Support NeoGAF

[Borgnine]

section 76 doesnt actually sound like it should apply to this case

Alright what about SECTION 75:

Section 75 of the Act introduces a number of evidential presumptions under which if the prosecution proves certain circumstances existed at the time of intercourse or other relevant sexual act "the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.

I don't know what this means or if this is even English. There are no more wikipedia sections for me to quote, we're going to need a barrister after this.

 

[frankie_baby]

So if I get a blowjob from a "woman" that is actually a crossdresser or transgendered, I have been raped (as far as the law is concerned)?

if following the law as its been applied here then if it was a blowjob from transgendered no but a cross dresser yes

 

[Inversive]

The long con.

 

[Lear]

in this instance with respect to this case if you believed she was a biological woman and she didn't tell you ahead of time and you found out, seems like you could certainly claim sexual assault.

The hell? Just, no. A trans woman is a woman. I mean, you could try and claim sexual assault, but you wouldn't (and shouldn't) get very far with that claim.

 

[Conor 419]

"Later in the evening, after dropping McNally off at the friend’s house near Tottenham Hale train station, the mother said to her daughter: ’You do know Scott is actually a girl?’"

 

[frankie_baby]

Alright what about SECTION 75:



I don't know what this means or if this is even English. There are no more wikipedia sections for me to quote, we're going to need a barrister after this.

i feel very very dizzy reading that

 

[johnny_park]

Just one of the guys...



EDIT:

Beaten like Hillary Swank's character in Boys don't cry

Loved that movie growing up. She had a nice rack when she did the reveal at the end of the movie.

 

[lush]

Just One Of the Guys is probably the best movie.

 

[Lear]

Alright what about SECTION 75:



I don't know what this means or if this is even English. There are no more wikipedia sections for me to quote, we're going to need a barrister after this.

Section 75 of the Act wouldn't apply here (based on what I've read of the case) so don't worry yourself trying to understand it. Statutes can be a pain in the ass to understand, even when you're a lawyer.

 

[Borgnine]

Maybe the STRAP-ON DILDO is the key here? Like if a transgendered person just uses their body (fingers, tongue, etc) it wouldn't fall under this statute?

 

[jorma]

in this instance with respect to this case if you believed she was a biological woman and she didn't tell you ahead of time and you found out, seems like you could certainly claim sexual assault.

Not really the same thing, because he did consent to a blowjob from the individual in question.

This girl never consented to having a dildo inserted, she consented to a penis. She didnt just lie about who she was, she also lied about what she did.

Maybe the STRAP-ON DILDO is the key here? Like if a transgendered person just uses their body (fingers, tongue, etc) it wouldn't fall under this statute?

just so

 

[syllogism]

I did some research, and R v Jheeta defines "nature" as the kind of sectual act the defendant intends to carry out while "purpose" is defined as the reason or reasons the act is being carried out. Penetration with an object is clearly an inherently different sexual act.

 

[Brak]

Are there buggery laws still on the books? Could be the strap-on that's the problem. Otherwise I really can't picture a specific bit of law that would apply here.

 

[Kettch]

The hell? Just, no. A trans woman is a woman. I mean, you could try and claim sexual assault, but you wouldn't (and shouldn't) get very far with that claim.

So in this case, if Scott actually considers himself a man is it no longer a crime?

I think this is all pretty iffy, if deception rather than impersonation is considered a crime it needs to be specifically spelled out as to where it can be applied because there are a lot of implications for such a law.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

I'd like to know what video game they met on.

I'm gonna go guess the "game" was IMVU.

Pretty damn fucked up to do this to someone. That girl who was deceived will never be the same after this.

 

[The Technomancer]

Okay, isnt this story old? I swear like this exact thing has been posted before

 

[Nevasleep]

Okay, isnt this story old? I swear like this exact thing has been posted before

My mistake, similar story link in OP.

 

[DrBo42]

Maybe the STRAP-ON DILDO is the key here? Like if a transgendered person just uses their body (fingers, tongue, etc) it wouldn't fall under this statute?

I would think it's just the fact there was an intentional withholding of information with the intent to deceive. If you want to get into whether or not Scott is a trans man then there would be a burden of proof there I'd think.

 

[Lear]

So in this case, if Scott actually considers himself a man is it no longer a crime?

I think this is all pretty iffy, if deception rather than impersonation is considered a crime it needs to be specifically spelled out as to where it can be applied because there are a lot of implications for such a law.

Well, based on existing English law I don't think it should be a crime at all. As i said previously, deception as to the nature and purpose of the act is very narrowly defined. Unless something drastic has changed since I did my criminal law module 3 years ago, this case probably (I say probably because the reporting is so awful that it's hard to know exactly what went on) shouldn't have resulted in a convictions.

