Huh? 6 years for a blowjob vs. 3 years for killing a gay man

Very sick indeed. Hard to comprehend but no more difficult than the recent ruling giving enemies captured in battle outside of the US, all the rights of a US citizen. Our entire government is broken at every level. The entire thing has gone insane. We have people refusing to let the US increase domestic oil supplies for some mysterious reason. We have others in our Congress taking reduced mortgage payments from the TanMan at Countrywide in return for getting Fannie to buy all their fraudulent mortgage paper and turn a blind eye to their actions. Yet no one is protesting! Thats the Dems. The gutless republicans are too afraid they might offend someone or they are too busy enriching themselves.
I hear no one protesting Barney Franks blocking of Fannie regs and mortgage regulation 5 years ago. I am very familiar with this situation because I was very short Fannie at the time. The Dem appointed execs looted the institution and thought there was such a thing as truly being hedged,not realizing hedging is just an offsetting risk and both can go the wrong way. Yet no one is blaming Barney and the Dems bribed by the TanMan for our present financial crisis but there is reason to believe if Barney had let the Republicans put the regs they wanted on Fannie the present situation would not be nearly as dire as it is now. Fannie was buried in bad derivative deals after another ,hedge on top of hedge gone bad as far ago as 2002. Barney let the disaster continue unabated and we are where we are, but Republicans are to o blame for not winning that legislation. They controlled both offices of Congress and White House,yet Barney and media won. Amazing.
We are in the same place with oil today. I have traded Oil for over 30 years. Oil is at least 70 overpriced in my opinion. A simple announcement of drilling in Anwar,offshore,or on domestic government lands would cause oil to implode. Yet Dems will not do it. Instead they threaten to sue Opec? Are they insane,crooked,or idiots? At this point Republicans need to offer a compromise,some form of mandatory conservation in return for offshore drilling. The oil and gas will be flowing with 16 months,not the Ten that has been claimed by the Dems for the past 30 years.Just the announcement that the US plans to find new oil will pull one leg out from under the speculators chair. Another of course is higher interest rates. Oh well.
Three years for murder is truly a travesty but what do you expect in world gone mad to extremes on both sides?

Poor Jack, reduced to hijacking blogs, and all because Barney Frank refused Jack's advances.

Hey,if our government would just use the laws on the books we would have no problem. But more and more both sides want to determine what was in the persons mind who committed the crime. Hey,in my book,if you kill someone like this guy did,you deserve the max,whatever that might be. Just like you guys want to determine if someone hates someone when they commit crimes and then that person gets a harsher penalty than the person who committed the same crime but without hate. Mindreading. This is the same thing in reverse. They determined this dirtball didnt really want to kill the other person so he gets a light sentence.What does that have to do with the law?

Six years for a blowjob seems excessive,hell, 6 days seems excessive. Guy must have been giving some really bad head.

First -- Hey Jack -- why don't you just move then. Nothing will ever make you happy, so go be miserable in some "better" country. I didn't put my life on the line in Desert Storm for the likes of you anyway.

Back to the topic.

I don't think the problem is that the rapist got shafted, I think the murderer got off too lightly. There was nothing involuntary in his physical assault -- he may not have "meant" to kill him, but he certainly meant to hurt him. But for the fact that he decided to physically assault him, he would be alive today -- that sounds like murder to me. Perhaps not Murder in the 1st, but murder.

I'm actually shocked by your use of the phrase "technically he committed rape....". In my mind, you weren't just "politically incorrect" you were "incorrect". The fact is it was rape. Force or penetration isn't required (although he DID penetrate himself, didn't he). The real problem is that society generally minimizes male rape victims. Even worse -- the victims often do it to themselves too. Seeing things like this makes me so concerned for other men out there struggling with being a rape victim -- fearing that others will minimize or even stigmatize them for what happened. I did it to myself for years -- I rationalized away a rape, it was "my fault", etc, etc. I think we all need to stop protecting the perps and call things what they are. This scenario was a sexual assault, aka Rape. There may be some mitigating factors that would determine a different jail sentence, this story was slim on details -- but those mitigating factors could just as easily caused an increase in time as a decrease.

