PDA

View Full Version : I don't have much sympathy for this bloke



p38arover
4th September 2013, 07:25 PM
Rapist may have caught HIV from victim (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2013/09/03/11/20/rapist-may-have-gotten-hiv-from-victim)

sheerluck
4th September 2013, 07:47 PM
I saw that one earlier Ron. Poetic justice of the highest order, a potential death sentence from the committing of a low and heinous act.

RichardK
4th September 2013, 07:56 PM
I have absolutely no sympathy for him also, I hope it burns him up internally with stress.

TeamFA
5th September 2013, 06:02 AM
Natural justice says he should contract it. If so, he should be locked up and physically isolated from the rest of society for the rest of his life (or removed altogether, if I had my way). If he can rape a woman and not remember it, then how many will he continue to rape without remembering it and spread the disease?

Epic_Dragon
5th September 2013, 09:41 AM
i hope he has contracted it. low life cowardly scum! he might not remember it but she will. for the rest of her life. i hpoe he dies slow and painful.

loanrangie
5th September 2013, 11:09 AM
Only problem is that now he will be a blight on our health system, hope he has a nasty accident .

sheerluck
5th September 2013, 12:28 PM
Only problem is that now he will be a blight on our health system, hope he has a nasty accident .

He won't. It was a UK story.

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 01:05 PM
Only sympathy I feel is for the poor woman who had to go through two horrible events in her life.
Let the bastard rot.

Chucaro
5th September 2013, 01:16 PM
Place a bet to see how long we have to wait for this bastard plus a greedy solicitor start taken the woman to court for damages :mad:

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 01:18 PM
Place a bet to see how long we have to wait for this bastard plus a greedy solicitor start taken the woman to court for damages :mad:

The day that happens is a sad day for humanity.

clubagreenie
5th September 2013, 03:28 PM
Don't laugh, if it was here, then if he ended up being found not guilty through the victim not providing evidence or faltering under questioning he could most likely then claim for damages under crimes compensation as she did not advise him that she was positive before hand.

As screwed up as that sounds if it was consensual and she didn't tell him then she would be committing the crime and so he's entitled to damages so if he's not guilty then she may be liable.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 03:37 PM
well the victim didn't say no.

sheerluck
5th September 2013, 05:49 PM
well the victim didn't say no.

Unless she spoke in her sleep, she was rather unlikely to.

Go on, have another go, see if you can drag it down a little further.

33chinacars
5th September 2013, 05:53 PM
MAY HE ROT IN HELL

Chucaro
5th September 2013, 06:14 PM
well the victim didn't say no.
I guess (and hope) that you said that in the context of what a bastard solicitor can put as argument of a very sick act.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 06:17 PM
I guess (and hope) that you said that in the context of what a bastard solicitor can put as argument of a very sick act.

from watching law and order SVU, the victim must say no.

Chucaro
5th September 2013, 06:24 PM
from watching law and order SVU, the victim must say no.

Are you serious? :eek:
You really think that is a theme were we can joke about it? :eek:
Please explain.

Epic_Dragon
5th September 2013, 06:52 PM
thats sick if a person must say no. that means men can legally rape us women in our sleep because we dont say no, even though they are violating our bodies!!!!!!!!!! men cover mouths so you cannot speak or make a sound or even open your mouth!!!!!! it cant be true that in not saying no, that its then not classed as rape!!!!!!!!!! it still is! and i hope that low life does not go after her for damages! what he did to her was far worse! i just hope he doesnt get away with it and go rape other women and not only ruin their lives, but also give them a disease that ruins their lives even more!!!!!!!!!

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:18 PM
thats sick if a person must say no.

i agree thats its sick. to make sure there is no doubt that a female is not consenting is for her to say no.

lawyers can easily argue if she doesnt say no, then she was consenting and enjoying it.
lawyer: why didnt she say no? maybe cause she was enjoying it?


in the article link given, we're assuming that lack of consent

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:20 PM
Are you serious? :eek:
You really think that is a theme were we can joke about it? :eek:
Please explain.

you would be surprised how accurate that show is for US/NY law.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:21 PM
in the UK:

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


if i was a lawyer for the defence, i would be looking at (c).

