RTÉ journo given 15months for sexually assaulting woman as she slept

Rape is touching a sleeping person?

seriously, can people educate themselves here.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, I very much doubt any of her friends are contributing to this thread.

As for having no interest in appropriate punishments, it's literally the reason stated in the OP for the commencement of thread.

This talk of suicide is what has me puzzled, and thinking this has been played up by this woman and for reasons only she knows.

Unless I missed something: there was no violence, intimidation, threats, depravity whatsoever. He initiated intimacy during an encounter, with drink taken, on a woman he had previously been intimate with. The woman was sleeping. She woke, said stop, he stopped immediately, she then went back to sleep. This suggests she felt not at all scared/threatened by this man. Nothing in the reports suggest what he actually did was depraved/violent. I can only assume it was fondling and trying to wake her to become intimate.

They parted ways. Then they communicated next day due to her accusing him of sexually assaulting her. She agreed to meet the man, and they chatted (in an ordinary person to person way). Agreed to differ on the situation. He didn’t believe it to be near as serious as she was claiming.

a year passes, and she then reports it. He is remorseful, but more so for her having been upset etc. And here we are…

how can this lead to suicide ideation ?

No I understand we are not here to discuss the morals of assaulting someone in their sleep, that's why I never talked about it. I am just suggesting that most people if capable would lie and not be convicted. I am also suggesting that the sentence is too harsh. If an 'eye for an eye' is considered barbaric as a form of justice, this is surely barbaric, his sentence is far worse than his crime. What he did was terrible but again I would say most people would prefer a non penetrative assault in their sleep to 15 months in a prison with career criminals, like by a considerable margin. In my view public apology(if she wants to wave anonymity) or private and a chunky cash settlement, donation to women's charity and mandatory completion of a course on consent. In my view everyone is better off from that kind of sentence. Baring in mind, importantly, that he did stop when told to and he has no previous convictions, so this sentence is likely to deter him from ever doing this kind of thing again.

I don't suppose her friends are contributing to the thread. I'm assuming that her friends are a normal cross section of society and the thread posters are a normal cross section of the same society. So I'd imagine her friends had a range of views held in normal society and you can see that range of views represented by posters in the thread.

Well victim statements are uncontested, so we will never know.

There is mounting pressure within the judiciary to have character references or at least the referees questioned in court, wonder would the same appetite be there for victim statements, I doubt it personally.

It all really comes down to the judge and what she/he weighs into an appropriate punishment, in this case she stated the victim statement was the main aggravating factor for sentencing apart from a non guilty plea.

So not so much the crime itself or the act, but the reaction afterwards.

It's a curious case for numerous reasons.

thread posters are a normal cross section of the same society.

lol

We both know that isn't true.

Anyway my point is there is absolutely no doubt to his guilt, he had no reasonable defence.

So what's left to discuss really is punishment and I don't think it would be weird of one to suggest he was dealt with harshly given the facts of the case.

You're having a laugh....had a woman tried to wake/initiate intimacy on a sleeping man (who she was intimate with the same night earlier), I'd bet my house and yours, that it wouldn't even see court.

Anyway, comparing the two scenarios is not applicable really. Men are the physically more powerful sex, and women the physically weaker sex. Different situations!

"Under the proposed new law, if somebody went to the guards and accused somebody of rape but indicated they'd given consent, it would also go absolutely nowhere."

So why is this proposed new law needed? When as things stand, if somebody went to the guards and accused somebody of rape but indicated they'd given consent, it would also go absolutely nowhere.

This appears to be about shifting the balance of proof and giving the benefit of doubt to the accuser. Very poor law.

I doubt given her what I assume is her age is, her friends and social circles were hardly old angry men.

Not all angry old men are old, or men. Angry old men types exist all over.

So you don't think all her friends held that attitude and you disagree with my suggestion that it's possible plenty of her friends had that attitude she outlined. So what is your contention?

Anything is possible like I said, but considering neither of us know her or her friends and for the benefit of debate we need to go with what in reality would be more plausible.

She bought the law upon him...he lost his job..his reputation... wanted him named and shamed...he could be as easily be damaged and suicidal as she claims she is