As a "victim" of male rape - I can assure you that you are as off base as I've ever seen you. Sexual assault, or ANY ASSAULT, should not be taken lightly, nor should the victim be trivialized. I would expect YOU to understand that.

Mike -- I'm assuming your personal experience with rape went well beyond someone giving you head who stopped as soon as you asked them to. If I'm right, then why should we be required to equate moral equivalency with your situation and the one outlined in the news story?

Another question -- if someone got drunk at an office party and made a pass at a coworker that included tongue (a sloppy French kiss), would that be "rape"? What about a quick grope? In other words, at what point does a sexual first step go from being a "pass" to a "rape"?

MtD sweetie -- I am over it. What I'm trying to do is help others - unlike you, I know it's not all about me. I have already raised a daughter, so I'm aware of your name calling being used to shock and I'm not biting.

Peter -- you are correct it was more, but that is not point. If the person who was assaulted felt violated, then who are we to minimize it and claim it is only "technically rape". It's not about the morally equivalency between my experience and his -- it is about trivializing his feelings. Granted, we don't have the whole story and if there was more to it, I'd be more than willing to pull back.
The biggest difference between your two scenarios and this one, is the perp took advantage of someone who was SLEEPING. It wasn't a pass, it wasn't a kiss, it was a sexual act started on someone who was not conscience -- I hope you can see the difference there.
Now, it may be that 6 yrs was an excessive sentence and there could very well be some homophobia driving it -- unless of course he has a history. My point is less about that than it is the general sense that a male rape victim is seen in a very different light than a woman. Think about the different reactions to a male teacher with a female student vs. the reaction to a female teacher with a male student. You often hear the "lucky him", "someone's got teach him", etc. That is my point. It's not the extent of the assault, it is the trivializing of the victim's event. I find it disturbing.
I'm convinced that folks, in general, would take it more seriously if a woman woke up with a man's tongue up in her.
One last thing -- he didn't stop because he was asked -- he stopped because he got caught!

Mike -- we're getting closer to agreeing with each other here. When I said the guy "technically committed a rape," I wasn't trying to belittle the guy's feelings per say. Instead, I wanted to belittle how our legal system categorized what happened in this case.

For instance, can you cite a single criminal case of an adult female being accused of rape for giving a blowjob to an adult male (straight or gay) while he was sleeping? I've never heard of such a case. I doubt I ever will.

I think the reason this guy went to the police was because it was a gay man who did the act. His sense of violation was almost entirely based on his disgust of gay men and gay sex. And the court was similarly disgusted.

Peter -- I actually think you are right about us getting closer.....
I wasn't thinking about the guy's potential homophobia being the catalyst to press charges I was assuming that both were gay.
That is a very good point -- an excellent one actually. Of course, we don't KNOW that, but it does give it a whole new angle to be viewed from now doesn't it.
thanks!

Mike,

I am in no way trying to trivialise what happened to you. I was, however, trying to trivialise what happened in that particular case. I know the law is against me on this, but I just don't see how the punishment fits the alleged crime in this case. Yes, it was an unwanted sexual advance which appears to have stopped when the guy said no. Personally, I think the guy should just get over himself. What trauma did he really suffer?

After I was raped I was traumatised for a long time, no only from the rape but from the police reaction. See, I was returning home from my boyfriends house and was literally run down and knocked semi unconscious by a guy with a knuckle duster on. He then dragged me into a toilet block and violently raped me. The police reaction, "serves you right for being in that park after dark faggot."

Just my two bobs worth.

Hi,

1. I don't think homophobia in necessarily involved. I'm a gay man. If I woke up and found a man I was not attracted to giving me a blow job I'd be disturbed. If I found a woman doing it I'd probably be even more disturbed. Would I press charged either way? Probably not but that's me. I don't think it inappropriate that they guy did. A sexual act was forced on someone who had no power to prevent it--that's a pretty serious violation of his rights.

2. Has anyone noticed that the actual sentence was six years WITH FOUR DISMISSED--in other words only TWO YEARS? And am I wrong to suppose that he might serve only a fraction of that? It's worth pointing out.

