Category: Let's talk
A JUDGE has questioned if a man who had sex with a drunken woman after she passed out should be "marked for the rest of his days as a rapist", describing it as a "technical rape".
Sexual assault experts and victims groups last night said the judge should be censured while NSW Rape Crisis Centre manager Karen Willis said there was no such thing as a "technical rape".
In the South Australian District Court yesterday, Judge David Smith said he was "troubled" by the case of Matthew James Sloan.
"Rape is a horrible offence . . . I suggest that this is a technical rape," he said.
"This is not a situation where an offender perpetrated a sex act on an unconscious victim which she would not have consented to, had she been conscious.
"To mark this man with the grave offence of rape for the rest of his days will stop him travelling to some countries and prevent him getting jobs."
Sloan, 29, of the Adelaide suburb of Highbury, pleaded guilty to raping the woman in the city's east parklands in June 2008.
The court had heard Sloan met his victim at the PJ O'Brien's pub and suggested they have sex across the road.
She agreed and the two began to have sex but she fell asleep during foreplay - which Sloan continued despite her being unconscious. Both were drunk at the time, with the woman being "heavily intoxicated".
Sloan was due to be sentenced yesterday. Prosecutors had asked he receive at least a suspended jail term for his crime. However, Judge Smith said that might not be an appropriate penalty.
"I would put this offence at the lower end of the scale because the (sex act) began as a consensual one before the victim passed out and became incapable of consenting," Judge Smith said.
He declined to pass sentence, saying he needed more time to consider his ruling.
He remanded Sloan on continuing bail until next week.
Anne Cossins, from the NSW Government's Sexual Assault Task Force, branded the judge's comments "typical".
"Judges have become scared to voice what they think but this is what they think," she said.
"It is the sort of thing judges should be censured for."
Ms Willis said that the law was clear: Having sex with someone who was unconscious was against the law.
So, is it rape or not. What do you all think? I don't think it is rape. Had the girl not fallen asleep, would she have continued? She did go willingly with the man to where ever they were going to go to have sex. Did he know she was asleep. We'll never know.
i have to disagree because rape is a horrible thing in many different ways. there are people out there who really want sex. there are people who will fine ways to rape a person. there are people who will use a drink to rape a women. i guess it could be hard to say because if they were both drunk to know. but if he tried to rape her prior then its a different story sorry i dont think i just made since here urgs
but what if it wasnt what both parties wanted it then it could have been a rape act. since we dont have all the facts straight i think its up to the people who were in this problem to say i think hmm
I would agree here with Judge Smith. This man should actually be acquitted of all charges because the woman consented to having sex with him, which therefore makes it no longer rape. It could be a different story, however, if the woman was not of the age of consent. If she was not, it could be considered statutory rape or sexual assault.
rape is a pretty strong accusation to make, and isn't pretty for someone who's been a victum, or for someone wrongly accused.
she obviously consented to having sex, so she knew what she was getting into. its not his fault she fell asleep, and can't hold her liquor.
we'll just have to wait and see what the final result is. regardless of what it is, i still say its not rape since she originally consented to having sex with this man.
if she didn't want it that badly, she could have pushed him away, but she didn't.
Yes, rape is a very serious accusation, and a survivor may say this is not necessarily rape.
I would definitely speak up and press charges if I was raped. But, having said that, I've read about too many cases where a woman has sex and then days or even weeks later decides to charge the guy with rape and ends up ruining his life. With this kind of thing going on, both men and women should not hook up so easily with a stranger they meet in a bar. There are men drugging women to get sex and women having conscentual sex and then changing their mind later. These types of cases are what make it hard for people to determine the truth in a rape case because there are so many variables.
Having said all that, I feel bad for the woman in the case Nem posted about if she truly believes she was raped. Coming forward is very difficult, and any time a woman accuses someone of rape, she is the one treated like the criminal too many times. Unless she is a 12-year-old virgin, every sexual partner she has ever had is thrown back in her face at the trial to make her look like a slut.
I don't think this is rape. And I agree with most others here, the man should be acquitted. This is a very serious crime to accuse one of, and can most definitely ruin a person's life.
This is a complicated case. It figures it would be given to a man judge. His attitude makes my blood boil.
At first the woman was willing but she passed out. i would say that it is rape in that the guy didn't have any concern or care for her feelings enjoyment or participation. He objectified his partner so he could get what he wanted.
As we all should be aware, Rape has very little to do with sex and a whole lot to do with power and control. Since he continued despite the fact that the female was totally out of it shows that he's at least an uncouth pig.
