted already but there some angles I haven't seen discussed yet. For example where I live it's rape to have sex with a sleeping person which could change this case a lot. Another angle could be what if it was "only" oral sex(which as far as I know is also rape where I live) and the roles were the opposite, as in a guy waking up by a sexsomniac girl performing oral sex on him.
I know what I think personally, especially since my brother in law have such serious "sleep walking" problems that it almost killed him(injured for life). But those that think the society should punish this guy, would it matter if it for example was the girl that had sexsomnia instead?
Good point, countersue on rape on the girls part please. The guy was already there first and was sleeping before the girl got there. She was conscious and he was not, rape is on her.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep.
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote: How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
It's not common at all. No legal jurisdiction that I know of would accept that kind of argument in defense of a crime committed while 'black-out drunk'
Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Although that might not be true.
This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me. If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt). If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy...
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote: How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
It's not common at all. No legal jurisdiction that I know of would accept that kind of argument in defense of a crime committed while 'black-out drunk'
I think hes saying its common not to remember anything after being black out drunk.
On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote: Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
Apparently the guy was asleep when the girl went to his bed:
Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Although that might not be true.
This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me. If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt). If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy...
If he knew she had gotten into his bed and didn't do anything about it he'd be negligent for sure. I don't know enough about law to say if he would have gotten the rape charge because you might still be able to argue that the direct intent wasn't there, but it might not matter since he could have prevented it before hand.
On July 06 2011 10:52 Zedromas wrote: Go look at a picture of this 43 yr old sleep rapist (Or whatever u wanna call him) and you'll see for yourself how big of a douche bag he is. He looks like the guy at the park that you tell your kids to stay away from.
Can someone please ban this guy for obvious trolling? What does the look of someone have to do with anything in court? "Well you look really stupid so you get 10 years even if 5 years is the normal punishment for this crime.
@Topic: The whole story is really strange and I would really be interested in all the missing details, nevertheless a very intersting case.
What an unfortunate situation for the girl, and quite embarrassing for the man.
I don't understand why so many people seem so bloodthirsty, to think that someone must be punished for this. Misunderstandings happen with unfortunate results sometimes. That's life. We don't always need to burn someone at the stake for every bad thing that happens in the world.
If the man truly did it while in his sleep, punishing him for it would be as ridiculous as punishing someone for dreaming about raping someone.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote: How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault. [/QUOTE] in this case, the choice is on the girl. she knowingly crawled into a man's bed and slept with him. even if the man was awake, he probably still has a good defense because she gave consent to bed with him.
On July 07 2011 06:55 dybydx wrote: sexomanic issues aside, i found it astonishing that our society find it plausible that a women (having reached age of consent) can consent to sleeping with a man and still maintain she did not give consent to sex.
its like having sex and claim that you don't want to get pregnant. surely you may not be in your clear intentions but if you do end up pregnant, don't blame anyone.
consenting to sleep next to a man =/= consenting to sex
On July 07 2011 09:42 Kamais_Ookin wrote: How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
in this case, the choice is on the girl. she knowingly crawled into a man's bed and slept with him. even if the man was awake, he probably still has a good defense because she gave consent to bed with him.
On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote: Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
Apparently the guy was asleep when the girl went to his bed:
Mr Davies was already asleep in the bed and told the court he had no idea she was there.
Although that might not be true.
This seems like the, "make it or break it," fact for me. If he didn't know she was there, the entire defense seems pretty plausible (definatly enough to warrant reasonable doubt). If he knew she was there, i don't know if that's enough to call him a liar, but it's rather sketchy...
If he knew she had gotten into his bed and didn't do anything about it he'd be negligent for sure. I don't know enough about law to say if he would have gotten the rape charge because you might still be able to argue that the direct intent wasn't there, but it might not matter since he could have prevented it before hand.
If he was aware of her getting into the bed with him and did nothing(which is NOT what happened) he should be charged with rape imo.
On July 07 2011 09:58 TranceKuja wrote: If he was aware of her getting into the bed with him and did nothing(which is NOT what happened) he should be charged with rape imo.
Agree 100% with this.
If you assume that sexsomnia is a legitimate medical condition, and you assume that the girl willingly went into the man's bed without his consent or knowledge, the only reasonable verdict is not guilty.
Of course if those assumptions are lifted, things change considerably. If the man was aware that the girl was in his bed and did nothing about it, then having full knowledge of his condition he would have effectively chosen to rape her. And if the condition (sexsomnia) is fake then the answer is obvious (but I doubt anyone on TL is in a position to reasonably debate the legitimacy of sexsomnia).
On July 05 2011 22:50 SkytoM wrote: more important is the question which idiot told her to sleep in the same bed with a sexsomniac... should get charged too imo.
This is what I thought when I read it. If they knew about it (possible that they didn't since it doesn't say who it was that instructed the girl) then they should probably be brought up on something.
On July 07 2011 06:45 sorrowptoss wrote:"Now while the exact circumstances of the night remain a bit unclear the fact of matter is that he had sex with a 16 year old against her will." That's the problem.
It was also against his will, and she put herself into that position to begin with. In fact, it's probably mroe accurate to say that she sexually assaulted him by getting into bed with him while he was naked without his consent. If the genders were reversed, it's more likely that a 16-year-old boy who climbed into bed with a naked woman would be the one on trial.
On July 07 2011 08:59 ninini wrote:How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
In this case, expert medical testimony tells us that he was unconscious. It's not a matter of 'logic' or 'opinion', it's actually a medical question with a medical answer.
On July 07 2011 06:37 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:But I'd be lying if I said it was impossible to find a 16 year old who would do the same thing in her place.
Sure, you can always find examples of people who defy the norm, but the idea I was suggesting is that a reasonable, typical 16-year-old should know better. And, as previously mentioned, if it was a 16-year-old boy climbing into bed with a naked woman, people would look at this very differently.
I wonder if there's any compiled statistics into this. And it comes up so often, you're absolutely right, if the genders were reversed in this story it'd be viewed in such a different light. It's quite a shame that male misfortune is considered comical, whereas the female version of the same crimes are absolute tragedies that require so much discussion.
Gotta admit when i first started learning to drive, and realised discrimination laws didn't apply to White males i was rather annoyed. Paid double for car insurance just by ticking the "male" checkbox. Not at all in the same league as this case, but the double standards have become very very tiring
On July 07 2011 10:22 Eleaven wrote: Gotta admit when i first started learning to drive, and realised discrimination laws didn't apply to White males i was rather annoyed. Paid double for car insurance just by ticking the "male" checkbox. Not at all in the same league as this case, but the double standards have become very very tiring
It's called insurance, insurance profits by discrimination.
On July 07 2011 09:50 Slaynte wrote: consenting to sleep next to a man =/= consenting to sex
No, but consenting to sleep next to a naked man without his knowledge does beg some questions about the circumstances in the first place.
On July 07 2011 09:56 Aruno wrote: What saved the guy from being jailed is the previous girlfriends willing to testify for him
Indeed. And the fact that they were willing to do so suggests, on its own, that it is less probable that he is the 'creep' that some people are trying to portray him as.
On July 07 2011 10:22 Eleaven wrote: Gotta admit when i first started learning to drive, and realised discrimination laws didn't apply to White males i was rather annoyed. Paid double for car insurance just by ticking the "male" checkbox. Not at all in the same league as this case, but the double standards have become very very tiring
It's called insurance, insurance profits by discrimination.
So discrimination is okay as long as there's ample profit.
Gotcha!
Anyway, i don't really want to get involved in this, the thread has been locked in the circular stage for a long time now, and it can't really be helped.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk.
That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this.
1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16)
2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her) 2a.
3. You recklessly committed the act.
In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough.
If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference:
Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter.
Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges.
Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
Scenario 4 (What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault.
Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless.
For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you.
Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes.
Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl.
The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering).
Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk.
That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this.
1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16)
2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her) 2a.
3. You recklessly committed the act.
In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough.
If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference:
Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter.
Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges.
Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
Scenario 4 (What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault.
Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless.
For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you.
Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes.
Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl.
The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering).
Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo.
I agree with you, actually I learned this in one of my crim classes several months back but I forgot the details you pointed out, thanks for clearing things up!
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
Drinking in the first place is a choice so you should be accountable for your actions if you get too drunk. Sleeping isn't a choice though, it's just something everyone does so you can't really compare the two. As others have said sexomnia is pretty much like sleep-walking, that's how we know it's not his fault.
In Canada (probably the same as the UK), being black-out drunk is the exact same as sleep-fucking with regards to sexual assault. You can't commit murder or sexual assault if you are black-out drunk.
That may sound ridiculous at first, but here is how it goes. There are different levels of guilt which you can have. I'll list the top 3 just for the sake of this.
1. You can have intended the act you committed. (You purposely raped someone under 16)
2. You can have been willfully blind in committing the act. (For instance, you have good reason to think the girl is under 16, but you don't ask her age so you can try to get away with sleeping with her) 2a.
3. You recklessly committed the act.
In order to be convicted of murder or sexual assault, you need to have committed the act either intentionally or with willful blindness. Recklessness is NOT enough.
If you are unconscious, or blackout drunk, it is impossible - according to the law - to have the intent to commit anything intentionally or willfully blind. However, here is the difference:
Scenario 1: If you are blackout drunk, and you got yourself drunk, anything that happens as a result of you being drunk is considered reckless. So, if you get behind the wheel of a car and hit someone, you can be guilty of a manslaughter charge or something equivalent like vehicular homicide - but NOT guilty of murder. Likewise, if you stabbed someone 20 times in a row, it wouldn't be murder - it would be manslaughter.
Scenario 2: If you are blackout drunk, but someone else had slipped the drugs or alcohol into your beverage against your knowledge, then you are not reckless because you didn't intend to get drunk. If you then drove drunk and killed someone, you would not even be guilty of manslaughter charges.
Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
Scenario 4 (What actually happened in this case): If you have sexomnia and you get into bed alone, and some girl gets into the bed with you and you end up having sex with her without her consent and without knowing it, you not only CAN'T be found guilty of sexual assault, you CAN'T even be found guilty of lesser offences because you are not at fault.
Some people have suggested that even having the girl sleeping in the house is reckless, and he should be guilty of some offence. That would be true if in the past he had gone into other people's rooms to sleep with people - but there is nothing to suggest that that is something he has done before. For that reason, he was probably not found to be reckless.
For those of you who think he should be put in prison, let me make an analogy for you.
Some people have diabetes, and diabetes can lead to blackouts. If someone knows they have diabetes and are prone to blackouts, and they drive a car, they are most certainly at least a little bit negligent, perhaps even reckless, if the car crashes.
Now imagine if you got behind the wheel of a car. You know you are prone to blackouts - but you know that if you have some juice with sugar in it before you drive you NEVER blackout. So, you get behind the wheel of the car and the 16 year old girl joins you. She doesn't know you have diabetes , so without telling you she had drank your juice and replaced it with a sugar-free juice. You drink the sugar free-juice, get onto the road, black out, and severely injure the girl.
The girl certainly isn't at fault. But the diabetic isn't at fault either because they took reasonable precautions (sleeping in a different room) to ensure that they didn't black out (sexomnia induced midnight maruadering).
Easy peasy once you get it, but theres a lot of mumbo jumbo.
I'd add that once you have been charged with a certain offense i.e rape, it is then very difficult for the prosecution to have the charge adjusted after evidence has been presented.
I can give you a clear indication of this working in practice, though not on a sexual assault case. I was once arrested on "suspicion of Intent to supply" (they thought i was a dealer) I spent the night in the nick, i was interviewed the next day when i was sober and then released on bail. I went back a month later to be charged and because there simply wasn't much evidence in their favour they dropped the charge to "possession" because they knew that when it went to court it would be very easy for me to get off scott free on an intent to supply charge. Dropping the charge to possession meant that I was without a doubt guilty.
Its a common practice for prosecutors to go for the lowest charge they can prove and nothing more so that they don't go for Murder/rape in a case thats not clear cut and have an innocent verdict allow a criminal to go free. In this case, it seems the facts were on the side of the defendant and that he was not responsible for his actions. Therefore really they should have perhaps tried to convict whomever sent the girl to his bed with some form of negligence.
On July 07 2011 10:43 Gnial wrote: Scenario 3: If you have sexomnia, and you hop into bed with a girl and you don't warn her or anything, and your sexomnia leads you to have sex with her without consent, you CANNOT be found guilty of rape or sexual assault even though you intentionally slept in the same bed as her. You could, however, be found guilty of lower fault-requirement offences like assault because it was reckless of you to put yourself and her in that situation.
What if you got into bed with the girl, and knowing that due to your condition, there'd be a high chance of fucking her, you did so as to have sex with her without needing to gain her consent?
Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
On July 07 2011 11:08 MozzarellaL wrote: What if you got into bed with the girl, and knowing that due to your condition, there'd be a high chance of fucking her, you did so as to have sex with her without needing to gain her consent?
If the prosecution can demonstrate such intent (though that might be difficult), then that would be rape.
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Your opinion is worthless without relevant scientific training.
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Wow, have you ever even had sex with a woman?
I think he's basing that off of watching porn hehe.
You know, sexsomnia or not, if someone got into bed with me, and I turned in my sleep, and snuggled up to her - as I do with my GF, and i'm sure the vast majority of people do... would that in anyway be 'my fault'?
Certainly not rape, or any penetration, but why did that girl jump into bed with a naked man? It was bound to end in embarrassment.
so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict. For the most part, other people with such things happening, be it schizophrenia or something else beyond their control, which makes them a danger to others, are institutionalized until such time as a doctor can testify that they are no longer a threat to themselves are others. be that through medication, counciling, whatever. so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote: so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict.
You're reading wrong. The man is not guilty because he was unconscious, and was not in any way responsible for the girl being in a position where she might be affected by his condition.