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 07:24 PM
i agree thats its sick. to make sure there is no doubt that a female is not consenting is for her to say no.

lawyers can easily argue if she doesnt say no, then she was consenting and enjoying it.
lawyer: why didnt she say no? maybe cause she was enjoying it?


in the article link given, we're assuming that lack of consent

Except for the fact where the guy admitted to the offence, and stated that the woman wouldn't lie.
Consent laws (In Australia) mean that's it not enough to say "she didn't say no" any more than it's an excuse to say "she was asking for it".
Consent has to be given free from any outside influences. That includes when you are not able to agree, either because you're asleep or unconscious, or your completely smashed.
That said, those are Australian laws.


Even if you were looking at c) for your defence it doesn't change the fact that he broke into her house and then raped her.
Unless she has a sign on the door saying "I consent to all individuals entering my house regardless of the time to engage in sexual intercourse with me, regardless of my state" then it's no dice.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:27 PM
Except for the fact where the guy admitted to the offence, and stated that the woman wouldn't lie.

he admitted to having sex or rape?

and wouldnt lie isnt proof, it assumes.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:29 PM
Even if you were looking at c) for your defence it doesn't change the fact that he broke into her house and then raped her.

you would be surprised what lawyers can twist.

breaking into someones house is a separate crime. lawyers use this trick all the time.

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 07:34 PM
you would be surprised what lawyers can twist.

breaking into someones house is a separate crime. lawyers use this trick all the time.

And that's why some lawyers are the absolute scum of the earth. Unfortunately I'm not surprised, I see it firsthand and there's a possibility it will become a part of my chosen career.

Why we're arguing this is beyond me, the guy's admitted to the offence and he deserves everything he gets.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:48 PM
And that's why some lawyers are the absolute scum of the earth.

im not sure calling them scum is fair. they are being paid to do a job, defence their client to the best of their ability.

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 07:53 PM
im not sure calling them scum is fair. they are being paid to do a job, defence their client to the best of their ability.

I said some not all.
I meant the ambulance chasers who will defend anyone regardless of their guilty or not in order to simply get their pay out.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 07:57 PM
I said some not all.
I meant the ambulance chasers who will defend anyone regardless of their guilty or not in order to simply get their pay out.

well it is their job to make money.

do you think prosecutors dont to the same? taking only cases they know they can win to make their stats look good?

Epic_Dragon
5th September 2013, 08:29 PM
what ever he gets is not enough for what she has to deal with for the rest of her life. even HIV. he commited the worst possible crime.
its horrible to think that lawyers look for loop holes to some how pass the blame to the woman. there is no excuse under any circumstance. lawyers do have to do their job that i know. but to find loop holes is just not right.

seano87
5th September 2013, 09:04 PM
well it is their job to make money.

do you think prosecutors dont to the same? taking only cases they know they can win to make their stats look good?

The DPP prosecutes. They don't exactly have quite the same choice as a defence lawyer.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 09:21 PM
The DPP prosecutes. They don't exactly have quite the same choice as a defence lawyer.

It's not quite as clear cut as that.

I've think we're getting off topic.

Getting HIV is a risk when u penetrate someone. Consent or no consent doesn't increase or decrease that risk.

That might sound cold but that's the way it is.

Disco Muppet
5th September 2013, 09:41 PM
Getting HIV is a risk when u penetrate someone. Consent or no consent doesn't increase or decrease that risk.

That might sound cold but that's the way it is.

That may be the case, but if you penetrate someone illegally, it's not their fault if you then get HIV.
Particularly as this woman was unconscious, she couldn't say to said scum sucking parasite of a rapist "Stop, I have HIV"
QED it's not her problem, it's his.

