Wow, that has got to be the worst case of a judge making up their own sentence that I have ever seen.

Being geeky as an excuse for committing a crime?

If I lived in England, I'd be sending letters to this judge and my representatives right about now.

"Judge Roberts told Modi he would suspend the sentence for two years and ordered him to sign the sex offenders register.

He told him: 'Within three days you will write a letter of apology and the Crown Prosecution Service will find out if she (the victim) wishes to receive it.'"

So if she does not wish to recieve the letter, does a jail sentence then go into effect?

The logic here is beyond me. Whoops! My bad! Didn't know you guys don't approve of sticking one's penis into another human being while they're asleep!

"He had found himself alone with three young women asleep in his hotel room and had fallen into temptation, said the judge. The court was told that all had been drinking champagne and vodka at a West End nightclub."

Ah yes, he fell into temptation. The phrasing of that sounds like he was drinking underage or something. Dude, raping someone isn't "falling into temptation" it's "assaulting another human being"

This is nauseating.

That's... awful. "Oh, he's a geek. He doesn't know how to interact properly with women... we need to forgive him."

First of all, if being a geek is an excuse for rape, then about all of the men I know would be able to rape and pillage their weasly black guts out. (They don't.)

Second, y'know, even if this guy is a poor sod who can't get a girl, and he trully is sorry for what he did, that DOES NOT EXCUSE HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTION. If the rape victim or the society she lives in wish to forgive this man, then that is very upper-moral-ground of them. But forgiveness does not mean that the person being forgiven is exempt from the legal consequences of his actions.

What a load of bull shit. Here guys... watch some sci-fi channel and put on a pair of glasses. That's your ticket to forcing sexual favors from every woman you see. Great.

Actually, not raping someone may be more of a "people who aren't sons of millionaires" value. I have absolutely no doubt that if this guy were a poor geeky, Indian guy there would be far less consideration given to his supposedly "unique" cultural values.

Maybe he wore the "It Ain't Rape If She Ain't Awake" t-shirt and the judge bought it.

First the Italian court judging it less of a crime if a women who is raped was not a virgin, and now this?!

I've read in india this form of rape is very common (drugging a women, and then raping her).He had most certainly commited this crime before-maybe not getting caught-but advocating it in another country(!) The judge should have enforced (aside from the crime) that this is not acceptable in England. Maybe he gave him excempted punishment because he was a millionaires son? INSANE!

The article doesn't say he raped her. It only said he was half naked on top of her.

"I've read in india this form of rape is very common (drugging a women, and then raping her)." - freewmn

It doesn't say he drugged her, either.

Be outraged, sure, but be outraged over what actually happenned.

Here is another, more detailed article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2307711,00.html

No penetration occurred, although he had removed her jeans and underwear.

There are some scary quotes from the judge in this article. What an ass.

Anyone else notice that he spent 4 years at college in the United States? How exactly could you go thru 4 years at ANY US college and not get a lecture on "rape is fucking wrong no matter where you are from so don't do it"
I was an R.A. and I gave that speech like 72 thousand times that year. I don't buy this crap about him not understanding the culture... 4 years is a long time.
And I've dated rich indian guys in the US for school. The ones I dated were smart enough to know the law.
This judge should be disbarred.

PS - the guy's dad owns an oil company. BONUS!
*sigh*

One more time: HE DIDN'T RAPE HER. He may have raped her if not interupted, but we don't know that.

So he's guilty of attempted rape, which is still a violent crime that should merit a jail sentence.

Word, Alon. A note of regret is appropriate when you can't attend somebody's wedding. A jail term is appropriate when you sexually assault someone.

Do you have enough information to conclude he would have raped her? I don't.

He is guilty of sexual assault (if the story is true), and that does merit a jail sentence.

Why on earth should I give a man who sexually assaulted a sleeping woman the benefit of the doubt?

You wouldn't be giving him doubt. There is doubt.

Right. He might have stripped off, stripped her, sexually assaulted her, and left to his own devices, thought "Y'know...even though I am geeky and from a different culture, perhaps sticking my penis into her without her permission is a line I won't cross."

Perhaps I've grown too cynical in my old age, but I see no reason to assume what I must laughingly call "the best" about him.

So you know from the information given in the article that he didn't want to strip her and masterbate? You know he didn't want to strip her and her friends down so he could take pictures of them. You know that he didn't... I assume you get the idea.

In all likelyhood, he meant to rape her. However, him half naked on top of her (was his shirt off, or his pants?) is not enough to assume this.

Again: He deserves to go to jail if the information reported is true, but only for sexual assault.

Look, I don't want to get involved in an argument, here. I just think that "sexual assualt" is more apropriate to this case than "rape" since no one even alleged that rape occurred. And yet we have these quotes from this thread:

"Sorry about that whole "rape" thing..."

