Trigger Warning
Why couldn't have my local newspaper used the title of this post as the headline for this article? I think that "Man jailed for sex act with sister in park" suggests that the sister may have been a willing participant, when in fact she was unconcious the entire time. They later do say in the article that the man "performed oral sex on his unconcious sister", which could be worse I suppose, they could have said "engaged in oral sex". The words "sexual assault" or anything like it do not appear in the article.
I also have a seperate issue with this: "The mother of the pair told McFadden [defence lawyer] she hopes her son didn't realize the woman was his sister." Because what her son did would have been okay if he wasn't related to the unconcious woman?
Apparently the man pleaded guilty to "committing an indecent act" which is definitely a lesser charge than sexual assault, and I do wonder whether it was a plea agreement or they just didn't think it warranted a sexual assault charge.
I suggest not reading the comments on the article either, some of them are really bad (like one that says both the brother and sister should be locked in a mental hospital for life--I'm not sure they actually read or understood the article)
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Man jailed for sexually assaulting unconcious sister in park.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14838
I don't think it warrants a sexual assault/rape charge. They were both drunk out of their minds, so neither one was capable of consent or informed decisions. I really don't think the quote you're referencing from the mother is saying "it would have been okay if it was an unconscious stranger." She's just highlighting the fact that it was his sister, and not to the exclusion of all the other things wrong with it.
I still think it warrants a sexual assault charge. He's trying to pass it off onto his drunkeness, but he was still able to act upon her.He was conscious and she wasn't. I mean no one gets a pass on any other crime they commit while under the influence, why should sexual assault/rape be any different because the assailant was drunk?
Is your position that only a person who is unconscious is unable to give consent? I.e., if a man or woman is super drunk, but conscious, are they able to give consent?
If you answer no - then that's the point he's making. If you say yes then you are being consistent however I wouldn't say I agree with you.
A person who is unconscious, as sister was, can't give consent. He was conscious enough to initiate and perform a sexual act. He was conscious and coherent enough to act. If we're to say he wasn't, what's to stop any other date-rapist from saying "Oh, well i was drunk at the time too! I didn't know I was commiting rape!"?
You completely missed my point and didn't answer my question. Please answer my question if you want to continue this converstation. If you think about it I think you'll see the point.
Your question is unclear. How drunk is "super drunk"? If a person is disoriented, incoherent, doesn't know where they are, then no, I doubt they can give consent. But I also doubt they could INITIATE a sex act, which is precisely what this guy did. Stop trying to let him off the hook.
And how about answering my point? what if other date rapists try to use their own drunkenness to avoid punishment?
That isn't true that no one gets a pass on any other crime they commit under the influence.
If intent is an element of a crime, and you can demonstrate that you were SO drunk that you could not form the intent required by the law, you could be acquitted.
However, this one is really, really difficult to prove, and I'm shocked whenever I hear of it actually working.
It's not true that no one gets a pass when under the influence.
If intent is an element of the crime (intended to kill, intended to assault), and you're SO intoxicated that you couldn't form the intent to commit the crime, you couldn't be convicted under that crime.
Of course, in practice, it's really difficult to convince the judge/jury that you were that drunk and probably doesn't work in court all that often.
Shoot, it gave me an error earlier that the comment was in some sort of error loop and that it couldn't post, hence my differently-worded duplicates. Sorry!
I agree with you. I'd say it's pretty unreasonable to argue that the sister would have consented to receiving oral sex from her brother in a park had she been of sound mind.
Arguing otherwise seems to be conflating this with a date rape type scenario.
Sister or not, intoxicated or not, we need to look objectivly at the bare facts. A woman who was unconscious was raped by a man who was obviously conscious. The detail of their relation is irrelevent (by irrelevent I mean has no bearing over whether or not she was assaulted), and neither is the fact that she was drunk aswell.
One thing that really bothered me in this artical was that the reporter called the man and woman a "couple" and a "pair" multiple times. You do not refer to an assault in these terms, it demeans the severity of the act and makes it appear that the woman contributed and that they were actually a couple who just got too amorous in a public area. Which is obviously NOT what happened. I usually try not to pick apart every little word, but I feel that that wording is important and extreamly offensive, aswell as damaging to this woman.
Wow, I just realized that I spelled "unconscious" wrong every single time I put it in my post. Sorry! Must not have had enough coffee at that point.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about the legal ramifications of the offender being that drunk, but I do still have an issue with the wording of the article. Calling it a "sex act" just bothers me.