It's the same reason why you would not be responsible for sexual harassment if you cuddle up with someone who climbs in bed with you while you are asleep without your knowledge.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
He is no threat to others. He should not be sharing a bed with people who have not consented to having sex with him, but he didn't choose to do so in this case.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote: so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict.
You're reading wrong. The man is not guilty because he was unconscious, and was not in any way responsible for the girl being in a position where she might be affected by his condition.
It's the same reason why you would not be responsible for sexual harassment if you cuddle up with someone who climbs in bed with you while you are asleep without your knowledge.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote:so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
He is no threat to others. He should not be sharing a bed with people who have not consented to having sex with him, but he didn't choose to do so in this case.
that doesn't make sense to me, he clearly knew that he has this medical condition, yet failed to inform the girl. had he done so the entire incident would most likely have been avoided. and if i understand his condition correctly, its basically like sleep walking except having sex instead of walking around baking omellettes (it has happened). whats to say his condition wont advance to the point of getting out of bed and leaving the confines of his house/apartment? to say that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. In my mind that's like saying someone who is hearing voices shouldn't get treatment because the voices are telling him to do good things.
On July 07 2011 13:04 polysciguy wrote: so if i am reading correctly, the man is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defficiancy, by which he is incapable of controlling his actions and knowing right from wrong...ok i can get behind that verdict. For the most part, other people with such things happening, be it schizophrenia or something else beyond their control, which makes them a danger to others, are institutionalized until such time as a doctor can testify that they are no longer a threat to themselves are others. be that through medication, counciling, whatever. so what happens in his case? is there some sort of pharmacutical he can take to prevent such things from happening? can counciling or psychotherapy help him? if not then clearly, like a violent schizophrenic who refuses medication, he remains a threat to others and should be institutionalized.
It's not like he unconsciously lurked around and broke into random houses at night to have sex with others. As long as he takes precautions on not sleeping with a girl (or guy) who had no intent to have sex with him, it should be fine
On July 05 2011 22:38 Denia1 wrote: Makes sense since it was clearly unintentional so the rape charge cannot be used. It'd be interesting what alternative charges they can put forward in this case, since I don't think there is any legal precedent for this as it is really quite unusual to unintentionally have sex with somebody against their will.
You can't put forward alternative charges rofl. What the hell, try someone for something, doesn't stick then try out some new charges? Anyone accused of shit would never get any peace then. Thank god the US legal system doesn't work that way. You can't try someone for another crime using evidence used in a previous trial, and seeing as the prosecution will have used all available evidence for the first one....there won't be another.
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote: that doesn't make sense to me, he clearly knew that he has this medical condition, yet failed to inform the girl. had he done so the entire incident would most likely have been avoided. and if i understand his condition correctly, its basically like sleep walking except having sex instead of walking around baking omellettes (it has happened).
As far as can be ascertained, his condition is limited to having sex with someone in the same bed.
He is therefore under no obligation to inform others of his condition unless he is aware that they are likely to share his bed, which doesn't seem to be the case.
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote: whats to say his condition wont advance to the point of getting out of bed and leaving the confines of his house/apartment? to say that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.
What's to say you won't develop sudden onset Alzheimer's? Shouldn't we pre-emptively take away your driver's license? To say it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont.
On July 07 2011 13:20 polysciguy wrote: In my mind that's like saying someone who is hearing voices shouldn't get treatment because the voices are telling him to do good things.
No, it's like saying that someone who has hay fever doesn't need to get treatment if it doesn't bother them or the people around them.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep.
I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang?
If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory.
This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in.
Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random.
My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case.
With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
Clearly you are more authorized than doctors who have cumulatively spent centuries studying the phenomena of sleep-walking to comment on what is actually going on.
On July 07 2011 13:25 StorkHwaiting wrote: You can't put forward alternative charges rofl. What the hell, try someone for something, doesn't stick then try out some new charges? Anyone accused of shit would never get any peace then. Thank god the US legal system doesn't work that way. You can't try someone for another crime using evidence used in a previous trial, and seeing as the prosecution will have used all available evidence for the first one....there won't be another.
You can reuse evidence from other lawsuits, you just can't charge someone for the same, or substantially similar, crime. [Substantially similar apparently meaning, but I am not sure, of the similar type of crime, i.e., theft crimes, homicides, etc., where evidence supporting a charge of one would also be used to support the other]
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep.
I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang?
If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory.
This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in.
Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random.
My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case.
With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
On July 07 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: Thats unfortunate, but since we don't have the details and full story I won't pretend to pass judgment. It was no doubt an upsetting experience for the girl, I hope she gets over it. Afterall its just sex, I think rape is often made into a bigger deal than it actually is.
Wow, have you ever even had sex with a woman?
What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
On July 07 2011 04:49 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Just because an ACT occurred, doesn't mean the perpetrator committed a crime. A crime requires both an act and the willful thought behind it. While in his case the ACT occurred, he did not willingly do it so he can not be held responsible.
How do you know whether he made a conscious choice or were acting on instinct? I don't think the fact that you can't remember something rules out that you knew what you were doing. With that logic a heavily drunk person would not be accounted for any of his actions, as long as he can't remember anything, which is quite common.
No, being blacked out drunk is not the same as being unconscious. Sexomnia is pretty well documented and it's established that the same as if you were sleepwalking, you are completely asleep in the REM phase. Being blacked out drunk means that you are likely making poor conscious decisions, after you already made the (likely) bad decision to get blacked out drunk in the first place. This man has no choice but to go to sleep.
I don't buy it. We all have went through similar, but non-sexual experiences. How many of you have been asked by your mom to do something, and then to wake up an hour later, without any memory of it ever happening? How many of you have turned off your wake-up alarm "in your sleep" and then an hour later wondered why it never rang?
If you look at these scenarios, the patterns are the same as with sleep-walking or having sex in your sleep. In the alarm clock scenario it's quite clear that you did turn off the alarm clock, but you forgot you did it, because your brain didn't get enough time to "start up" before you slept again. So, you were conscious enough to figure out where the sound came from and how to make it stop. You were also conscious enough to figure out what the sound meant, and whether to make a choice on whether you would obey the order. Why I believe you were conscious enough to understand what the sound meant is simple, because if you look at the similar situation, where someone wake you up and you respond to them, you can see that when hearing a alarm clock, the way you act is different to when you hear a voice. So, you are conscious enough to understand your surroundings. However, you are not conscious enough to register it as a memory.
This description is very similar to how his wife described his behavior, and the definition of a sleep-walker is someone who can prolong this state, and I accept this as a disorder. It makes sense that some people would be harder to wake up than others. What I don't accept however is the idea that we wouldn't be aware of what we're doing when in this state, which I just proved above. If we can communicate in a decently organized way, so that a person can make sense out of what we're saying, and we can understand them, then it's very likely that we under the same state can understand what it means to have sex, and who we're not supposed to have it with. If it's true that he called her dirty names during the act, then it's quite clear that he was very aware of what was happening, because as I explained, you can't form relevant communication if you don't understand the situation you're in.
Someone mentioned a scenario of a person who drove a car over to and killed his parents-in-law in his sleep. If you think about it, do you really think that his brain just randomly made up that scene? No, it's quite clear that the scene was already in his head. You can't say for a fact that he had planned to kill them, although, considering how rare the case is, he probably had already worked out in his head a very detailed picture of how he would do it. But even if I'm wrong, he had most definately considered it, because otherwise it wouldn't even have existed in his mind. People don't just go and do stuff at random.
My assumptions relies on the fact that sleep-walking and sleep-sex works the same, but is a severe form of the more simple scenarios I mentioned above. I understand if some ppl aren't willing to accept that, but since the patterns are identical, I am convinced that my assumptions are correct, which means that he was well aware and made the choice of having sex with her. Still, I'm not willing to call it rape, since it's possible that he was put in this situation without having anything to say, and it's also unclear what amount of self-control you have when you're in this state, which is definately relevant in this case.
With that said, the whole case depends entirely on how much of the girl's story is the actual truth. For all we know, she could've been the one who suggested to move to his bed, and with a clear intent in mind. Maybe she wanted to have sex with him, but then regretted it. Or maybe she didn't like him for whetever reason and wanted to get him caught.
Do you remember any dreams you've had? If you do, do they tend to make sense and such?
On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote: What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will.
Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading.
(In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'.
On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote: What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will.
Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading.
(In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'.
In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
On July 07 2011 14:28 Disquiet wrote:In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
That's... unusual. I'd be inclined to agree that your legal system treats it disproportionately.
Looking past the science of the "condition" it is still really strange that:
- there was a 16 year old staying there - she was told that the best way to deal with a cold is to get in bed with a sleeping man.. get some more blankets? - the person who told her that didn't know his condition? what is their relationship then - a little girl gets into bed with a sleeping man who isn't her father - i'm really curious how a sleeping man undresses somebody who is resisting
He knows his condition clearly so he has an obligation to take steps to prevent situations like this. It is unlikely the child just showed up at his house and he was asleep the whole time and never knew the kid was there.
Really fucking sketchy situation to me. At least the cat is out of the bag I suppose...
On July 07 2011 14:57 On_Slaught wrote: Looking past the science of the "condition" it is still really strange that:
- there was a 16 year old staying there - she was told that the best way to deal with a cold is to get in bed with a sleeping man.. get some more blankets? - the person who told her that didn't know his condition? what is their relationship then - a little girl gets into bed with a sleeping man who isn't her father - i'm really curious how a sleeping man undresses somebody who is resisting
He knows his condition clearly so he has an obligation to take steps to prevent situations like this. It is unlikely the child just showed up at his house and he was asleep the whole time and never knew the kid was there.
Really fucking sketchy situation to me. At least the cat is out of the bag I suppose...
I could not have said it better.
All i can add is that if "someone" told her to sleep in he's bed (while he is sleeping in that bed), does she - at the age of 16 - not have the common sense to realize that that advice is beyond strange?
I cannot make logical sense of this story what-so-ever and therfore cannot decide who is guilty/ at fault here.
For starters, how did she not wake up while he (trying to imagine this now), got ontop of her, started having intercourse, (while shes not arroused if you know what i mean) - with cloths on (if she did not have clothes on - well then...
Sorry, i am not really contributing to this thread, i have more questions, and no answers.
On the other hand...the conclusion to the South Park episode NAMBLA comes to mind. "Dude, they have SEX with CHILDREN."
Shut the fuck up.
She's as much a child as he is. Also, he wasn't conscious... There was a whole court, i. e. people who are much smarter than you and have looked at the case more thoroughly.
You can't compare an unintentional singular incident with this organisation of perverts and sickos that should absolutely prohibited.
On July 07 2011 13:47 Disquiet wrote: What does that have to do with anything? And yes I do think rape is made out to be worse than it actually is, mostly from feminists pushing their agenda. No I do not think rape is acceptable and I do think rapists should be punished. That said I find it silly that rape carries a much harsher sentence than assault, I'd much rather be raped than have my face bashed in, I don't know about you.
You'd rather have your face bashed in, than a thick pole forced into your ass without lubrication, causing you serious pain, lacerations, trauma, not to mention severe psychological damage? I'd rather be punched in the face than be anally penetrated against my will.
Unless by 'bash face in' you mean 'break my face' (I'm guessing this is what you meant) you'd probably be facing rather severe criminal charges. Saying rape carries a harsher sentence is kind of misleading.
(In New York) If you bashed someone's face in, you'd be facing a charge of Assault in the first degree, which is a class B felony. If you raped someone, you'd be facing a charge of Rape in the first degree, which is also a class B felony. Since sentencing guidelines rely on the class of offense, I'm really at a loss as to how you are justifying your position of 'much harsher sentence'.
In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
Sounds more like assault should be treated more seriously in Australia than anything else to me...
On July 07 2011 14:28 Disquiet wrote: In Australia anything less than grievous(ie life threatening, very serious injuries) caries a maximum of 5 years, whereas rape carries up to life.
Regarding the psychological damage factor, any violence can be traumatizing, depends on the person. I fail to see why rape needs its own special category, its assault same as any other assault, and should be judged the same way other type of assaults are (based upon damage to to victim and malicious intent etc.)
You still haven't clarified what you meant by 'bashing someone's face in'. According to this website, you could potentially get a maximum of 25 yrs for breaking a face.
and here, it does not say rape is a life imprisonment crime (only 20 years). In fact, its sentencing is comparable to that of aggravated assault (of the type which would break a face)
You don't even know if he was under the effects of the condition at the time. His ex-wife said this happened once or twice a month. What are the chances that the sexsomnia took over on the day some random 16 year old girl sleeps next to him? Based on probability, 1 in 15.
It's possible that he did in fact knowingly and consciously rape the girl, and then used his medical condition as an excuse to defend himself. Besides, several of the articles say he called her a "horny b****" and went downstairs to boil water, came back, and assaulted her some more. Another article says he called her by her name and texted her the next day. Does this mean he knew her from before? Or was the article just spreading BS?
My point is, its possible that the man knew what he was doing, and got away with it by invoking a medical condition as a defense.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep?
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
On July 08 2011 02:28 ninini wrote: Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
I'm guessing you've never experienced it then. :p
Yeah, he has no clue what hes talking about. When I was really, really young (like, 6 years old) I used to sleep walk when I needed to go to the bathroom. My father would always be working in his office, and I would walk in and stand in his office just staring at nothing (creepy eh?) at which point he would have to take me to the washroom and put me back in bed.
Now, what happened if someone didn't take me to the washroom is I would wander around the house until I found a door that opened into a small room (like a washroom), and I would just pee there. So, on occasion, I ended up peeing in a closet, or whatever. (remember, 6 years old, really young)
Does that sound like my brain was working as well as it would when I was awake? (well, I guess you don't know me, so you'll just have to trust me when I say I never tried to pee in closets while awake.)
If I can mistake a coat closet for a bathroom when sleepwalking, then there is no doubt that this guy could mistake this 16 year old girl for his former wife, girlfriend or some beautiful woman he was dreaming about, or whatever. Your brain just doesn't function the same way, and thats why you can't prove intent. His intent may have been to have consensual sex with whomever he was dreaming he was having sex with.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep?
