I don't have much sympathy for this bloke

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco Muppet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco Muppet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco Muppet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco Muppet

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

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.