• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Judge refuses to jail rapist because "she was asking for it"

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...victim-in-sexual-assault-case/article1918444/

A Manitoba judge has decided not to send a man to jail for sexually assaulting a woman because the victim was wearing heavy makeup and “wanted to party” on the night of the attack, the Winnipeg Free Press is reporting.

In a judgment that one prosecutor said could have implications for public confidence in the system, Judge Robert Dewar sentenced Kenneth Rhodes to a two-year conditional sentence outside of prison, accepting that he might not have understood that the woman did not want to have sex with him.

In the 2006 incident, Mr. Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old victim and her friend outside of a bar and headed off into the woods outside of Thompson, a town of 13,000 about 760 kilometres north of Winnipeg, the paper said. He and the victim kissed; later, when they were alone, Mr. Rhodes had sexual intercourse with her without her consent at the side of the highway.

At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented.

Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were “inviting.”

“This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” the Free Press quoted the judge as saying. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.”
Click to expand...
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
I always wonder how anyone is satisfied with the "she was asking for it" defense. I mean you have to shut down so many centers of logic to arrive at that position.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Meus Renaissance said:
Has to be more to the story than this
Click to expand...

I would say so. They don't make stupid judges, and there is no way "she was askin' for it" could be an acceptable interpretation of the law regarding sexual consent.

I've sat in on court before, and the media's reporting on the case at hand is often very shallow and sometimes downright misleading.
 
D

daviyoung

Banned
Wow, how is he allowed to keep his post? Serious background checks need to be done on him imo.

'The plaintiff may also have enjoyed it. May the defendant receive an unmarked sum as compensation for his ordeal, and may the court receive $2,000 for a new roof'
 
J

Jintor

Member
Reading it, it appears like the Judge said something less along the lines of "she was asking for it" and something more along the lines of "there were signals sent that were misinterpreted". That said, if she didn't want to have sex she didn't want to have sex, case bloody closed, imho. But I don't have all the facts.

/edit note he was still found guilty; this sounds more as though it factored into the sentencing decisions.
 
Acheteedo

Acheteedo

Member
At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented.
Click to expand...

This is the key part, presumably there was no evidence that this wasn't the case, other than the word of the victim. Thus, given the "invitational" nature of the girls' behaviour, it would have been wrong to convict the man of rape.
 
S

Shanadeus

Banned
Full story:

A Manitoba judge has decided not to send a man to jail for sexually assaulting a woman because the victim was wearing heavy makeup and “wanted to party” on the night of the attack, the Winnipeg Free Press is reporting.

In a judgment that one prosecutor said could have implications for public confidence in the system, Judge Robert Dewar sentenced Kenneth Rhodes to a two-year conditional sentence outside of prison, accepting that he might not have understood that the woman did not want to have sex with him.

In the 2006 incident, Mr. Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old victim and her friend outside of a bar and headed off into the woods outside of Thompson, a town of 13,000 about 760 kilometres north of Winnipeg, the paper said. He and the victim kissed; later,when they were alone, Mr. Rhodes had sexual intercourse with her without her consent at the side of the highway.

At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented.

Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were “inviting.”

“This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” the Free Press quoted the judge as saying. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.”

Crown attorney Sheila Seesahai, however, countered that the victim was at the man’s mercy and warned of broader implications for the sentence.

“This sentencing will raise a number of issues relating to public confidence in the sentencing process,” she said in court. “This is a very serious rape case. The harm to the victim can’t be underestimated.”

In a previous impact statement, the victim said that she still bears a scar on her knee from that night.

The prosecution had asked for a three-year prison sentence.
Click to expand...

Wearing tube tops, high heels and make-up is inconsiderate behaviour?
Or maybe he's referring to them wanting to skinny-dip (which doesn't seem to be part of the course of events).

"Poor rapist, he was tricked by those fiendish women into raping them."
 
S

Suairyu

Banned
So first the Canadian police tell girls to dress conservatively to avoid sexual assault (and lots of GAF members agree), then a Canadian judge lets a rapist off because the girl wasn't following the advice!

I actually have faith in Canada as a nation - they came down on the officer like a ton of bricks, I'm assuming they'll do the same with the judge. Horrific that either thing happened at all though.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Shanadeus said:
Full story:



Wearing tube tops, high heels and make-up is inconsiderate behaviour?
Or maybe he's referring to them wanting to skinny-dip (which doesn't seem to be part of the course of events).

"Poor rapist, he was tricked by those fiendish women into raping them."
Click to expand...


Nice edit. I'd want somebody to look over the actual court documents before siding somewhere on this case. The idea that a Judge could come to a decision like this assuming this is an accurate recap of the case is making me extremely skeptical. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a third world theocracy, not Canada.
 
