Tripping over the red carpet

[Illusionist]

Where in Europe? EU or not?

[nitpicking]

In one European case I remember, a man charged a woman with rape for performing oral sex on him while he was drunk, and won.

Where in Europe? EU or not?

Norway.
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/bizarre/Bizarre-4611.html

[Aeg'air]

Strange woman....

[Illusionist]

Just 8 months? I'm sorry, what? Surely a rapist deserves two or three years, at least. You know, seeing as it's rape and all.

[Aeg'air]

Just 8 months? I'm sorry, what? Surely a rapist deserves two or three years, at least. You know, seeing as it's rape and all.

It's a strange situation. Politics gets in the way you see, if they put her in jail then they get hate mail. If they don't they get hate mail. It's a compromise.

[Illusionist]

Yes, let's allow any criminal who might get publicity to go free, in case we get hate mail! Good publicity is far more important than doing the right thing, and ensuring that justice is served!

[Aeg'air]

That's the way thelaw works...

[nitpicking]

Did you read the linked article? The assumption was explicitly made, by the prosecutor, that forcing sex on a man isn't as bad a crime as doing it to a woman.

[Aeg'air]

I would say that depends on the situation.

[Illusionist]

Did you read the linked article? The assumption was explicitly made, by the prosecutor, that forcing sex on a man isn't as bad a crime as doing it to a woman.

? "The prosecution argued...that the defendant should not be treated leniently because she is a woman."

Apparently, the prosecutor made no such assumption.

[nitpicking]

Did you read the linked article? The assumption was explicitly made, by the prosecutor, that forcing sex on a man isn't as bad a crime as doing it to a woman.

? "The prosecution argued...that the defendant should not be treated leniently because she is a woman."

Apparently, the prosecutor made no such assumption.

I read the original coverage at the time, and it was clear enough to remain in my skull. it's also right there between the lines of what you quoted.

[Illusionist]

No. What's between the lines is "I expect you might treat her leniently, so I'm warning you not to."

If you saw the original coverage, maybe there's something I'm missing but there's nothing in the article that was linked to to back up your claim.

[ForkBomb]

I think its also that oral isn't as serious as proper sex.

[Tuitsuro]

"You know, legally, nothing I can do counts as sex anymore."
- Former President Bill Clinton's head (Futurama ftw!)

[BinaryWraith]

I think its also that oral isn't as serious as proper sex.

Oral sex is just that. Sex. From a criminal standpoint (in most jurisdictions, your mileage may vary) sex is sex, no matter the orifice. 'It was just head!' is not a mitigating circumstance.

[Illusionist]

Note that in the base system, head is before actual fornication. Most people see it as being the second most serious thing a couple can do. So while they may be equal for the purposes of the law, it's possible the Judge's views on the matter make head seem less serious.

[ForkBomb]

Oral sex is just that. Sex. From a criminal standpoint (in most jurisdictions, your mileage may vary) sex is sex, no matter the orifice. 'It was just head!' is not a mitigating circumstance.

And theft is theft, no matter if its something worth £20 or the crown jewels. Doesn't mean the punishment will be the same.
The law has a range of available sentences for a reason, it up to the judge to decide how severe the crime was. Doesn't mean he was right though.