Harsh sentence

GreeBo

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s all that matters then right? As long as you don’t feel like you’re sexually assaulting someone when you clearly are, all is well.

Im sure thats a great rebuttal to something that someone said, I sincerely hope you find that person someday.

Touching people’s genitals while they sleep is normal behaviour to you?

Being intimate with my partner is normal to me, yes.

seamus

retro:electro wrote: »

That would be up to her to decide if she wanted to report on if she felt violated enough. The amount of men that need to be told in black and white that helping yourself to a sleeping woman’s genitals is unacceptable and violating is quite remarkable. Why you’d even want to us another question.

There was a man convicted a couple of years back of having sex with his girlfriend while she was asleep (as well as drugging her to keep her asleep, and other sexual activity). While that's at the extreme end, it's eye-opening that there are people on here who seem to think that being in relationship implies some form of ongoing unspoken consent to sexual contact, conscious or not.

It's not really rocket science. If you want to have sex with someone who's asleep, wake them up first.

(and good luck)

retro:electro

GreeBo wrote: »

Still wrong.
It's up to her to raise it, its up to the courts to decide if its an assault or not.

Doesnt fit in with your social media lynch mob ideals (who needs facts!), but its how civilized people live in a civilized society.

Which is what I said..

retro:electro wrote: »

That would be up to her to decide if she wanted to report on if she felt violated enough.

Maybe try reading my posts before you fall over yourself with outrage trying to prove me wrong.

And it’s gas that the only time I get accused of being a feminist or part of a lynch mob on here is by men who don’t like being told they don’t have carte blanche to fondle whoever they want when they want. I mean the audacity.

retro:electro

GreeBo wrote: »

Being intimate with my partner is normal to me, yes.

That’s not what I asked.. ironic when you just accused me of rebutting something I wasn’t asked. I asked is touching someone’s genitals while they sleep normal behaviour to you?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Lasera wrote: »

There's no way for us to know, some people seem to think even if it were a mistake he should go to jail. Ask them for the rationale and it's tumbleweeds.

Well presumably the people in that courtroom had more information than us on which to reach their verdict. I think if it was a mistake, the sentence is harsh. But we don’t know, based on the information given in the article, that it was a mistake. Some people here have decided that it was based on the poorly-detailed article.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I think we need to read between the lines when we read articles like this.

The article brings snippets of statements from both sides. Then a few snippets from the judge.

These snippets make it sound like he says he made a genuine mistake. She says she felt traumatised and her trust was violated. The judge says he didn't see his wrong doing hence the sentence. Thats it.

If you just see these snippets alone they are very much lining up a big controversy rather than trying to give enough information for someone to build an informed opinion. There are no snippets about whether his claim was credible and what the judge thought about that. Nothing about his conduct after the incident.

A big controversy is what sells an article, what sells a newspaper. You guys need to read an article like this more carefully. What it says is just as important as what it doesn't say.

Aaah yeah, it’s already been pointed put that we don’t have all the details.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

GreeBo wrote: »

No I don't think touching your wife/husband while the sleep is an automatic assault. There may be rare, extreme circumstances where it might, but in the vast, vast majority of cases, at least in my eyes, its not.

Any more than my wife kissing me from behind is consent.
Some are trying to make out that I'm equating both actions, lets be clear, I'm not, I'm equating how two "consenting" adults can do things to each other without each giving express consent for specific actions.

If this is not the case then society as we have known it will cease to function.

Note that this is not some carte blanche to abuse people, it should be pretty obvious in which cases it is and is not assault, and as with most things, if in doubt dont do it. Buts its ludicrous to suggest that normal behaviour is assault.

In rare cases, it’d be assault? :eek:

Oh... my... god.

If my husband did that to me, I would consider it so. When my friend confided in her close friends about what happened to her, we all recoiled. In rare cases? I find that chilling.

Muckka

If ever I have a woman give me a reach around in bed when I haven't given her permission.

I'm going to report her to the guard's.

Hopefully she'll do a long stretch and I'd out her as well.

She'll never work again and I'll make a huge deal out of it.

More than likely I'd be getting slated for my stupidity and the third wave femminists will want me burnt on the stake...

eviltwin

Lasera wrote: »

Each relationship is different, there would be consent in some and not in others.

Women often touch people on the arm without consent, should that be illegal and deserve prison time? If not, why not?

Because it's your arm not your generalia. Do you really need the difference between them to be explained?

Bizarre that frequently people would almost pop a vein if someone questioned the validity of a not guilty verdict in a sex assault case, yet there's no problem questioning the validity of a guilty verdict.

