Apparently, Rape is not Rape

[Saint Jade IV]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25823169-952,00.html

A judge refused to impose a jail sentence on a man who pled guilty to rape after continuing to perform a sex act AFTER the victim passed out. Apparently, it's unfair to mark him as a rapist.

I'm sorry, but if someone is PASSED OUT, how do you continue and not be a rapist?

While I am unsure of the appropriate sentence, I do think, if you KNOWINGLY continue to have sex with someone after they have passed out, then that makes you a rapist. Of course, she consented to an initial sex act before passing out, but we have no way of knowing what further sex acts were performed, or how far the victim was prepared to go. Because she didn't get the opportunity to consent to continuation or further sex acts.

I disagree.
If someone consents then doesn't say no, it ain't rape.

That doesn't leave a lot of room for mindchanging, for one. Furthermore, imagine how you would feel to realise that someone had done something to you, something inside you, and you don't know what it was, because you weren't awake?

We only have HIS word that he merely completed the act to which she consented. Furthermore, people have very different interpretations of how far they intend things to go when they consent. We cannot know that she wouldn't have stopped what he interpreted as consensual actions a lot earlier had she been able to do so.

[Tahar Joblis]

I might think if someone passes out during sex, they were too drunk to consent anyways.

Not a bad idea, but one which requires a lot of public education to get into the public eye.

It's particularly difficult to enforce when some people get horny when drunk, and then you have the problematic situation where two drunk people have sex with each other.

If we are to treat everybody equal under the law, and sexing a drunk person is rape, then drunk people having sex are both liable for rape charges. Which is...

... problematic.

[Greed and Death]

I might think if someone passes out during sex, they were too drunk to consent anyways.

Not a bad idea, but one which requires a lot of public education to get into the public eye.

It's particularly difficult to enforce when some people get horny when drunk, and then you have the problematic situation where two drunk people have sex with each other.

If we are to treat everybody equal under the law, and sexing a drunk person is rape, then drunk people having sex are both liable for rape charges. Which is...

... problematic.

He admitted to knowing she was passed out which suggest he was sober enough.
Given if he had not said a god damn thing until he had an attorney, he would have gotten off Scot free.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

"I would put this offence at the lower end of the scale because the (sex act) began as a consensual one before the victim passed out and became incapable of consenting," Judge Smith said. "There is an inference that she might have consented (to more sex) had she been awake. The issue I have to resolve is whether I should even impose a suspended sentence here, that's my problem."

He declined to sentence Sloan, saying he needed more time to consider the matter.

"I'm troubled by this," he said.

"I've got you to consider, Mr Sloan, but also the victim and the public's perception."

He remanded Sloan on continuing bail until next week.

And that's just from the article. I don't understand why the judge's commentary is portrayed as a judgement.

And Steve Fielding is a four-sheets-to-the-wind populist dickhead. Yeah right Steve, these comments by a judge mean that we need minimum sentencing impositions. That'll fix it! Let's make the judge's decision a bit easier shall we: ten years in the slammer or let the rapist go.

[Redwulf]

That's...actually not true at all. If for some reason I am arrested for killing President Barack Obama, and I plead guilty to such, the judge can't just go "well, he plead guilty...so....life in prison for murder" when President Barack Obama is still quite obviously very much alive.

Pleading guilty doesn't mean a judge has to accept it, there still must be sufficient evidence to substantiate the confession.

Well, obviously in the case of a still-alive alleged murder victim, but we seem to have a rape victim here, a crime of rape, and a guy who pleaded guilty to said crime, and I don't think there is any other suspects. Now again I don't know much about law but it seems fairly straight-forward to me. If OJ had pleaded guilty, and Judge Ito had still let him walk, wouldn't that be... well... wrong?

seem to have a rape victim is probably the key term here. In a 'maybe, possibly' kinda way.

Where's the "maybe possible" part?

[Dinaverg]

[qote="Neo Art"]
That's...actually not true at all. If for some reason I am arrested for killing President Barack Obama, and I plead guilty to such, the judge can't just go "well, he plead guilty...so....life in prison for murder" when President Barack Obama is still quite obviously very much alive.