Not in my sleep, but when I'm half-awake. Not remembering something doesn't mean you are not aware.
Good to know. However i am going to go with science, not someone's personal opinions and assumptions that have no basis.
Science haven't proven that sleepwalkers aren't aware of what they are doing. In fact all logic tells that they are very aware, since many brain functions work. I don't know about you, but to think that the brain would just auto-run and tell your body to do things, just because you aren't completely awake sounds very far-fetched. I'm positive that the guy knew what he was doing, but if it's true that he was half-asleep, then he don't remember it. That's how sleep-walking works.
Are you claiming that you are aware of everything you do in your sleep?
Not in my sleep, but when I'm half-awake. Not remembering something doesn't mean you are not aware.
Not remembering something is also often evidence of being unconscious or in an automatistic state. You gotta stop focusing on this, move on to more important factors such as the fact that it was found that this was accurate evidence of him being unconscious at the time.
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.
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 dunnno. My friend is kind of like this, and he does kind of stupid shit when he's this much asleep. Once I 'half' woke up him, through patting him on his feet pretty hard, and he roared "GAAAH MY BACK" and then promptly went back to sleep. I think the brain is in bad enough shape in this state to judge him innocent atleast.
I am self-educated in all matters of law, which I think is freely available to everyone. From what I understand, there must be two elements for establishing guilt: actus reus (criminal act) and mens rea (criminal mind). There are a lot of resources for studying both, for example: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens rea Just don't use Wikipedia (too many cooks spoil the broth).
On July 08 2011 04:57 SolHeiM wrote: Use Wikipedia, but don't read what's on Wikipedia. Read the sources that are cited to make up the Wikipedia article.
And Wikipedia isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
I am just always wary of: 1) Mzoli's incident on WP 2) 'Edit wars' whenever I read it. I think I had a source story for Mzoli's thing, let me try and find it
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.
On July 08 2011 05:41 dpurple wrote: Hmm I dont know about this. I bet his lawyer could sell ice on antarctica, salt in destiny's stream chat etc... Just sound too crazy to be true imo.
If the guy wasn't conciously doing it then I don't see why everyone is so surprised at this verdict >.>
On July 08 2011 05:47 Haemonculus wrote: Honestly any discussion in this thread seems pointless. There's way too much information that we simply don't have.
The discussion is about what we have enough information to conclude :D
My opinion: not enough to conclude much of anything...although most posters seem to disagree, we're slowly weeding them out.
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.
Thank you for saving me 5 minutes of my life. You forgot to point out how turning your alarm clock off/getting told something by your mom isn't even close to the same thing as sleep walking or sexsomnia and I would not even come close to considering it in the same conscious state.
Sleepwalking isn't about complexity. It works all through memory, that's why people can walk around their house without walking into things and stubbing their toe. You don't remember what you do. If the man has this condition, I'm leaning more towards him being innocent as far as not knowing he did it.
On July 05 2011 22:36 Rarak wrote: Ahh isnt it a bit convenient that a sexominiac invited a 16 year old girl into his bed? Rediculous
User was warned for this post
why would he get warned for saying that?
Because he didn't even read the white box at the top of this thread, NOR the OP, NOR any of the articles in the OP, NOR any of the pages in the thread...
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But what if he didn't wake up?
Then he's lacking some sort of medication to control his condition. Otherwise there was a severe level of negligence on the part of the person who left the girl in his care. Sorry but 'he has sexsomania' is not a valid excuse to totally ruining the emotional capacity of this girl, possibly for life. Its a horrible crime and the perpetrator is getting away with it. I don't care if he was asleep, awake, in a coma, or dead. What happened is inexcusable, and him receiving no penalty is even worse. So what, all I have to do is give a girl a roofy now, and then once I've had my way with her I tell the cops 'sorry officer I have sexsomania I was asleep and didn't know I was raping her' and I get off scoff free? I mean she won't remember anything, so like every other sexsomania case its my word against no ones.
if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Exactly, and if not that person, the people who were supposed to keep their problem in line.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Well I don't think it's fair to hold someone responsible for an act they 1) don't control and 2) don't remember. I don't know anyone who is a total master of their subconscious. If anything, he should be able to plead temporary insanity.
didn't read whole thread, but here's my take on the subject:
i say that person who tells the girl to go into his bed should be held accountable. does this person live with the accused? if so, they should know of his condition and warn people who are staying over of it. however, if they didn't know of it, then the accused should be held responsible for keeping this information secret from those who it may cause harm. either way, i believe someone ought to be punished for their ignorance.
the fact that his condition is uncontrollable or whatever is irrelevant here, in my opinion. his carelessness is what irks me the most. the fact that he, and those defending him, deny his lack of concern for the young girl is quite frustrating. i don't think he should be punished for the crime of intentionally violating the girl, but he ought be tought a lesson for not taking his condition seriously.
i'm sure there are points to counter my argument, but i feel like there are few things that should be able to get around the fact he just straight up didn't care enough to prevent this from happening.
On July 09 2011 17:11 SichuanPanda wrote: Then he's lacking some sort of medication to control his condition. Otherwise there was a severe level of negligence on the part of the person who left the girl in his care.
He wouldn't need medication for it if girls weren't climbing into his bed without permission.
You do have a point about negligence, as apparently someone else told a 16-year-old girl to climb into bed with a naked 43-year-old man, which is a bad idea even if he wasn't a sexsomniac.
On July 09 2011 17:11 SichuanPanda wrote: I don't care if he was asleep, awake, in a coma, or dead.
Then you're an idiot with no understanding of crime, mens rea, or justice.
On July 09 2011 17:11 SichuanPanda wrote:So what, all I have to do is give a girl a roofy now, and then once I've had my way with her I tell the cops 'sorry officer I have sexsomania I was asleep and didn't know I was raping her' and I get off scoff free?
You can't just 'claim' it. Medical professionals can verify whether it's true by monitoring your brain wave activity, which is not something you can fake.
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.
Just like this it depends on the circumstances. To try to generalize and say that all people who kill someone else in their sleep are obviously murderers just misses the point.
If you kill an intruder in your home in your sleep, you'll get off because that intruder wasn't supposed to be there.
Even if you had killed someone in your sleep before, and you killed someone again who was supposed to be there, you still can't commit murder. Its called manslaughter in that case.
You just need to inform yourself about how the law works.
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.
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.
But what if he didn't wake up?
Then he's lacking some sort of medication to control his condition. Otherwise there was a severe level of negligence on the part of the person who left the girl in his care. Sorry but 'he has sexsomania' is not a valid excuse to totally ruining the emotional capacity of this girl, possibly for life. Its a horrible crime and the perpetrator is getting away with it. I don't care if he was asleep, awake, in a coma, or dead. What happened is inexcusable, and him receiving no penalty is even worse. So what, all I have to do is give a girl a roofy now, and then once I've had my way with her I tell the cops 'sorry officer I have sexsomania I was asleep and didn't know I was raping her' and I get off scoff free? I mean she won't remember anything, so like every other sexsomania case its my word against no ones.
This isn't a condition you can just pretend to have and fool everyone. The guy has two solid witnesses (former partners) to vouch for his condition, but more importantly he has a sleep expert that has presumably done tests and brain scans to diagnose him. You can't just say "I have sexsomnia" and have everyone believe you with no proof and let you walk.
Why would he need medication to control it, before now it was at most a (very) minor inconvenience, probably more of an amusement. There was no reason to believe that the condition would ever result in a tragedy like this one.
You need to accept that there is no criminal here, just two unlucky people and an unfortunate set of circumstances.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
I'm even more sick of the people who think because they are a certain way, everyone in. Guess what? Do you like Strawberries? Guess what, somewhere out there in the World there's someone who hates Strawberries, who would vomit excessively at the mere sight of Strawberries, PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Stop imparting your personal opinion on a discussion regarding logic and facts. Otherwise we might as well be talking about the weather outside; It's slightly overcast here guys, how about where you live?
I agree that he needs to be more responsible about his behavior. He should't have young women sleeping over regardless of same bed or not. Also I don't buy his condition I say he could have prevented this
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
On July 10 2011 01:30 Patriot.dlk wrote: I agree that he needs to be more responsible about his behavior. He should't have young women sleeping over regardless of same bed or not. Also I don't buy his condition I say he could have prevented this
You can't just say 'I don't buy' it unless you're a specialist in the field. Just because it sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's not real.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
On July 10 2011 01:30 Patriot.dlk wrote: I agree that he needs to be more responsible about his behavior. He should't have young women sleeping over regardless of same bed or not. Also I don't buy his condition I say he could have prevented this
You can't just say 'I don't buy' it unless you're a specialist in the field. Just because it sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's not real.
Well i am entitled to having an uneducated opinion about whatever I want I assume you practice this right as well?
I mean your argument applies to any situation. "I don't want to buy this car, it's to expensive." Well are you an expert in pricing of cars and all the other expertise you need?
This is the day of the internet where experts are worth less
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
No he would get temporary insanity and get treatment for it, he wouldn't get convicted of murder.
On July 10 2011 01:30 Patriot.dlk wrote: I agree that he needs to be more responsible about his behavior. He should't have young women sleeping over regardless of same bed or not. Also I don't buy his condition I say he could have prevented this
You can't just say 'I don't buy' it unless you're a specialist in the field. Just because it sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's not real.
Well i am entitled to having an uneducated opinion about whatever I want I assume you practice this right as well?
I mean your argument applies to any situation. "I don't want to buy this car, it's to expensive." Well are you an expert in pricing of cars and all the other expertise you need?
This is the day of the internet where experts are worth less
No, but you are an expert on what you consider the value of money to be, as well as on how much you value a new car. You are the best judge of how much you're willing to spend on a car.
But in the sexsomnia case, you are obviously not a good judge of how credible the condition is. There is no reason to doubt the expertise of the person who diagnosed him.
On July 09 2011 17:11 SichuanPanda wrote: Then he's lacking some sort of medication to control his condition. Otherwise there was a severe level of negligence on the part of the person who left the girl in his care.
He wouldn't need medication for it if girls weren't climbing into his bed without permission.
You do have a point about negligence, as apparently someone else told a 16-year-old girl to climb into bed with a naked 43-year-old man, which is a bad idea even if he wasn't a sexsomniac.
On July 09 2011 17:11 SichuanPanda wrote:So what, all I have to do is give a girl a roofy now, and then once I've had my way with her I tell the cops 'sorry officer I have sexsomania I was asleep and didn't know I was raping her' and I get off scoff free?
You can't just 'claim' it. Medical professionals can verify whether it's true by monitoring your brain wave activity, which is not something you can fake.
You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
On July 10 2011 02:17 Irrelevant wrote: How the hell do you plan on "thinking something different" while you're asleep? Are you trying to be stupid or were you just born that way?
I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them. Secondly what I said was that if he does have sexsomania and this girl has been invited to stay at his home, then guess what it is HIS responsibility to TELL HER, that he has sexsomania, sometimes he sleep-walks and may perform sexual acts to people in the house, without his knowledge, out of his control.
He did not do so.
Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
On July 10 2011 02:19 oursblanc wrote: To all the people thinking he deserves to be locked up: it could happen to you.
No it couldn't cause everyone in here has total control of all their thoughts and intentions while they sleep because they are super powered masters of the universe
On July 10 2011 02:19 oursblanc wrote: To all the people thinking he deserves to be locked up: it could happen to you.
No it couldn't cause everyone in here has total control of all their thoughts and intentions while they sleep because they are super powered masters of the universe
Yes either that or just normal, properly functioning human beings that don't go crazy sleep-walking when we sleep.
On July 10 2011 02:17 Irrelevant wrote: How the hell do you plan on "thinking something different" while you're asleep? Are you trying to be stupid or were you just born that way?
I didn't say you could while your asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them. Secondly what I said was that if he does have sexsomania and this girl has been invited to stay at his home, then guess what it is HIS responsibility to TELL HER, that he has sexsomania, sometimes he sleep-walks and may perform sexual acts to people in the house, without his knowledge, out of his control.
He did not do so.
Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
So you're completely changing the area to be tested just to get results you want so you can pretend to have a point in this discussion.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
On July 10 2011 02:19 oursblanc wrote: To all the people thinking he deserves to be locked up: it could happen to you.
No it couldn't cause everyone in here has total control of all their thoughts and intentions while they sleep because they are super powered masters of the universe
Yes either that or just normal, properly functioning human beings that don't go crazy sleep-walking when we sleep.
You're a dick and don't know what you are talking about.
On July 10 2011 02:19 oursblanc wrote: To all the people thinking he deserves to be locked up: it could happen to you.
No it couldn't cause everyone in here has total control of all their thoughts and intentions while they sleep because they are super powered masters of the universe
Yes either that or just normal, properly functioning human beings that don't go crazy sleep-walking when we sleep.
Well as a not normal, malfunctioning human being that goes crazy sleep-walking when I sleep, I say what the hell gives you the right to judge me?
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote: Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Ok, thanks for proving my point. If you seriously think the court should let people go back to the street who kill in their sleep then you are just stupid.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
So why is there no such verdict for rape?
Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed
On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote: If there no mens rea, then there's no crime.
This sentence is the best one-line legal education possible. Courts of law deal with legal issues, not morality or personal beliefs. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can stop having conversations about issues that are irrelevant to a criminal trial.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
So why is there no such verdict for rape?
Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed
And why would you assume there is a threat for murder if no one crawls into the murderers bed?
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
So why is there no such verdict for rape?
Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed
And why would you assume there is a threat for murder if no one crawls into the murderers bed?
Can you not read English? Lets just clear that up before we continue here.
On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote: Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Ok, thanks for proving my point. If you seriously think the court should let people go back to the street who kill in their sleep then you are just stupid.
