Harsh sentence

One eyed Jack · 07-02-2019 9:57pm

Boggles wrote: »

They wouldn't have been allowed entertain his defense.

Mistaken identity is not allowed for under our legislation AFAIK.

That's why it baffling he didn't plead guilty and avoid a trial.

Mistaken identity is permitted as an explanation for the defendants actions as to their intent; it wouldn’t be regarded as a defence for their actions though, so the defendant could offer it as an explanation for their behaviour, but wouldn’t be permitted to offer it as a defence for their behaviour to imply the sexual act was consensual.

The most likely reason why he plead not guilty, from what I’ve read of the case, is that he simply doesn’t believe that what he did constitutes sexual assault. He’s obviously wrong, and the trial has shown him that he is wrong, yet even at sentencing the Judge observed he continues to fail to acknowledge any wrongdoing - he still doesn’t see anything wrong with what he did.

Kidchameleon · 07-02-2019 10:59pm

Is the wording of the charge he received available?

eagle eye · 07-02-2019 11:33pm

Demonique wrote:

Just because worse sexual crimes have received lesser sentences doesn't mean this sentence is harsh

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

batgoat · 07-02-2019 11:49pm

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

eagle eye · 07-02-2019 11:56pm

batgoat wrote:

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

What does digitally mean in this context?
Also, he made a statement admitting what happened. He didn't deny what happened, he pleaded not guilty to a purposeful act.
Stop trying to make this out to way worse than it is. He didn't rape her, as soon as he realised it wasn't who he thought it was he left the room.
I can understand the girl would be upset and shaken by this. I don't think he knew it was her.

Mrsmum · 08-02-2019 12:08am

eagle eye wrote: »

What does digitally mean in this context?
Also, he made a statement admitting what happened. He didn't deny what happened, he pleaded not guilty to a purposeful act.
Stop trying to make this out to way worse than it is. He didn't rape her, as soon as he realised it wasn't who he thought it was he left the room.
I can understand the girl would be upset and shaken by this. I don't think he knew it was her.

Gosh, what must it be like to want so desperately to believe someone whom the jury, having, you know, heard ALL the evidence, found guilty.

Dante7 · 08-02-2019 12:12am

batgoat wrote: »

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

ceadaoin. · 08-02-2019 12:25am

Dante7 wrote: »

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

What's nonsense about it?

va·gi·na
/vəˈjīnə/
noun
1.
the muscular tube leading from the external genitals to the cervix of the uterus in women and most female mammals.

Vagina refers to the internal genitals.

batgoat · 08-02-2019 12:38am

Dante7 wrote: »

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

That's the correct term from what I gather. So why is it nonsense?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 12:40am

jiltloop wrote: »

Well done for completely missing my point.

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation. So if you decide to go for it, you’re hoping that the person you do it to is fine with it - which they might not be. The boyfriend of my friend found that out when he got dumped. She (and I and others) found it creepy. And she got no say in it. He just did it. To try and establish that parameter, he did something that made her feel violated.

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

eagle eye · 08-02-2019 1:16am

Mrsmum wrote:

Gosh, what must it be like to want so desperately to believe someone whom the jury, having, you know, heard ALL the evidence, found guilty.

It's impossible to predict a jury most of the time.

PARlance · 08-02-2019 1:29am

batgoat wrote: »

That's the correct term from what I gather. So why is it nonsense?

It's the correct term but it's often misused to include the outer area. It's incredibly poor journalism not to mention penetration if that was the case.

I read it as a misuse of the word as it references "touching her vagina". I don't think many would describe penetration in that way.

Dante7 · 08-02-2019 1:37am

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

08-02-2019 1:43am

Dante7 wrote: »

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

The vagina is an internal organ. The outside parts is called the vulva.

He touched her vagina, and since it's inside her body that's where the insertion bit comes into it.

Where to start indeed. Anatomy would be a good place.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 1:45am

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

The jury must have established intent because he was convicted. We haven’t been given enough details really. How did you figure out that “there’s a real possibility that there was no intent”? Nothing in the article clarifies that for me.

Dante7 wrote: »

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

So touching just the labia is no problem?

