Apparently, Rape is not Rape

[NERVUN]

I dunno -- can you consent to a sex act after it's been performed? If not, he still should have gotten jail time, either way.

Damned if I know. All my sex partners have been awake (Er, kinda. There's fun ways of waking up your wife after all. ). I agree that if the law is written that way, then that is the law, but I'm not to sure I would call it rape if she consented after the fact as well.

It's the same issue with some of the stautory rape laws, an 18-year-old boy with his 16-year-old girlfriend is committing rape according to some laws, regardless if she concented or not after all.

But before I get dog piled again, let me state again, if she did NOT consent after the fact, it was rape, no two ways about it.

[NERVUN]

Some women act like they are dead during sex.

Probably because the way some men go about it, they want to get it over with as quickly as possible.

Or raised in a strict Asian culture where they are not supposed to enjoy sex.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that.

[Dinaverg]

But before I get dog piled again, let me state again, if she did NOT consent after the fact, it was rape, no two ways about it.

How far after the fact could consent be given, I wonder.

[Greed and Death]

Or raised in a strict Asian culture where they are not supposed to enjoy sex.

Don't even get me started on that.

A problem in Japan too ?

[Meshuggahisle]

If your that drunk, and put yourself in that situation, maybe you need to make better decisions. Also, who's to say he wasn't drunk? Why should the resposibility fall soley on a man to moderate a stupid situation?

[NERVUN]

But before I get dog piled again, let me state again, if she did NOT consent after the fact, it was rape, no two ways about it.

How far after the fact could consent be given, I wonder.

Very good question. I do not know.

The judge in the article seems to be reading that if the complaint was withdrawn then consent was given and I would assume that it has been sometime.

Me, personally, I would say that consent would have to be given within a day after becoming fully cognitant of what is going on and what happened.

[Neo Art]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

[Greed and Death]

But before I get dog piled again, let me state again, if she did NOT consent after the fact, it was rape, no two ways about it.

How far after the fact could consent be given, I wonder.

Very good question. I do not know.

The judge in the article seems to be reading that if the complaint was withdrawn then consent was given and I would assume that it has been sometime.

Me, personally, I would say that consent would have to be given within a day after becoming fully cognitant of what is going on and what happened.

I kinda wonder that if consent was given to start the act wouldn't it be implied consent to finish the act unless she said stop ??

[Dinaverg]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

It used to be easy, every poster with less than 1000 posts was an idiot. Now...

[Phenia]

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?

It seems to me that's beyond the point if he actually plead guilty to rape. Not knowing much of the law, it still strikes me that the judge had an obligation to throw the book at him regardless.

[NERVUN]

Or raised in a strict Asian culture where they are not supposed to enjoy sex.

Don't even get me started on that.

A problem in Japan too ?

*sighs* Yes.

[Tahar Joblis]

Well, to take the unpopular position here: From the article, it sounds like the act that he performed while she was passed out was a precise mechanical continuation of what he had been already performing. Guy and girl meet in bar, go out to the park, start fucking like rabbits.

At some point the drunk guy realizes that the girl has passed out and is just lying there while he fucks her - it's not clear when, and it's not clear how long, if any measurable amount of time, passed between him realizing this and him stopping. He may have had his attack of conscience immediately, for all we know from the article, and still be feeling guilty and remorseful about it afterwards. He doesn't introduce any new sex act beyond the one started while she was conscious; he may not have even continued more than a second past the point where he was certain she was passed the **** out... or, conversely, might not have clued in until after he got his rocks off, being wholly focused on getting through the back and forth motions without falling over or throwing up.

Then, the judge really seemed bothered by the fact that her story apparently changed significantly between the start and the end of the case, which makes me suspect that she may have blacked out well before she passed out and is therefore piecing together a very unclear picture of what actually happened that night. So if you're being asked to say "beyond a reasonable doubt" the guy is guilty of the crime of rape, you're relying on two unreliable witnesses, one of which is inconsistent and the other of which is guilt-ridden about his transgression and practically begging you to throw him in the clapper.

I wouldn't want to be in the judge's shoes presiding over a case like that, and I can't be surprised that he asked for a little more time to think about it.