The woman probably felt violated and embarrassed. She may have had little if any recollection of the experience. Rape is a terrible crime and a damn hard one to prosecute and convict. The fact that the woman is pressing charges obviously means that she changed her mind. Therefore, like that basketball tv announcer who was convicted, this guy
should be as well.
Raven, This whole thing of "the guy wants to get back at the girl bla bla bla" really pisses me off. You are still blaming the victim with that line of reasoning.
No one wants to keep reliving the experience over and over again as they have to in a rape trial. The experience must have been pretty unpleasant for this female to have the motivation to go through such a sordid and demeaning process.
I'm a date rape victim. It was never prosecuted for the reasons cited above. Most of the time, I forget about it have healed, and have made a good life.Sorry if I'm a little too involved in this story. That's just the way it is.
Goes to show that drunken hook ups with strangers can be dangerous. Turricane, the problem with the judge is that if the judge were a woman the bias woud go the other way and that's not necessarily fair either, if you think gender has so much effect on the outcome of the case the case is practically prejudged by what gender the judge is, and that is a problem too.
I think these cases are just incredibly difficult to judge because you ahve two people drunk and not able to act rationally, doing things they'd probably never do otherwise.
I think for a guy, once consensual sex is started it's physically very very difficult to quit it, I'm not saying it's right, and may be he should get some form of punishment but I feel consensual sex that turns into rape is not the same crime as forcing a victim off the street to have sex with you. Both are wrong and may be both are punishable but they're not entirely the same type of crime. Then again date rape one could be even worse because you've built up some trust towards a person who then abuses you.
Basically what I am trying to say, I think, is those are someof the hardest cases to judge I think and you'll never have satisfied people whichever way the outcome falls, the evidence is tricky and can be disputed on all sides and labelling a rapist wrongly is pretty much a lifelong sentence. I do not feel this case deserved such a punishment, neither that necessarily he should be totally let off.
rape can also deal with sex too. yes rape can show power and control but it also deals with the fact of sex how some men want it not every men. there are different ways of being raped. ... i agree with the last person but its one of those that we could keep have different opinions about.
Personally, I think we could do with a bit more info about this whole thing. I don't know exactly what the laws are in Australia regarding this kind of thing, although surely they can't be much different than in the US. Also, when did the woman go to the police? If she went soon enough, they'd be able to find out if there were any other drugs in her system which could confirm a possible date-rape. But the fact is that if she consented, there was no rape, whether she fell asleep or not. That may sound harsh, but if she didn't want to chance it, she shouldn't have put herself in that situation. And believe me, there are many women who would press charges on a guy out of malice whilst knowing full well that they consented to having sex with him. If she waited awhile to go to the police, then there wouldn't be any physical evidence, in which case I can't see how this guy could get convicted.
Becky
She fell asleep, therefore, he should have immediately put the breaks on. he didn't, therefore he should be sentenced to the full extent of the law, like all other rapist scum.
And if he tries any of that crap like, "oh I didn't notice she'd fallen asleep..." he's a liar too. How could you not notice if you're sexual partner fell asleep? He can also argue that he was heavily intoxicated, but that is no excuse. Yes she had agreed to the act, but had then passed out through alcohol. And to pass out in that kind of situation is enough evidence to suggest that she was in no state to consent to anything.
So if his intoxication is no excuse, why does her intoxication not matter in the least? Sounds a bit unfair to me. If he's so intoxicated he's not in a state to be responsible, if you say this applies to her.
It is a sd but true fact there are girls out there who try deliberately to make money by false rape accusations and, thereby, destroy men's lives. They may or may not realize it but they have also hurt fellow women who have ligitimate claims and have forced the courts to establish all applicable evidence precedures rather than be taken on their word.
And I will disagree with anyone who says it is the same to finish having sex with a woman who passes out naked in your bed, having agreed to g there in the first place and to ambush, attack and rape a stranger or a girl who had no interest in any physical relations with you whatsoever.
Both are wrong but not the same type of crime and shouldnot be meet with the same punishment.
-B
i agree with cam here. no matter what if she was passed out he should have stopped. he was just being a pig and thinking of himself and his needs. no matter how much you have the urge, and if one says they want to stop, it should end right there. like it or not! in this situation she didn't have the chance to stop it she was passed out. he took advantage of her, and that is just sick!he may not have attacked her, but he sure didn't stop to make sure she was ok.
I agree with B. When she agreed to have sex with him, I'm sure she didn't say, "Yes, but stop if I fall asleep." And absolutely, her intoxication should be taken into account. She put herself in the situation.
