Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woman Says Rape, Judge says Sex Was In The Air

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
www.winnipegfreepress.com...


A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that "sex was in the air" through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.

Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars.

Related Items
Articles
Prof: 'What is the signal we're sending here?' Queen's Bench Justice Robert Dewar called Rhodes a "clumsy Don Juan" who may have misunderstood what the victim wanted when he forced intercourse along a darkened highway outside Thompson in 2006.

Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called "inviting circumstances." Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.

"They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party," said Dewar.


Here we have another woman hating man sitting on the bench, giving a rapist a free pass by shifting blame for the crime to the fact the woman wore a tube top, high heels and make up. How do these kind of people end up on the bench? The rapist goes free and a woman has in essense been raped twice, once by the cretin rapist, and twice by the JUDGE who she was begging for justice!!

Here is a picture of this man, who needs to step down, because he has lost his mind and sense.




This is just disgusting. Dewar the creep judge, claims that wanting to party equates consent to sex.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
So, it happened in an airplane?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
He LOOKS like a total creep.. I wonder if he's married, and if so, what his wife thinks of his judgement..


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
If she said, or in any way indicated, "no" then it was clearly rape! The judge needs to uphold the law, not opinion.
edit on 24/2/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
If she said, or in any way indicated, "no" then it was clearly rape! The judge needs to uphold the law, not opinion.
edit on 24/2/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Yeah really! This idiot judge is giving a free pass for anyone to go around raping sluts and get away with it. Just because someone is a slut doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to have sex with them.

What he heck is going on..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
At any point of a sexual encouter, if either party decides that enough is enough and says "stop" or "no", or indeed indicates in any way that the encouter should terminate, that is it. Pure and simple. No one, and I mean no one, even in a marital relationship, has the right to enforce their sexual desires upon an unwilling party.

Be it male or female, the offender should be punished.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
At any point of a sexual encouter, if either party decides that enough is enough and says "stop" or "no", or indeed indicates in any way that the encouter should terminate, that is it. Pure and simple. No one, and I mean no one, even in a marital relationship, has the right to enforce their sexual desires upon an unwilling party.

Be it male or female, the offender should be punished.


I agree with you here, but am a little curious about something. There was a case I heard about some time ago where a man and woman were having sex, in the middle of it the women wanted to stop, and I think the guy took like 30 seconds or something to stop, and was charged for rape.

Where does the line get drawn? If a woman says no, do you have 5 seconds to stop, 2 seconds, 1 second? Should all men engaged in sexual intercourse have some sort of "sex ejector seat" where they can press a button and get launched off the woman as to avoid rape charges? Seems like the line gets a little more blurry once sex has already started, but seeing as that (seemingly) wasn't the case with one I think the guy should definitely be thrown in jail.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
While I agree that this judgment was dumb, and rape is rape no matter what, woman really should dress for an occasion. If you don't want guys to think sex is an option, don't try to put it out there with you're attire.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I am not saying he is innocent but its hard to talk about a without seeing the whole thing maybe she didnt say no and cried rape after, I aint condoning rape or any offence commited but I would imagine the defense had more to say than the parts "chosen" to be cut and pasted by the media for a good story.

One thing that I dont like about any rape case is the fact that they reveal the mans identity be he has been convicted as recently a girl lied in court but luckily the guy got off but its had been dragged accross the UK papers and most likely wrecked his life.

I think the media should be banned from printing photo's of a criminal for any crime no matter how small to how serious untill they have been convicted, then no matter the age, sex, race, religion get there face in the public. Use photo fits, drawings cctv ect... for gathering witness's and evidence but not there actual picture.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
At any point of a sexual encouter, if either party decides that enough is enough and says "stop" or "no", or indeed indicates in any way that the encouter should terminate, that is it. Pure and simple. No one, and I mean no one, even in a marital relationship, has the right to enforce their sexual desires upon an unwilling party.

Be it male or female, the offender should be punished.
Agreed. I don't know the details of the case, however. This guy can't be THAT crazy. He must be basing his conclusions on something subtle or not shown here.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by chr0naut
If she said, or in any way indicated, "no" then it was clearly rape! The judge needs to uphold the law, not opinion.
edit on 24/2/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Yeah really! This idiot judge is giving a free pass for anyone to go around raping sluts and get away with it. Just because someone is a slut doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to have sex with them.

What he heck is going on..


What is wrong with you? You are going around calling someone a slut? You don't even know the woman. Just because someone dresses the way she did does NOT make her a slut.

You need help.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by King_John
While I agree that this judgment was dumb, and rape is rape no matter what, woman really should dress for an occasion. If you don't want guys to think sex is an option, don't try to put it out there with you're attire.


NO. You men will think a woman in jeans and a tank is putting sex out there. Don't blame the woman, learn how to have self control.

God the views of women from some of the people on this forum disturb me.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
My feeling is that even if a woman is laying naked spread-eagle in front of you-the second she says "no" that's it-anything you do after that point could get you into trouble....



