It's a fucking disgusting crime. However, holding people accountable for what they did in their sleep is some tricky business when it comes to the law, as it is literally a mind/body disconnect.

Both women and men can be affected by sexsomnia, although, somewhat predictably, the women don't get charged with rape.

Talk about a messy situation all over the place. However, there is some hope: sexsomnia was successfully "cured" in Sydney, and all it took was some psychiatric counseling for the woman.

Another completely "NO FUCKING WAY" case: in 1987 a man murdered both his parents, but was acquitted due to him being fast asleep.

If a person can't stop themselves from raping people in their sleep, that person needs to be in a hospital/mental institution/whereever can prevent them from raping, until they are cured.

That pisses me off so much. Sure, you raped her, but you didn't mean to, so go home and rape some more girls. WTF?

I bet this guy doesn't have a problem not raping other men, or dogs, or whatever in his sleep. Funny how that works.

Not to say this guy isn't full of shit, but I used to date a guy who did the sleep-sex thing. He would initiate sex in the middle of the night and then not remember anything about it the next day and be totally creeped out by my descriptions of the act (not that he did anything weird, just that he didn't remember having sex). Apparently this happened with his other girlfriends as well. I don't know if someone could be forceful enough to actually rape someone while asleep, but sleep-sex can happen, from my experience. It also could be a totally made up excuse coming from a rapist.

I've read it's a real condition. I have no idea what to think about this. On the one hand, do you punish someone who has no control--supposedly--over his actions. On the other hand, shouldn't the feelings of the victim come first? How will this be atoned for?

The little turd knew that he had this condition before the rape, It was his responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen; if you have sexsomnia maybe you shouldn’t be doing sleepovers. So now he is going to go around raping everyone with this excuse with no repercussions whatsoever?

It was in an episode of "House", so it must be true.

kmldc, thanks for sharing your experiences. I don't know if this is too personal, but would your ex back off if you weren't up for sex? How forceful did you have to be? If you just didn't go along with it, because you were alseep or passed out or something, would he stop? What if another woman, for whatever reason, was sleeping near him?

Sexsomnia sounds really dangerous to me. This guy (in the article, not kmldc's boyfriend) raped a 15 year old in his sleep. How will he stop himself from doing that in the future? It's one thing to initiate sex w/ your girlfriend while sleeping, it's another thing to rape teenagers while you're sleeping. He's too dangerous to have around the general population until he's cured, and words cannot describe how angry I am that the court did nothing.

I've never heard of this condition before. Sorry if this is insensitive, but the name "sexsomnia" makes me laugh... it SOUNDS fake, but apparently it isn't.

I agree that if he knew he had this condition, he should have 1) sought treatment and 2) not gone to a fucking *sleepover* until his doctor was comfortable that his condition was cured/managed.

Um ... don't we already have a means to protect people from people who engage in dangerous criminal acts even though those doing the victimizing cannot control themselves? Isn't there something called an insanity plea/ruling?

Presumably if it was sexsomnia, then if it's ending up in rape, the sexsomnia has reached the level of criminal insanity. Of course the perp should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but can't, in this situation, the defendant be monitored/forced to undergo treatment or whatever?

facts:

• this is a real condition
• it effects people to varying degrees

questions:

• was the man aware of his condition and the risks?
• how severe was his condition?
• to what extent can the condition be treated?
• is the man now being treated?

opinion:
To prevent this condition from becoming a "get out of rape free" card, people with this condition have to take responsibility for preventing incidents like this. However, they can only do so if they know about the condition and its risks, so education and awareness seems to be best way to prevent things like this from happening in the future.

My husband will initiate sex in his sleep and there have been times we've had sex and he won't remember it the next morning. He also talks in his sleep a lot. However, if I don't feel like sex and push him away, he stops. Sometimes it takes a while, mostly because I'm half-asleep and not being really forceful. I can always wake him up if I try.
If this guy slept so deeply he could rape a girl -- I'm assuming she protested somehow -- while asleep, he should have taken some kind of precaution, like not sleeping away from home, not drinking if that exacerbated his condition or something. It's a tricky case and maybe he shouldn't be charged as heavily as someone who knowingly rapes, but he should definately be ordered to undergo treatment and be on probabtion to ensure he doesn't put himself in the position where this could happen again.