Woman gets assaulted by a man in her bed as she sleeps, suffers terror, trauma and betrayal from a person she considered a brother, he's tried and found guilty by a jury but will serve a year or less in prison after showing absolutely no remorse at the suffering his victim has felt from his actions....and in some responses its made out like he's the victim here?

AH is nothing if not predictable lately.

retro:electro

GreeBo wrote: »

Doesnt fit in with your social media lynch mob ideals (who needs facts!), but its how civilized people live in a civilized society.

Civilised society? Where unremorseful vagina grabbers are let off the hook to roam the streets and continue their hobby?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

GreeBo wrote: »

The article is short on facts, so why assume it was not a mistake versus assume it was?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that...

Erm, he has been jailed. The trial is over.

WE have a paucity of information. That doesn’t mean the jury didn’t have enough details.

Feisar

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In rare cases, it’d be assault? :eek:

Oh... my... god.

If my husband did that to me, I would consider it so. When my friend confided in her close friends about what happened to her, we all recoiled. In rare cases? I find that chilling.

Oral on a sleeping partner to wake them even has a term, the not to creative, "alarm clock"

James Brown

Lasera wrote: »

You're missing my point. In society there are implicit rules and consent we often abide by.

Nobody ever gave you permission to touch people on the arm but I bet you do it.

I actually stopped doing that years ago. Hasn't adversely changed my life.

Boggles

Candie wrote: »

Bizarre that frequently people would almost pop a vein if someone questioned the validity of a not guilty verdict in a sex assault case, yet there's no problem questioning the validity of a guilty verdict.

TBF I don't think anyone (that isn't a lunatic) is questioning the verdict.

In a way what other choice had the Jury?

There is definitely validity in discussing the "harshness" of the sentence though and why it was imposed.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

TBF I don't think anyone (that isn't a lunatic) is questioning the verdict.

In a way what other choice had the Jury?

There is definitely validity in discussing the "harshness" of the sentence though and why it was imposed.

Oh come on! Theres been plenty of 'sounds like a mistake' stuff from a few posters. Luckily the minority.

I think serving less than a year for a calculated sexual assault is pretty lenient.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Feisar wrote: »

Oral on a sleeping partner to wake them even has a term, the not to creative, "alarm clock"

Oh, well that’s okay then. There’s a slang term for it. All is well.

What kind of uncivilised world do we live in when you can't just sexually assault your spouse anymore

Feisar

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, well that’s okay then. There’s a slang term for it. All is well.

Ah in fairness I wasn't suggesting a slang term = A1. It's just not the affront to nature you believe it to be.

On the other hand maybe I spent my life dating lunatics with Daddy issues.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

What kind of uncivilised world do we live in when you can't just sexually assault your spouse anymore

Imagine a world where you can't curl up with your sleeping partner and insert the odd digit (or more!) without checking they're up for it first? PC madness!



ETA: Ridiculous, but I feel compelled to point out this is sarcasm.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

What kind of uncivilised world do we live in when you can't just sexually assault your spouse anymore

One which some of the posters here aren't happy with apparently, even more unhappy that they can't do it to their friends either. Should talk to Joe about it.

eviltwin

Lasera wrote: »

You're missing my point. In society there are implicit rules and consent we often abide by.

Nobody ever gave you permission to touch people on the arm but I bet you do it.

Well I touced my husbands arm today to get his attention if that's what you mean. He was OK with that. If I'd grabbed him by the penis though I think we'd have a problem

You're right, there are certain situations where touching someone is OK. It's all about the context and where you touch them and no one is disputing that. The attempt to link that to touching someone who is asleep or semi comatose in their genitals though? Maybe that's acceptable in your relationship, it's not in mine

retro:electro

batgoat wrote: »

He didn't do it to his girlfriend... He's shown no remorse which is worrying in own right.

Yeah but he thought he was doing it to his girlfriend. Which according to some here makes it all okay.

batgoat

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah but he thought he was doing it to his girlfriend. Which according to some here makes it all okay.

Yep I agree totally with ye on that just to clarify.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Lasera wrote: »

There's no way for us to know, some people seem to think even if it were a mistake he should go to jail. Ask them for the rationale and it's tumbleweeds.

"Sorry I hit that pedestrian with my car, I genuinely thought I had time to make the light, honest mistake"

"Sorry I stole that, I was so drunk I forgot to pay, I'd never do that sober so, I'll just be on my way"

"I thought that under the circumstances it was reasonable to think that my mother wanted me to take her money out of her credit union accounts. She never said that's what she wanted, but I really did assume she did when I took it."

