babychickens Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Was she asleep when she went into her flat and invited her friend in and was vomiting? Did all that happen in her sleep. Come on. no, grahame, clearly she consented to 101 variations on the karma sutra inbetween retching her guts up. are you suggesting that because she invited him in, she had no right to deny sexual intercourse? or are you suggesting that she didn't fall asleep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Nope, not quite. The system questions the moral blameworthyness of the defendant. It asks "Did this defendant do something criminal in circumstances where it is right to punish him for it?" Honest, reasonable, but wrong belief in consent means that someone isn't guilty of rape - because there is nothing morally blameworthy. We don't convict people only on what they actually do. We convict people who do criminal things with criminal intent. And in this case criminal intent means 'having sexual intercourse with a woman while not having a reasonable belief that she was consenting.' And it isn't whether the defendant thought it was reasonable - it is whether a jury thinks it is reasonable. Whether the 'reasonable man (or woman!) would consider the genuine belief in consent to be reasonable. Judging the opinions based on this forum, it is a decided decision, because they are already influenced by the outcome. So, how does it become reasonable or not by the everyday Joe, when such decisions are perpetuated amongst the masses ? Now the law changed last year, so now it's presumed that a woman isn't consenting if she is asleep - though the defendant can rebut that presumption. But I think we'll find that the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge didn't direct the jury properly, and that's why they quashed the conviction. A properly directed jury might have convicted this man - though of course, these cases are notoriously hard to prove: he could claim that she wasn't asleep, and then we're back to one person's word against another. Even if the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge did not direct the jury properly, the outcome has already become public knowledge, and that itself influences Joe Public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 no, grahame, clearly she consented to 101 variations on the karma sutra inbetween retching her guts up. are you suggesting that because she invited him in, she had no right to deny sexual intercourse? or are you suggesting that she didn't fall asleep? I'm suggesting she was awake. Which obviously she was, she went into her flat and was vomiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 If she was awake, then she would not have under oath said that, "when she came round" she realised she was having sex. What happened to her "honest believe" ? Which is that, she did not want the sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 If she was awake, then she would not have under oath said that, "when she came round" she realised she was having sex. What happened to her "honest believe" ? Which is that, she did not want the sex? She was awake and vomiting when she went home, and it does not say her boyfriend forced his way into her room, so presumably he was there with her knowledge and consent? Then I presume at some stage she climed into bed and she would still have been awake. Then she must have fallen asleep because she says she woke up. When she woke up what happened to the "Get off me you *******, don't touch me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I'm suggesting she was awake. Which obviously she was, she went into her flat and was vomiting. Is it not possible that she went into her flat vomited and then fell asleep only to wake later to find herself being raped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 She was awake and vomiting when she went home, and it does not say her boyfriend forced his way into her room, so presumably he was there with her knowledge and consent? Then I presume at some stage she climed into bed and she would still have been awake. Then she must have fallen asleep because she says she woke up. When she woke up what happened to the "Get off me you *******, don't touch me?" Far too many presumptions there Graham...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I've not read the whole thread because I knew it'd make me angry ... but is this same Grahame that is always preaching religion to us all? But now seems to be an apologist for a rapist? Hmmmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 She was awake and vomiting when she went home, and it does not say her boyfriend forced his way into her room, so presumably he was there with her knowledge and consent? Then I presume at some stage she climed into bed and she would still have been awake. Then she must have fallen asleep because she says she woke up. When she woke up what happened to the "Get off me you *******, don't touch me?" Before you make more assumption Grahame, I think you ought to read the newspaper article more closely. Mr Bree was not the victim's boyfriend, it seems. The article mentioned that they went back to her halls of residence. As a woman, and if I was drunk, I would hope that a good friend would drag me home, and not to do anything to me. One hopes. (Thinking back, I had great friends! Seriously... if that is how men today behaves.) She mentioned that when she woke, she was in the middle of the sex act. They returned to her hall of residence at Bournemouth University, where, she told Bournemouth Crown Court last year, she was 'continually throwing up'. She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her. She told the jury her memory was "very patchy" and I knew I didn't want this but I didn't know how to go about stopping it". Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent and "seemed keen". http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390405-details/It's+not+always+rape+if+a+woman+is+drunk,+says+judge/article.do His word of "seemed keen" dismissed his own action. Do you feel that is right? It seems that the guy actually has a long-term gf and life. So it bears in question, and you do question, whether he was out for a ONS. In which case, it meant that possible intent of sex was on his mind. If the woman did not have intent to do the same, where does that leave her? http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444805&in_page_id=1770 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Far too many presumptions there Graham...... Talk about nit picking. She went home. FACT. She was vomiting. FACT. It does not say she had a fight with her boyfriend on the doorstep. FACT She will have got into bed. FACT. At some stage during the night she will have fallen asleep. FACT. At some later stage she will have woken up. FACT. Where do we read that she said or indicated "No, get off me, do not touch me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.