quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Okay, this is another country. But it's Canada, which is supposed to be a civilised country, and not forgetting Judge Pickles made a similar judgement over here some years ago: Judge appears to blame victim in sexual assault case/article1918444/ A Manitoba judge has decided not to send a man to jail for sexually assaulting a woman because the victim was wearing heavy makeup and “wanted to party” on the night of the attack, the Winnipeg Free Press is reporting. At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented. Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were “inviting.” So "no means no" is now dependant on what you are wearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Okay, this is another country. But it's Canada, which is supposed to be a civilised country, and not forgetting Judge Pickles made a similar judgement over here some years ago: Judge appears to blame victim in sexual assault case/article1918444/ So "no means no" is now dependant on what you are wearing? He's an idiot:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He wasn't "let off" he was given a two year conditional sentence rather than a three year custodial one asked for by the prosecution. In Canadian law the most mild degree of rape (no weapons or physical injuries involved) carries up to ten years you have to wonder why the prosecution would ask for three years in "a very serious rape case".It also doesn't say anywhere in the article that the victim actually said no. It sounds more like a case of mixed signals than malevolence to me. A clear no should of course always mean no, however if (for example) someone is dressed to pull, deeply flirtatious and expresses a "desire to party" but doesn't actually give an absolute yes or no is that rape or normal "one night stand" behaviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 He wasn't "let off" he was given a two year conditional sentence rather than a three year custodial one asked for by the prosecution. In Canadian law the most mild degree of rape (no weapons or physical injuries involved) carries up to ten years you have to wonder why the prosecution would ask for three years in "a very serious rape case".It also doesn't say anywhere in the article that the victim actually said no. It sounds more like a case of mixed signals than malevolence to me. A clear no should of course always mean no, however if (for example) someone is dressed to pull, deeply flirtatious and expresses a "desire to party" but doesn't actually give an absolute yes or no is that rape or normal "one night stand" behaviour? I would agree with you if he wasn't already convicted. The fact that he was already convicted suggests that there was sufficient evidence to actually convict him, in front of a jury. The judge's decision was in relation to sentancing only, in which he said “This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation, this is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” Since these are the "reasons" the judge quoted for not sending him to jail, it does seem that he was "let off" going to jail for those "reasons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I would agree with you if he wasn't already convicted. The fact that he was already convicted suggests that there was sufficient evidence to actually convict him, in front of a jury. The judge's decision was in relation to sentancing only, in which he said “This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation, this is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” Since these are the "reasons" the judge quoted for not sending him to jail, it does seem that he was "let off" going to jail for those "reasons". I didn't read it that way at all - it reads much more like the victim(s) were inviting and gave no clear and unequivocal no as such it's very difficult to prove any sort of rape has taken place. As such it would be unfair for the judge to impose a custodial sentence so he was given a conditional sentence (the conditions aren't noted) which is effectively like being on parole for two years. As an aside there may not have been an option for a jury trial here - in Canada the accused has the right to a jury trial for crimes punishable by five or more years in jail. I'm not sure in this means the maximum term for a given crime of the term asked for by the prosecution. If the latter then there would only be the option of a bench trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He wasn't "let off" he was given a two year conditional sentence rather than a three year custodial one asked for by the prosecution. In Canadian law the most mild degree of rape (no weapons or physical injuries involved) carries up to ten years you have to wonder why the prosecution would ask for three years in "a very serious rape case".It also doesn't say anywhere in the article that the victim actually said no. It sounds more like a case of mixed signals than malevolence to me. A clear no should of course always mean no, however if (for example) someone is dressed to pull, deeply flirtatious and expresses a "desire to party" but doesn't actually give an absolute yes or no is that rape or normal "one night stand" behaviour? Legally an unambiguous 'yes' is required. Failure to object is not giving consent. In reality nobody actually asks verbally if consent is given, actions would seem to be enough in most cases. There isn't a lot of detail in the case though, so it's not clear how or when she withdrew consent, the defence were probably arguing that she did so in the morning when she regretted it, something she obviously can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I didn't read it that way at all - it reads much more like the victim(s) were inviting and gave no clear and unequivocal no as such it's very difficult to prove any sort of rape has taken place. As such it would be unfair for the judge to impose a custodial sentence so he was given a conditional sentence (the conditions aren't noted) which is effectively like being on parole for two years. As an aside there may not have been an option for a jury trial here - in Canada the accused has the right to a jury trial for crimes punishable by five or more years in jail. I'm not sure in this means the maximum term for a given crime of the term asked for by the prosecution. If the latter then there would only be the option of a bench trial. In that case, just playing devils advocaat, why was he not just let off? Its like saying, yes you did rape someone but it wasn't that bad a rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Legally an unambiguous 'yes' is required. Failure to object is not giving consent. In reality nobody actually asks verbally if consent is given, actions would seem to be enough in most cases. There isn't a lot of detail in the case though, so it's not clear how or when she withdrew consent, the defence were probably arguing that she did so in the morning when she regretted it, something she obviously can't do. Is that legally the case in Canada? Their statute says consent is: "the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question". It looks like they don't specify a unambiguous "yes". In that case, just playing devils advocaat, why was he not just let off? Its like saying, yes you did rape someone but it wasn't that bad a rape. Not really - it's like saying you didn't rape someone but your behaviour was inconsiderate (which is pretty much what the Judge said) so we'll keep an eye on you to ensure that this is a one off. Admittedly this is speculation based on scanty evidence but it seems to me that the judge did a pretty good job in a no-win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 The evidence of the man's guilt is in the fact that he was convicted of rape. Since we have to live with a justice system in which some innocent people are unfortunately found guilty on occasion, the details of the assault, and whether it was rape or not are irrelevant. We could have hundreds of such discussions about hundreds of cases. The only relevant thing of interest is what the judge did, and what the judge said, after the man was convicted of rape. For the purposes of discussion can we just assume, as the judge had to, that the convicted rapist was actually a rapist. At best, I assume that the convicted rapist got the same sentence irrespective of what the victim was wearing, that the judge simply chose his words very stupidly. This would be like Cherie Blair saying that she was giving a lesser sentence to somebody because they were religious, even though she wasn't. She was still reprimanded over her comments. At worse, I assume he meant what he said. In the comments to the article, somebody wrote "In other articles the judge has stated publicly that this sentencing judgment should not be used as a precedent. In fact, the judge has ZERO control over whether the decision be used as a precedent, in making the decision, the precedent is set. Thereby, the judge has acknowledged that this sentence, his own judgment, is unfit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The evidence of the man's guilt is in the fact that he was convicted of rape. A) There is no crime of rape in Canada B) Where does it say he was convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.