Pleading guilty doesn't mean a judge has to accept it, there still must be sufficient evidence to substantiate the confession.[/uote]

Well, obviously in the case of a still-alive alleged murder victim, but we seem to have a rape victim here, a crime of rape, and a guy who pleaded guilty to said crime, and I don't think there is any other suspects. Now again I don't know much about law but it seems fairly straight-forward to me. If OJ had pleaded guilty, and Judge Ito had still let him walk, wouldn't that be... well... wrong?

seem to have a rape victim is probably the key term here. In a 'maybe, possibly' kinda way.

Where's the "maybe possible" part?

mostly the part where her statement has, apparently, been withdrawn. Not to mention all the stuff we've been discussing up till now.

[Greed and Death]

seem to have a rape victim is probably the key term here. In a 'maybe, possibly' kinda way.

Where's the "maybe possible" part?

mostly the part where her statement has, apparently, been withdrawn. Not to mention all the stuff we've been discussing up till now.

If they had a rape kit on her they would still have that evidence.

[Dinaverg]

[qote="Dinaverg"]

seem to have a rape victim is probably the key term here. In a 'maybe, possibly' kinda way.[/quot]

Where's the "maybe possible" part?

mostly the part where her statement has, apparently, been withdrawn. Not to mention all the stuff we've been discussing up till now.

If they had a rape kit on her they would still have that evidence.

heh?

[Redwulf]

This wasn't rape. She consented beforehand, passed out, he continued.

Instead of making sure she wasn't, you know, dying or something like a responsible human being.

[Kyronea]

Bottle is completely in the right.

This woman passed out. Whether the man was engaged in a continuation of the sex act that he already had consent for or not, he should have stopped as soon as he realised this. Not doing so is a rape that requires a punishment such as jail.

A message needs to be sent to the community at large, and young males in particular, that women are not a Fleshlight^TM, open and willing unless they are screaming, "No, No STOP STOP!" throughout the entirety of the act. Women are active participants in the act of sex, and as such, if they are not conscious, they are by default not consenting.

I'd think that'd be obvious, personally. In my view anyway.

(Course I'm not sure Bottle's statement is necessarily applicable to all circumstances--a woman can be enjoying sex without having to claw backs and such--but that's quibbling.)

[SaintB]

Unconsciousness does not equal a warrant of consent for a very good reason. The girl who passed out at the party is definitely legally off-limits to the frat boys, though they may get away with their transgressions.

I guess girls should start carrying around little laminated cards to make these complicated rules clear to the frat boys, eh?

"The bearer of this card does not want to be fucked while asleep. She also does not want to be fucked while passed out drunk, or while stoned, or while knocked unconscious by a sharp blow to the head. If she isn't screaming your name and clawing your back, then consider yourself a rapist, jerkwad."

That would only make frat boys horny, you're an educated woman, you know how they tend to be the scum of the earth.

[Saint Jade IV]

"I would put this offence at the lower end of the scale because the (sex act) began as a consensual one before the victim passed out and became incapable of consenting," Judge Smith said. "There is an inference that she might have consented (to more sex) had she been awake. The issue I have to resolve is whether I should even impose a suspended sentence here, that's my problem."

He declined to sentence Sloan, saying he needed more time to consider the matter.

"I'm troubled by this," he said.

"I've got you to consider, Mr Sloan, but also the victim and the public's perception."

He remanded Sloan on continuing bail until next week.

And that's just from the article. I don't understand why the judge's commentary is portrayed as a judgement.

And Steve Fielding is a four-sheets-to-the-wind populist dickhead. Yeah right Steve, these comments by a judge mean that we need minimum sentencing impositions. That'll fix it! Let's make the judge's decision a bit easier shall we: ten years in the slammer or let the rapist go.

My issue is with the idea that there is such thing in this judge's mind as a technical rape and the judge appears to have a problem with imprisoning this vile excreta of a human being. It sends a message to women that if they are drunk and consent to a sex act, they have no recourse if other things are performed while they are unable to consent.

[SaintB]

"I would put this offence at the lower end of the scale because the (sex act) began as a consensual one before the victim passed out and became incapable of consenting," Judge Smith said. "There is an inference that she might have consented (to more sex) had she been awake. The issue I have to resolve is whether I should even impose a suspended sentence here, that's my problem."