I agree with Becky and B. She set herself up for what happened to her. And one thing that must be taken into consideration is that all rationality is lost when a person is intoxicated. So the woman wouldn't have thought to give him some warning about if she's on the verge of falling asleep, and the man wouldn't have thought to stop because he was drunk after all, and wanted what he had come to get. Yes, he should be punished, but not with the full sentence. The plaintiff and defendant both put themselves in a bad situation, and both of them are paying the consequences.
Oh gosh, this has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest. All of you make some valid points, but I have two things to add.
Wildebrew, I'm ashamed of you. It is dificlt for a man to stop. Wa Wa Wa. Dificult does not mean impossible. Pulling out is a choice. If he were a thinking man instead of a feeling animal, he could have chosen to put the breaks on.
Maybe I'm contradicting myself, but hey, it's my choice to do so. It is a shame that we don't have a legal mommy. I mean some kind of arbitrator who could sitdown with two people in a quiet place without a lawyer and hammer out some kind of mutually beneficial solution.
The girl felt used and the guy acted like an idiot. A nonbiased person could figure out an appropriate discipline for both of them.
Discipline teaches us something. Therefore, this arbitrator would want to create something that would educate them so this would never happen again. Say sending the young lady to self esteem classes or going to AA?Even better tying one of their hands together for a week and making them help each other. Learning to share unselfishly and get along please would be worth it. am i making sense?
I never said that the crime was the same as a violent and deliberate attack, of course it isn't. However, it doesn't make it any better. And also, her intoxication is definitely just as important as his. And I also never stated otherwise. She fell asleep she was so drunk. But does that mean that she was any less violated? I think not. The guy, drunk or not, unless he is oblivious to how a sexual partner should respond, chose to carry on while she slept. Does a woman not have the right to sleep without fear of being taken advantage of? In my view, sleep means that any thought of sexual activity is clearly gone. And he should have stopped immediately. Now his crime may not have been violent, but it was certainly calculated in some way. He may have not realised the seriousness of what he was doing, I have know idea. But he made that choice to carry on. That is still a crime. Her consent became a thing of the passed as soon as sleep took her.
I don't agree. Think about this: Couples who have been together for an extended amount of time do the same thing sometimes. One person will initiate sexual activity while the other is asleep or only half-awake. And sometimes one person will fall asleep during sex whilst being completely sober. It happens. That doesn't make it rape. The fact that this woman was intoxicated was entirely her own fault.
Turricane, I am sorry to disappoint you but I still stick to my original statement here. Let me hastily add that I have never taken advantage of a girl drunken or otherwise and never will. However I can imagine a guy who is super drunk in the middle of sex when she becomes less responsive, he has no clue if she is now against him finishing the business, if she hadn't said "stop" or "wait" or "I don't want this" or given a clear sign she didn't, well, he's drunk and horny and carries on. I agree with you that some sort of legal mommy might be helpful in fact. I am sure he feels ashamed and tainted and shocked at what he did and if he's a "normal guy" he'll never do this again. I've seen a friend who got accused of forcing a girl, wrongly from what I witnessed, but he was a mess for a long time (and it was not in any legal sense and it never came close to actual sex (but it was inappropriate touching if you will and, at the time, at aparty where she seemed to be in full consent( but he had a very hard time for months afterwards).
I'm saying we don't know enough of the details. If the scenario is one which I described I think this is very unfortunate and he should may be compensate her some reasonable amount of money and/or do community service or do something to really hammer home the severity of his crime and the wrongness of his actions, but to have a "rapist" put on his criminal record for life because of this is absolutely unfair in my opinion. If he feels no remorse at this or if she clearly asked him to stop and he ignored it it's a different category and more serious.
I also think she needs to think twice about getting drunk and inviting a stranger to have sex with her, one of the "bit a heckof a lot more careful next time"
I hope my position does not offend anyone who's actually had that experience. I am sure it is horrible and all my sympathy is with those
people, I can't imagine what it feels like since I've been fortunate enough not to have experienced it. I find this one of the most disturbing and awful crimes imaginable, which is also why I seem to be defending someone who is about to be tainted with that label where what he did, while deserving punishment or some description surely, does not fit my mental profile of a cold blooded rapist.
But really what this boils down to, as a lesson for everyone, too much drinking is not just stupid but can end up hurting you and others in ways you never imagined, so be careful, party with friends or have someone with you who is less drunk and can watch out for you.
This should have applied both to the guy and the girl in question.
cheers
-B
wildebrew you expressed yourself very well. i still disagree with some of your poihnts but in the main think that you and cameron have a good though differing understanding of this istuation. phew!!!
well it can go in different ways there turricane sorry but many people will see it in different way.
I'm a victem of rape, and can say that I don't classify this as rape at all. she consented to it...nuff said.