B

BanGy.nz

Banned
Either we're not getting the full story here or Judge Robert Dewar is hopefully about to get his ass handed to him.
 
S

Satyamdas

Banned
At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented.
Click to expand...
The whole thing hinges on this "belief of consent". I find it a bit odd that the exact nature of the woman's denial for sex was not mentioned in the story. Did she say no? Scream for help? Did she push him off of her? Did he force her down? If any of this occurred, then it is not within the realm of possibility that he "believed" she consented, nor would a competent judge rule in such a way.

It appears something is being left out purposefully in order to have a more salacious story, but without more info it appears to be a slap on the wrist for a pretty serious offense. And the "tube tops and makeup" bit is fucking ludicrous.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Acheteedo said:
This is the key part, presumably there was no evidence that this wasn't the case, other than the word of the victim. Thus, given the "invitational" nature of the girls' behaviour, it would have been wrong to convict the man of rape.
Click to expand...

...except he was convicted. This is about sentencing, not guilt.
 
Z

Zaptruder

Banned
There's assuredly more to the story than the report mentions.

I mean... regardless of what was worn or what was done... if she's struggling through penetration, that's rape.

But if she's not, then yeah, you'd have to consider all the other circumstances.

If women have to consent verbally and explicitly before sex every time, you're going to take a lot of the intimacy and impulsivity out of sex. If you remove the impulsivity of sex... well, a whole shit load less people are going to get sex.

On the other hand, she obviously reported the dude for rape, so I can't imagine she was 100% happy about the whole encounter. The big question is why?
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
Stupid news report. It's most likely the case that there was no evidence that she didn't consent to it.

Not just the judge throwing away the case because "lol she was wearing some skank ho clothes, definitely deserved rape"

News cuts out the boring facts in the story, internet runs with it. But then since he was convicted I guess it means he did commit the crime so...weird sentencing.
 
S

Shanadeus

Banned
I believe this is the judge in question:

dewar.jpg

Justice Holly Beard will fill a new position on the Manitoba Court of Appeal. She has been on the Court of Queen's Bench since 1992.

Replacing her as a trial judge on the Court of Queen's Bench is Robert Dewar, a lawyer with Hill Dewar Vincent. Dewar has been a civil litigation lawyer in Winnipeg since 1974.
Click to expand...

Zaptruder said:
There's assuredly more to the story than the report mentions.

I mean... regardless of what was worn or what was done... if she's struggling through penetration, that's rape.

But if she's not, then yeah, you'd have to consider all the other circumstances.

If women have to consent verbally and explicitly before sex every time, you're going to take a lot of the intimacy and impulsivity out of sex. If you remove the impulsivity of sex... well, a whole shit load less people are going to get sex.

On the other hand, she obviously reported the dude for rape, so I can't imagine she was 100% happy about the whole encounter. The big question is why?
Click to expand...
There doesn't need to be struggle through the penetration for it to be rape.
 
D

Darklord

Banned
Amir0x said:
I always wonder how anyone is satisfied with the "she was asking for it" defense. I mean you have to shut down so many centers of logic to arrive at that position.
Click to expand...

This guy was giving me lip and was like "come at me bro" so I killed him. He was asking for it.

Judge: Case dismissed!
 
Chuckie

Chuckie

Member
Acheteedo said:
This is the key part, presumably there was no evidence that this wasn't the case, other than the word of the victim. Thus, given the "invitational" nature of the girls' behaviour, it would have been wrong to convict the man of rape.
Click to expand...

Then what was he sentenced for?
 
Acheteedo

Acheteedo

Member
Jintor said:
...except he was convicted. This is about sentencing, not guilt.
Click to expand...

That should be the part people are complaining about then, you can't empower people to be taken on just their word in such serious matters.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Tence said:
Then what was he sentenced for?
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to provide evidence for a case like this where both sides claim sex occurred both one side claims it was non-consensual (or that consent was given initially and then retracted during the act). In fact, short of a signed document, it's pretty much impossible.

IIRC they have to operate on balance of probabilities instead of beyond-reasonable-doubt (because rape claims would never stick otherwise).
 
I

itsgreen

Member
Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm pretty sure there is more to this story... the word including kind of says it. There were other reasons...

Otherwise that judge should go to jail.
 
S

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew

Banned
Shanadeus said:
I believe this is the judge in question:

dewar.jpg




There doesn't need to be struggle through the penetration for it to be rape.
Click to expand...
The glasses;
The moustache;
The hairstyle;
The smile.

Yep, we have found a closet-rapist/pedophile :p

That said, I'll wait for someone to post the entire case files (whatever they can publicly find) before I start bashing his decision. For now, it's fun and games!
 
Acheteedo

Acheteedo

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
IIRC they have to operate on balance of probabilities instead of beyond-reasonable-doubt (because rape claims would never stick otherwise).
Click to expand...

