|
Saturday, March 18, 2006
30 Second Delay Equals Four Years in Prison
posted by TangoMan @ 3/18/2006 02:53:00 PM
3/18/2006 02:53:00 PM
I came across this sexual assault court case and thought it would make for an interesting post. Here are the established facts:
In conferring judgement Justice Kennedy notes:
Justice Kennedy imposed the following sentence:
Interesting as this case is, it's not the end of the story. Years later, Watson confessed to police that she and Mrs Ibbs conspired to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault so as to get him out of the house. In 1997 they served seven months in jail for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. It took until March 22nd, 2001 for the West Australian Court of Criminal Appeal to unanimously overturn the conviction of Kevin Ibbs. Unresolved in the case law is the question of exactly how much of a window of time does a man have in which to comply with a woman's cease and desist order. The court has determined that the outer bounds of 30 seconds constitutes rape. How about 25 seconds? Is that rape or can one plead to a reduced charge? Also, would it be admissable to introduce IQ and reaction time data as part of a defense strategy to make the case that the man is in a diminished mental state brought on by sexual excitement and there is a lag between hearing the cease and desist order and the mental processing required to affect compliance and that the actual brain circuitry will be different for each individual thus making a hard and fast stop clock rule impractical? Also, should the court weigh the "30 second rule" depending on when during the sexual act the cease and desist order was uttered. We know that the male brain process orgasm differently than the female brain:
Here is a more scholarly treatment of the topic:
I'd love to be in the court when a defense attorney is trying to establish precisely when the cease and desist order from the woman was issued, what mental state the man was in at that point of the sexual act, asking the court to give some consideration to diminished capacity if the cease and desist order was issued just prior to, or during, orgasm rather than at the earlier stages of the sex act, and then arguing that the woman was partly responsible for inducing the mental state coincident with orgasm by willfully agreeing to participating in a sex act that brought the man to a state of diminished capacity via orgasm. As an outside observer, these issues would be very interesting to work through. |