Eevo
5th September 2013, 09:44 PM
That may be the case, but if you penetrate someone illegally, it's not their fault if you then get HIV.
Particularly as this woman was unconscious, she couldn't say to said scum sucking parasite of a rapist "Stop, I have HIV"
QED it's not her problem, it's his.

Whos saying its her problem??

clubagreenie
6th September 2013, 06:50 AM
Then we need to look at the questioning of sentencing.

For instance, there's an example of a magistrate giving a rapist a lighter sentence because it was more considerate to have slashed the victims throat before raping her than after. Despite the fact she lived through it all.

Now that's ****ed up.

Disco Muppet
6th September 2013, 12:05 PM
Now that's ****ed up.

That's a slight understatement.
The fact that irritates me is the fact that if a person admits to an offence, they're required to receive a lesser sentence :mad:

Eevo
6th September 2013, 12:14 PM
That's a slight understatement.
The fact that irritates me is the fact that if a person admits to an offence, they're required to receive a lesser sentence :mad:

try and look at it the other way around.

if they deny they did the offence, they need a bigger punishment to convince them/rehabilitate them.

Disco Muppet
6th September 2013, 12:21 PM
try and look at it the other way around.

if they deny they did the offence, they need a bigger punishment to convince them/rehabilitate them.

Doesn't work though.
Studies have shown that harshness of punishment is no-where near as effective a deterrent as certainty of punishment.
Doesn't matter how harsh the punishment is, if the potential offender thinks they're going to get away with it the harshness of the punishment isn't really a consideration.
I just disagree with the idea that if someone commits an act like murder, rape, pedophilia, particularly if they're a repeat offender, then just because they say yes I did it doesn't entitle them to a lesser punishment.

Eevo
6th September 2013, 12:33 PM
Doesn't work though.
Studies have shown that harshness of punishment is no-where near as effective a deterrent as certainty of punishment.
Doesn't matter how harsh the punishment is, if the potential offender thinks they're going to get away with it the harshness of the punishment isn't really a consideration.
I just disagree with the idea that if someone commits an act like murder, rape, pedophilia, particularly if they're a repeat offender, then just because they say yes I did it doesn't entitle them to a lesser punishment.

ive read that the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent at all.

Chucaro
6th September 2013, 12:37 PM
ive read that the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent at all.
Perhaps because a large majority of the offenders were under the influence of drugs or suffering the withdraws of prescribed drugs for mental issues?
I do not know but would be interesting to see if there is a independent study about it.

Disco Muppet
6th September 2013, 12:38 PM
ive read that the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent at all.

People's views on the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent depends on what criminological theory they subscribe to.
Classical perspectives assume all humans a rational creatures that make decisions based on the pleasure/pain principle, thus when the expected pleasure of an action exceeds the potential pain that may result, they're more motivated to go ahead with that action.
As such, the punishment of death would be the highest deterrent.
But, the major problem people have with rational choice is that it assumes we're all rational, which as we all know is a bit of a naive idea.
Consider, once someone is sentenced to death, what exactly do they have to lose?

Chucaro
6th September 2013, 12:44 PM
Just doing a quick search in the web I have found this:

According to the Citizens Commission On Human Rights International (CCHR), between 2004 and 2011, there were 12,755 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,231 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 2,795 cases of mania and 7,250 cases of aggression. Since the FDA admits that only one to ten percent of all side effects are ever reported to it, the actual occurrence of violent side effects from psychiatric drugs is certainly nine or ten times higher than the official data suggest.

Source:Forbes Unpublishes Commentary on Medication/Violence Link | Mad In America (http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/forbes-unpublishes-commentary-on-medicationviolence-link/)

Disco Muppet
6th September 2013, 01:33 PM
That's one of the major criticisms of utilitarian/classical criminology.
It doesn't, and can't, explain things like this.
IF the theory worked, our prisons would only have repeat violent offenders in, and other offenders would have tiny rates of recidivism.
Whereas, in NSW prisons alone something like 50% of the people in are there for non-violent offences, also with high rates of substance abuse and mental health issues.