I agree 100% with post 25. Victum of rape here too, and I don't classify this as rape. To many women scream rape just because they've done something/agreed to something when they're drunk and regret it later, and this has made true rape damn near impossible to convict. I don't consider it true rape if the woman agrees; whether she passed out or not is her problem. Why can't people just see this as a drunkin mistake and stop going to the law for every little thing that in hind sight wasn't such a good idea? True he should have stopped when she passed out, but maybe he didn't notice because of his own drunkin state, we'll never know...hmm, I wonder, would the same people who are calling this rape be as quick if the situation were revursed? I mean, say he'd agreed to sex, and after they got started, even though he stayed erect he had passed out and she continued...I don't even know that he has any punishment coming. If anything both of them should learn something about drunkin mistakes and maybe be more careful about getting so drunk/drinking so much/being drunk around strangers/going into public drunk...
I agree with those who said that it is not rape. The thing is, they both were drunk, so it is not like he was taking advantage of the woman, and she gave consent. So, in my opinion, he should not be in trouble.
This is a very sticky situation. When they is more details, i may think differently. For now, however, i still feel that this is not rape due to the reasons I gave above.
wow, this is rape. no matter what the situation is. she passed out. he should have stopped! I don't care if she consented at the beginning or not. so if she hasn't passed out and said stop in the middle are yu saying because she consented and at the beginning and let him get all hot and horny. it's ok that he don't stop? this is an old board post I realize.lol1
Alcohol isn't an excuse! if you can't handle having to stop in the middle of sex because of the alcohol affecting your thoughts and actions, then maybe in the future you shouldn't mix the two!
oh yeah, and you can't compare this to someone in a relationship waking there lover up with ssex. i ca't remember who said that. From what this article says, he met her at the pub and they went across the street. So from that I'm gathering he didn't know her. So that's a big difference.
It's not like there being all romantic and stuff. lol!
To poster 19, well, actually, we do have a legal mommy of sorts. In a civil case, both parties can agree to mediate a workable solution. If that doesn't work, the case could certain reach a judge. However, even then, the judge, in a civil litigation, tries first to get both sides to agree on a settlement before sending it to a trial. having said that, this is not a civil matter, as many of you guys pointed out. Also, as all of you guys pointed out, we do not know all the facts in this case. Nevertheless, some of you guys seem to think that the alleged victim in this case pressed a charge against the alleged perpetrator of the crime. Wel, it is a myth that a DA cannot file a charge without a victim. Often times, DAs do bring charges against an alleged perprtrator because the DA's office was pressured by an advocacy group, even though the alleged victim doesn't want to file any charges. So, here's my question to those who think that she was raped. Would your opinion of this case be any different if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that she did not want to press any charges but the advocacy groups pressured the DA to do so?
It doesn't matter who pressed the issue!
The fact is she passed out, he continued to have sex with her. She never had the chance to say stop or keep going. So he should have stopped. what if she was dead. lol he didn't care to stop and see, just cared about satisfying his needs!
she consented to it in the beginning though; that's where I'm coming from. that's why I say it wasn't rape.
some of the attitudes on this thread just confirm why so many women are afraid to report rape and why there is such a low rape conviction. God help any rape victim if some of you happen to be on a jury one day.
It really is simple. The moment the woman fell asleep she was no longer in a position to give consent. The fact she said earlier that she wanted to is irelevant. She was no longer in a position to say no, therefore any consent previously given no longer applied. She was unconscious, therefore the onus was on the man to stop. End of.
I don't get this attitude that it's down to the woman to say no. Why should it be? Does the man have no responsibility in this? Contrary to popular belief, I really don't think that there comes a point where a man's brain shuts down and his primal urges take over. "difficult to stop"? tough. If you're having sex with a consenting partner and she is actually conscious enough to say stop would you think it ok to continue because it's difficult to stop? That is simply an excuse to justify the violation of women in certain circumstances.
And there is one very relevant point which people seem to have missed during the discussion...
The man pleaded guilty!
Exactly. I can't believe nobody mentioned that before. This shows that afterwards, when he became sober again, he felt some sense of regret for what he had done.
I agree with the middle opinions, sort of speak. I do believe, yes, that when the woman fell asleep, she was no longer a consenting party in the situation, and drunk or not, he should have stopped. However, she did give her consent before falling asleep, and to a drunk and horny person, that's all that matters. I personally don't think this case is ready to conclude at this point, but if I were the judge, I would leave the rape charge off his criminal record, considering of course there should be some sentence involved. He needs to know that this is not okay, but that he is also not a rapist put to shame for the rest of his life just because of one drunken mistake.