In response to your questions, I definitely could have just brushed him off if I wasn't interested and he probably would have rolled over and gone back to sleep (or continued to sleep, as the case may be). The first time I thought he was awake, so I was just like, ok, let's have sex. After that I just thought it was funny. But no, I don't think he would have forced himself on me if I wasn't interested, and if I had been asleep it might have been difficult to make the logistics work - I probably wouldn't have just shoved him off like I do with anything touching me in my sleep. But I agree with other commenters that if you know you have this condition, it's your responsibility to take precautions about who you're sleeping next to. It's been a while since I took criminal law, but I'm pretty sure being unconscious removes culpability for an act, even if it is rape, unfortunately. There have to be some cases out there about sleepwalking or some suchlike. However, he could be criminally negligent if he knew of his condition and didn't do anything to prevent the rape. I know my ex would probably not be sleeping next to 15 year olds, for many reasons, but also because he wouldn't want anything like that to happen.

Law Fairy: That's because it sounds like sexlexia (a very sexy learning disability...)

Though it is a real condition, and I think ed's suggestions of how to deal with it are quite reasonable.

Believe it or not, there have been actual cases where people sleepwalking have killed other people, then gotten away with it in court. Check out this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6540

I love how he was asleep, so raping a fifteen year old doesn't count. Never mind what this poor girl's been through, never mind that she will never be the same, and never mind that she was underage. He was asleep. Doesn't count.

I hope the girl's family takes him to civil court. At least that way maybe they can get some kind of restitution. Asleep or not, he caused harm and that needs to be acknowledged.

"Sexsomnia"? Are you fucking kidding me?? Does he also suffer from Zapp Brannigan's sexy learning disorder, Sexlexia??

I recently read somewhere that Great Britian's rape conviction was hovering around 5.5%. If juries are swallowing this tripe, it's hard not to see why.

wtf. seriously, wtf. sometimes i feel like i must have died and ended up in high-fiving fratboy hell. like right now. i can hear the echo of the "yeah, brah" dude laugh in my head.

"Never mind what this poor girl's been through, never mind that she will never be the same, and never mind that she was underage. He was asleep. Doesn't count."

Well... yeah. The point of criminal penalties is to punish people for intentionally committed wrongs, not just to make somebody suffer for an innocent person's pain, regardless of actual culpability. If he's lying about his condition, he should rot in prison. If the condition is real, but his history with it should have given him reason to think he might be at risk of doing something like this, he still deserves punishment, though possibly less severe. But aren't these all facts the jury and appeals courts are in a better position to evaluate than we are?

Uh, people pay for so-called unintentional crimes all the time. Negligence is one example. Or if a man (awake) sleeps with an underage girl who he thought was old enough. He's still guilty of committing a crime. If someone sticks something in their pocket for a moment at a store and then legitimately forgets to take it out again, they're still guilty of shoplifting.

The crime was committed. The girl was raped. The man raped her. Those are facts, and they matter.

Yes, people can be responsible for negligence, which involves a failure of responsibility. Which is why I said that if the condition is legitimate but he had reason to know this was a real risk, given his history, he should still be punished. But note that, for instance, criminally negligent homicide (unintended killing resulting from the failure to take reasonable and responsible precautions) is not the same crime as murder. And negligence still requires a finding that the person should have known enough to act in a different way, but failed to. So the two questions, which we don't know the answer to, remain: Does he really have this condition, and did he have reason to think it might manifest in such an extreme way, making his staying over negligent? Those are also facts, and they also matter. Don't they?

I've never heard of sexsomnia in any of my psychology classes (and I've taken many). The APA doesn't seem to even know what it is, as the query yields no results on their site. If it is something, it's nothing but a label and not a legitimate disorder.

Anyone claiming to have had sex or killed anyone while sleepwalking is lying. Sleepwalkers move quite lazily. Since it takes plenty of effort to stab with a knife, shoot a gun, and have sex, I don't think someone who is sleepwalking or moving at all in the late stages of sleep can kill or have sex in their sleep.

During REM (dream) sleep, blood rushes to the genitals, causing an erection in males. However, it is almost impossible to even move a little while dreaming. Unless the dream is very intense, we won't move anything below the neck while dreaming. Even then, we would only twitch like a dog or cat does while they dream. A very rare disorder in which someone can physically act out their dreams, doing things they couldn't do while awake, is alomst exclusive to men over 70.

So this guy convinced a jury of his peers that he was able to maintain an erection and do some complex movements during deep sleep. Bull. Shit.

Julian, negligence was one example I gave. There were also other examples of unintentional crime. Call it what you want to, it doesn't matter. It comes down to this:

A crime was committed. The girl was raped. The man raped her. Therefore, he committed the crime.

So if a sleepwalker knocks his air conditioner out a window and crushes a passerby to death, *even if the sleepwalker didn't know he was prone to this behavior*, you endorse the syllogism:

A crime was committed. A person was murdered. The man murdered him. Therefore, he committed the crime.

