Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

[joshcryer]

282. "against a person's will" and...

"A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state."

Are the same effective type of law.

If "the circumstance in general" are that protection be used do you not agree that not using protection would violate the circumstances in general? I think that it's not worded clearly or at least the translation is lost somewhat, but as far as I can tell it's about consent and the will of the partners. I cannot conceive of how a condom not being used on a sleeping person who requests one be used isn't rape here in the United States.

A prosecutor might not even go for it though here though. It'd tough to prove.