"Wouldn't you rather see your rapist just write a letter of apology?"

"And since when is not raping someone only a Western or non-geeky value?"

"Whoops! My bad! Didn't know you guys don't approve of sticking one's penis into another human being while they're asleep!"

"Dude, raping someone isn't "falling into temptation" it's "assaulting another human being""

"First of all, if being a geek is an excuse for rape, then about all of the men I know would be able to rape and pillage their weasly black guts out."

"If the rape victim or the society she lives in wish to forgive this man, then that is very upper-moral-ground of them."

"Actually, not raping someone may be more of a "people who aren't sons of millionaires" value."

"Maybe he wore the "It Ain't Rape If She Ain't Awake" t-shirt and the judge bought it."

"First the Italian court judging it less of a crime if a women who is raped was not a virgin, and now this?!"

"I've read in india this form of rape is very common (drugging a women, and then raping her).He had most certainly commited this crime before-maybe not getting caught-but advocating it in another country(!)"

"How exactly could you go thru 4 years at ANY US college and not get a lecture on "rape is fucking wrong no matter where you are from so don't do it""

Why are all these people tossing around the word "rape" when no rape occurred?

Well, it looks like an attempted rape. I'm not sure whether it's common to refer to attempted rape in England as rape, but I know that in the US it happens (for example, American crime statistics generally consider rape a single category with two subcategories, completed rape and attempted rape).

So attempted rape is rape? Is attempted murder murder?

I don't know why I am defending this asshole. I don't have the energy tonight. I give up.

I'm just saying that often attempted rape is considered an admittedly less serious form of rape, possibly like manslaughter is a form of homicide.

Someone actually has to die for manslaughter to occur.

I'll check back tomorrow. Later.

Rape is forced sex. Period. Unless you're saying that the only act that constitutes sex is pushing a penis into a vagina, then I'm not quite sure how you can maintain that what this man did was not rape. Frankly, I consider having someone, in whatever state of dress, on top of me to be a sexual act. I can't remember a time in my life when someone mounted me and it wasn't sexual. So, he forced sexual acts on a sleeping woman.

I don't see any cognitive dissonance in calling what happened to that woman rape.

"Rape is forced sex. Period. Unless you're saying that the only act that constitutes sex is pushing a penis into a vagina, then I'm not quite sure how you can maintain that what this man did was not rape."

A brief search shows you are incorrect. According to the law, rape requires penetration:

Rape: the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation (such as a threat to harm a woman's child, husband or boyfriend)

or

Rape is the act of forcing penetrative sexual acts, against his or her will through violence, force, threat of injury, or other duress, or where the victim is unable to decline, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol

As noname says, what happened here was a sexual assault, not rape. I'm not sure why people here are trying to blur that distinction. Anyone care to explain why?

RM:

There is a discrepancy between how sexual assault and rape are considered by the legal system and how they are commonly used in public discourse. In U.S. law, rape is a special case of a general category of sexual assault (or sexual abuse, depending on location). However, in public discourse in many areas, sexual assault is considered a special light case of the general category of rape. (As an example, the Collaborative International Dictionary of English lists one of the definitions as "Sexual connection with a woman without her consent".) I will venture to speculate that this is possibly because rape is one word of one syllable, and "sexual assault" is two words of five, total, making it a more cumbersome referent in casual conversation, or possibly because as far as it concerns the violation of a woman's physical autonomy, penetration or its lack isn't actually a useful distinction.

In addition, the description of the situation does in fact imply attempted rape (he had removed a woman's underwear and physically placed himself on top of her), and there is no evidence to indicate that he was intending to stop prior to his being interrupted.

I imagine there are a number of readers wondering right now why it is that you are attempting to imply that what he did somehow wasn't as bad as rape with penetration.

"I imagine there are a number of readers wondering right now why it is that you are attempting to imply that what he did somehow wasn't as bad as rape with penetration." - Zed

If he was on top of her with his pants on copping a feel, than I don't need to imply this wasn't as bad as rape. I declare it outright. I bet the victim would agree, too.

Zed, that was a succinct and eloquent post that took the words right out of my mouth!

I too question whether or not the penetration standard is a useful distinction. It's a legal distinction, first of all, and I wonder what it's origin is, and whose interests it served. For instance, does it date from the time when rape was considered a property crime, and penetration had to do with whether or not the woman had been "used" by someone other than her owner/husband?