Those links do not prove your point, in fact they are very much the opposite saying you are wrong as he was acquitted of murder and not charged.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
So why is there no such verdict for rape?
Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed
And why would you assume there is a threat for murder if no one crawls into the murderers bed?
I would not consider myself a murderer but if you crawl in bed with me in the middle of the night, there is a good chance I would kill you and I would get away with it for many reasons.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Would be the same results temporary insanity with some time in under medical supervision in a padded room, would not be charged with murder.
Yes. But "some time" is a nice understatement. Many years would be more appropiate.
So why is there no such verdict for rape?
Because there is no current threat posed to anyone that doesn't crawl into his bed
And why would you assume there is a threat for murder if no one crawls into the murderers bed?
I would not consider myself a murderer but if you crawl in bed with me in the middle of the night, there is a good chance I would kill you and I would get away with it for many reasons.
If you thought I was a 16-year-old girl I have to disappoint you.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime.
Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning.
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime.
Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning.
And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
On July 10 2011 04:24 SichuanPanda wrote: And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Your beliefs and morals do not matter for legal proceedings.
On July 10 2011 01:44 Myles wrote: If there no mens rea, then there's no crime.
This sentence is the best one-line legal education possible. Courts of law deal with legal issues, not morality or personal beliefs. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can stop having conversations about issues that are irrelevant to a criminal trial.
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
Why do you keep on derping? You already made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and you are incapable of doing so for rape, yet you think this case falls under that of rape, instead of a lesser sexual assault crime.
Just shut up already, you are clearly unable of consistent logical reasoning.
And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Well clearly, since you read through the entirety of the proceedings at the trial and know everything about what his condition entails.
He knows how criminal court works, you can charge someone for murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide for the killing of the same person in the same trial, whatever sticks right?
The first article stated that he claimed he had no idea the girl was even staying at his house btw. He wouldn't have been able to tell her beforehand, so the importance of informing her of his condition doesn't apply anyway.
On July 10 2011 04:24 SichuanPanda wrote: And you clearly lack reading comprehension skills as the things you said I did are clearly not present in my latest post. I have continued consistent logical reasoning. I did not say he should be charged with rape, but I did say his rape is a valid sexual crime. I agree that it should receive a lesser punishment due to his condition - I do NOT agree whatsoever, that he should receive no reprimand of any kind, and that the girl should be blamed for what happened to her. Realistically it is both parties fault in some way, however, since he had a known, preexisting condition, and she was a guest in his home, I would think it should be on him to make sure any guests are fully informed of his condition. Failure to do so should mean he is responsible, not for rape, but in some sort of way for what happened.
Then what's your point? You don't read through the thread at all (many people have already expressed your viewpoint using a third as many words and being less of a combative asswipe about it), or maybe you did read the thread, and yet you still think you're advancing a novel idea nobody else has thought of, in which case your reading comprehension is even worse than mine.
edit: you don't even know what mens rea is (hint: it isn't motive. motive isn't a requirement for any crime). Just stop.
I have a hard enough time getting it in while awake, maybe he should wear underwear to bed. What 16 year old climbs into bed with someone when they are sick anyways? I bet when she gets older she will happily spread STD's to people.
as far as I know about sexomnia is that you can have sex with ppl in your sleep..but really? does that also mean that if i'd be to sleep next to a girl that has sexomnia she'd rape me IN her sleep even if i didnt want to ? thats really odd if you ask me... this seems like a flaw in the system IMHO.
On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote: You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding.
Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP?
If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them.
Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission.
You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote: You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding.
Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP?
If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them.
Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission.
You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
Give up man. Just give up. There's absolutely no point arguing this any more. Anybody who's willing to learn from what you have to say, will do so the first time you say it. The rest are just trolling or wilfully ignorant.
On July 10 2011 06:35 Eleaven wrote: Give up man. Just give up. There's absolutely no point arguing this any more. Anybody who's willing to learn from what you have to say, will do so the first time you say it. The rest are just trolling or wilfully ignorant.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Really? 99% of people? That seems a bit odd.
Just simple circular logic.
You know that this is a logical fallacy right?
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old
Yea I guess before inviting anyone to stay over, the family should have pulled out their medical record and mental evaluation and fully inform everyone of their problems. Did the article say that he went to bed knowing the girl was going to stay over? If he just went to bed and didn't know that the girl would be staying over then I don't think you can put the fault on him.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
Hi there 16 year old girl who is staying in my home, I am Mr Davies, and just in case it's too hot in your room tonight and someone tells you to sleep in my bed with me because it's cooler, just be aware that I have sex with people in my sleep. Nighty night, keep yo butthole tight!
On July 10 2011 02:31 seppolevne wrote: Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me? That's exactly what he's saying. Holy fucking shit you people are dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Ok, thanks for proving my point. If you seriously think the court should let people go back to the street who kill in their sleep then you are just stupid.
Hahaha, oh man. Do you know what, I have to try to take a positive out of the way you think Fenrax...
People who think like you are more likely to chase legal resolutions that you have a hope of actually achieving. More money for the legal industry. Yay for me :D
To that end... Yes, Fenrax, everything you have said makes complete sense. *nod nod*
When someone is asleep, they are actually the exact same as awake. *nod nod*
And as a result, if you have sex with someone in your sleep, or kill someone in your sleep, you obviously fully 100% intended the consequences of your actions. *nod nod*
But even if it is found that having sex with someone in their sleep isn't intended...the intention that someone had if they have sleep sex as opposed to sleep killing is actually completely different. *nod nod*
In fact, if you kill someone in your sleep, the circumstances never actually matter, because murder is a strict liability offence. *nod nod*
Now go, Fenrax! Go inform the courts of all this! We wouldn't want them to make any more mistakes!
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Blah blah blah All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control.
Blah blah blah
I roll around in my sleep and may accidentally ram my elbow into someones face. If I were to do this when not sleeping, this would be assault. However, I can't control what I do in my sleep and therefore if you decide to crawl in my bed without informing me what happens to you is YOUR fault. He doesn't have to tell anyone shit.
Besides the fact that most people would opt to never have guests over rather than tell people (Especially in the moronic way you and your ilk keep suggesting) "Hey, if you stay over I may randomly rape you".
You said a whole lot which amounted to a whole lot of nothing, really.
Edit: Also, not that I need more but hey, let's roll with it. Furthermore, if I invite someone to stay over at my house that doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want, if I were sleeping and the person I invited over started stealing things it'd still be theft. Basically, being invited over doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want and I'm pretty sure the guy didn't say, "Hey, if you get too hot, come and sleep in my bed instead" (especially without notifying her of his condition, had he done that) which is pretty much the one and only thing that would make him guilty.
That's only addressing this logically and not looking at it scientifically or lawfully, which we've already established is on his side. GG.
On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote: You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding.
Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP?
If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them.
Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission.
You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
On July 10 2011 02:14 SichuanPanda wrote: You can very much fake brain activity actually, just think something different. Bottom line is simple, it is not the girls FAULT for what happened, and anyone trying to say so is truly a piece of shit. 'She shouldn't have climbed into his bed', yea and HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED. Unconscious or not it is unacceptable, its HIS fault that she wasn't aware of his condition, and HIS fault for what happened to her. Sorry but most people don't expect that if you were to lay beside someone in bed that they are gonna turn around and have sex with you.
Holy shit. The complete stupidity and arrogance of your post is astounding.
Are you a DOCTOR? Are you a SLEEP EXPERT? If not, then WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE SLEEP EXPERTS WHO STUDY THIS AS A CAREER? Do you have ANY foundation for arguing about faked brain activity IN YOUR SLEEP?
If your brain is asleep, it produces alpha, thata, and delta waves, as opposed to beta waves while you are awake. YOU CAN'T FAKE THIS. If they're watching the guy's brain waves and he's producing said waves while trying to hump a blow-up doll they put next to him, then they know he has sexsomnia.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: I didn't say you could while you're asleep. What I said is that if you are given a brain wave test and are awake you can very much fake them.
Yes, because the doctors are idiots and you're the only one brilliant enough to have deduced that they should test him while he's not awake.
On July 10 2011 02:25 SichuanPanda wrote: Therefore, he is guilty of raping the girl, regardless of his condition. And sorry but the excuse 'she shouldn't have just hopped into his bed' isn't valid. Because while sure, she probably should not have, I doubt that the last thing she was thinking was that he'd turn around and start groping and having sex with her. Had she known of his condition, she would have not got into his bed. End of discussion.
Except she shouldn't have been there in the first place. She wasn't given permission.
You have no repsonsibility to inform others of things that would not reasonably happen, especially if they happen without your intent. If you have AIDs, do you need to tell everyone who sleeps in the same house in case they decide to have sex with without your permission you in your sleep? -_-
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Blah blah blah All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control.
Blah blah blah
I roll around in my sleep and may accidentally ram my elbow into someones face. If I were to do this when not sleeping, this would be assault. However, I can't control what I do in my sleep and therefore if you decide to crawl in my bed without informing me what happens to you is YOUR fault.
ETC ETC
I'm interested in hearing a counter to this point.
I seem to recall a case where a sleepwalker wasn't charged with murder bc he was sleepwalking when he committed the crime, and afaik you can't be found guilty of something if you weren't in control of your actions when the crime occurred.
On July 10 2011 08:45 Risen wrote: I'm interested in hearing a counter to this point.
I seem to recall a case where a sleepwalker wasn't charged with murder bc he was sleepwalking when he committed the crime, and afaik you can't be found guilty of something if you weren't in control of your actions when the crime occurred.
You won't hear one.
Most of the people arguing he's guilty can be summed up as "I'm outraged that a young girl was hurt! Someone has to be responsible! I demand blood!"
It wasn't an intentional act; thusfore, intentional criminal or tort charges would be insufficient. This was an interesting read though, ty for the op.
as far as I know about sexomnia is that you can have sex with ppl in your sleep..but really? does that also mean that if i'd be to sleep next to a girl that has sexomnia she'd rape me IN her sleep even if i didnt want to ? thats really odd if you ask me... this seems like a flaw in the system IMHO
Well, it's not legally rape (probably going to be determined by this court case, however.
But yeah, that's how it works, how does that seem like a flaw?
I don't want to bump this thread unnecessarily, but I just read a news article about a Belgian fellow that just got cleared for molestation charges against a 9 year old because he was sleepwalking. Funny how these kind of things seem to follow each other so quickly
On July 15 2011 22:24 Flyingdutchman wrote: I don't want to bump this thread unnecessarily, but I just read a news article about a Belgian fellow that just got cleared for molestation charges against a 9 year old because he was sleepwalking. Funny how these kind of things seem to follow each other so quickly
On July 15 2011 22:24 Flyingdutchman wrote: I don't want to bump this thread unnecessarily, but I just read a news article about a Belgian fellow that just got cleared for molestation charges against a 9 year old because he was sleepwalking. Funny how these kind of things seem to follow each other so quickly
Conspiracy theory much?
lol no not at all, was merely amused at how, before this thread, I had never heard of something like this. Now that my brain is attuned I pick up on it or something. No NWO shit
On July 15 2011 22:24 Flyingdutchman wrote: I don't want to bump this thread unnecessarily, but I just read a news article about a Belgian fellow that just got cleared for molestation charges against a 9 year old because he was sleepwalking. Funny how these kind of things seem to follow each other so quickly
Conspiracy theory much?
lol no not at all, was merely amused at how, before this thread, I had never heard of something like this. Now that my brain is attuned I pick up on it or something. No NWO shit
Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
On July 15 2011 23:14 Fenrax wrote: Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
i wish they would give a few more details, when they don't give any information it's hard to tell the circumstances
I would hope that they did a thorough investigation on the man's previous history and sleeping habits, and did stuff like hook him up to an EEG or something while he sleeps to see if he truly does sleepwalk.
I believe that if somebody is truly sleepwalking, then the person should not recieve any punishment. but the thing is, this should be pretty rare, and if people actually start using "sexsomnia"as a defense when indeed it is not so, then it is disgusting
On July 15 2011 23:14 Fenrax wrote: Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
First you made a shitty OP that misframed the facts.
Then you kept posting unsubstantiated garbage based only on your opinion.
Then you scoffed at science.
And finally you scoffed at the criminal justice systems of most of the world because they penalize intentional crimes more than unintentional crimes.
For God's sake man, educate yourself. Read this case, from when it happened in Canada. Inform yourself. Then, at least make an intelligible argument instead of these repeated blanket statements based on incomplete information.
I have put the analysis section up to the conclusion in the spoiler.This is the kind of stuff that should have been in the OP because it is an actual explanation of the legal reasoning behind letting the guy off. (This cites both the Canadian and UK law)
And before you scoff at it for being too "legal" like you did about "mens rea" (I mean, why would we want to understand the law behind a LEGAL decision?), understand that this decision was rendered by a panel of 5 judges, and they cite dozens of other judges that have sat as high as the highest court in both the UK and Canada. This isn't just the opinion of a few crackpot-judges. By saying automatism shouldn't be a defence for sexual assault or murder, you are essentially saying you have greater insight into justice and fairness than hundreds of judges over the last 100+ years.
E. ANALYSIS [52] Before testing the trial judge’s characterization of the respondent’s parasomnia as non-mental disorder automatism against the binding jurisprudence, I will sketch in the necessary legal background. (i) Automatism Claims
[53] Conduct that is not voluntary cannot be criminal: Rabey, per Ritchie J. (majority) at p. 6, per Dickson J. (dissenting on other grounds) at p. 26; Parks.[3] The voluntariness requirement is a principle of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 and s. 11(d) of the Charter: R. v. Daviault 1994 CanLII 61 (S.C.C.), (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 21 (S.C.C.), at pp. 48-49, 69.
