women are always victims?

i was lissioing to an interview on ABC adelaide this morning with the Attorney General Michael Attkinson. They were interviewing him because of a case currently in the district court where a man has pleaded guilty to rape because after starting consentual sex the women passed out and he continued (no idea how long for or any other details). The judge said in his remarks that this crime was so low down the scale that it would be unduly harsh to even give a suspended sentance in this case.

Now the AG pointed to this as being a shining example of the courts showing common sense however he apears to lack this quality himself. He was asked a very specific question by Mat, "what would happen in the common situation where both parties were drunk?"

now the AG's responce was "our goverment has rightly removed the drunks deffence so that in this case you would expect to see the man plead guilty and then (with no manditory sentancing for rape, his comment but not in order) a light sentance from the judge"

Now this just left me thinking HUH!!!

aparently going by his comments it is ALWAYS a man's fault that sex is illegal.

He then goes on to talk about how sex while alseep is illegal as well and putting the 2 together with a definition of what consitutes rape (i mean the physical side rather than the consent side of rape), this means that if the 2 of you fall asleep together and the penis is still inside the women when she falls asleep thats AUTOMATICALLY rape commited by the man

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree this is asinine and sexist towards men.

However

She passed out, and all he cared about was finishing sex?

I would not label that as rape, but I think it is immoral. If I was fucking someone and he blacked out, I would be getting him medical help RIGHT AWAY, not finishing humping first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VI, as i said i dont know the details of the case. I THINK (concidering how they skirted the issue) that a) he was also drunk (she definitly was) and b) it could be as simple as she passed out as he was ejaculating rather than she passed out and he went on for another half an hour.

My impression could be wrong because all it comes from are the judges comments as reported on the difficulty in sentancing the man and the fact that not even the AG (who likes to kick at the judicury for not being tough enough on crime) seems to think these remarks were incorrect.

However until i hear more on the case i dont want to make judgements, it was the comments by the AG i found abhorent

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it was that I'd understand. If he went on for half an hour...yup, malconduct.

 

Did he even notice she had passed out until after? Guys aren't particularly attentive at the best of times, and if he was drunk then............

 

anti-flag that thought did pass through my head too. However as i said this thread is more about the comments by the AG than by this case

 

He pled guilty. Did you all miss that?
Its not that he was vilified in the media or went through a lengthy trial and the jury/judge found him guilty. He pled guilty. He raped the woman and admitted he raped her.

 

and again that was only what prompted the interview orleander. Besides which there are questions as to wether laws are actually JUST, a good example would be the former anti homsexuality laws. Who cares if people plead guilty or not if the law ITSELF is unjust and the AG PROVED that rape laws as they are written in SA are unjust.

 

Having sex with someone who is unconscious is unjust? :shrug:

 

its nice to see that you can read

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For the interlectually impared in the room i will post it again:

" "He was asked a very specific question by Mat, "what would happen in the common situation where both parties were drunk?"

now the AG's responce was "our goverment has rightly removed the drunks deffence so that in this case you would expect to see the man plead guilty and then (with no manditory sentancing for rape, his comment but not in order) a light sentance from the judge""

NOTHING about one party being unconcious or asleep, PURLY about both parties being drunk.

 

You are really into rape aren't you?

The active party would be the guilty one in this case, but the mechanics of the situation means that is almost always the man.

But if you passed out and yet some how managed to maintain an erection and she rolled you over and got on top and then afterward you found out and complained, then she would be guilty of rape like the guy was.

I think here in the states though if she was consenting and passed out in the middle of things I don't think they would count that as rape.

 

i tend to swing based on what the news of the day is, the fact that there is a thread currently on abortion and this poped up on the ABC is concinidental.

However just because your drunk, unconcious or even DEAD doesnt negate an errection. Lots of men (myself included) get errections during there sleep, a painful errection can be an indicator of a heart attack and a persistant one can signify nerve damage.

But all this is bye the bye, how do you justify your comment that of 2 drunk people fucking the "The active party" would automatically be the man?

That is after all his comment (which i will now repeate for the third time for the stupid)

Mat: "ignoring wether one party was asleep or passed out and putting aside this case in the case of 2 drunk people having sex, which is something which im sure happens regually, what would happen under the current laws your goverment put in place?"

Mr Atkison: "well as you know our goverment removed the drunks defence"

Mat: "i understand that which is why im asking the question, who if anyone would be commiting rape?"

Mr Atkison: "well in the situation your discribing i would expect THE MAN to plead guilty and for the courts to give a light sentance in light of the complications of the case"

Ie if 2 drunk people fuck THE MAN is commiting rape automatically!!!

no active parties, no one asleep, passed out, dead ect. Just 2 intoxicated people who are having sex


he goes on to say:
Mr Atkison: "this is the way the south australian people would expect us to set up the laws in this case"

so no cupability for a women who takes advantage of a drunk man, its always a man taking advantage of a drunk women. What century are we living in? the 18th?

 

Do you know that a lot of people just plead guilty to get the case overwith?
If you plead not guilty then you have to get a lawyer and all the costs start going threw the roof.
Some crimes are just plain CHEAPER to plead guilty to, pay a minimal fine do a few hours of comunity service, and go home.

 

i found the audio from the interview (though i have no idea if it will stay here)

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/audio/200907/20090723-sa-atko.mp3

lission to the part from 5:20 (it counts down not up)

 

BTW i dont disagree with ALL his comments but its the comments to Mats specific question on 2 people who are drunk (notice no question about them being unconcious)

 

the guy must have got on her bad side. that said, i would not agree with a woman doing anything she wants to me when i am drunk or passed out (not that i get into that condition). even if we are living together, in that sense i agree that there should be some repercussions if the other party were to feel they were violated.

 

drunk can be similar state as being unconscious. just depends on the level. it works two ways, being drunk is not an excuse to take advantage of someone and being drunk is not a defense in a crime.

 

I don't know, why are "we"?

Is "our" ignore button not working?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

james i havent found one but i did post the audio