Maybe the facts don't turn out to be analogous here--though pace FEMily, I find numerous references in peer reviewed psych literature to the condition--but if they are, the logic is pretty transparently faulty and question begging.

First of all, what the hell was this 26 year-old man doing sleeping next to a 15 year-old girl? Second of all (and I am aware that others have raised this question), why would he have put himself in a position where he could potentially harm someone if he knew that he had this condition? He should at the very least be forced to undergo some sort of treatment.

Anyone claiming to have had sex or killed anyone while sleepwalking is lying. Sleepwalkers move quite lazily. Since it takes plenty of effort to stab with a knife, shoot a gun, and have sex, I don't think someone who is sleepwalking or moving at all in the late stages of sleep can kill or have sex in their sleep.

a)Yes this is real. Whether it's endorsed by the APA or not, it's real. I had a boyfriend who would initiate sex in his sleep and when I would wake him up he would lose his erection and have no idea what was going on--an it would sometimes take a lot to wake him.

b)I've sleepwalked before (it's not regular, just in times of extreme stress) and there was nothing gentle and lazy about it. Once I tore the hell out of my bedroom looking for something and another time I was tearing through my house because I thought (?) I was trying to break up a fight. I probably could've done some real damage that time had I not woken up.

Kimmy, you forgot to state the fact that he was asleep during the act. And, as you said, the facts matter.

That fact matters just as much as the fact that he raped her, and it's because of that fact that this isn't a black and white issue. If it were as simple as a man raping a woman, the jury wouldn't have needed two hours, and nobody here would be debating whether or not the jury was correct in their decision.

Julian, if you can't see the difference between knocking something out of a window accidentally that happens to kill someone (which you're equating with murder, although it wouldn't be called such) and rape (which this unquestionably is), then you have serious issues way beyond this topic.

He raped her. He didn't accidentally fall on her. He stuck his penis inside her vagina without her permission. That's rape. Period.

Tibi, your second point sounds more like a night terror than sleepwalking.

Nobody is saying this wasn't rape, Kimmy. Even the guy himself said he was guilty of it. But knee-jerk "Period." type statements don't really give this issue the attention it deserves.

The question here is whether or not a jury should take into account whether or not the rapist was capable of controlling his actions. Or at least preventing them, and at what point criminal negligence comes into play.

It's uncharted and rocky legal grounds, which is why making statements like "It's rape. Period." only serve to drum up an emotional response, as opposed to productive discussion of the laws.

He was asleep, he was awake. She was still raped. She's still in exactly the same position as any woman or girl who's been raped. She suffered the same trauma. She's suffering the same pain. She's going to have the after effects to deal with for the rest of her life.

Why does what she's gone through suddenly cease to matter?

"A crime was committed. The girl was raped. The man raped her. Therefore, he committed the crime."

I don't know how the British system of law works (I think that's where the case took place), but in the U.S. at least rape/sexual assault is not a strict liability crime. It doesn't follow merely from the fact that sex was forced on X by Y that Y raped X (legally at least). It must also be the case that Y had the right mens rea (state of mind). If Y has a reasonable belief that X is consenting to the sex, then Y did not legally rape X.

*Statutory* rape, on the other hand, is a strict liability crime. If X and Y have consensual sex and X is 14 and Y is 25, Y has committed statutory rape. And it doesn't matter if Y reasonably believed that X was 18 or not. No mens rea is required in the statutory case.

If we assume for the sake of argument that this guy is being honest about the sexsomnia, then it just isn't true in the legal sense that he raped the girl. Of course that's a huge *IF*--he very well might have found an ingenious defense and got one over on the jury.

And even if he is being totally honest, if he knew about his condition and he could have reasonably forseen the possibility that he might unknowingly force sex upon a sleeping partner, then there certainly seems like there's room for a negligence conviction. But that still wouldn't be rape--that would be a criminal negligence charge, which I'm guessing they didn't even charge him with hence there was no chance of him being convicted of it.

I never said it wasn't rape, and I never once said that her rape was somehow less important and less impacting than any other rape. Please don't imply that I am diminishing the crime here- that's such a gross insult, I feel literally sucker-punched at the thought.

I have no interest in discussing this with somebody who cannot see shades of gray, particularly when it comes to the law, where things are never quite so black and white. I'm done with this discussion, because I have a feeling it will just continue with you trying to insinuate I'm diminishing her rape by questioning the case surrounding it. Gross.

"He was asleep, he was awakeShe was still raped. She's still in exactly the same position as any woman or girl who's been raped. She suffered the same trauma. She's suffering the same pain. She's going to have the after effects to deal with for the rest of her life."

