Unusual Rape Case

[Aravar]

Please don't tell me I'm the only person on the thread to have been involved in one of those frantic "have to have you right now" encounters.

Your'e on a board for Tolkien geeks. Sex is something we only dream of

[JewelSong]

Your'e on a board for Tolkien geeks. Sex is something we only dream of

Yeah, but they're really GOOD dreams.

[axordil]

Sounds to me like a consensual snog gone wrong, with one drunken woman assuming more was on offer than the other had intended.

If this is so, the conviction should probably stand. Being drunk is neither an excuse for missing a "no" nor a pass to assume umbrella consent from a "yes" to something less problematic.

Please don't tell me I'm the only person on the thread to have been involved in one of those frantic "have to have you right now" encounters.

I'm not sayin' yes and I'm not sayin' no. I am saying my own experience leads to believe any number of scenarios might have spun out in that bar and in that bathroom, and that the presentation of the evidence and testimony would make all the difference one way or the other in deciding.

Being a possible scenario, or even the most likely scenario, is not a standard for conviction, as I understand the law (and I think the US and Australia have that in common). Beyond reasonable doubt is. What we have to work with here doesn't do that. What was presented in court is another question, as I've noted a couple of times now.

[yovargas]

Being a possible scenario, or even the most likely scenario, is not a standard for conviction, as I understand the law (and I think the US and Australia have that in common). Beyond reasonable doubt is. What we have to work with here doesn't do that. What was presented in court is another question, as I've noted a couple of times now.

This seems like the general issue with rape/sexual assualt cases where it's so easy for it to be a "he said/she said" issue (uh, metaphorically in this instance) that it's surprising practically anybody is ever justly judged guilty.

[nerdanel]

Being a possible scenario, or even the most likely scenario, is not a standard for conviction, as I understand the law (and I think the US and Australia have that in common). Beyond reasonable doubt is. What we have to work with here doesn't do that. What was presented in court is another question, as I've noted a couple of times now.

Well, of course this is true. I've been trying to respond to Al's fairly-obvious doubts by saying that I don't find his reasons for skepticism persuasive. Obviously it's not possible for us to "convict" the defendant based on the scanty descriptions in the newspaper articles we're discussing. I just don't think that the specific reasons that he's raised are clear reasons to doubt the jury's verdict here.

Put differently: there has already been a BRD conviction here. So it's perfectly acceptable for us in the peanut gallery to discuss the fact that the victim's allegations are plausible (and in some senses, the most likely scenario). I think (hope) we all understand that the plausibility of the allegations is not, or should not have been, the reason for the judicial conviction.

If both those facts were true, would you be less inclined to believe the victims story?

Al, the first article (the one you quoted in the body of your first post) said that the husband had testified that she told him of the attack immediately after leaving the hotel, and he became very upset. Your second article says that the defense attorney disputes that on appeal. Whether it would make me less likely to believe the victim depends on the obvious factors: what exactly she said to her husband on exiting the hotel, whom else she told of the assault/when she told them/what she said, when she ultimately changed her story to her husband (if in fact the defense attorney is right about this), what the discrepancies between the supposed two versions of her stories were, and what explanation she was able to offer for those discrepancies. Any of those reasons would provide specific reasons to doubt the jury verdict, but without those reasons I am inclined to believe the victim, because there has been a lawful conviction. There is no reason to presume convicted defendants are innocent; the burden shifts at that point. As well it should: post-conviction is the very point at which victims of sexual assault are finally entitled to belief.

As for your second point, that this bar had a reputation for these sorts of encounters, that would not make me likely - in my peanut gallery capacity - to doubt the victim's story, barring evidence that (1) she knew of the hotel's reputation and (2) had sought it out for that purpose. (Were I on the jury, I would want to know as much as possible about what had caused her husband and her to choose that bar, how many times she had visited it before, what she knew of its reputation, whether she had ever encountered the defendant before, in what context they first interacted that evening, etc.) If she sought out the bar because it had a reputation for same-sex encounters, and she was hoping for a consensual encounter, why would she go with her husband?

Sounds to me like a consensual snog gone wrong, with one drunken woman assuming more was on offer than the other had intended.

... and even if true (a version that the jury rejected, and that the news articles you've provided us don't support), that would still be every bit as serious as a drunken man "assuming more was on offer" than a woman had intended, and commencing with (non-consensual) "have to have you right now" dragging and banging.

[Alatar]

And once again, I agree with you on all points. I simply wanted to indicate my willingness to consider the other side of the story.

At the end of the day though, even if she was completely in favour of and participating fully in the snog, that doesn't excuse the other party refusing to take no for an answer.

<ASIDE>

As someone pointed out on another board, this is the same as in opposite sex encounters, where guys in particular have a tendency to take "No" to mean "Not until I'm a bit hornier and give in". On the other hand some girls on the same board also admitted that sometimes "No" meant "I can't appear TOO easy, make him work for it".

Unfortunately, the fact that both of these attitudes are fairly common makes date rape really hard to prove.

[Primula Baggins]

Doesn't no still mean no even if some people say it meaning "later" or "maybe"? I realize that in the heat these things are fraught with second-guessing, but shouldn't the person pushing for sex hear "no" and stop, and be culpable if he/she does not? Even if it wrecks some game the person being pushed might be playing?

[Alatar]

Not arguing that Prim by any means. Of course we all know the answer is that "No means No". The problem is that in real life it doesn't always. And there's the problem.