The only thing I now have to add, is that I continue to wonder why noname insists on trying to minimize the asshole's behavior and to give him the benefit of the doubt re: what he was doing and what he was planning to do. Why on earth should I assume that he "was on top of her with his pants on copping a feel," language that automatically downplays what happened, by assuming that "half-dressed" means that he was wearing pants and no shirt, and turning sexual assault into "copping a feel"? He's an asshole, he sexually assaulted a woman, it seems far likelier to me that he would have raped her than any other scenario. Why is noname's main concern about the language we're using to condemn him, rather than his actions, and the judge's refusal to punish him appropriately?

"He's an asshole, he sexually assaulted a woman, it seems far likelier to me that he would have raped her than any other scenario." - EG

I agree with you completely.

"Why is noname's main concern about the language we're using to condemn him, rather than his actions, and the judge's refusal to punish him appropriately?" - EG

Because I think everyone here already accepts that he is an ass and that the judge did not punish him appropriately. No one has argued otherwise. I already agreed with everyone’s outrage over this:

“Be outraged, sure, but be outraged over what actually happened.� – noname

Once that was settled, the misuse of the word “rape� was the only subject left of interest to me in the post.

Look, I am not trying to minimize his actions; I am trying to accurately define them. You ask why you should “assume that he was on top of her with his pants on copping a feel�. I never asked this of you. I said that IF he was on top of her with his pants on copping a feel, then that would not be rape. My point is that too many assumptions are already being made here with very little information to back it up. I guess I just value precision, especially when it concerns the cavalier use of such a powerful word.

noname:

Look, I am not trying to minimize his actions; I am trying to accurately define them.

Er, no, you're trying to minimize them by picking nits over the wording. I've already explained its usage, so I'm just going to emphasize this by bringing up your other response:

If he was on top of her with his pants on copping a feel, than I don't need to imply this wasn't as bad as rape. I declare it outright. I bet the victim would agree, too.

The only difference I'm expecting is that there might be some relief that there wasn't yet reason to worry too much about disease or pregnancy, but I could be wrong.

I agree Zed,
noname,
I mean taking advantage of a women while she's knocked out. The comment about the Italian court was to express outrage that these judges in Europe (like in America-but no ones saying a rape of a virgin is more of a crime if shes not one) undermine justice for crimes against women.

Zed, progressive sexual assault laws, which don't distinguish between categories of offenses based on whether they had any penetration, don't use the word "rape" at all. To wit, in Canada there are three kinds of sexual offenses: sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assault. This suggests that Noname is right to restrict the use of the word "rape" to penetrative offenses (though anal penetration is often considered on a par with vaginal one).

Alon:

You have just strongly confused me. The Canadian categorization suggests to me that there should be no distinction on penetration at all, and thus "rape" can be considered a proper umbrella term for all three cases. This seems to be rather the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Again, though, I think this is a question best left to the women. If the general female consensus is that penetration is a critical distinction (though I seem to have one woman agreeing that it is not), I will withdraw the argument.

Half-naked could be with underwear on.You can still have sex with underwear on. There's something to think on: penetration with underwear on. Being drugged (from the alcohol), and having a guy on top of you when your knocked out is rape because of the specific circumstances of the individual not being able to say 'no,' as well as being unable to know what's going on. Definetly attempted rape.

Using the womens catatonic state to start to 'force' himself sexually onto her requires that she be in a state of long-term, and deep catatosis in order to have her be numb to your body movements. If your going to have sex with a woman against her will, (which should always be assumed if she's unconscious) your gonna want her to be knocked out for a long time, and really 'out of it'. So his intention probably was not just a quick feel, but full on penetration. That is why I believed him to have done this before, as in Indian it is common for a guy to slip drugs into a womans drink and rape her. He had to have a good eye for monitoring states of intoxicity in women, to assume he could mount her without her waking up. Rape is always forced, and being in a unaware state is being unable to fight back, so he knew what he was doing-he wasn't just 'falling into temptation(!)' With everyone being knocked out in the room, the judgement should be made based on the circumstances, as it is unlikely he was just going to cop a feel, but use her state to get away with something without being found out. That is rape.

freewmn: "Definetly attempted rape."

Exactly. Not rape.

Just like attempted murder is not murder. That was my only point. One should try to be accurate when using such heavy words.

I think noname and RM are saying that the word "rape" is very powerful, and we should be careful about using it in a situation where it may or may not be appropriate. I do see their point. Sometimes words are so overused that they lose their power. Rape is entirely too important a word to lose its power. It would do women a horrible disservice. (On the other hand rape is so underreported that its overuse probably would't even match the number of times its use would be appropriate.)

The truth is, we don't actually know what he was going to do, and I don't think we need to speculate on whether or not it was rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. Sexual assault is an awful enough crime on its own, and should be appropriately punished. I also question the safety of letting a man who is perceived to have gotten away with his crime sign the sex offender registry, and then live freely. Obviously I don't condone violence, but I can't say I would be surprised if this guy turned up with a stab wound and a note attached to him saying, "I'm sorry. I was tempted and was too geeky to know that stabbing is inappropriate."