 

[Jitters]

I've never heard anything like this. Crazy.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Okay, isnt this story old? I swear like this exact thing has been posted before

Really old.

 

[The Adder]

Well, based on existing English law I don't think it should be a crime at all. As i said previously, deception as to the nature and purpose of the act is very narrowly defined. Unless something drastic has changed since I did my criminal law module 3 years ago, this case probably (I say probably because the reporting is so awful that it's hard to know exactly what went on) shouldn't have resulted in a convictions.

Opinon on Syllogism's post?

 

[Kimawolf]

The hell? Just, no. A trans woman is a woman. I mean, you could try and claim sexual assault, but you wouldn't (and shouldn't) get very far with that claim.

I understand what you're saying, but the claim did get far at least with two cases already in the UK. Just a quick Google search brought up a bit more detail about the cases of a Lee Brooks and a Chris Wilson who were charged with obtaining sex by deception, and the prosecution said, "the prosecution has asserted that the women would not have consented to sex if they had been aware that the man involved was physically female; i.e. that they had not undertaken gender reassignment at the time."

So I assume, as I said before, if you don't have it legally on some document, then you can be prosecuted if someone wanted to really take it that far.

That sounds similar to what is being discussed here, and I believe these two happened in Scotland. I'd love to know the U.S stance on this situation.

 

[Lear]

Opinon on Syllogism's post?

Well R v Jheeta was in 2007, so it's not more recent than the criminal textbooks and syllabus I used in 2009/10 so I don't think it changes the situation I've described re 'nature and purpose'. I genuinely can't remember the case though. Looking it up now though, so I should have a better answer in about ten minutes.

 

[livestOne]

in this instance with respect to this case if you believed she was a biological woman and she didn't tell you ahead of time and you found out, seems like you could certainly claim sexual assault.

The hell? Just, no. A trans woman is a woman. I mean, you could try and claim sexual assault, but you wouldn't (and shouldn't) get very far with that claim.

Actually Lear you can claim that and it is in fact almost* the exact story in the OP, If I was entering into a relationship with a transgendered person I sure as shit would appreciate you telling me.

edit: I'll add almost since I don't think the girl who got jailed actually identifies herself as a male

 

[The Adder]

Well R v Jheeta was in 2007, so it's not more recent than the criminal textbooks and syllabus I used in 2009/10 so I don't think it changes the situation I've described re 'nature and purpose'. I genuinely can't remember the case though. Looking it up now though, so I should have a better answer in about ten minutes.

Meant less on the specific case and more on "penetration with object" being significantly different in nature from "sexual intercourse"

 

[DrBo42]

Actually Lear you can claim that and it is in fact almost the exact story in the OP, If I was entering into a relationship with a transgendered person I sure as shit would appreciate you telling me.

At the very least we'd avoid this entire ridiculous legal process.

 

[Lear]

Actually Lear you can claim that and it is in fact almost the exact story in the OP, If I was entering into a relationship with a transgendered person I sure as shit would appreciate you telling me.

My point is that based on existing precedent (ie the law) those sort of cases shouldn't result in a conviction for a sexual offence. First instance criminal judgments dont make precedent, and that combined with guilty pleas results in these weird convictions.

edit: I'll add almost since I don't think the girl who got jailed actually identifies herself as a male

We don't know that though. In the Telegraph reporting of the case it says that she wanted to get a sex change. Also there's mention of a previous relationship she was in where she was presenting as male, until it came out that she was biologically female. So there's some evidence that this person was somewhere on the trans spectrum.

 

[syllogism]

My point is that based on existing precedent (ie the law) those sort of cases shouldn't result in a conviction for a sexual offence. First instance criminal judgments dont make precedent, and that combined with guilty pleas results in these weird convictions.

I've a hard time believing that a court would find that a person consenting to penetration by penis also consented to penetration by, say, a bottle. Of course the situation would be quite different due to the risks involved with a penetration by a bottle, but still it is very likely that there the courts can interpret the relevant statue in the manner I suggested.

 

[Nevasleep]

Seems like a fine conviction to me. I'm assuming it was S2 offence, and I've posted S76 of act because its relevent.

S2 Assault by penetration

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

S76 Conclusive presumptions about consent

(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—
(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.

(2)The circumstances are that—
(a)the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b)the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.

Interesting case:

In R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 the conviction of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent was upheld where the defendant in order to embarrass his victim, posed as a young woman and persuaded him to masturbate in front of a webcam.

 

[BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!]