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Dave Chappelle said it best. "No, you are Not a slut ... but you are wearing a sluts uniform".
Maybe this ladies brother or friend will pay Don Juan a visit and violate him with a stick.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by chr0naut
If she said, or in any way indicated, "no" then it was clearly rape! The judge needs to uphold the law, not opinion.
edit on 24/2/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Yeah really! This idiot judge is giving a free pass for anyone to go around raping sluts and get away with it. Just because someone is a slut doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to have sex with them.

What he heck is going on..


What is wrong with you? You are going around calling someone a slut? You don't even know the woman. Just because someone dresses the way she did does NOT make her a slut.

You need help.


You seem to have totally misunderstood. It seems the judge/defense was painting the victim as a slut, which is why I said it sends the signal it's OK to go around raping sluts. My point was, even if someone IS a slut it's still not OK to rape them. Not once did I call the victim a slut.

But feel free to comment on how much help I need.
edit on 25-2-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Okay, so the rapist (or sexual assaulter because the word rape is not used in Canadian law) was convicted, and these disgusting comments about the victim were in regard to the sentencing only. Canadian law from en.wikipedia.org...


Criminal Code of Canada
* 265 (4)
Accused’s belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

* Where belief in consent not a defence

273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where (a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s

(i) self-induced intoxication, or

(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or (b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

By law, he was guilty. Comments from the judge during sentencing:


Dewar said he didn't want to be seen as blaming the victim but that all of the factors surrounding the case must be viewed to assess "moral blameworthiness."

"I'm sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional," he said.

Dewar said the case was not "typical" of ones the courts often see and shouldn't be viewed as a precedent.

What the hell is "moral blameworthiness?" And damn right it shouldn't be viewed as precedent because it's not the precedent, as the Crown's lawyer's indicated. (Sourrce):


In R v Wilcox, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal wrote, of criminal law

"The essence of criminal law is moral blameworthiness; the essence of regulation is that those engaging in regulated activities maintain a certain minimum standard of care. Criminal offences reinforce crucial social values, the violation of which merits disapprobation and punishment."

This was a court martial case about violations of the National Defence Act.


Defence lawyer Derek Coggan told court it's clear alcohol was a factor for both his client and the victim in terms of their ability to make good judgments.

No excuse! More "moral blameworthiness?" So alcohol turned his client into a rapist? Where was his "moral blameworthiness" there?

I'm not lawyer, but it seems to me this judge was prevented by law to pass a moral judgement on the victim and instead used sentencing as an excuse to do so.

It's sickening that the law protects the victim of the crime and allows a conviction but that this judge still found a way to further victimize the victim during sentencing by inflicting his own moral bias, which he probably was dying to get out there. He should be so proud of himself. Raped twice, indeed. This is lower than low, and he should not be allowed to get away with it!

edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


How do you (and others, and obviously this judge) define a "slut"? Someone who goes around having sex with others? Someone who wears "revealing" clothing? Someone who "let's it all hang out"? Someone who is comfortable with their sexuality?

Sounds like a lot of men I know if you ask me. Slut = many men.

It seriously irritates me that women are called "sluts" for acting the exact same way men act in regards to their sexuality, while men are called "macho", given a wink and a slap on the back, and bragging rights. It is one set of rules for men, and a separate set of rules for women, when a healthy society would uphold all citizens to the same standards.

Topic at hand? I feel this judge is wrong and I hope that this is made very clear to him.


Harm None
Peace



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

If you don't want guys to think sex is an option, don't try to put it out there with you're attire.


I can wear what I like and send off all the signals in the world. I may be out in a short skirt and a tank top because sex IS an option, but I have the right, as a woman..NO as a human being, to change my mind.

Just because sex is an option doesn't mean I want or deserve to get raped.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by James1982
 


How do you (and others, and obviously this judge) define a "slut"? Someone who goes around having sex with others? Someone who wears "revealing" clothing? Someone who "let's it all hang out"? Someone who is comfortable with their sexuality?

Sounds like a lot of men I know if you ask me. Slut = many men.

It seriously irritates me that women are called "sluts" for acting the exact same way men act in regards to their sexuality, while men are called "macho", given a wink and a slap on the back, and bragging rights. It is one set of rules for men, and a separate set of rules for women, when a healthy society would uphold all citizens to the same standards.

Topic at hand? I feel this judge is wrong and I hope that this is made very clear to him.


Harm None
Peace


I wasn't trying to get into a debate about social issues relating to gender inequality. I was simply saying, that IF the victim was a "slut" by whatever definition was used, which it seemed the judge was implying, then he is sending the signal that rape is OK as long as the victim is a "slut" which of course is a very dangerous signal to send.

Since you asked my person opinion on "sluts" I'll tell you. I don't think of it in a negative way whatsoever. If someone called me a man-slut I wouldn't be upset, it would just mean I was very sexually active, which I think most men would agree isn't something seen in a bad light by most males. As long as you are being safe with condoms and birth control I personally don't see any problem with having several sexual partners.

And I would have to agree, many men are sluts. I just don't think any of them get offended when called out on it.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
With the way he was dressed, made up, acting. It was obvious. There was no denying his intentions when he left the house that night and after talking for a bit, nothing could be more clear. He was practically begging to be kicked in the groin. He was totally asking for it.






top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join