Body & Soul1 min ago
Accused man found not guilty
The court accepted his claim that he was not guilty of rape because he was sleepwalking.
It is oddly comforting to know that legal dim-wittedness is not confined to British courts.
http://www.local6.com/news/5441888/detail.html
It is oddly comforting to know that legal dim-wittedness is not confined to British courts.
http://www.local6.com/news/5441888/detail.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by coyn. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It appears from the report that no one is denying the man did it. Surely if the man suffers from something that makes him cause harm to people he should be locked up somewhere, even more so if he has no way at all of stopping it.
In this incarcaration is required to protect all.
It does seem a very strange story. Is it actually true or is there more that has not been reported ?
In this incarcaration is required to protect all.
It does seem a very strange story. Is it actually true or is there more that has not been reported ?
You would think that if he knew about his condition, then he would have to take measures to make sure that the worst couldn't happen. Failure to do so would mean that in spite of his illness he could still be held responisble. I can't think of a good example, but if you knew you suffered from frequent blackouts, putting yourself in a position where you were driving people around in a car would mean you would be responsible if you blacked out and crashed. It's not the same thing, but perhaps the sentiment is clearer.
I don't beleive it, so it must be made up!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3744226.stm
And anyone who suffers from epilepsy should also be locked up in case they one day decide to drive.
Anyone who smokes (people choose to risk heart attacks, cancer, blindness, amputation of limbs for a quick high - you couldn't mek it up) should also be locked up for their own good (as 40% of fires are caused by cigarettes).
Anyone who suffers from depression (really you think things are that bad - you couldn't make it up) should just be told to 'snap out of it'.
Lock them up quick!
Well this is the expert
http://www.uhnresearch.ca/researchers/profile.php?lookup=5468
Why don't you drop him a mail and explain what a fool he is?
Vic, perhaps I was not clear. HE should be locked up to protect the REST of us
How can you possibly say that someone like this can walk the streets raping whenever his mind makes him.
Eplilepsy is not the same, they dont go round hurting others, and you do loose your licence if epileptic. I know it happened to my brother.
I'm sure if he attacked you, your wife or mother you would think differently.
Of course if his problem can be controlled - no problem, control it and he can mix with society.
How can you possibly say that someone like this can walk the streets raping whenever his mind makes him.
Eplilepsy is not the same, they dont go round hurting others, and you do loose your licence if epileptic. I know it happened to my brother.
I'm sure if he attacked you, your wife or mother you would think differently.
Of course if his problem can be controlled - no problem, control it and he can mix with society.
Er.. youngmafbog, I'm pretty sure oneeyedvic got what you meant. I think what he's trying to say, just a teeny bit sarcastically, is that you can't go round locking people up without looking at the bigger picture.
However, you are completely correct that if he knew he had this condition, it is his responsibility to ensure that he is not a danger to others.
I understand that some people may find it hard to believe in such a condition, I honestly don't know anything about it so couldn't really comment although i'll admit it sounds a little far fetched, but that could have been said about a number of conditions before they are properly understood.
"how can I say that someone like this can walk the streets raping whenever his mind makes him"
Simple - I didn't.
"I'm sure if he attacked you, your wife or mother..."
This is a ridiculous argument - which is why we have laws in this country and not anarchy. Yes I am sure I would - but then I would also feel the same if someone ran over my wife or mother - should we lock up anyone who goes 1mph over the speed limit?
How about we lock all AIDS sufferers up as they may have a cut in the street and infect someone else.
Vic true you did not directly say it but you certainly implied it. Instead of quoting extreme examples why dont you state clearly your point of view. Should these people be removed from society or not ?
As for the expert being a fool. Did the expert state the man was not a danger ? If so I'll certainly write to him. However I suspect he just quoted his research without saying guilty or not guilty.
As for the expert being a fool. Did the expert state the man was not a danger ? If so I'll certainly write to him. However I suspect he just quoted his research without saying guilty or not guilty.
My point of view is very simple: I was not in court, I did not see or hear testimony from any of the people (including the specialist). I have not read any of his research papers (and can't say I'm inclined to unless I start suffering from insomnia).
There are very few 'sensible' sources that are giving unbiased viewpoints, so it is difficult to make a call.
I am simply pointing out, that just because somthing is not 'normal' and may only affect a minority of people, it does not make it non existant.
The majority of answers (and indeed the question) seem to ridicule the notion that someone can suffer from such an affliction.
Without knowing what can be done (the link I posted suggested psychotherapy can be beneficial) it is impossible to say that he should be locked up.
There's a happy balance between thes opposite ends of the argument that seems to be missed here. no we don't lock up everyone with AIDS, but people with AIDS have the responsibility to not infect others. We don't lock up people who smoke, but they have a responsibilty to put their fags out and not start fires. If they do start fires through negligence then we take them to court, and if people with AIDS infect others through negligence that also often ends up in court. So the bloke with sexomnia isn't immediately locked up as a danger, but has a responsibility to protect others from the potential situations that his condition could result in. I would have reservations in this case of him getting off scott free if he KNEW he was a potential danger beforehand, but not otherwise. If he does it again, then he will not have much of a case in my opinion
If you consider the story from the initial link and also some of the previous viewpoints. This man went to a bar met a lady and invited her back with him. Acted the gentleman and offered her his sofa while he slept upstairs!
Does anyone else not feel that this man, sexomnia condition or not, should not have set up a situation where he was free to assualt the lady and get away with it!
Latest Posts
Technology6 mins ago
ChatterBank40 mins ago
Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News41 mins ago
News42 mins ago