[54] A claim by an accused that his or her conduct was involuntary and should result in an acquittal for that reason can arise in a variety of very different circumstances. Automatism is the legal term used to describe one specific kind of involuntary action: see Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland, (1963) 3 All E.R. 523 (H.L.), per Lord Denning at pp. 408-409; Parks, per La Forest J. at p. 302. Automatism refers to involuntary conduct that is the product of a mental state in which the conscious mind is disassociated from the part of the mind that controls action. A person in a state of automatism may perform acts, sometimes complicated and apparently purposeful acts, but have no control over those actions: William Wilson, et al., “Violence, Sleepwalking and the Criminal Law: (2) The Legal Aspects” (2005) Crim. L.R. 614, at pp. 615-16. North P. put it this way in R. v. Burr, [1969] N.Z.L.R. 736 (C.A.), at p. 744: In my opinion then there is now clear judicial authority for the view that in order for a defence of automatism to succeed, the person whose conduct is under review must be unconscious of what he was doing. In short that what he did was an unconscious involuntary act… [I]n my opinion, the evidence must be sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the plea that the accused person acted through his body and without the assistance of his mind, in the sense that he was not able to make the necessary decisions and to determine whether or not to do the act. [Emphasis added.]
[55] The disassociative state that is the hallmark of automatism can be caused by many things including disease, mental illness, concussion, drugs, and parasomnia. Each of these conditions can produce a condition in which an accused, while capable of complex, apparently goal-oriented conduct, is incapable of exercising any control over those actions. As will be discussed below, the cause of the automatism is an important consideration in characterizing the nature of the automatism.
[56] The automatism “defence” is not a defence in the true sense but is a denial of the commission of the actus reus of the crime. Absent the commission of the prohibited act, there can be no crime and hence no criminal liability. A person who is unable to decide whether to perform an act and unable to control the performance of the act cannot be said, in any meaningful sense, to have committed the act. Nor can it be appropriate in a criminal justice system in which liability is predicated on personal responsibility to convict persons based on conduct which those persons have no ability to control: see Stone, per Bastarache J. at p. 417, per Binnie J. (dissent) at pp. 378-79; Don Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2007), at pp. 107-110; David Ormerod, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law, 11th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), at pp. 44-46; Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), at pp. 98-100; Stanley Yeo, “Putting Voluntariness Back Into Automatism” (2001) 32 V.U.W.L.R. 15.
[57] Automatism claims raise legitimate questions about an accused’s mental status and his or her potential danger to the public. These claims are almost always advanced in cases where the accused has caused serious personal injury or at least put members of the public at serious risk. It hardly seems controversial that persons who engage in what would otherwise be regarded as serious criminal conduct and claim to have had absolutely no control over that conduct should have their mental health and their right to remain at liberty scrutinized. Automatism claims, which by their very nature assert that the accused acted while in an abnormal and impaired mental state, inevitably bring into play the exemption to criminal liability created by s. 16 of the Criminal Code.
[58] Section 16 exempts persons from criminal responsibility if, as a result of a “mental disorder”, they were incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their acts or of knowing that their acts were wrong. As Binnie J. observed in dissent in Stone, at paras. 78-83, s. 16 does not speak to the voluntariness of one’s actions but instead addresses cognitive functions that assume voluntary conduct. It is, however, accepted in Canada, and throughout the Commonwealth, that a person whose conduct is involuntary because of a condition that is the product of a mental disorder falls exclusively within the purview of the “insanity” defence: see R. v. Revelle 1979 CanLII 79 (ON C.A.), (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 267 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 271, aff’d 1981 CanLII 48 (S.C.C.), (1981), 61 C.C.C. (2d) 575; Rabey (Ont. C.A.), at p. 472, (S.C.C.), at p. 6; Stone, per Bastarache J., for the majority, at paras. 160-161; Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992), [1994] Q.B. 91 (C.A.), at pp. 104-105; R. v. Falconer (1990), 171 C.L.R. 30 (H.C.); The Queen v. Cottle, [1958] N.Z.L.R. 999 (C.A.).
[59] If an accused’s automatism is rooted in a mental disorder, the accused will not be acquitted but will be found NCR-MD. Under Part XX.I of the Criminal Code, a person found NCR-MD is subject to a post-verdict disposition hearing before either the trial judge or a Review Board. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code lists the dispositions available. These range from an absolute discharge to confinement in a hospital. A person found NCR-MD must be granted an absolute discharge if the court or review board is not satisfied that he or she poses a “significant risk”: see Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) 1999 CanLII 694 (S.C.C.), (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.).
[60] The distinction between non-mental disorder automatism and mental disorder automatism depends on whether the automatistic state is the product of a “mental disorder”. That term is defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind”. That phrase, which is almost as old as the insanity defence itself, describes a legal and not a medical concept, the purpose of which is normative, not diagnostic: Rabey, per Martin J.A. at pp. 473-74; Parks, per La Forest J. at p. 304. I will use the two phrases interchangeably.
[61] The broader the definition of mental disorder, the narrower the ambit of the “defence” of non-mental disorder automatism. Canadian courts have adopted a very broad definition. In R. v. Cooper reflex, (1980), 51 C.C.C. (2d) 129 (S.C.C.), at p. 144, Dickson J. said: In summary, one might say that in a legal sense “disease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria or concussion.
[62] Professor Brudner has described the effect of this broad definition in these terms: Clearly the definition of mental disease elaborated by the courts in the aforementioned cases bears little resemblance to any that a psychiatrist might proffer. It is a legal rather than a medical definition – one carefully crafted with a view to a policy of controlling persons thought to be dangerous. This definition ensures, first of all, that anyone accused of a crime who lacked conscious choice because of a dangerous and potentially recurrent disorder or event will not go free but will be subject to continued detention and confinement after acquittal. Obversely, it ensures that only those whose lack of conscious choice was caused by an external and probably non-recurrent event will have the benefit of a defence that leads to an absolute acquittal and a return to society.[4] [Emphasis added.]
[63] The broad definition of the term “mental disorder” has led to the channelling of most automatism claims into the NCR-MD pool. That trend reached its high water mark in Stone. Bastarache J., for the majority, went so far as to take judicial notice “that it will only be in rare cases that automatism is not caused by mental disorder”.[5] Bastarache J. further observed, at para. 199, that trial judges should start with the assumption that the condition constitutes a disease of the mind. Trial judges should then look to the evidence to determine whether that presumption has been rebutted. After Stone, many argue that successful claims of non-mental disorder automatism will be limited to those very rare “one off” cases in which an accused suffers a single incident of automatism, and where the accused can point to some specific external event that precipitated that event, can demonstrate that the event is unlikely to reoccur, and finally, can show that the event could have produced a disassociative state in an otherwise “normal” person. (ii) R. v. Parks: Parasomnia and Criminal Responsibility
[64] For over 100 years, leading criminal law jurists and academics accepted without question that parasomnias, like sleepwalking, constituted the prototypical example of non-insane automatism warranting a full acquittal. For example, Stephen J. in R. v. Tolson, [1889] 23 Q.B.D. 168 (C.C.R.), at p. 187, observed: Can anyone doubt that a man who, though he might be perfectly sane, committed what would otherwise be a crime in a state of somnambulism, would be entitled to be acquitted? And why is this? Simply because he would not know what he was doing.
[65] The words of Stephen J. were repeated and accepted throughout the Commonwealth in the ensuing century: see Bratty, per Viscount Kilmuir at p. 403, per Lord Denning at p. 409; Falconer, per Mason C.J. (in dissent on another point) at p. 43, per Toohey J. at pp. 72-75; Cottle, at p. 1007; Rabey, per Martin J.A. at p. 477, per Dickson J. (in dissent on another issue) at p. 10; Glanville L. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2d ed. (London: Stevens & Sons, 1983), at p. 665; Peter Ridgway, “Sleepwalking – Insanity or Automatism” (1996) 3 Murdoch U.E.J.L. 4, at para. 4; Irene MacKay, “The Sleepwalker is Not Insane” (1992) 55 Mod. L. Rev. 714, at pp. 715-16.
[66] Parasomnias seemed to withstand the trend towards the treatment of virtually all automatistic behaviour as the product of a disease of the mind. However, in none of the cases in which the courts accepted that parasomnia amounted to non-mental disorder automatism did the accused actually advance parasomnia as an explanation for his or her automatism. The references to parasomnia in the judgments were obiter and were usually by way of explaining why the automatism defence actually advanced by the accused should not result in an acquittal. Put bluntly, in none of these cases was the court faced with the prospect of acquitting a parasomniac who had committed what would otherwise be a serious crime.[6] Furthermore, again because the cases did not actually involve parasomnia, the courts never heard any evidence about the nature of parasomnia.[7]
[67] R. v. Parks put the long held judicial assumption that automatism resulting from parasomnia should lead to an acquittal to a severe test.[8] The accused in Parks claimed that he was in a parasomniac state for a prolonged time period during which he engaged
in a series of activities including leaving his own home, getting into his car, driving across town on a busy highway to the home of his in-laws, entering their home, and attacking them while they were asleep. The accused killed his mother-in-law and seriously injured his father-in-law and then drove to the police station covered in blood. The defence led uncontradicted expert evidence to the effect that the accused’s condition rendered him incapable of controlling his actions and did not constitute a mental disorder. The trial judge did not leave NCR-MD as a possible verdict but instructed the jury that they should acquit if they had a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the accused’s actions. The jury acquitted and the Crown appealed. This court affirmed the acquittal, and on a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada that court unanimously affirmed the acquittal.
[68] For present purposes, I will focus on the reasons of La Forest J., delivered for a six-person majority in the Supreme Court of Canada. La Forest J. began by recognizing that the appeal turned on the characterization of the respondent’s automatistic state as either “insane” or “non-insane” automatism. Just as in this case, the accused had led evidence that his actions were involuntary and claimed an acquittal based on that evidence. Again, just as in this case, the Crown denied that the actions were involuntary and alternatively argued that if the actions were involuntary, they were the product of a mental disorder and should result in an insanity verdict and not an acquittal. La Forest J. observed that as the Crown had raised the insanity issue in response to the accused’s contention that his actions were involuntary, the Crown had the onus to prove that the accused’s condition stemmed from a disease of the mind: Parks, at pp. 304, 311. In placing the onus on the Crown, La Forest J. relied on s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code (now s. 16(3)).
[69] Having placed the onus on the Crown, La Forest J. turned to the proper characterization of sleepwalking. He did not simply adopt the cases that had described parasomnia as a self-evident example of non-insane automatism but instead held that parasomnia may or may not be a mental disorder depending on the evidence led in a particular case: Parks, at p. 311.[9]
[70] La Forest J. emphasized, at pp. 304-305, that the phrase “disease of the mind” was a legal and not a medical term. The experts described Parks’ disassociative mental state as the product of sleep and not the product of sleepwalking, an admittedly abnormal condition. According to the experts, sleep was a normal process that could not be characterized as a “disease of the mind”.[10]
[71] La Forest J. did not stop at the experts’ characterization of the accused’s disassociative state. He emphasized that a proper characterization demanded a consideration of factors beyond those relevant to the medical diagnosis, stating at p. 302: In distinguishing between automatism and insanity the trial judge must consider more than the evidence; there are overarching policy considerations as well. Of course, the evidence in each case will be highly relevant to this policy inquiry.
[72] La Forest J. next observed, at p. 305, that the policy component of the definition of “disease of the mind” focused on the protection of the public. He referred with approval to the observations of Martin J.A. in Rabey, at p. 473: The legal or policy component relates to (a) the scope of the exemption from criminal responsibility to be afforded by mental disorder or disturbance, and (b) the protection of the public by the control and treatment of persons who have caused serious harms while in a mentally disordered or disturbed state.
[73] La Forest J. and Martin J.A. both acknowledged that public safety considerations may dictate that any abnormal mental state rendering a person incapable of controlling his or her conduct should be characterized as a disease of the mind regardless of the medical characterization or diagnosis. The legal characterization of the condition as a “disease of the mind” places the accused within the s. 16 exemption to criminal liability and forecloses an outright acquittal. Those who are exempted from criminal liability under s. 16 are subject to a post-verdict inquiry into their dangerousness.
[74] La Forest J. identified two approaches that have been used to distinguish non-insane automatism from insane automatism. One approach looked to the cause of the condition and differentiated between causes internal to an accused’s physical or emotional make-up and causes that were entirely external to the accused. The second approach examined the extent to which the accused, because of the nature of the condition, posed a continuing danger to the community. He said at p. 306: The “continuing danger” theory holds that any condition likely to present a recurring danger to the public should be treated as insanity. The “internal cause” theory suggests that a condition stemming from the psychological or emotional make-up of the accused, rather than some external factor, should lead to a finding of insanity. The two theories share a common concern for recurrence, the latter holding that an internal weakness is more likely to lead to recurrent violence than automatism brought on by some intervening external cause. [Emphasis added.]
[75] La Forest J. indicated that neither approach necessarily provided a definitive answer to the characterization problem presented in any given case. Rather, the two approaches should be treated as analytical tools to be used in answering the ultimate policy inquiry – does the protection of the public dictate that the accused’s disordered mental state should be treated as a disease of the mind? [76] La Forest J. applied these analytical tools to the evidence. He concluded, at p. 307, that the distinction between internal and external causes was not helpful in characterizing parasomnias. With respect to the ongoing danger, if any, posed by the accused, La Forest J. observed at p. 310: It is clear from the evidence that there is almost no likelihood of recurrent violent somnambulism. A finding of insanity is therefore less likely, but the absence of a continuing danger does not mean that the respondent must be granted an absolute acquittal.
[77] After determining that neither the causal or ongoing danger analysis provided any clear insight as to the proper characterization of sleepwalking, La Forest J. adverted to additional potentially relevant policy considerations. These considerations proceed from the premise that some automatism claims are feigned and that if automatism claims are too readily accepted by the courts, the administration of justice will be brought into disrepute. These concerns are sometimes described as due administration of justice concerns. I confess to some difficulty in understanding how concerns about the legitimacy of a defence should affect the characterization of an accused’s mental state. In any event, La Forest J. concluded that due administration of justice concerns were irrelevant to the characterization of parasomnia.