Wow, that's sickening when you consider the huge number of false rape allegations that are regularly made, it would be way too easy to become a victim of circumstance.
 
R

racooon

Banned
Tbh I can see where the judge is coming from. Knowing only what I know from this article, I wouldn't have jailed the guy.
 
Chuckie

Chuckie

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
It's kind of hard to provide evidence for a case like this where both sides claim sex occurred both one side claims it was non-consensual (or that consent was given initially and then retracted during the act). In fact, short of a signed document, it's pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can understand it is hard, especially when there are no witnesses (hearing her scream etc)

But this case seems so weird if you look at the conviction/sentence. It's like saying: Yeah you kinda raped her, but I am not really gonna punish you because you couldn't have know you were raping her.

He is convicted, so appearantly the judge thinks the defendant committed a crime.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Acheteedo said:
Wow, that's sickening when you consider the huge number of false rape allegations that are regularly made, it would be way too easy to become a victim of circumstance.
Click to expand...

Yes it is open to abuse, but again, it's not a simple issue. If you hold rape (or sexual harassment or all sorts of other things operating on similar principles) to the standard of beyond-reasonable-doubt, nearly nobody would ever be convicted and rapists would go unpunished in nearly every case. The flipside is that by helping convict real rapists you leave the system somewhat open to abuse.

The "she was asking for it" defense is often brought up because people think that this should be admissible evidence that it was "more likely" that the woman gave consent during the act of sex. Others argue that this is unfair, because dressing provocatively has nothing to do with whether or not a woman has given consent (which is true).
 
R

racooon

Banned
A few nights ago an inebriated student came to my dorm room asking for a 'cheeky shag'. After I politely declined (she wasn't that attractive and I don't like shagging drunken girls unless I'm similarly intoxicated), but it took ages to get her to fuck off, and she started groping my gentleman garden.
Does that give me the right to press for a rape charge?
This is a true story, btw. Scouts honour.
 
S

Shanadeus

Banned
racooon said:
A few nights ago an inebriated student came to my dorm room asking for a 'cheeky shag'. After I politely declined (she wasn't that attractive and I don't like shagging drunken girls unless I'm similarly intoxicated), but it took ages to get her to fuck off, and she started groping my gentleman garden.
Does that give me the right to press for a rape charge?
This is a true story, btw. Scouts honour.
Click to expand...
She was out of her mind, but you might be able to press for a sexual assault charge and should do so.
 
E

ElectricBlue187

Member
racooon said:
A few nights ago an inebriated student came to my dorm room asking for a 'cheeky shag'. After I politely declined (she wasn't that attractive and I don't like shagging drunken girls unless I'm similarly intoxicated), but it took ages to get her to fuck off, and she started groping my gentleman garden.
Does that give me the right to press for a rape charge?
This is a true story, btw. Scouts honour.
Click to expand...
You are a dirty disgusting male who was totally asking for it
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
racooon said:
A few nights ago an inebriated student came to my dorm room asking for a 'cheeky shag'. After I politely declined (she wasn't that attractive and I don't like shagging drunken girls unless I'm similarly intoxicated), but it took ages to get her to fuck off, and she started groping my gentleman garden.
Does that give me the right to press for a rape charge?
This is a true story, btw. Scout's honour.
Click to expand...

Not rape, but if you wanted you probably could press charges for something lesser (harassment or something). Of course, female-on-male rape charges nearly never occur, even though female-on-male rape happens too. When it does get taken to court it's usually statutory rape (i.e. teacher x student). There is a huuuuge stigma about a man taking a woman to court on charges of rape, domestic abuse, harassment or similar things. Usually in the case of rape people automatically assume that the man is consenting because "men always want sex".
 
2

2San

Member
Tence said:
Yeah I can understand it is hard, especially when there are no witnesses (hearing her scream etc)

But this case seems so weird if you look at the conviction/sentence. It's like saying: Yeah you kinda raped her, but I am not really gonna punish you because you couldn't have know you were raping her.

He is convicted, so appearantly the judge thinks the defendant committed a crime.
Click to expand...
I think this sums up the case. It's pretty weird.
 
R

racooon

Banned
I do get the feeling that the CPS would tell me politely to fuck off. If I were a girl getting that treatment from a man, I imagine things would be different.
Jussayin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

She has school tomorrow.
2
97
5K
bitbydeath replied
MLB suspends Trevor Bauer for 2 seasons for domestic violence
2
50
3K
DeepEnigma replied
Bay Area horse molester sentenced to jail
2
61
4K
Buggy Loop replied
US corrections officer has been jailed after having sex with inmate
News Drama 2 3
136
22K
SireSmogMurk replied
  • Poll
Et tu, Brute?
Poll 2
51
3K
TrueLegend replied
Top Bottom