Page 7 of 7

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:20 am
by Illusionist
Where in Europe? EU or not?

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:01 am
by nitpicking
nitpicking wrote: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.

Illusionist wrote:Where in Europe? EU or not?

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

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:27 am
by Aeg'air
Strange woman....

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:33 am
by 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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:55 am
by Aeg'air
Illusionist wrote: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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:58 am
by 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!

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 am
by Aeg'air
That's the way thelaw works...

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:52 pm
by 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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:17 pm
by Aeg'air
I would say that depends on the situation.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:48 am
by Illusionist
nitpicking wrote: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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:30 am
by nitpicking
Illusionist wrote:
nitpicking wrote: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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:54 am
by 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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:14 pm
by ForkBomb
I think its also that oral isn't as serious as proper sex.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:53 pm
by Tuitsuro
"You know, legally, nothing I can do counts as sex anymore."
- Former President Bill Clinton's head (Futurama ftw!)

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:58 pm
by BinaryWraith
ForkBomb wrote: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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:53 am
by 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.

Re: Tripping over the red carpet

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:11 pm
by ForkBomb
BinaryWraith wrote: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.