[Poliwanacraca]

If your that drunk, and put yourself in that situation, maybe you need to make better decisions. Also, who's to say he wasn't drunk? Why should the resposibility fall soley on a man to moderate a stupid situation?

If she had fucked him while he was unconscious, she'd be just as much a rapist.* It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with one person NOT CONSENTING.





*and we can keep debating precisely how much that is, but it's not relevant to this particular response.

[Greed and Death]

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?

It seems to me that's beyond the point if he actually plead guilty to rape. Not knowing much of the law, it still strikes me that the judge had an obligation to throw the book at him regardless.

I thought when you plead guilty you got a lesser sentence???

[Meshuggahisle]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

Oh, very insightful. Thanks.

[Dinaverg]

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?

It seems to me that's beyond the point if he actually plead guilty to rape. Not knowing much of the law, it still strikes me that the judge had an obligation to throw the book at him regardless.

Can't he be wrong? Technically?

[Neo Art]

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?

It seems to me that's beyond the point if he actually plead guilty to rape. Not knowing much of the law, it still strikes me that the judge had an obligation to throw the book at him regardless.

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.

[SaintB]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

It used to be easy, every poster with less than 1000 posts was an idiot. Now...

I have less than 1,000 posts

[NERVUN]

How far after the fact could consent be given, I wonder.

Very good question. I do not know.

The judge in the article seems to be reading that if the complaint was withdrawn then consent was given and I would assume that it has been sometime.

Me, personally, I would say that consent would have to be given within a day after becoming fully cognitant of what is going on and what happened.

I kinda wonder that if consent was given to start the act wouldn't it be implied consent to finish the act unless she said stop ??

Well, we don't know exactly what sex act we're talking here. I mean, did he just start feeling her up and she was ok with that, but wouldn't have been with full sex? So what he was doing when she passed out and what he finished doing might be two seperate things and she wasn't capable of consenting to the second one at that time.

[Dinaverg]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

It used to be easy, every poster with less than 1000 posts was an idiot. Now...

I have less than 1,000 posts

...

[SaintB]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

It used to be easy, every poster with less than 1000 posts was an idiot. Now...

I have less than 1,000 posts

Oh wait nvm...


Nervun has less 1,000 posts!

[Galloism]

You know, whenever I see the last post in a thread is a name I don't recognize, I just KNOW stupid is about to follow.

Never fails

It used to be easy, every poster with less than 1000 posts was an idiot. Now...

I have less than 1,000 posts

*looks left*

No you don't.

[Meshuggahisle]

If your that drunk, and put yourself in that situation, maybe you need to make better decisions. Also, who's to say he wasn't drunk? Why should the resposibility fall soley on a man to moderate a stupid situation?

If she had fucked him while he was unconscious, she'd be just as much a rapist.* It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with one person NOT CONSENTING.





*and we can keep debating precisely how much that is, but it's not relevant to this particular response.

Do you think a man and a women would be weighed equally in court on a rape charge?

[Dinaverg]

[qote="Dinaverg"]How far after the fact could consent be given, I wonder.

Very good question. I do not know.

The judge in the article seems to be reading that if the complaint was withdrawn then consent was given and I would assume that it has been sometime.

Me, personally, I would say that consent would have to be given within a day after becoming fully cognitant of what is going on and what happened.[/quoe]
I kinda wonderthat if consent was given to start the act wouldn't it be implied consent to finish the act unless she said stop ??

Well, we don't know exactly what sex act we're talking here. I mean, did he just start feeling her up and she was ok with that, but wouldn't have been with full sex? So what he was doing when she passed out and what he finished doing might be two seperate things and she wasn't capable of consenting to the second one at that time.

well, the judge refers to a singular act, and the article uses the verb 'continue'

[United Dependencies]

If your that drunk, and put yourself in that situation, maybe you need to make better decisions. Also, who's to say he wasn't drunk? Why should the resposibility fall soley on a man to moderate a stupid situation?

If she had fucked him while he was unconscious, she'd be just as much a rapist.* It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with one person NOT CONSENTING.





*and we can keep debating precisely how much that is, but it's not relevant to this particular response.

Do you think a man and a women would be weighed equally in court on a rape charge?

Why wouldn't they be?