It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
If you don't want guys to think sex is an option, don't try to put it out there with you're attire.
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