With enough persistence, he might one day convince us that he’s just fine---- we’re the ones with the ugly pig faces!
I’d agree, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the implications of the ruling for people who say “yes, I would LOVE it if you would choke me unconscious and then fuck me in the ass.”
What if someone says they would love to be burned alive?
ETA the victim in this case did not ask to be fucked in the ass, nor can an unconscious person consent to anything anyway.
It seems that she obviously complained about the probing least there be no case, so apparently, that particular act was not within the activities she consented to.
Frankly, as long as they’re not mentally ill, I don’t care. There’s obviously a spectrum where you’d want greater diligence in some cases–“voluntarily being rendered unconscious” is similar to a great many activities we already allow consent to (as mentioned before, boxing and other martial arts sports), and I don’t honestly see much of a distinction between that and erotic play.
We’re not discussing the victim in this case, we are discussing the implications of this ruling on people who ARE doing these things with prior consent agreements.
Let’s ignore the defendant. He won’t testify at all, unless his attorney is completely and totally incompetent.
What the prosecutor would be dealing with is an uncooperative witness to a crime with no other witnesses. No witness has to testify, and a DA will not really want to put an uncooperative witness on the stand if that all he has to go on.
Just to ensure we are discussing the same issue, a poster claimed that a third party overhearing that he had kissed his wife after she fell asleep would be grounds for arrest and possible conviction. You and others are trying to do gymnastics to make a case where this could really happen. I’m saying that even though technically illegal, without the “molested” party actively testifying against the “molestor”, it is an impossible case to pursue and win. The testimony of the third party would be considered hearsay, and assuming that the molested party does not want to see his or her spouse incarcerated, they would work in concert against the prosecution. Just how do you propose a prosecutor get witness testimony?
It is a phantom fear of the same type of man who lives in fear of a sexual partner “crying rape” on him.
No, you and others are trying to do gymnastics to say that is our argument. It doesn’t matter that the chance of the law being enforced is nil, it is still illegal to kiss your partner while asleep. I hope you use this same argument about gay people trying to get sodomy laws removed from the books.
IMHO, stupid laws shouldn’t exist because they weaken the perception that the justice system is run by competent people. And if it is okay to ignore one of the laws how about any others I feel don’t pertain to me, too?
Re. Sleep.
I once had to wake a guy who was to replace me on watch. After shaking him repeatedly, I eventually had to drag him outside the tent (didn’t wake him even though the outside temp was below -30C), dump him out of his sleeping bag and shove his face in the snow. I’ve know other people who you could march a band through their bedroom before they’d wake up.
Dio, are you saying that intercourse with such a person is perfectly okay if they have given consent beforehand? They may not wake up during the act at all! What the hell is your definition of sleep? Is it not a lack of consciousness?
So what you’re saying there is no case if the victim/witness either refuses to answer questions on the witness stand (and is cited for contempt), or commits perjury in answering them. Well, I can’t argue with that.
This has not been demonstrated. The ruling did not say that.
What if I asked someone to paint me blue, sprinkle me with gold glitter, and then glue my hand to my cheek?
How the fuck is that responsive? If someone wants to killed, should it be a crime to accomodate them, yes or no?
No, it shouldn’t. If I am in favor of assisted suicide (as I am), it’s an easy question. I’m not sure I’d want to draw a line involving method of death, either, as that feels too much like the righty-tighies banning partial birth abortion just to make it more annoying to do something legal and necessary.
That’s an extremely radical and bizarre length to go to to try to win a rhetorical point, but at least it’s consistent.
So just so we have this straight, in your perfect world, anybody can kill anybody by any method for any reason, and as long as they say the magic words, “she wanted it,” that killer gets to walk?
The courts have drawn a line between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is a doctor giving a patient the meds to do it himself.
Euthanasia is different.
Last I checked, I can’t choke myself and then shove a dildo up my ass while unconscious.
Not exactly. Assuming that the hearsay is even enough evidence for an arrest (and it probably isn’t) ,there’s virtually no chance of conviction if the alleged victim refuses to appear , or refuses to answer questions, or commits perjury or testifies entirely truthfully making it clear that he/she did not complain to the police/prosecutor and does not support the prosecution of this case. Which means that the prosecution will never begin, as no prosecutor has sufficient resources to pursue unwinnable cases. Even in the case of anal sex after being choked into unconsciousness, there probably wouldn’t have been a prosecution if the woman had never made a complaint, rather than made a complaint and later recanted.
This doesn’t mean that the law shouldn’t be changed by the appropriate body so as to allow kissing a sleeping spouse but to prohibit sexual activity with an unconscious person. It does mean that fear of prosecution due to an offhand comment about a kiss while asleep is an overreaction.
I would expect a high standard of proof of consent, such as a witnessed affidavit similar to existing documents that serve similar functions (like living wills).
Dio, I am not talking about this case. I am talking about the precedent this case sets.
Let me amplify that–the fact that the defendant in this case is a complete scumbag and deserves to go to prison for a long long time, preferably with a sign around his neck that says “dildo ass-rapist”, doesn’t change the idea that the majority opinion’s summary of law has some serious potential implications.
In an earlier post, I posited that the “victim” tells the truth to cops or prosecutor in an interview before any charges are made. Perhaps the victim wouldn’t even realize she is spelling out the elements of a crime when she does so.
And as for the the victim making statements opposing a prosecution, that happens a lot, and while it might influence the prosecutor’s decision, it certainly wouldn’t mean there is “no case”. There is probably a weaker case.
I have a suspicion that in the particular case of the OP, the authorities wanted to get this guy by whatever means are available. And now they have some more tools to use, because IMO the court decision is overly broad.
Let me restate the question – if your partner asks you in advance to performs sexual acts on her while she’s asleep, is it ok to do so? I personally think it is, but IMO the court says it isn’t in this passage:
I don’t think we need to get into a question on whether sleep is the same as being unconscious. Do you agree that being asleep is being not conscious?
“He won’t testify at all, unless his attorney is completely and totally incompetent.”
In such a situation, having the defendant testify may be the only way for the defense to present evidence.
“No witness has to testify”
So the subpoena I wrote to someone last week did not obligate her to testify? What do you think subpoenas do?
“What the prosecutor would be dealing with is an uncooperative witness to a crime with no other witnesses”
In the case presented in the OP, the complaignant had recanted. Having recanted, she must have been an uncooperative witness. The defendant still got convicted.
A cooperative witness helps but is not necessary.
And, as Uzi points to, if you want something to be criminal, you should be ready to send people to prison for it. not rely on “yeah it’s illegal but don’t worry it won’t be enforced according to its plain meaning”.
If you’re not in favour of sending people to prison when that’s what the rule implies, change the rule. In this case, the court should have used the common interpretation principle that the legislator cannot have meant something absurd and gone with another interpretation. The defendant might still have been convicted under another, reasonable interpretation of the law.
Note: The misogyny comment was not aimed at you. You’re reasonable and wouldn’t have gone for that kind of tactic. It was there for “you’re pro rape and hate women” arguers here.