This reminds me of the thread about the Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered by the American soldiers. Someone commented that her being a woman didn't lessen the crime, and I responded by saying that it was the opposite: her being a child worsened the crime's already abhorrent nature, because it then added child abuse to the rape and murder equation.

In this case, I would say that sexual assault is a terrible crime, and that rape is sexual assault AND penetration, ie., don't think of this as sexual assault being a lesser crime; think of it as penetration being an additional layer that deserves an additional punishment.

I'd be interested in seeing what the consensus is, though.

Thanks, prairielily. If I could have said it half as well, we probably could have avoided much of this bickerring.

I think any sexual assault when a person is unconscious should be charged as rape. What-is this like Pakistan-we need four male witnesses to testify that it happened(!)?

The Canadian categorization suggests to me that there should be no distinction on penetration at all, and thus "rape" can be considered a proper umbrella term for all three cases. This seems to be rather the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Well, the Canadian categorization doesn't even use the term rape. So what you're left with to define rape is common speech, which generally requires penetration.

It's hard for me to say which, if either would be worse. It reminds me of when I was a kid and learned about Helen Keller, and asked my mom which she would rather be, deaf or blind, and she said "neither."

What would be interesting in terms of finding out whether or not penetration made a meaningful difference was looking at rates of PTSD, mood disorders, psychological distress, etc., and their resolution in women who had been raped penetratively and women who had been sexually assaulted in equally vile ways but without penetration.

I can see how the actual penetration of the body would add an extra horror to the experience; but I can also see how simply having someone grabbing my genitals would violate those same boundaries. I'm not convinced penetration is the most meaningful difference, and I'm also not sure it's the least. I just don't like the assumption that it is.

I did take exception, noname, to the phrase "copping a feel," which is what I would use to describe someone on a crowded subway grabbing my ass, or even a date putting his arm around me at the movies or something and using that as an excuse to touch my breasts--those things are a far cry from the sexual assault this woman experienced.

If you point a gun at someone’s head and fire, but the gun fails, does that make you any less of a criminal? It was your INTENT to kill someone, but circumstances stopped you, not your conscious or remorse or anything other than dumb luck. So, an attempted murderer is just as bad to me morally as an attempted rapist. Sure he didn’t cause as much harm as a rapist, but not because of his wishes.

Noname, my comment on getting the raped lecture in college stands. I didn’t say that he did rape her, I said that everyone at a US college would get the “don’t rape people lecture� and in that lecture you are told what rape is, what sexual assault is, that touching someone without their consent due to intoxication is illegal, etc. But it’s a lot more succinct to say the “don’t rape people lecture� than the rest of the stuff you learn in it.
My point was lost in all this... he should have known that this was wrong because he had enough experience with western culture to have had it explained to him a hundred times over, and the judge was a wretched moron for letting him off with just a friggin' letter.
Ridiculous.

Does anyone on this post want to apologize for saying are writing any unproven things about any college lacrosse players?

hmmm. Didn't think so.

Ahlana - Of course he knew it was wrong. No one is argueing that, here.

tfreridge:

Relevance? Speculation on the probability of as yet unproven assertions isn't exactly an internet taboo.

Zed,

No relevence, just pointing out the double standard at this blog and by most of the posters here.

tfreridge:

What double standard?

How many articles have you seen talking about the the lacross players innocence?

Or the fact that the stripper/prostitute wrongly accused them?

tfreridge:

Uh, they haven't been found innocent, nor has it been found that the stripper (not a prostitute) wrongly accused them.

Why would someone write an article about something that hasn't happened?

A general definition of rape according to Society for the Scientific Study of Human Sexuality is the nonconsensual or forced sexual acts which includes unconsensual sex if the person is intoxicated. Being that everyone was passed out prior to witnessing his actions no one can say what he was doing before they woke up-maybe he was already onto his second victim? I would think a rape kit would have come in handy. Nonetheless I would charge this as rape, it was like the judge was looking for an exscuse to find him innocent. Very suspicious-I would think there would be protests by English feminists, and aknowledgement in the newspapers so he would not be re-elected (if that's the way there system works).

freewmn:

I think it's very unlikely that he had done this to any of the others (if more than one woman woke up naked, it almost certainly would have been mentioned).

Also, I'm not sure how English law defines rape (or for that matter, even how to find out easily), but legal definitions of a word do not always (and in fact seldom?) match common usage (though by the discussion above, there is substantial disagreement about common usage as well; perhaps there are regional differences).