He declined to sentence Sloan, saying he needed more time to consider the matter.

"I'm troubled by this," he said.

"I've got you to consider, Mr Sloan, but also the victim and the public's perception."

He remanded Sloan on continuing bail until next week.

And that's just from the article. I don't understand why the judge's commentary is portrayed as a judgement.

And Steve Fielding is a four-sheets-to-the-wind populist dickhead. Yeah right Steve, these comments by a judge mean that we need minimum sentencing impositions. That'll fix it! Let's make the judge's decision a bit easier shall we: ten years in the slammer or let the rapist go.

My issue is with the idea that there is such thing in this judge's mind as a technical rape and the judge appears to have a problem with imprisoning this vile excreta of a human being. It sends a message to women that if they are drunk and consent to a sex act, they have no recourse if other things are performed while they are unable to consent.

Jadey, my companion in saintlyness, you need to calm down a little. You are making the assumption he did more, where it is only clear that he performed the same act. Yes, he did commit rape, yes he is ready and willing to accept full punishment, he even pleaded guilty. The Judge does not feel the man deserevs full punishment, so I think it should be handed down to another judge who can then rehear the trial and decide a fitting punishment.

[Greed and Death]

Unconsciousness does not equal a warrant of consent for a very good reason. The girl who passed out at the party is definitely legally off-limits to the frat boys, though they may get away with their transgressions.

I guess girls should start carrying around little laminated cards to make these complicated rules clear to the frat boys, eh?

"The bearer of this card does not want to be fucked while asleep. She also does not want to be fucked while passed out drunk, or while stoned, or while knocked unconscious by a sharp blow to the head. If she isn't screaming your name and clawing your back, then consider yourself a rapist, jerkwad."

That would only make frat boys horny, you're an educated woman, you know how they tend to be the scum of the earth.

No we are not.

[SaintB]

I guess girls should start carrying around little laminated cards to make these complicated rules clear to the frat boys, eh?

"The bearer of this card does not want to be fucked while asleep. She also does not want to be fucked while passed out drunk, or while stoned, or while knocked unconscious by a sharp blow to the head. If she isn't screaming your name and clawing your back, then consider yourself a rapist, jerkwad."

That would only make frat boys horny, you're an educated woman, you know how they tend to be the scum of the earth.

No we are not.

I said tend to be, lots of them are. Where I went to school the Frat boys did everything but peddle coke, and they got away with it because they were 'only kids having fun' I didn't say Greed and Death is.

[Sitspot]

I'm a bit perplexed at how most people see this as either black or white. Rape or consensual sex. No room for the shades of grey that colour such activities in the real world.
At what point does it become rape? At the instant she loses consciousness, or at the time he realizes she lost consciousness? If he never realizes that shes unconscious is it still rape?
Is the consciousness relevant at all, was it rape simply because she was drunk? If her being drunk makes it rape, does him being drunk also give a 'diminished responsibility' excuse? At what point does one become too drunk to give consent? Over the legal driving limit or at some arbitrary point that will be decided by the most expensive lawyer?
Are all those of us who have indulged in sex after a night of drinking really rapists, even though our partner was blissfully happy as we snuggled soberly the next morning.
When my wife reaches across and caresses my genitals while I still sleep, is she really guilty of sexual assault, even though I find it a pleasant way to be awoken?
Is there no moral or legal difference between what happened in this case and a guy finding an unconscious female he doesn't know and forcing himself upon her?
The struggle to establish a woman's rights over her own body has been long and difficult, and often made more difficult by reactionary judges who found 'implied consent' in everything from how a woman dressed to what area of town she chose to walk in. I would hope no-one wants to return to the days when a polite smile from the woman was seen in court as free license to any man who wished sexual intercourse.
But surely there is a difference between what happened here and a case where someone has been brutally forced by a stranger. Is it desirable to legally distinguish between those two acts? Should they really be tried under exactly the same statute? I simply don't know the answer, but my gut feeling is that the way we currently go about it doesn't really quite work for defendant or victim.

[Tahar Joblis]

I said tend to be, lots of them are. Where I went to school the Frat boys did everything but peddle coke, and they got away with it because they were 'only kids having fun' I didn't say Greed and Death is.