These defences don't work for other crimes, do they. They're never wheeled out, either. Just sexual crimes.

The rationale is committing a crime by mistake is still committing a crime. Perhaps nobody else wanted to insult your intelligence by explaining that to you.

batgoat

Lassera wrote: »

You still haven't answered the question, what benefit is there to putting him in jail if it was a genuine mistake?

Some people seem to be foaming at thr mouth to put a man in jail even if it was a genuine mistake. What is the benefit of putting him in jail if it was a genuine mistake?

The crimes you listed would all be treated much more leniently if it was determined to be a lenient mistake. Your examples lose the argument for you.

Maybe he may actually learn to understand the consequences of his actions and feel some remorse.

retro:electro

Because maybe the jury didn’t believe it was a genuine mistake? Maybe they compared the victim to the girlfriend and there were no similarities? Maybe his girlfriend wasn’t even there that night? Maybe they didn’t do any of that and decided that his defence of “i fondled the wrong sleeping girl your honour” to still be unacceptable. We don’t know a lot here, as the article in the OP is limited in details. But we do know that the jury are privy to a lot more details than you or I, and thus based a decision based on what was presented in court, not a few lines in an article.

JupiterKid

I find it a bit unsettling and a tad disturbing that a few of the posters who believe that the convicted guy in this case was unfairly sentenced have previously defended other men founfd guilty or in one case not guilty of sexual assaults/rapes.

Mrsmum

I don't know if this thread is funny or sad. You would swear from some of the replies that if a guy can't go straight to his partner's sexual organs while in bed together, his sex life will be over. Top tip lads if you want to wake her up, maybe start kissing the back of her neck, her shoulders and arms and on your slow journey downwards, I think you'll get your answer to the consent question. And if she doesn't wake up at all leave her alone. I feel really sorry for some women if they wake up to fingers already inside them and yet some men here seem to think that's normal behaviour. Apart from anything else it shows a very poor understanding of how the female body and arousal works.

retro:electro

Why would you even want to launch straight into touching your sleeping partner’s vagina? Surely sex and sexual acts are a mutual thing, something beneficial and pleasurable to both and not a solitary affair? Sorry but if you think there’s nothing wrong with pulling down someone’s underwear while they’re sleeping and helping yourself to her private parts while she’s unaware then you are a complete and utter fcuking weirdo.
Like the poster above me said, if you find yourself in the mood for something something then at least have the decency to wake her up and maybe ask her first before you go rooting around in her nether regions like a sad sack.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

retro:electro wrote: »

Why would you even want to launch straight into touching your sleeping partner’s vagina? Surely sex and sexual acts are a mutual thing, something beneficial and pleasurable to both and not a solitary affair? Sorry but if you think there’s nothing wrong with pulling down someone’s underwear while they’re sleeping and helping yourself to her private parts while she’s unaware then you are a complete and utter fcuking weirdo.
Like the poster above me said, if you find yourself in the mood for something something then at least have the decency to wake her up and maybe ask her first before you go rooting around in her nether regions like a sad sack.

I've read threads on here where lads were giving out about women who need foreplay, blaming it on Catholic guilt and feminism, and encouraging other men that there are women out there who love "actual sex", which I guess is when you're so free from religious dogma and feminism (we mustn't forget the feminism!!!) that he lobs it straight in there and you just immediately cum. It was kind of hilariously and unintentionally revealing of their sexual skill level, but kind of sad too.

GreeBo

retro:electro wrote: »

Civilised society? Where unremorseful vagina grabbers are let off the hook to roam the streets and continue their hobby?

Again you are reading a post on topic A and responding as if it's about topic B.

I'm sure its fun but it makes discussion complicated

GreeBo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Erm, he has been jailed. The trial is over.

WE have a paucity of information. That doesn’t mean the jury didn’t have enough details.

Erm the verdict doesn't prove intent or otherwise, which is what i was discussing.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm the verdict doesn't prove intent or otherwise, which is what i was discussing.

It does. Intent is part of what makes an action criminal. Motive and intent are necessary elements. The jury felt that intent was established, or they couldn't have found him guilty.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

I find it a bit unsettling and a tad disturbing that a few of the posters who believe that the convicted guy in this case was unfairly sentenced have previously defended other men founfd guilty or in one case not guilty of sexual assaults/rapes.

But not surprising.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Interesting this thread has probably reversed people's attitudes on crime and penalties, with the left supporting a more draconian sentences and the right opposing in this particular case.

martingriff

JupiterKid wrote: »

I find it a bit unsettling and a tad disturbing that a few of the posters who believe that the convicted guy in this case was unfairly sentenced have previously defended other men founfd guilty or in one case not guilty of sexual assaults/rapes.