[78] La Forest J. ultimately concluded at p. 311: In the end, there are no compelling policy factors that preclude a finding that the accused’s condition was one of non-insane automatism. I noted earlier that it is for the Crown to prove that somnambulism stems from a disease of the mind; neither the evidence nor policy considerations in this case overcome the Crown’s burden in that regard… [T]he accused should be acquitted.
[79] As is evident, La Forest J. ultimately decided the characterization issue by resort to the burden of proof. On La Forest J.’s analysis, the accused succeeded not because he showed his condition to be one of non-insane automatism but because the Crown failed to prove that the condition should be characterized as insane automatism.
(iii) R. v. Stone, Automatism Reconsidered
[80] I come now to R. v. Stone. The accused stabbed his wife 47 times. At his murder trial, he claimed that he was in a disassociative state brought on by the “psychological blows” inflicted by his wife. According to the appellant, in the hours prior to the homicide, his wife had made many insulting and derisive comments toward him. The accused argued that his actions were involuntary and not the product of a disease of the mind. At trial, the defence sought an acquittal and alternatively a finding of NCR-MD. The jury convicted the accused of manslaughter and the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
[81] Bastarache J., at p. 419, speaking for a five-person majority, announced that he would “develop a general test applicable to all claims of automatism.” He proceeded to substantially rewrite the case law. Bastarache J. began by determining that the onus of proof should be on the accused to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that his actions were involuntary. This reversal of the onus of proof on an essential element of the offence is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the ruling in Stone. It is not, however, directly germane to the outcome of this appeal.
[82] The second part of the reasons of Bastarache J. is central to the outcome of this appeal. Bastarache J. held that in those cases where an accused had established a proper evidentiary basis to put voluntariness in issue, the trial judge was required to decide at the end of the evidence whether the claim amounted to one of non-mental disorder automatism or mental disorder automatism. If the claim was properly characterized as mental disorder automatism an acquittal was not available and the trier of fact should be instructed only on the defence of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.
[83] Bastarache J. acknowledged that the distinction between non-mental disorder automatism and mental disorder automatism depended on the definition of the phrase “disease of the mind”. After referring to the position taken by the Canadian Psychiatric Association before a committee of the House of Commons to the effect that all automatism claims should be treated as mental disorder claims, Bastarache J. said at pp. 432-33: I take judicial notice that it will only be in rare cases that automatism is not caused by mental disorder. Indeed, since the trial judge will have already concluded that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the accused acted involuntarily on a balance of probabilities, there is a serious question as to the existence of an operating mind by the time the disease of the mind is considered. The foregoing lends itself to a rule that trial judges start from the proposition that the condition the accused claims to have suffered from is a disease of the mind. They must then determine whether the evidence in the particular case takes the condition out of the disease of the mind category.
[84] Bastarache J. took the position that anyone who committed what would otherwise be a criminal act and led evidence capable of establishing that his or her actions were involuntary was presumptively suffering from a disease of the mind. This presumption fundamentally changes the legal landscape set out in Parks where, it will be recalled, the non-mental disorder automatism claim succeeded because the Crown could not prove that the accused’s condition constituted a disease of the mind.
[85] Like La Forest J. in Parks, Bastarache J. would not accept that any single approach or criterion could be used to distinguish between non-mental disorder automatism and mental disorder automatism. Bastarache J. described a “holistic approach” that took into consideration the cause of the condition, the continuing danger presented to the public, the due administration of justice policy concerns identified in earlier cases and any other factors made germane to the inquiry by the facts of the particular case. He said at p. 441: [T]he fundamental question of mixed law and fact which is at the centre of the disease of mind inquiry: whether society requires protection from the accused and, consequently, whether the accused should be subject to evaluation under the regime contained in Part XX.I of the (Criminal) Code. [Emphasis added.]
[86] Bastarache J.’s consideration of the continuing danger factor is germane to this appeal. He observes at p. 439: In examining the continuing danger factor, trial judges may consider any of the evidence before them in order to assess the likelihood of recurrence of violence. However, two issues will be particularly relevant to the continuing danger factor: the psychiatric history of the accused and the likelihood that the trigger alleged to have caused the automatistic episode will recur. [Emphasis added.]
[87] Bastarache J. explained that a documented history of automatistic-like disassociative states suggested that the condition suffered by the accused was a recurring one. The likelihood of recurrence and more specifically the recurrence of violence during an automatistic state was also enhanced by the fact that on at least one prior occasion, the occasion leading to the criminal charge, the accused had engaged in violent conduct while in an automatistic state. The prior history combined with the prior violent incident indicated that the accused’s condition was “likely to be classified as a disease of the mind”: Stone, at p. 439.
[88] In addressing the significance of the likelihood of the recurrence of the conditions that triggered the automatistic state, Bastarache J. noted that it was difficult to predict the actual recurrence of violence. However, the predictability of the automatistic state in which the violence occurred depended on the likelihood of the recurrence of the triggering events. He said at p. 440: [A]n assessment of the likelihood that the particular accused will again encounter the trigger alleged to have caused the current automatistic episode, or a similar one of at least equal severity, may assist a judge in assessing the continuing danger factor. The greater the anticipated frequency of the trigger in the accused’s life, the greater the risk posed to the public and, consequently, the more likely it is that the condition alleged by the accused is a disease of the mind.[11] [Emphasis added.]
[89] Bastarache J. then applied his “holistic approach” to the evidence in the case before him. He stressed the absence of any extraordinary external event that could cause a normal person to disassociate. In the absence of any such explanation, the accused’s condition was presumptively a product of a disease of the mind.
[90] Stone alters the approach to the characterization of automatism as non-mental disorder automatism or mental disorder automatism in at least two significant ways. First, after Stone the trial judge must begin from the premise that the automatism is caused by a disease of the mind and look to the evidence to determine whether it convinces him or her that the condition is not a “disease of the mind”. This approach is in direct contrast with Parks where the non-mental disorder automatism claim succeeded because the Crown failed to prove that the condition was caused by a disease of the mind.
[91] Second, although Stone accepts the multi-factored approach to the policy component of the characterization of the automatism set out in Parks, it refocuses the continuing danger aspect of that approach. After Stone, in evaluating the risk of repetition and hence the danger to the public, trial judges must not limit their inquiry only to the risk of further violence while in an automatistic state. Rather, trial judges must examine the risk of the recurrence of the factors or events that triggered the accused’s automatistic state. Commenting on this refinement of the continuing danger inquiry Professor Paciocco observes in “Death by Stone-ing: The Demise of the Defence of Simple Automatism” at p. 281: This part of the judgment effectively reverses Parks. The triggers for Parks’ somnambulism or sleep-walking included stress, fatigue, insomnia and exercise. There is no point in speaking of the likelihood of such triggers being present in the future. It is a veritable certainty that they will be. It is clear that had Parks been tried using the Stone test, the only defence that would have been left to the jury would be “mental disorder automatism”. [Emphasis added.]
[92] Professor Paciocco’s prediction is largely borne out by the Canadian parasomnia cases that post-date Stone. I am aware of five including this case. In the other four cases, the automatistic states flowing from the parasomnia were held to constitute diseases of the mind: see Canada v. Campbell 2000 CanLII 22824 (ON S.C.), (2000), 35 C.R. (5th) 314 (Ont. S.C); R. v. Balenko, [2000] Q.J. No. 717 (C.Q. (Crim. Div.)); R. v. Romas (2002), 6 M.V.R. (5th) 101 (B.C. Prov. Ct.); and R. v. Churchyard, an unreported decision of Smith J. released November 19, 2003 (Ont. S.C.).
[93] The majority position in Stone signals a strong preference for a finding of NCR-MD in cases where an accused establishes that he or she was in a disassociative state and acted involuntarily. Social defence concerns, inevitably present in such cases, must to a large degree drive the analysis in automatism cases after Stone.
[94] The strong preference for an NCR-MD verdict expressed in Stone is explained in part by the very different treatment accorded those found NCR-MD compared to the historical treatment provided to those found not guilty by reason of insanity, as was the case at the time of the trial in Parks. Prior to 1991, persons found not guilty by reason of insanity were detained indefinitely at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The provisions of Part XX.I of the Criminal Code not only disposed of the insanity nomenclature but completely changed the post-verdict treatment of those found NCR-MD: S.C. 1991, c. 43.
[95] I do not think it is coincidental that Stone and Winko, the leading case on the interpretation of Part XX.I of the Criminal Code, were heard by the same nine judges about ten days apart, and decided about three weeks apart several months later. It is hard to resist the inference that Stone was written having in mind what the court would say three weeks later when it released its decision in Winko.
[96] In Winko, McLachlin J. explained the operation of Part XX.I this way at para. 43: In summary, the purpose of Part XX.I is to replace the common law regime for the treatment of those who offend while mentally ill with a new approach emphasizing individualized assessment and the provision of opportunities for appropriate treatment. Under Part XX.I, the NCR accused is neither convicted nor acquitted. Instead, he or she is found not criminally responsible by reason of illness at the time of the offence. This is not a finding of dangerousness. It is rather a finding that triggers a balanced assessment of the offender’s possible dangerousness and of what treatment-associated measures are required to offset it. Throughout the process the offender is to be treated with dignity and accorded the maximum liberty compatible with Part XX.I’s goals of public protection and fairness to the NCR accused. [Emphasis added.]
[97] Winko provides a detailed examination of s. 672.54, the provision governing the dispositions available with respect to persons found NCR-MD. As interpreted in Winko, s. 672.54 requires the absolute discharge of anyone found NCR-MD unless the court or the Review Board determines that the individual poses “a significant threat to the public”. McLachlin J. said at para. 52: This interpretation of s. 672.54 eliminates any need for the NCR accused to prove lack of dangerousness and relieves him or her of any legal or evidentiary burden. If the evidence does not support the conclusion that the NCR accused is a significant risk, the NCR accused need do nothing; the only possible order is an absolute discharge.
[98] The risk determination required by s. 672.54 cannot not be based on speculation or assumptions about how persons with mental disorders behave. There must be evidence establishing the significant risk. That risk must be a real risk of criminal conduct involving physical or psychological harm to individuals in the community. A risk of trivial harm or miniscule risk of significant harm will not suffice to deprive the individual of his or her liberty: Winko, at para. 57.
[99] As explained in Winko, there are also significant procedural safeguards built into Part XX.I of the Criminal Code. A person found NCR-MD must receive a timely disposition hearing before either the court or the Review Board. He or she has full access to the bail provisions pending that hearing. The disposition hearing is not adversarial but provides for a full and wide-ranging inquiry into all factors relevant to the appropriate disposition. The disposition hearing allows for the input of medical professionals who will have had a chance to assess the person found NCR-MD and to develop opinions based on an up-to-date assessment of that person’s condition. Where, as in most cases, the disposition hearing is before the Review Board, the panel will include a psychiatrist.
[100] A combined reading of Stone and Winko yields a comprehensive response to automatism claims. At the pre-verdict stage, social defence concerns dominate. Those concerns focus on the risk posed by the potential recurrence of the conduct in issue. Where that risk exists, the risk combined with the occurrence of the conduct that led to the criminal proceedings will almost always justify further inquiry into the accused’s dangerousness so as to properly protect the public.
[101] In the post-verdict stage, however, the emphasis shifts to an individualized assessment of the actual dangerousness of the person found NCR-MD. Where that personalized assessment does not demonstrate the requisite significant risk, the person found NCR-MD must receive an absolute discharge. Even where a significant risk exists, the disposition order must be tailored to the specific circumstances of the individual and must, to the extent possible, minimize the interference with that individual’s liberty.
[102] Re Romas, [2002] B.C.R.B.D. No. 66 (British Columbia Review Board), provides an example of the integration of the Stone approach to automatism and the Winko approach to Part XX.I of the Criminal Code. At trial (R. v. Romas), the accused was charged with an assault-related offence and claimed to have acted as a result of Confusional Sleep Arousal, a sleep disorder. Applying Stone, the accused was found NCR-MD. The trial judge referred the matter to the British Columbia Review Board for disposition. About six weeks later the Board, by a majority vote, ordered the accused absolutely discharged. In so ordering, the Board referred to several factors, all of which would seem applicable to the respondent assuming his current condition is consistent with that described at trial. (iv) The Trial Judge’s Application of the Principles in R. v. Stone
[103] I am satisfied that the trial judge failed to appreciate the significance of the hereditary nature of the respondent’s condition, failed to give effect to the respondent’s well established history of sexsomnia, and failed to appreciate the significance of the strong likelihood of the recurrence of the events that triggered his sexsomnia. The trial judge also failed to appreciate that Dr. Shapiro’s medical opinion that parasomnia did not constitute a mental disorder was largely irrelevant to the determination of whether, for policy reasons, the condition should be classified legally as a disease of the mind. These errors led to a failure to apply the proper legal standard when characterizing the respondent’s automatism.
[104] When addressing the cause of the respondent’s condition, the trial judge acknowledged that causes internal to the accused, be they physical or mental, were generally treated as indicative of a disease of the mind, while causes external to the accused were generally indicative of a non-mental disorder automatism. The trial judge then said at para. 46: The jurisprudence recognizes that somnambulism, as in the Parks case, is not suitable to this kind of analysis. Somnambulism is not a disease of the mind.
[105] The trial judge was wrong to categorically indicate that somnambulism is not a disease of the mind. As Parks made clear, it may or may not be depending on the evidence. More significantly to the outcome of this case, I think the trial judge erred in dismissing the potential significance of the causes of the respondent’s condition by referring to jurisprudence that had dismissed the internal/external cause distinction as being of no assistance in parasomnia cases. The trial judge should have considered whether, on the evidence, the causes of the parasomnia as explained by Dr. Shapiro offered any insight into the risk of recurrence and hence the potential danger to the public.