It DOES still matter. No one has said it doesn't. The man even confessed his guilt. This is still a pretty complicated case and one where you can't use black and white, 100% guilty or innocent statements. It's not as if throwing this guy in prison is going to ease the pain and trauma the girl is experiencing, which is what you seem to be implying/advocating. You're right, she IS going to deal with it the rest of her life...whether he goes unpunished, goes to prison or is stoned to death.
I'm not saying that he should completely unpunished, especially if he was fully aware of his condition- why the hell would he go to a sleepover? It's just more complicated than your standard case.

Julian, your analogy sucks. A better analogy would be a sleepwalker randomly stabbing a person to death who had the nerve to sleep in the same building as the sleepwalker. But, oh! What if the sleepwalker didn't know he could do that! Oh! What was the "alleged stabbing victim" doing in the sleepwalker's house? Oh, it must be so bad to be that sleepwalker. Let's not try to punish him or give him treatment because that would be so hard on him. He really didn't mean it. Oh, what about anyone else who happens to be around him while he's sleeping in the future? What? Oh the poor sleepwalker...

Assuming this guy is telling the truth, I think the jury did the right thing by letting him off.

If this was truly and entirely unintentional, I just don't see it as being the same-- on his part, not on hers-- as, say, lurking in a dark corner with a gun, or slipping a roofie into someone's drink, with the intention to rape.

It is terrible for the victim, but as I understand it the purpose of punishment is to punish the offender, not to avenge the victim.

Of course, this is all based on the very shaky assumption that we should believe everything he says. I'm not sure I do. But-- and again, I'm no law expert-- I think you're supposed to be sure beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before you convict him. I don't know how compelling the evidence was on either side, but in general I would err on the side of lenience.

I do definitely agree that now that he knows it can happen, he should take precautions to make sure he's not raping anyone else.

Found a link about this condition from 5 years ago: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020327072432.htm

To Kimmy and anyone else that thinks that this is a clear cut case of rape, consider this: the condition has been observed in both men and women. If you argue that someone with this condition is fully responsible for their actions, then you have to argue that women with this condition are able to consent to sex while asleep. That seems like a dangerous point of view.

But, like I said before, this condition shouldn't be a get out of rape free card.

Ed, I would argue that anyone who initiates sex with another unwilling human being, asleep or not, is guilty of rape. Male or female, doesn't matter.

And I just love the attitudes here.

"That bastard raped me!"
"Oh, no, honey, it's okay, he says he didn't mean to."
"Oh, okay. Tra la la la la la la."

marle-
Who said ANYTHING about not requiring treatment, or at least forbidding any future "sleepovers" until he gets some? Those are utterly different questions. But that's precisely the point: IF someone has a genuine medical condition (as someone else said, a big IF, but suppose) such that they are not responsible for their actions, we usually think the correct response is, in fact, treatment rather than punishment. I'd say exactly the same thing about our hypothetical stabbing sleepwalker. Do all the people taking the rape-is-rape-period line here believe mentally ill people who commit crimes must always be treated exactly like any other criminal, because intention and conscious responsibility just don't matter?

Janeish, I agree that this is different than someone intentionally planning on raping someone, but he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and then put in a mental institute until the doctors could be reasonably sure he will not rape any other woman who happens to be near him while he's sleeping.

Ed, you bring up an interesting point about consent while sleeping. In a sense, people with "sexsomnia" aren't consenting, either. But the difference (between them and people who are raped in their sleep) is that they are the actors. A person who falls asleep while driving doesn't consent to run into a tree or over a pedestrian, but they're still responsible.

And those who talked about not putting someone away in order to avenge their victim...

There's a reason that we refer to getting justice on behalf of a murder victim. Because we are, on their behalf, trying to punish the person who hurt them. Whatever you think the perfect justice system would be, ours is at least partly punitive.

What this means is that this girl has been raped, and will get no justice.

And it doesn't matter if Y reasonably believed that X was 18 or not.

Way OT, but I never got this one.

Suppose a 23 year old is partying at a club and hooks up with a fellow partier, who happened to be underage and to have got into the party using a fake ID. Meanwhile, for comparison, the club has hired an undocumented worker who also uses a fake ID to avoid detection.

Now who gets punished how: the 23 year old is somehow expected to have realized that, even though his/her hook-up mate managed to slip into an over 21 club with a fake ID, s/he was sleeping with a 17 year old? He gets imprisoned as a sex offender. Maybe in the fall-out the bouncer looses his job, maybe not. But meanwhile, everyone'll accept "I couldn't tell the ID was faked and the Soc. Sec. number stolen" excuse from the night-club owner ...

How is a 23 year old party goer expected to be a better judge of a fake ID than a bouncer or especially a business owner with more resources for judging such things?