A great deal also depends on the school. Different schools allow social fraternal organizations different amounts of leeway.

Mine was a medium sized public school. Belonging to such an organization was strictly optional, and they made the sensible step of not allowing freshmen to pledge their first semester right when I started going there.

Recruitment plummeted. Then the greeks complained so much that the new administration pulled back the rule. However, it was always said on campus that certain of the frats regularly used date rape drugs, and there weren't more than a handful of people involved in the "traditional" single-gender social fraternal organizations that were worth hanging out with. Yeah, there were exceptions, in both sororities and fraternities, and some of the less traditional Greek co-ed organizations were clearly different sorts of groups.

I only recall one "traditional" frat boy at my school who had a serious major, and I knew one or two people in the honors program who ever got involved with traditional social fraternal orgs, tops. Most of the rest that I met were coasting for easy classes.

At other schools, almost everybody is a member in one or another (Duke, it's something like... 80%.) At Harvard and the Ivies, nobody gives a crap about frats because they have another higher level of elitist boys' club type organization, I forget what it's called. But I think my experience at Appalachian is a little more typical, where a minority of students are involved with that kind of thing, every so often one of the groups gets slapped for getting caught at something wrong, and a couple of them are known for having sketchy parties.

[Magechill-Izeckistan]

Poor call on the judge's part.

Mind you, that's the kind of thing you should expect when you live in an uncivilized place like Australia. First banning alcohol, then this. <.<

Banned alcohol....May saint Carvinsmeth of the forty ninth whiskey barrel have mercy on your soul.As for the rape thing, in past cases it was rape if they were passed out.I think they need to repeal.

[No Names Left Damn It]

If she isn't screaming your name and clawing your back, then consider yourself a rapist, jerkwad.

So being shit in bed = rapist nowadays?

[Jello Biafra]

Is it possible to give future consent?

[Greed and Death]

That would only make frat boys horny, you're an educated woman, you know how they tend to be the scum of the earth.

No we are not.

I said tend to be, lots of them are. Where I went to school the Frat boys did everything but peddle coke, and they got away with it because they were 'only kids having fun' I didn't say Greed and Death is.

What about the rest of my fraternity?

[Bottle]

I'm a bit perplexed at how most people see this as either black or white. Rape or consensual sex. No room for the shades of grey that colour such activities in the real world.

And then you go on and on for a page, trying to figure out ways for it to be okay when men have sex with women who may or may not be consenting.

How about...no? It's really easy to solve this problem. Teach guys that if you aren't sure whether a girl actually wants to do something, then YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT.

If a girl is passed out, don't rape her.

If a girl is asleep, don't rape her.

If a girl is frozen and silent and doesn't really seem to want to do something, but she's not responding when you ask her about it, don't rape her.

If a girl is drunk or drugged, don't rape her.

If a girl says yes but then says no, don't rape her.

If a girl says yes but then passes the hell out, don't rape her.

If a girl said yes to one thing but not to another, don't rape her.



I think what the douchebags of this world are missing is that this issue IS black and white. It's really, really simple. Stop fucking people who aren't consenting. If you spent half as much energy PAYING ATTENTION to what your partner is or isn't saying as you do into trying to figure out ways to justify the raping of unconscious people, then you'd never have to worry about "false" accusations of rape. If you spent half this much energy teaching boys to not view women as human toilets to be used at will, then maybe there wouldn't be so many situations in which a poor innocent boy totally didn't realize he was raping a girl when he fucked her unconscious body.

[Bottle]

If she isn't screaming your name and clawing your back, then consider yourself a rapist, jerkwad.

So being shit in bed = rapist nowadays?

No, but being incapable of grasping hyperbole = boring as shit.

[No Names Left Damn It]

No, but being incapable of grasping hyperbole = boring as shit.

Oh calm down, I wasn't being serious. Perhaps it's you that's boring as shit.

[Bottle]

No, but being incapable of grasping hyperbole = boring as shit.

Oh calm down, I wasn't being serious. Perhaps it's you that's boring as shit.

I've never understood why people think I'm not calm just because I'm insulting them.