[106] While the cause of parasomnia may not fit within the “external/internal” causal dichotomy described in the case law, Dr. Shapiro’s evidence establishes that the predisposition for parasomnia, found in some three per cent of the adult population, is hereditary. A genetic predisposition is the epitome of an internal cause. Although that disposition does not cause the particular automatistic event, it does predispose the individual to that condition thereby increasing the risk of recurrence. The trial judge erred in discounting the significance of this internal cause of the respondent’s condition. He did so based on a misapprehension of the “sleepwalking” case law and a failure to consider evidence relevant to the causal inquiry.
[107] The trial judge’s treatment of the “continuing danger” component of the meaning of “disease of the mind” reveals two errors. First, he found that prior sexsomnia incidents did not assist in assessing the danger to the public because those incidents did not involve criminal conduct. While technically the conduct did involve non-consensual sexual activity, I certainly accept that it was not conduct that should attract a criminal charge.
[108] Even though the incidents involving former girlfriends did not lead to criminal charges, they were important in assessing the risk posed by the respondent’s conduct. These events correspond to the psychiatric history of prior automatistic episodes stressed in Stone. The respondent’s prior sexsomnia episodes demonstrate that his conduct toward L.O. was not an isolated, “one-off” incident. There were episodes both prior to and subsequent to the attack on L.O. during which the respondent engaged in sexual activity at a time when he was unaware of what he was doing and unable to control himself. In that condition the respondent could not distinguish between a consenting partner and a non-consenting victim. The identity of the subject of the sexual activity was a matter of chance, not a matter of choice.
[109] I accept that it is perhaps more probable that the respondent would be asleep with or near someone with whom he had a relationship involving consensual sexual relations. It cannot, however, be unexpected that the respondent will find himself asleep in the vicinity of persons with whom he has no relationship. One thinks of an airport or train station waiting room or the sleeping arrangements at a friend’s cottage. There is also nothing in the evidence to suggest that the respondent could not move from room to room while in a parasomniac state and engage in non-consensual sexual activity with someone who happens to be in same building but in a different room.
[110] With respect to the trial judge, his rejection of the prior sexsomnia incidents as having no value in considering whether the respondent posed a risk runs contrary to the fundamental nature of the defence advanced by the respondent. It was central to his position that he had no awareness of what he was doing and no control over his actions. It must follow that he was incapable of distinguishing between a consensual or non-consensual situation while in a parasomniac state. The trial judge should not have relied on a distinction that the accused was incapable of making to diminish the risk posed by the respondent.
[111] The second error made by the trial judge in examining the “continuing danger” factor arises from his failure to consider the likelihood that the respondent would encounter the events or circumstances that triggered his parasomnia. Stone, at p. 440, explicitly directs trial judges to look to the likelihood of the recurrence of the triggering events and not just the likelihood of the recurrence of acts of violence while in an automatistic state.
[112] The triggers in this case included alcohol, fatigue and stress. These are common place in most people’s lives, particularly in the life of a busy, socially active, young man. Had the trial judge addressed the likelihood of the recurrence of the triggering events he would no doubt have found that it was virtually inevitable that some combination of these events would recur and recur with some frequency. On the analysis in Stone, the likelihood of recurrence of these triggering events offers significant support for a finding that the respondent’s parasomnia should be characterized as a disease of the mind.
[113] The trial judge also placed considerable emphasis on the firmness of Dr. Shapiro’s evidence that the respondent’s parasomnia did not constitute a disease of the mind. Dr. Shapiro’s opinion that parasomnia did not constitute a disease of the mind, as opposed to his explanation of parasomnia and his opinion that the respondent was in a parasomniac state, had little or no evidentiary value. Nor was the force with which he held that opinion of any significance. As Martin J.A. observed in Rabey, at p. 474: Indeed, in strictness, a medical witness is not entitled to state that a particular condition is or is not a disease of the mind since that is a legal question. In practice, however, it is often convenient and permissible, in the discretion of the Judge, for a medical witness to testify in those terms.
[114] The trial judge should not have been influenced by Dr. Shapiro’s opinion as to the proper categorization of the respondent’s medical condition when deciding whether as a matter of law and for policy reasons that condition should or should not be characterized as a disease of the mind.
[115] Mr. Addario for the respondent ably, although ultimately unsuccessfully, defended the reasoning of the trial judge. Near the end of his oral submissions he opened a second front in support of his position that the appeal must be dismissed. Mr. Addario submitted that even if a strict application of the analysis set out in Stone might suggest an NCR-MD verdict, it would be grossly unfair and unjust to the respondent to label him NCR-MD. Mr. Addario submitted that as wrongheaded as it no doubt is, there is a very strong negative stereotype of persons found to be NCR-MD. Mr Addario submits that the reality of the respondent’s medical condition and his life in general could not be further from that stereotype. He contends that the respondent’s parasomnia would not be regarded by any reasonable member of the community as the kind of mental disorder associated with a finding of NCR-MD. Mr Addario forcefully argues that, just as the criminal justice system must be concerned with illegitimate automatism claims, it must be concerned that verdicts in automatism cases bear some resemblance to the community’s concept of those who should or should not be found NCR-MD.
[116] There is considerable force in Mr. Addario’s submissions. Clearly no reasonable member of the community would, or should, regard the respondent as mentally ill. Indeed, the inappropriateness of labelling persons with parasomnia as mentally ill was acknowledged by Chief Justice Lane in Burgess, at p. 776.
[117] I agree with Mr. Addario’s contention that the result in criminal proceedings should, at least on a general level, reflect the community’s perception of the appropriate result. Proper labelling is important to the maintaining of the integrity of the criminal justice process. It would be preferable if the Criminal Code allowed the court, where it was deemed necessary, to specifically identify in its verdict the condition that caused the involuntary actions, e.g. not criminally responsible on account of parasomnia: see Ebrahim, et al., at p. 612. Unfortunately the Criminal Code does not provide for that flexibility. Arguably, neither of the available verdicts, not guilty or NCR-MD, would be regarded by the community as particularly apt labels for the respondent.
[118] The second part of Mr. Addario’s submission would have the court accept the negative stereotyping of those found NCR-MD and decline to impose that verdict on the respondent because he does not fit that stereotype. No one should deny the existence of this negative stereotype and the harm it can do to those found NCR-MD. To give effect to Mr. Addario’s submission would, however, promote this negative stereotype. Were the court to decline to find the respondent NCR-MD because he does not fit the negative stereotype of persons so found, the court could be taken as accepting that those who are found NCR-MD do fit that stereotype.
[119] The new mental disorder regime introduced into the Criminal Code in 1991 is intended to overcome the improper stereotyping of persons found NCR-MD and to provide for individualized assessment and treatment of those individuals: see Winko, at paras. 35-40. The courts can best play a role in the important task of overcoming the negative stereotypes associated with mental illness, not by shaping their verdicts to conform to those stereotypes, but by emphasizing both the basis for a finding of NCR-MD and by explaining what the verdict means. An NCR-MD verdict signals that an accused cannot be held responsible for what would otherwise be his or her criminal act. At the same time, it rejects any suggestion that the accused represents an automatic danger to the public. Instead, the NCR-MD verdict triggers an individualized, careful, current assessment of the accused’s condition leading to a disposition tailored to the individual accused.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE ORDER
[120] The Crown has established an error in law that vitiates the acquittal. On a proper application of the principles taken from Stone, to the facts as found by the trial judge, a NCR-MD verdict is the only verdict available in law. By analogy to Crown appeals from acquittals by a judge alone where the Crown seeks a conviction on appeal, an order setting aside the acquittal and substituting an NCR-MD verdict would seem to be the correct order: see R. v. Cassidy 1989 CanLII 25 (S.C.C.), (1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.), at p. 200. Crown counsel in her original factum and in oral submissions asked the court to allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal and substitute an NCR-MD verdict. The respondent did not suggest that the court did not have jurisdiction to substitute an NCR-MD verdict should it allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal.
[121] While this appeal was under reserve, the panel asked counsel for further written submissions addressing the scope of the court’s remedial powers should it allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal. In her written submissions, Ms. Crosbie took the position that the court cannot substitute an NCR-MD verdict, and under the terms of s. 686(4) can only order a new trial. She further submitted that s. 686(8) does not allow this court to limit the new trial to the determination of whether the respondent’s automatism constituted non-mental disorder automatism resulting in an acquittal, or mental disorder automatism resulting in an NCR-MD verdict. In their written reply, counsel for the respondent agreed that this court cannot substitute an NCR-MD verdict. They contend, however, that the court can and should make an order under s. 686(8) limiting the scope of the new trial. Counsel argued that the Crown should not be permitted to re-litigate the voluntariness of the respondent’s conduct. The new trial should be directed only at determining whether that involuntary conduct should result in an acquittal or an NCR-MD verdict.
[122] Appeals are creatures of statutes. The powers of the Court of Appeal on appeals in indictable matters are found in Part XXI of the Criminal Code: see R. v. Thomas 1998 CanLII 774 (S.C.C.), (1998), 130 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (S.C.C.), at para. 14; R. v. Wells 2004 ABCA 371 (CanLII), (2004), 193 C.C.C. (3d) 43 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 12. Section 676(1)(a) creates the Crown’s right of appeal from an acquittal or an NCR-MD verdict. The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for the purpose may appeal to the court of appeal (a) against a judgment or verdict of acquittal or a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of a trial court in proceedings by indictment on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone
[123] Section 686(4) sets out the Court of Appeal’s remedial powers on appeals from an acquittal or a finding of NCR-MD: If an appeal is from an acquittal or verdict that the appellant or respondent was unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court of appeal may
(a) dismiss the appeal; or (b) allow the appeal, set aside the verdict and (i) order a new trial, or (ii) except where the verdict is that of a court composed of a judge and jury, enter a verdict of guilty with respect to the offence of which, in its opinion, the accused should have been found guilty but for the error in law, and pass a sentence that is warranted in law, or remit the matter to the trial court and direct the trial court to impose a sentence that is warranted in law.
[124] Section 686(4) specifically provides for two remedies if a Crown appeal from acquittal is successful. The court may order a new trial, or if the original verdict was not returned by a jury, substitute a conviction. Section 686(4) says nothing about the court’s power to substitute an NCR-MD verdict for an acquittal. Nor is there anything in the language of s. 686(4) to suggest that the power to substitute an NCR-MD verdict is implicit in the language of that section.
[125] The absence of any reference in s. 686(4) to the power to substitute an NCR-MD verdict for an acquittal takes on added significance when one examines the powers of the Court of Appeal on appeals from conviction. Section 686(2)(b) provides that the court can set aside a conviction and order a new trial. A different section, s. 686(1)(d), expressly allows a court of appeal to substitute an NCR-MD verdict for a conviction where that conviction is set aside on a conviction appeal. In R. v. Warsing 1998 CanLII 775 (S.C.C.), (1998), 130 C.C.C. (3d) 259 (S.C.C.), Major J., for the majority, read the two remedial sections as providing alternative remedies on an appeal from conviction where an appellant’s sanity was challenged for the first time on appeal. After examining the two provisions, he said at para. 68: Without s. 686(1)(d) a court of appeal would not be able to substitute a verdict of NCRMD as s. 686(1)(a) and s. 686(2) [the new trial provisions] alone do not provide for this remedy.
[126] There is no equivalent to s. 686(1)(d) applicable to appeals from acquittals. On the reasoning in Warsing, this court can only order a new trial and cannot substitute an NCR-MD verdict on a successful Crown appeal from an acquittal.
[127] Section 686(4) is far from a masterpiece of legislative draftsmanship. As pointed out in R. v. Yelle 2006 ABCA 276 (CanLII), (2006), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Alt. C.A.), the section provides no express remedies on a successful Crown appeal from a trial judgment that had ordered a stay of proceedings. In Yelle, Martin J.A., at paras. 34-38, expressed the opinion that the absence of any remedial provision reflected a clear legislative oversight which if left uncorrected would cause significant harm to the administration of justice. Martin J.A. read the statutory power to order a new trial found in s. 686(4) as including the power to make an order directing the continuation of the initial trial where the Crown appeal was from an order staying that trial.
[128] The reasoning in Yelle is compelling, however, I do not think I can apply that reasoning to this case. Parliament has clearly turned its mind to the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may substitute an NCR-MD verdict. It has chosen to extend that power on conviction appeals but not on appeals from acquittals. An appellate court’s remedial powers on Crown appeals have traditionally been much more circumscribed than appellate powers on conviction appeals. I doubt that the absence of a power to substitute an NCR-MD verdict on a Crown appeal from an acquittal in a non-jury case reflects a considered policy decision. However, I cannot say that it clearly demonstrates a legislative oversight justifying a judicial rewrite of the provision.
[129] Section 686(4) by its clear language provides for only two remedies on appeals from acquittals entered by judges sitting without juries. This court may order a new trial, or enter a conviction. Obviously this is not a case for a conviction. A new trial is the only possible remedy. [130] I come now to whether this court can make an order limiting the issues at the new trial. While counsel disagree as to the existence of the power to limit the new trial, they do agree that if the power exists it must be found in s. 686(8): Where a court of appeal exercises any of the powers conferred by subsection (2), (4), (6) or (7), it may make any order, in addition, that justice requires.
[131] Section 686(8) creates a broad discretionary power to make a wide variety of orders ancillary to the primary order made under the remedial provisions in s. 686: R. v. P. (D.W.) 1989 CanLII 71 (S.C.C.), (1987), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (S.C.C.), at pp. 419-20; Thomas, at para. 19. There are, however, limits on the reach of s. 686(8). It does not create a free standing remedial power but provides a supplementary power that may be used, where justice requires, to augment the remedial powers found elsewhere in s. 686. As a supplementary power, an order made under s. 686(8) cannot be at variance with the primary order made in any given case. Nor can an order made under s. 686(8) be inconsistent with the remedial powers granted under the other provisions in s. 686. For example, s. 686(8) could not be used to substitute a conviction on a Crown appeal from an acquittal entered by a jury: see R. v. Pearson 1998 CanLII 776 (S.C.C.), (1998), 130 C.C.C. (3d) 293 (S.C.C.), at para. 14; Thomas, at paras. 17, 21-22.
