"Sex by Surprise"

[hootinholler]

Seems like Mr Assange *is* guilty of sex by surprise: Hey U.S.! Surprise! You're Fucked!

-Hoot

[undeterred]

1. Is that a crime in the US?

Or would he just get credit for being "spontaneous"? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

2. "Sex by Surprise"? Is that the hot new Club Cocktail?

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

3. If I GET to have sex, it's usually a surprise.

...just sayin'...

[WillyT]

4. I Hate It When That Happens...

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

:yoiks:

[TorchTheWitch]

5. care to tell us what "sex by surprise" is?

Apparently, Assange's attorney doesn't know. He'd rather try to make people believe that Sweden is so crazy that it has some looney law that makes having sex without a condom a rape charge. What's sad and scary is that anyone actually believes it.

[snagglepuss]

7. Are you serious? Do you think his lawyer is making up sex by surprise?

I think you need to spend some time on google.

[msanthrope]

9. A criminal defense attorney just making shit up? Yeah...that NEVER happens.

Mischaracterizing the charges in order to sway public opinion--to force authorities to drop charges?

Yeah, that never happens.

I wonder if someone could provide the actual statute?

Seriously--can someone provide the actual statute known as 'sex by surprise' in the Swedish code?

[tekisui]

11. He was previously charged with sex by surprise. It seems he now faces

more serious charges. I don't know the language of the actual law referenced in the Penal code after each section, but these are the sections referred to by the director of prosecution.

The matter concerning Mr. Assange

Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.

See Chapter 6, On Sexual Crimes, sections 1, 2, and 7.

See also Chapter 4, On Crimes against Liberty and Peace, section 7

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

From the Swedish Penal Code:
Chapter 6

On Sexual Crimes

Section 1

A person who by violence or threat which involves, or appears to
the threatened person to involve an imminent danger, forces another
person to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable
sexual act, that having regard to the nature of the violation and the
circumstances in general, is comparable to enforced sexual
intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least
two and at most six years. Causing helplessness or a similar state of
incapacitation shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.
If having regard to the nature of the violence or the threat and
the circumstances in general, the crime is considered less serious, a
sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed.
If the crime is gross, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four
and at most ten years shall be imposed for gross rape. In assessing
whether the crime is gross, special consideration shall be given to
whether the violence involved a danger to life or whether the
perpetrator caused serious injury or serious illness or, having regard
to the method used or the victim's youth or other circumstances,
exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality. (Law 1998:393)

Section 2

A person who, under circumstances other than those defined in
Section 1, makes someone engage in a sexual act by unlawful
coercion shall be sentenced for sexual coercion to imprisonment for
at most two years.
If the person who committed the act exhibited particular
ruthlessness or if the crime is otherwise considered gross, a sentence
of at least six months and at most four years shall be imposed for
gross sexual coercion. (Law 1992:147)

Section 7

If a person sexually touches a child under fifteen years of age
otherwise than as previously provided in this Chapter, or induces
the child to undertake or participate in an act with sexual
implication a fine or imprisonment for at most two years shall be
imposed for sexual molestation.
A sentence for sexual molestation shall also be imposed on a
person who by coercion, seduction or other improper influence
induces a person who has attained the age of fifteen but not eighteen
to undertake or participate in an act with sexual implication if the
act is an element in the production of pornographic pictures or
constitutes pornographic posing in circumstances other than those
relating to the production of a picture.
This shall also apply if a person exposes himself or herself in
such a manner that the nature thereof gives offence or otherwise
manifestly behaves indecently by word or deed towards the latter in
a way that flagrantly violates a sense of propriety. (Law
1994:1499)


Chapter 4

On Crimes against Liberty and Peace

Section 7

A person who physically molests or by discharging a firearm,
throwing stones, making loud noise or other reckless conduct
molests another, shall be sentenced for molestation to a fine or
imprisonment for at most one year. (Law 1993:207)
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf

On edit: These changed charges are still arising from the same claim, from the same two women. The prosecutor still concedes that the women admit the sex was consensual.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

[TorchTheWitch]

12. tell us what the law IS

What is the "sex by surprise" law? Have you read Sweden's penal code? Do you REALLY believe there is such a law in Sweden that if you have sex without a condom that's rape? Is ANYONE that stupid to really believe that?