I don't believe the guy was treated unfairly. I did think those who were found not guilty were treated to a witch hunt and also they were found not guilty

Mrsmum

Kaylani Curved Tray wrote: »

I've read threads on here where lads were giving out about women who need foreplay, blaming it on Catholic guilt and feminism, and encouraging other men that there are women out there who love "actual sex", which I guess is when you're so free from religious dogma and feminism (we mustn't forget the feminism!!!) that he lobs it straight in there and you just immediately cum. It was kind of hilariously and unintentionally revealing of their sexual skill level, but kind of sad too.

Yes, in fact regarding the guy in this case and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he thought it was his girlfriend, if his sexual skill level wasn't so inadequate, and he had instead began by stroking her cheek or her hair or kissing her shoulders etc instead of going straight to his end target, it's highly unlikely he would be behind bars now. So ironically he was more or less hoisted by his own petard so to speak.

eagle eye

Amazing to read people still saying he showed no remorse. We don't know that but the fact that he made a detailed statement to a Garda suggests that he had remorse. If he didn't regret it he'd hardly fine the Garda all the details to help them go after him

amcalester

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm the verdict doesn't prove intent or otherwise, which is what i was discussing.

The intent aspect was confuses me, he admitted the action but thought it was someone else so is intent measured based on the action or the person?

One eyed Jack

Kaylani Curved Tray wrote: »

"Sorry I hit that pedestrian with my car, I genuinely thought I had time to make the light, honest mistake"

"Sorry I stole that, I was so drunk I forgot to pay, I'd never do that sober so, I'll just be on my way"

"I thought that under the circumstances it was reasonable to think that my mother wanted me to take her money out of her credit union accounts. She never said that's what she wanted, but I really did assume she did when I took it."

These defences don't work for other crimes, do they. They're never wheeled out, either. Just sexual crimes.

The rationale is committing a crime by mistake is still committing a crime. Perhaps nobody else wanted to insult your intelligence by explaining that to you.

I would never wish to insult your intelligence either, particularly as I don’t see how intelligence and lack of knowledge are related, but that aside -

The sentiments of the kinds of excuses you listed are often given in people’s defence as mitigating factors when they are accused of committing a criminal offence. They’re given as excuses in cases where the accused is charged with sexual crimes too, because the types of offences in the circumstances you listed above, and in the case of most criminal sexual offences - they aren’t generally strict liability offences. I use the word ‘generally’, because there are exceptions in law under certain circumstances, such as if the victim were a child.

The idea of consensual relations between couples automatically constituting criminal offences is just silly tbh. It’s entirely unreasonable, and would only fly on Boards, where facts and context are abandoned in favour of, well, ignorance of Irish law at least.

All that being said, I think the sentencing in the case in the opening post was reasonable and entirely appropriate. I would have preferred had the sentence been far more severe, as I think forcing the victim to endure a trial to get justice when they have been wronged, should be far more severely punished if the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable by a jury of their peers of having committed a criminal sexual offence.

Skylinehead

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interesting this thread has probably reversed people's attitudes on crime and penalties, with the left supporting a more draconian sentences and the right opposing in this particular case.

Oh so interesting to have the left and right brought up irrelevantly in yet another AH thread :rolleyes:

BBFAN

Dante7 wrote: »

Yeah, I've obviously sexually assaulted women and have upcoming court cases. Or maybe I have very personal experience of a paedophile raping girls and getting a lesser sentence and that is what annoyed me.

Just because someone who did worse got a lesser sentence does not mean that this person shouldn't get any sentence at all. That's a ridiculous assumption.

Any paedophile who raped girls should obviously get a much more severe sentence. That does not mean that people who commit lesser crimes should walk free.

Dante7

BBFAN wrote: »

Just because someone who did worse got a lesser sentence does not mean that this person shouldn't get any sentence at all. That's a ridiculous assumption.

Any paedophile who raped girls should obviously get a much more severe sentence. That does not mean that people who commit lesser crimes should walk free.

I didn't say any of that. I was replying to your contention, that as the OP, I was likely to have committed such acts and created the thread in an attempt to get some sort of support. I simply replied with the actual reason as to why I created the thread, and ignored your disgusting slur.

I think the sentence was very harsh. It's a two and a half year sentence for touching someone. No violence, no threats, no coercion. If a woman got into bed with a man (regardless of whether or not she thought he was her partner), and touched his dick, there is no chance that it would get to court, let alone attract a two and a half year sentence.