[132] This court has previously held that the remedial power in s. 686(8) is broad enough to permit, in unusual circumstances, an order limiting the scope of a new trial. In Reference Re Regina v. Gorecki (No. 2) (1976), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 135, the court received fresh evidence directed at the sanity of the accused at the time of the homicide. The court concluded that a new trial should be directed and that the new trial should be limited to the insanity issue. In R. v. Wade 1992 CanLII 748 (ON C.A.), (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 39, reversed on other grounds 1995 CanLII 100 (S.C.C.), (1995), 98 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.), this court directed a new trial limited to whether the accused was guilty of murder or manslaughter. In Wade the accused claimed that he was in an automatistic state at the time of the homicides as a result of certain sleep disorders. The jury rejected that claim and convicted the accused. The court held that there was non-direction on the included offence of manslaughter. It further held, however, that the issue of the voluntariness of the accused’s conduct had been fully and fairly litigated. Consequently the court, relying on s. 686(8), limited the new trial to the question of whether the accused was guilty of murder or manslaughter and foreclosed any further litigation on the voluntariness issue.
[133] The two decisions referred to above offer direct support for the respondent’s contention that the scope of a new trial ordered in this case can be limited to the issue of the nature of the respondent’s automatism. The Crown argues, however, that Gorecki and Wade have been implicitly but clearly overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Thomas and Warsing. In Thomas, the majority of the court quashed the order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal limiting the new trial to the question of whether the accused was guilty of murder or manslaughter. The majority directed a full new trial. In Warsing, the majority reversed the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal limiting the new trial to the issue of the accused’s sanity at the time of the homicide. The court ordered a full new trial.
[134] A reading of the majority judgments in Thomas and Warsing, in combination with the dissents, compels me to agree with the Crown’s submission that neither Gorecki nor Wade reflect the present state of the law as it relates to s. 686(8). It does not follow from that observation, however, that this court has no jurisdiction to limit the scope of the new trial in the circumstances of this appeal.
[135] Both Thomas and Warsing were cases in which the orders made by the appellate court limiting the new trial effectively eliminated the possibility of an acquittal and restricted, if not foreclosed, certain potential defences. Other authorities relied on by the Crown are also cases in which the proposed limits placed on the new trial would have adversely affected the rights of the accused: see R. v. MacKay 2005 SCC 79 (CanLII), (2005), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.); Wells, at para. 19.
[136] I accept counsel for the respondent’s submission that the considerations that led the Supreme Court of Canada in Warsing and Thomas to conclude that there was no jurisdiction in s. 686(6) to limit the scope of a new trial do not apply where the restriction on the scope of the new trial does not disadvantage the accused. In Warsing, at paras. 72-75, Major J. explained that limiting the new trial to the issue of whether the accused was NCR-MD was offensive to s. 686(6) because it would deny the accused the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to put forward whatever defence the accused deemed appropriate. In the present case, neither the presumption of innocence nor the accused’s right to control his own defence would be adversely affected by an order limiting the respondent’s new trial to a determination of whether his automatism should lead to an acquittal or an NCR-MD verdict. To the extent that the presumption of innocence remains alive in automatism cases after Stone, that presumption is not affected by an order limiting the scope of the new trial. That order would eliminate only the possibility of a conviction (although, for reasons set out above, I think the evidence as it presently stands effectively eliminates the possibility of an outright acquittal).
[137] The accused supports the order limiting the scope of the new trial. He does not seek to re-litigate the voluntariness issue. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that a limit on the scope of the new trial would interfere with the accused’s conduct of his own defence. To the contrary, the proposed order would reflect the manner in which the respondent wishes to conduct his defence. The position of the respondent with respect to the proposed limitation on the new trial distinguishes this case from Wade, where the accused very much wanted to re-litigate the voluntariness issue that he had lost at the initial trial.
[138] The submissions made on behalf of the respondent have convinced me that s. 686(8) does authorize an order ancillary to an order for a new trial made under s. 686(4) limiting the scope of the new trial. That ancillary order may be made only where it does not interfere with any of the accused’s rights and is otherwise consistent with the demands of justice in the circumstances: see R. v. Druken 2002 NFCA 23 (CanLII), (2002), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 115 (Nfld. C.A.), at pp. 139-40. I would think that such orders would be rare.
[139] Apart from the jurisdictional argument, the Crown does not advance any submissions to suggest that an order limiting the scope of the respondent’s new trial would be unfair to the interests represented by the Crown, cause practical problems at the new trial or otherwise interfere with the due administration of justice. The respondent, however, makes a convincing case that it would be unfair to compel him to re-litigate the voluntariness issue. He successfully established on the balance of probabilities that his conduct was involuntary. The trial judge fully and fairly reviewed the evidence before making that finding. His review reveals no error. Forcing a re-litigation of the voluntariness issue over the respondent’s objection many years after the relevant events occurred would be unfair to the respondent and unlikely to produce either substantive or procedural justice.
[140] I would make an order under s. 686(6) limiting the new trial to whether on a proper application of the principles in Stone the respondent’s automatism should result in an acquittal or an NCR-MD verdict. I recognize that in limiting the new trial in the manner I have, there may be little independent judgment for the trial judge to exercise at the new trial. If the evidence is substantially the same as it was at the first trial, an NCR-MD verdict is the only reasonable verdict available from the state of the current law. I would expect the trial judge to reach that verdict, assuming the evidence is substantially the same. The evidence may, of course, be different.
[141] There is some discussion in counsel’s written submissions about the possibility of remitting the matter to the original trial judge for the re-trial. Section 686(5)(b) may apply, in which case the re-trial could be before the original trial judge only if the court so ordered. I do not propose to make that order at this time. I do not, however, suggest that there is necessarily any impediment to the original trial judge conducting the re-trial. If counsel for the parties and the original trial judge are inclined to the view that it would be in the best interests of justice for him to conduct the re-trial I would be prepared to make the order necessary to remove any statutory impediment to him conducting the re-trial.
V. CONCLUSION
[142] I would allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal and order a new trial. Pursuant to s. 686(8), I would limit the scope of the new trial to a determination of whether the respondent’s automatism should result in a verdict of not guilty or an NCR-MD verdict.
On July 15 2011 23:14 Fenrax wrote: Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
i agree 100%. It was his fault for not telling the guest that if she climbs into his bed. he will rape her unconsciously. I mean, what kind of idiot wouldn't inform his house guest that he will rape them if they get in his bed. that fucking asshole
How i read it, is someone else told the girl to sleep in his bed while that guy was already asleep. The guy probably while sleeping unconsciously noticed someone next to him in his bed, he probably thought his wife. Then his sexsomania kicked in and began to well "do it".
To be honest, the fault lies with the person telling the girl to sleep in his bed while he was asleep. I could imagine if i semi-wake up in the morning next to someone its my girlfriend and cuddle/do things with her.
On July 15 2011 23:14 Fenrax wrote: Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
Did this man teleport from Wales to Belgium or something? I'm pretty sure these are two completely different people.
Different cases, same result. I just have the feeling that it is not wise by the courts to decide this way. You know, just a feeling. A bit about the question if a free will even exists will but mostly a general feeling.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
i agree 100%. It was his fault for not telling the guest that if she climbs into his bed. he will rape her unconsciously. I mean, what kind of idiot wouldn't inform his house guest that he will rape them if they get in his bed. that fucking asshole
put yourself in his shoes for just one second. he didn't know that the girl would be sleeping in his bed.
I want you to go to a 14 year old girl and tell her you'll rape her your sleep if she sleeps in your bed. Keep in mind that the girl was never supposed to be in his bed.
put yourself in the position of the girl, you're staying at somebody's house for the night and they tell you that they're gonna rape you when you sleep. Wouldn't that be awkward, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of there?
On July 15 2011 23:14 Fenrax wrote: Yep. Happened again. He absued a 9 year old girl, but was obviously "asleep" so why not let him back on the street? This logic is so fucked up I have no words.
Did this man teleport from Wales to Belgium or something? I'm pretty sure these are two completely different people.
Different cases, same result. I just have the feeling that it is not wise by the courts to decide this way. You know, just a feeling. A bit about the question if a free will even exists will but mostly a general feeling.
Rape a kid, go home, can't be right.
Let me guess, you didn't read the case I posted above?
Different cases, same result. I just have the feeling that it is not wise by the courts to decide this way. You know, just a feeling. A bit about the question if a free will even exists will but mostly a general feeling.
Rape a kid, go home, can't be right.
That makes more sense. I thought you thought that "he" referred to the same person.
The rest of your post has been covered multiple times in the part thirty pages. I direct your attention to the past thirty pages.
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
i agree 100%. It was his fault for not telling the guest that if she climbs into his bed. he will rape her unconsciously. I mean, what kind of idiot wouldn't inform his house guest that he will rape them if they get in his bed. that fucking asshole
put yourself in his shoes for just one second. he didn't know that the girl would be sleeping in his bed.
I want you to go to a 14 year old girl and tell her you'll rape her your sleep if she sleeps in your bed. Keep in mind that the girl was never supposed to be in his bed.
put yourself in the position of the girl, you're staying at somebody's house for the night and they tell you that they're gonna rape you when you sleep. Wouldn't that be awkward, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of there?
On July 09 2011 17:13 Kojak21 wrote: if a person goes around killing people in his sleep, he should still be held responsible for it, even if he doesnt remember or means to, its to keep other people safe.
this applys to rape and other things also
Being, "held responsible" isn't quite the appropriate description of what would be happening under this particular context. You want to know why? Because it would have absolutely no impact on if this occurs in the future again or not. So, what you are actually describing is the need for vengeance over something someone can't control.
I'm sick of twits like you comparing someone who wanders around and murders people in their sleep to someone who will potentially stick it to someone who enters their bed (I don't even know for sure if he was naked, but if he was the girl deserved every bit of it and I don't feel bad for her at all, she's 16, not 12). The similarity is only the state of the individual, the crimes are different and therefore you handle them differently.
So 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.
If there no mens rea, then there's no crime. Get that through your skull. Get out of this stupid black and white world where because something bad happened someone must be punished. Bad shit happens sometimes and people don't mean for it to happen. The guy didn't intend to rape the girl, punishing him for it is simply false justice.
Ok, so you apparantly say that if he killed a person in his sleep who came into his bed, then there would be no reason for the court to do something? Is that what you try to tell me?
Only dumb ones are people like you who keep spewing cases, and Wikipedia pages about Law terminology. Stop linking cases and stop saying mens rea. Motive is NOT required for a crime to have been committed, just look at man-slaughter charges. Please stop. The situation is very simple, and has been explained many times. I will do so again.
He knows about his condition full-well before the girl came to his house. Therefore as the host of the house, it is his responsibility to ensure any guests in the house know of any special rules or circumstances for living in said house. He did not inform her properly of his condition before she came to stay at the house, and therefore, due to negligence on his part to provide that information to the girl, it is in every way his fault what happened.
'She shouldn't have just crawled into his bed' - This is the number one thing you people seem to be saying about the case. Yes, you are right, she should not have. But by the same token if you go into someones room, whoever it is, and sleep in that room with them, in the bed, on the floor, or otherwise, 99% of people don't expect that person to rape you in their sleep.
Furthermore had she been properly informed of his condition there's a good chance she would not have even entered his house in the first place, and if she did decide to stay, she would have been properly aware of the accused's condition, and DEFINITELY would not have got into his bed. You are all seeming to forget, she is 16, he is 43, and given the situation of her staying there, it is clear he represents some sort of farther figure to her. You do not expect your father, or someone who acts a father to you, to rape you.
All of your points are invalid in this argument because she was not told of the person's condition, and that is 100%, very much in his control. It is his fault regardless of whether he had a motive, or whether he even was aware of the rape being omitted. He knew of his condition, his family did, they didn't tell the 16 year old. No mens rea, no fancy law terms, no case linking. Just simple circular logic.
If Person A has a serious sleep walking condition, and invites Person B to stay in his or her home, it is Person A's responsibility to make sure Person B knows of the condition - completely, before coming into the home. If Person A fails to provide such information, regardless of his state of consciousness at the time, any acts done by Person A to Person B are Person A's fault, as Person B was not aware of the condition. Just like its the responsibility of any business open to the public (that is retail businesses) to make sure any potential health hazards/dangers are well known to those coming in to make purchases and to ensure a safe environment is provided to its customers, it is the responsibility of the home owner to inform any guests to the home about possible mental/sleep walking conditions.
i agree 100%. It was his fault for not telling the guest that if she climbs into his bed. he will rape her unconsciously. I mean, what kind of idiot wouldn't inform his house guest that he will rape them if they get in his bed. that fucking asshole
put yourself in his shoes for just one second. he didn't know that the girl would be sleeping in his bed.
I want you to go to a 14 year old girl and tell her you'll rape her your sleep if she sleeps in your bed. Keep in mind that the girl was never supposed to be in his bed.
put yourself in the position of the girl, you're staying at somebody's house for the night and they tell you that they're gonna rape you when you sleep. Wouldn't that be awkward, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of there?
Someone doesn't understand sarcasm lol.
What I want to know is....Who the fuck told her to share the bed with him?
Besides that, why the fuck would she sleep in his bed? Especially if they aren't related what kind of 16 year old would willingly go sleep in the same bed as a middle aged man even if someone told her to? There's a lot of stupidity on every side of this case and it's basically a freak accident because of it.
EPT
I wonder if she tried to wake him up during.. or is it hard to wake someone up with sexsomnia? MAAAAAAAN this is just fucked all around.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9vuXm.png)
![[image loading]](http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/941615528_t9yay-L.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01937/Stephen-Davies_1937961c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.learningthings.com/mmLEARNINGTHINGS/Images/PPB_DK_HOW_DOES_IT_WORK_100.GIF)
Did you actually read anything?