Dante7 · 08-02-2019 1:50am

Candie wrote: »

The vagina is an internal organ. The outside parts is called the vulva.

He touched her vagina, and since it's inside her body that's where the insertion bit comes into it.

Where to start indeed. Anatomy would be a good place.

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

08-02-2019 1:55am

Dante7 wrote: »

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

You realize that precise language is required in court? If he was convicted of sexual assault on the basis that he touched her vagina, then vagina it was. Not whatever you decide a vagina is on any given day.

Hilarious that you feel touching her vulva is somehow a much lesser crime deserving of minimal punishment, if any at all. I wonder how you'd feel if a bigger man than you climbed into bed while you were asleep and put his fingers and hands on or in your intimate body parts. I somehow doubt you'd think a bit of a telling off was all he needed.

Your use of minimizing language in the OP tells me all I need to know about your attitude to sexual assault.

ceadaoin. · 08-02-2019 2:33am

Dante7 wrote: »

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

in court would correct descriptions not be required? Also, I'd have thought his lawyers would be quick to correct if an inaccurate term that was used if this is not what happened

GreeBo · 08-02-2019 10:07am

batgoat wrote: »

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

As we have seen on this thread first hand, it is not remotely reasonably to some people, however, as we have also seen first hand on this thread, it is reasonably to others.

So it seems wrong to me that the result of the same act by the same person can result in some cases to having sex and in others to a prison sentence (where ironically unwanted penetration is very likely on the cards)

Boggles · 08-02-2019 10:26am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

That is a bizarre thing to accuse anyone of.

Your boundaries are your boundaries, nobody is judging you either way. The reality is nobody cares what you or your partner get up to. You do understand that right?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation.

I haven't seen one person suggest fingering a partner out of a deep sleep would be a clever thing to do.

You keep bringing it up based on an anecdote. Why do you continue to try and apply something to a conversation nobody is having?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

Discussing likes and dislikes in relation to intimacy is a perfectly normal healthy thing do in a relationship, so it's not an absolute that a partner just tries something without discussing it beforehand.

But it does happen and in my experience if a partner tries something on me or vice-versa that we didn't "dig", then a simple "I'm not cool with that" suffices.

For me personally I understand people are fallible and the vast majority of them are not sexual deviants, so if a boundary is crossed I tend not to go apocalyptic and immediately issue divorce proceedings or P45's.

But like I said, that's me. Each to their own. It's none of my business what people do or do not get up to.

jiltloop · 08-02-2019 11:03am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation. So if you decide to go for it, you’re hoping that the person you do it to is fine with it - which they might not be. The boyfriend of my friend found that out when he got dumped. She (and I and others) found it creepy. And she got no say in it. He just did it. To try and establish that parameter, he did something that made her feel violated.

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

Maybe this doesn't sit comfortably with you but some people clearly are comfortable with that in their relationships. You or anyone else can state that you're not comfortable with it and that's fine, I couldn't care less.

However don't tell people who are comfortable with it that they are assaulting their partner who is also comfortable with it. That's what I have an issue with, people forcing their opinion on others as if it's a fact.

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

Kidchameleon · 08-02-2019 9:43pm

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

I don't believe you unless you provide evidence.

eviltwin · 08-02-2019 9:50pm

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

Please elaborate

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 9:55pm

Boggles wrote: »

That is a bizarre thing to accuse anyone of.

Your boundaries are your boundaries, nobody is judging you either way. The reality is nobody cares what you or your partner get up to. You do understand that right?

I haven't seen one person suggest fingering a partner out of a deep sleep would be a clever thing to do.

You keep bringing it up based on an anecdote. Why do you continue to try and apply something to a conversation nobody is having?

Discussing likes and dislikes in relation to intimacy is a perfectly normal healthy thing do in a relationship, so it's not an absolute that a partner just tries something without discussing it beforehand.

But it does happen and in my experience if a partner tries something on me or vice-versa that we didn't "dig", then a simple "I'm not cool with that" suffices.

For me personally I understand people are fallible and the vast majority of them are not sexual deviants, so if a boundary is crossed I tend not to go apocalyptic and immediately issue divorce proceedings or P45's.

But like I said, that's me. Each to their own. It's none of my business what people do or do not get up to.

Aah, people in this actual thread have said they do. Not to a waking, sleepy partner, to a FULLY asleep one. And have defended it. Apparently in the context of waking them for sex, it’s okay. Some of those people have thanked your post.

If you think people haven’t said they do that, you haven’t read the whole thread.

I’ll happily provide examples. Unless they have gone back and edited. In which case, the editing timestamp will be telling.

Jiltloop reiterated after your post that I quoted here. He said this earlier in the thread too. He is quite literally saying his partner is fully asleep sometimes when he touches him/her. And the goal seems to be to initiate sex. How can you say you haven’t seen anyone say this on the thread? Unless you’re getting into technicalities about how far in the fingers go. Vagina, vulva, it’s all creepy to me.

jiltloop wrote: »

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 08-02-2019 10:15pm

jiltloop wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't sit comfortably with you but some people clearly are comfortable with that in their relationships. You or anyone else can state that you're not comfortable with it and that's fine, I couldn't care less.

However don't tell people who are comfortable with it that they are assaulting their partner who is also comfortable with it. That's what I have an issue with, people forcing their opinion on others as if it's a fact.

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

My opinion is my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Nobody can force their opinion on anyone. But at the same time, taking issue with somebody’s opinion doesn’t mean the opinion-holder has to care. You take issue with my opinion. Grand? If you’re comfortable in your actions, what do you care what my opinions of those actions are? I’m not obliged to agree.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't believe you unless you provide evidence.

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

eagle eye · 08-02-2019 10:35pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

How would it be? The details made available to us make a lot of us believe the sentence was harsh.
If you want to say it's not and suggest you know more then share it.

One eyed Jack · 08-02-2019 10:47pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My opinion is my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Nobody can force their opinion on anyone. But at the same time, taking issue with somebody’s opinion doesn’t mean the opinion-holder has to care. You take issue with my opinion. Grand? If you’re comfortable in your actions, what do you care what my opinions of those actions are? I’m not obliged to agree.

You’re displaying the same attitude as the guy who didn’t agree that what he did to someone who wasn’t his girlfriend, constitutes sexual assault. It turned out that the Courts can force their opinions on him and have him locked up for an opinion like that. He doesn’t have to change his opinion, and he can’t be punished for having an opinion, but that whole opinion-holding and whether or not one has to agree or disagree with any one particular individual is just nonsense. The experience you presented is not the same scenario as the circumstances in which a man was found guilty of sexual assault. Whether or not other people are comfortable in their actions doesn’t prohibit them from disagreeing with your standards you have for yourself. It’s down to the individuals involved as to whether or not they determine they were sexually assaulted or not, and if they determine that they weren’t, then no amount of your claiming that they were, is in any way helpful. It just comes off as an insidious attempt to control people who don’t conform to your standards.

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

The onus is on the one-post wonder to provide evidence for their claim that there’s more to the story. I don’t think the sentence was particularly harsh and I’m still not going to put much stock in the claims of an anonymous person on the Internet just because their opinions happen to align with mine. I’m well aware there’s more to this case than was reported in the newspapers, and I still wouldn’t encourage anyone to risk contempt of court charges to gain brownie points on the Internet, it’s not particularly helpful to anyone but the one-post wonder.

Dante7 · 08-02-2019 10:48pm

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

batgoat · 08-02-2019 10:50pm

eagle eye wrote: »

How would it be? The details made available to us make a lot of us believe the sentence was harsh.
If you want to say it's not and suggest you know more then share it.

Erm but most of them view it as acceptable behaviour. Also ye don't seem to view the lack of remorse to be an issue.

Dante7 wrote: »

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

One year! Most of the two and a half years suspended, you're happy to point out suspended sentences when it suits so you're intentionally misrepresenting.

One eyed Jack · 08-02-2019 10:51pm

Dante7 wrote: »

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

There’s no disparity only where you go looking for it, and you’ll find it easy enough when you’re willing to ignore context which doesn’t fit with your particular narrative.

Harsh sentence

Comments