I made the post originally as I thought it was a harsh, inconsistent sentence, but reading through the replies now, I am more shocked at the amount of replies stating that all sexual contact with a sleeping partner is assault. This has definitely not been my life experience. I have had four long(ish) term relationships ranging from ten years down to one year. In all of these relationships we would occasionally wake each up with sexual contact. Usually in the mornings, but sometimes in the middle of the night. It wasn't sticking fingers in like fumbling for change down the back of the sofa, but would be much more languid and flowing. This would obviously be consensual behaviour that evolved naturally and would be considered as implied consent. I thought most established couples would engage in this.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

I think the sentence was very harsh. It's a two and a half year sentence for touching someone. No violence, no threats, no coercion. If a woman got into bed with a man (regardless of whether or not she thought he was her partner), and touched his dick, there is no chance that it would get to court, let alone attract a two and a half year sentence.

You’re surely aware that you’re attempting to compare two completely different circumstances there though? Not to mention the fact that one scenario actually happened, whereas the other is a completely made up hypothetical of your own choosing, when the reality is you actually have no way of determining what way a case would go if the victim were male and the accused were female.

Of course it stands to reason in the circumstances you present that a woman could not possibly be found guilty in those circumstances if the male victim never makes a complaint to the authorities! What anyone else would or wouldn’t choose to do in similar circumstances is entirely irrelevant to the choices an individual makes for themselves In their circumstances.

Given your attempt to handwave away the man’s actions in this particular case as “touching someone”, I don’t imagine any amount of explaining would help you to understand why the Judge handed down the sentence they did. All your hand waving does explain however, is why you are of the opinion that the sentence in this particular case was too harsh.

Dante7

You are mistaking my questioning of the harshness of the sentence with me trying to completely dismiss the offence. I have made my position clear that I simply believe this to be a very harsh sentence for an offence that is at the lower scale of such offences, and that it is completely inconsistent with other headline sentences for similar offences.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

You are mistaking my questioning of the harshness of the sentence with me trying to completely dismiss the offence. I have made my position clear that I simply believe this to be a very harsh sentence for an offence that is at the lower scale of such offences, and that it is completely inconsistent with other headline sentences for similar offences.

I don’t think you’re completely trying to dismiss the offence. I think you’re purposely trying to play down the gravity of the offence in the first place, and secondly you’re wilfully ignoring the fact that the defendant plead not guilty and showed no remorse for their actions. Those are two factors why the sentence was as harsh as it was, mitigated by the defendants previous good character and their employment history, for which the Judge suspended the final 18 months of the sentence.

Judges, like most people, don’t take too kindly to people who make work for them, and if the defendant had simply plead guilty and shown remorse for their actions on the night in question, it would have been far more likely that having saved everyone involved, including the victim, the expense and time and everything else involved in a trial - they would have more likely received a suspended sentence for their actions that night, and there likely wouldn’t have been a word in the media about the case, as there isn’t in most cases which aren’t reported on in the media.

Those reasons alone would explain the severity of the sentence in this particular case, nothing to do with any hypothetical circumstances where the genders are simply reversed and the person hasn’t chosen to make a complaint to the authorities.

Dante7

I agree with nearly all of that, which leads us on to where we probably disagree. And that is the reasons which led to a low scale offence attracting a headline sentence. You've outlined the probable reasons and I disagree with how law was dispensed here. I would fully expect this sentence to be reviewed on appeal.

The two and a half year sentence has to be problematic.

batgoat

Dante7 wrote: »

I agree with nearly all of that, which leads us on to where we probably disagree. And that is the reasons which led to a low scale offence attracting a headline sentence. You've outlined the probable reasons and I disagree with how law was dispensed here. I would fully expect this sentence to be reviewed on appeal.

The two and a half year sentence has to be problematic.

He faces a year in jail. Most of the sentence is suspended.. His lack of remorse is deeply worrying and by the looks of things, he has had a considerable negative impact on the victim.

Dante7

batgoat wrote: »

He faces a year in jail. Most of the sentence is suspended.. His lack of remorse is deeply worrying and by the looks of things, he has had a considerable negative impact on the victim.

It's a two and a half year sentence for drunkenly getting into bed beside someone and touching their vagina. Can you not see how it is possible to both condemn this behaviour but also feel that the sentence is very harsh?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interesting this thread has probably reversed people's attitudes on crime and penalties, with the left supporting a more draconian sentences and the right opposing in this particular case.

A year. A year. That is hardly draconian for somebody who was found guilty of sexual assault. People have really latched on to the notion that he did what he did in error. But the people deciding the matter were not convinced of that.