quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 A) There is no crime of rape in Canada B) Where does it say he was convicted? Well, judges don't usually sentance people without a conviction, not yet anyway, but there's plenty of articles and Internet chatter on this. Here, try this one: Convicted rapist avoids jail time due to 'misunderstood' signals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So "no means no" is now dependant on what you are wearing? a judge and jury have to weigh up all the evidence rather than black and white situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Well, judges don't usually sentance people without a conviction Is a conditional discharge a sentence and conviction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 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". 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. WEll I agree with you that we don't really have enough information or evidence either way and its not an easy case. I dont know the Canadian legal system very well but just as you have said there is no crime for rape, I would be unsure whether 'inconsiderate behaviour' is a criminal offence either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 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". Canadian law is with the exception of recent case law pretty much identical to UK law. Voluntary agreement is an explicit yes isn't it? The point I was trying to make was that it must be positive agreement. Consent has to be given, rather than it having to be expressly denied. 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. You don't convict someone of rape because they were inconsiderate. 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. Difficult to say really, there's so little detail reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Convicted of sexual assault, not rape. If someone is sexually assaulted by penetration with a penis that is rape, in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I am quite confused by this story really. I dont think the sensationalist thread title really helps though. The judge never said 'asking for it'. It seems to amount to, you raped her, but I can see why you would have thought she wanted to have sex with you, so I'm letting you off with a lighter sentence than if she had been dressed as a nun with a sign saying 'no sex please'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Convicted of sexual assault, not rape. I don't know what you're trying to prove. He was convicted of having sexual intercourse without consent, which in my book is called rape. It is also sexual assault, which is a more general term, which includes rape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape Why don't people actually want to discuss the judge's comments rather than semantics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 I am quite confused by this story really. I dont think the sensationalist thread title really helps though. The judge never said 'asking for it'. It seems to amount to, you raped her, but I can see why you would have thought she wanted to have sex with you, so I'm letting you off with a lighter sentence than if she had been dressed as a nun with a sign saying 'no sex please'. At last. Apologies for the thread title, which I cut n'pasted from here. But at least it keeps up a long tradition on SF. Your comments beg the question though, why should Tracey at the office party be treated any differently to a nun because of what they are wearing if they are raped? I don't think they should, and neither their rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 That's not what K said, nor what the judge said though. The story still doesn't have any details, but it sounds like there might have been reasons (beyond what she was wearing) that he thought she was consenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.