3. It occurs to me now that I have friends who have done what this guy did--got drunk with a straight friend, waited until the friend passed out, then blew him. In the carefree world of gay men (or straight men) this is something to laugh about, not something to prosecute about. But sometimes we forget how different our values may be to someone else's. The guy who woke up with his dick in another guy's mouth had a right to be disgusted. That his disgust may have been rooted in what you call "homophobia" does not mean the action was acceptable.

4. Now for the so-called murder. Can Mike really think that any act which results in death is murder--that we are all morally responsible for the unintended consequences of our acts to the same degree as if we had intended them? The man's crime was to punch another man. There are tens of thousands of men in the world who have punched other men without the least thought of killing them. In fact fights go on all the time in which numerous punches are exchanged and very, very few of them end up with a death. The terrible luck of this guy and his victim was that the latter did die--although he died from his head hitting the pavement, not from the punch--sounds like my idea of a freak accident. Now an appropriate punishment depends on the answers to many questions--how hard did he punch him? Why? Under what circumstances? In any case of course assault is a crime and should be punished. But to call the act murder--to view it as morally equivalent to an intentional killing--is pretty warped. By that logic we would have to punish as if for murder ever guy who's ever punched another guy--after all, their acts were the same as his, and if they didn't result in a death that was just their luck.

Ok -- It's been a while, but I had to comment on christopher's fourth statement.
I don't believe that I have ever said this murder was equal to pre-mediated murder -- this is why there are different legal classifications. Legally, you don't have to have "intention" to commit murder, so it isn't warped at all. You see, people are punished for both their illegal acts (assault and battery here) as well as the CONSEQUENCES of their acts (death here). So the logic you speak of at the end of your statement really is not logical at all. This man INTENDED to hurt this guy -- the fact that he died, means that the consequence of his act is a little more serious than if they guy walked away with a black eye. But for the fact that he was assaulted by this person, he would still be alive. The "warped logic" is really you saying that the punch didn't kill him, his head hitting the pavement did. If I push someone off a 20 story building (accidentally, of course), would you say that my push didn't kill the person, his body hitting the ground did??? Really???

Mike,

Thanks for the response. I actually checked this blog for several days after posting mine of July 9th and then stopped looking, so I only just saw it now.

I'm still extremely uncomfortable with using the word murder for cases where the death of the victim was not intended. I think what it boils down to for me is that "a single punch" is so unlikely to result in death that it seems quite unfair to me to treat it as murder. For comparison's sake, supposing I killed someone in an accident while driving drunk. It doesn't matter much that I didn't intend to kill anyone--everyone knows that a fatal accident is a likely result of drunk driving. Similarly, if this guy had punched his victim repeatedly or kicked him while he was on the ground, even if he intended only to hurt, not kill the victim, he would still be morally responsible for his death, and deserve a harsher sentence. (I think that was the point of the jury refusing to find "malicious intent"--of course the intent, to hurt someone, was malicious, but from one punch we simply cannot infer the kind of malice that extended beatings would imply.) But for "a single punch" to result in death is a pretty rare abberation, don't you think? I think that's the point of the language about the victim's "head hitting the ground": there was something of the nature of a freak accident about his death, which makes it difficult to say "the punch killed him."

I'm also pretty surprised how little comment there is on the age of the aggressor here--nineteen--and the fact that, however unfortunate, getting into fights outside bars is pretty routine behavior among large swaths of young men all over the world. It seems really harsh that someone so young should have his life ruined for it. So sorry, I still think the punishment should fit the actual act--one punch gets a fairly light punishment; hitting someone repeatedly with a baseball bat something harsher--rather than focussing on the tragic but pretty freakish result.

Since I agree so completely with Mike on the other half of the question--the rape--I hope we can understand each other on this too. As for the original blog post, I'm still a little shocked at the misleading nature of it: "Six Years for a Blow Job, Three Years for Killing a Man" turns out to mean "Two Years for Rape, Three Years for a Single Punch". Then sweeping statements about our justice system--the worst in the world?--are made when on inspection the decisions in these cases seemed more or less reasonable. Ironically, far from a case in which the criminal's or the victim's being gay led to distorted sentences, it seems that it is we who are being led to distorted reasoning by it. If the victim in the second case had not been gay, if it had been some random nineteen-year-old punching another once, for whatever reason, and the single punch resulting, freakishly, in death, would we still feel that the aggressor deserved to spend many years in jail as a murderer?