Are dildos similar in texture to real penises or something? This really doesn't make a lick of sense, there's no way she couldn't have known.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

Why is she in jail? The sex was consensual no?

How would you feel (providing you're not gay) if you were fooled into having sex with someone who was the same gender as you?

We can spin this round to how would you feel if you were gay and you were fooled into having sex with someone who wasn't the same sex as you.

It's wrong, if you can't see why then no amount of explaining will help you to understand.

 

[RagnarokX]

How would you feel (providing you're not gay) if you were fooled into having sex with someone who was the same gender as you?

We can spin this round to how would you feel if you were gay and you were fooled into having sex with someone who wasn't the same sex as you.

It's wrong, if you can't see why then no amount of explaining will help you to understand.

It's wrong, but criminal?

 

[Kurtofan]

Are dildos similar in texture to real penises or something? This really doesn't make a lick of sense, there's no way she couldn't have known.

She was a virgin she had no way to know.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

okay, what is "scott" charged with? tricking someone into homosexual sex?
because last time i checked heterosexual sex-lives were full of lying and decieving.
not saying that it is morally right (i don't think it is and have little sympathy for "Scott"), but how are the courts involved in this?

It's in the article.

McNally, from Glasgow, admitted six counts of sexual assault by penetration, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

 

[Borgnine]

Are dildos similar in texture to real penises or something?

Only premium dildos do, which is all I use.

 

[Volimar]

Wasn't there a famous jazz musician or something in the early 1900's that supposedly pretended to be a man? Even had a beautiful wife that claimed she didn't know the whole time. Apparently she claimed she had to keep her chest wrapped because of a caved in chest or something... Ring any bells?

 

[Deaf Spacker]

It's wrong, but criminal?

Yes, it's sexual assault at the very least.

 

[Kurtofan]

It's wrong, but criminal?

How is it not sexual assault?

 

[TrutaS]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this exactly but it doesn't strike me as rape. The girl was willing and felt attracted to the girl(boy). Sex here isn't really an identity you can pretend like that. On the other hand someone was actually fooled with some measure of consequence. Really torn on this one.

In the end I feel bad for the girl/boy who probably had strong felling about her girlfriend and was probably really nervous and fearful of discovery all the time. It must be hard not to be born into a sexuality you feel comfortable in.

 

[geebee]

Is it horrible to find this hilarious? How the hell did the girl not realize it was a strap on? Did they only get naked in pitch dark rooms?

Edit: Guess I misread.. still, mind-boggling that this went on for so long.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

Is it horrible to find this hilarious? How the hell did the girl not realize it was a strap on? Did they only get naked in pitch dark rooms?

Read the OP, they had sex in the dark and the girl pretending to be a boy didn't get naked.

 

[CDX]

Are dildos similar in texture to real penises or something? This really doesn't make a lick of sense, there's no way she couldn't have known.

They do make realistic style dildos that have been described as "startlingly realistic"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W57N3No4E6c#t=02m17s

and she even mentions it can be worn in a strap on device.


Also remember the girl was a virgin and likely didn't have much experience with a real penis.

 

[Buddha Beam]

How can you not notice that her penis was, like... all cold and rubbery? Even those realistic ones are still easy to tell.

 

[BadAss2961]

Loved that movie growing up. She had a nice rack when she did the reveal at the end of the movie.

It really was amazing. I had no idea she had it like that until the big reveal.

She looked hot in the movie's intro too.

 

[Borgnine]

How can you not notice that her penis was, like... all cold and rubbery? Even those realistic ones are still easy to tell.

You say you have to use the bathroom first and then run it under warm water.

I'm not planning anything. I just thought of this.

 

[lingiii]

You say you have to use the bathroom first and then run it under warm water.

I'm not planning anything. I just thought of this.

also she's 16 maybe she had no idea. this story's the weirdest! clearly super sucks for the victim girl, dunno how I feel about sentencing of "Scott".

 

[Quidam]

.

 

[Kimawolf]

also she's 16 maybe she had no idea. this story's the weirdest! clearly super sucks for the victim girl, dunno how I feel about sentencing of "Scott".

Well spin the story this way, what if it was a gay girl who thought "Scott" was really another girl with a strap on. But it turned out "Scott" had her male parts and used those but made it like she didn't etc etc. Would that not be rape/sexual assault? and would you still feel sorry for Scott?

I suffer no one who commits sexual assault, rather they are gay, straight, trans or cis. Assault is assault and no one should get special outs.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

How can you not notice that her penis was, like... all cold and rubbery? Even those realistic ones are still easy to tell.

By "wearing" a condom? And pointing out that you're using one?