If Sweden does have a law that says that if sex is consented to with the stipulation that a condom is used and the condom is not used without the consent of the person that stipulated that it be used then GOOD. Because any time consent is withdrawn even during the sex act and sex is commenced anyway it's rape. Is there something with that you have a PROBLEM with? Is there something you don't understand or don't agree with that about sex becoming rape during the sex act if the partner refuses to adhere to whatever stipulations the consent was given under and continuing to commence the sex once there is no longer consent being rape? Don't you find it tragic that only Sweden seems to realize that such a law is necessary to protect those people that have withdrawn their consent during the act but their partner continued to have sex with them anyway even when they were told to stop? Or do you believe that once someone has agreed to have sex with a person that any of their stipulations about how it could be conducted in order for them to have agreed to give their consent be ignored and anything goes even when they tell the person to stop?

Isn't it interesting that neither Assange's current attorney that brought up this "sex by surprise" law that he says he doesn't know what it is and Assange's previous attorney that was the AUTHOR of that ridiculous Herald Sun article both describe this law as having different penalties and neither describe it fully or accurately? That they both try to make it appear that Sweden has some outrageously absurd law that makes having sex without a condom a rape charge? You don't find it interesting that the Herald Sun article describes the law differently within the same article and NEITHER description is accurate? Don't you find it interesting that both of these Assange attorneys who are the only ones to bring this up are trying to make it appear that Sweden is nuts and has some bizzaro law neither of which is willing to describe accurately and both of which describe different penalties for? Assange's current attorney says the penalty is a misdemeanor punishable by a small fine, and Assange's previous attorney who wrote that ridiculous Herald Sun article says that it is a rape charge with the penalty being prison time as Sweden's rape charges describe?

Maybe you're the one who needs to spend some time with Google. FIND ME this law with an accurate and full description by an unbiased source (hint: one of Assange's attorneys in NOT an unbiased source). Good luck on that. Frankly, I would like to see an accurate and full description of this law, and if such a law exists I'm willing to bet cash money that it describes a legitimate reason for a rape charge by anyone's standards... at least anyone that doesn't have rapist views and believes that once someone agrees to having sex that anything goes even when stipulations that were given are ignored and/or they were told to stop during the sex and were ignored. I'd really like to see WHY it is that both of these Assange attorneys have not described this supposed law fully and are making it appear that Sweden is crazy and has some whackadoodle law making rape charges applicable in situations that no one in their right mind would agree is appropriate.

Why is it that YOU and so many other people here are NOT interested in what this law actually is and what exactly it means and are more willing to believe that Sweden is nuts because two of Assange's attorneys say so?

Here's Sweden's penal code:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf

Have you read it? Have you bothered to look for it? Maybe it's you that needs to do some googling. Let me know what you find. I'll tell you what I found - NOTHING. See, I HAVE been using google and several other search engines and haven't found one thing that describes that this law even exists much less what it fully and accurately entails, and I most certainly find it interesting that only two Assange attorneys are the ones who brought it up and are NOT willing to say what it is and what all it entails and are trying to make it appear that the country of Sweden has lost its collective mind.

[On the Road]

13. I Think It's Like This:

[Lucinda]

14. O.o

:rofl:

I'll never look at a banana the same way again.

[RandomThoughts]

6. Yea but it took years to set up the system for them to do it to themselves.

Decades I would guess. Quite fascinating actually, but it finally fits together.

There were groups that barred people from speaking, and ignored many in hardship not trying to help them, true you should not take in bad things, but you still can be kind.

But in there gated communities, how did they treat people, they treated them as if they did not exist, barred there speech, and put them out of their thoughts.

From that they will end up alone.

It is actually in this song now that I think about it. Guess sharing thoughts and listening to people is a form of protection also.

Mandolin Rain.
http://www.videocure.com/video/17623.html

It is really sad they can't hear it.



How do you think him listening to music 'took the chill from the air' do you understand that.
'washing her away' do you understand that.
'Once again' Do you understand it?

That is not bad, it is washing, and going back to 'once again'.

[Odin2005]

8. Who ever wrote that Swedish law needs to be smacked in the head.

What were they thinking? I'm betting that some asshole got a bunch of people infected with HIV because he didn't tell his one-night-stands he was infected, and the government responded with a poorly thought out law.

[guitar man]

10. When I was a teenager

It was like that, I was suprosed anytime I had sex :rofl: