Exactly... some community service would suffice tbh.. It very much sounds like a drunken prank gone way too far... future law career now a non-starter, criminal record and some community service would be sufficient
Poll: Student jailed for 9 months for "prank"
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
Exactly... some community service would suffice tbh.. It very much sounds like a drunken prank gone way too far... future law career now a non-starter, criminal record and some community service would be sufficient
So fair enough you have no problems with blokes you don't know placing their penis on your lips. I however am different that would be unwanted to me. As it is unwanted it would be classed as "assault" even the suggestion of it could be - as it involved a sexual organ then it would be "sexual assault".
No one is disputing that they did something wrong and stupid or that they should not be punished...the question lies in the appropriateness of the sentence if indeed it was a drunken prank.
My thoughts exactly.
This kind of stuff is not uncommon in uni hockey teams and the judge probably wanted to set an example. This guy was the scapegoat. I know this is a twisted tory-esk thing to say but now he has less chance of getting a decent job > less income tax revenue > we all lose out in a way
I think if you look the word I have used is "context". Which really isn't what you are suggesting I am saying. I have said this multiple times now - please go back and re-read in case you've overlooked it like you could distinguish between 9 months and 9 years earlier.
So don't you think unconscious people would meet the definition of "vulnerable"? Because the law seems to quite clear here on that state and the issue of consent to sexual acts or acts that are deemed to have a sexual context.
Actually I've just realised how late it is - goodnight! Have fun.
I'd say it was appropriate from lawful a perspective, but then a lawful perspective (in the criminal sense) usually places heavy emphasis on punishment.
Revisiting a topic from about 2 years ago, the primary purpose of criminality is punishment (not rehabilitation or the protection of the public).
Last edited:
I didn't say I didn't have a problem with it, to be clear I didn't think that is was a sexual assault.
Where did I say that the girl wasn't 'vulnerable'?
You appear to be extending my argument beyond its intention.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Isn't that true of many "sexual" assaults though? Where they are more about controlling and degrading the victim rather than any real sexual desire...
My thoughts exactly.
This kind of stuff is not uncommon in uni hockey teams and the judge probably wanted to set an example. This guy was the scapegoat. I know this is a twisted tory-esk thing to say but now he has less chance of getting a decent job > less income tax revenue > we all lose out in a way
It used to be pretty common with uni sports teams on away games to kidnap a member of the home team... usually would involve them being forcibly taken back on the coach after a ****-up and dropped off at a service station on the way home.
I guess in theory any of the victims of this could call the police and have half a rugby team at a rival uni charged with a very serious offence if they were upset at the incident.
I'm not disputing that the law allows for the sentence, clearly it does as both the original judge and subsequent appeal judges all agreed with it.
I am more questioning whether it is appropriate from the context of what happens to the kid long term? Does the sentence, which will go far beyond the 9 months incarceration seem appropriate, if it was indeed a one-off drunken prank...I realise the impact on the girl is potentially substantial as well, and I'm mindful of the vulnerability of the girl at the time. Perhaps my own experience with youth criminality (where the consequences were far more serious) and the chance I was given with regards rehabilitation colours my opinion somewhat, but I can't help feel that a teenagers life should not be permanently ruined for what amounts to a very stupid drunken prank gone awry.
My own view is that it's an inevitable and appropriate sentence in the context of setting an example. From the individual's perspective, yes, it's harsh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Controlling and degrading the victim is also a feature of any assault as well. That is my point.
I think 'sexual assault' and being placed on the SOR should be based on sexual motivation not based an object that can be used for sexual purposes being involved. Otherwise, to remain consistent, things mentioned before like being beaten with a sex toy have to be classed as sexual assaults as well.
Quite, which is why I am, as I said before, conflicted.
The problem with that of course being that it's virtually impossible to prove intent/motivation in a case like this
Last edited: