Why is he crying? Laura Huteson death

Meanwhile, in Canada...
This POS claims the same "rough sex gone wrong". But in a twist, he and his lawyer are claiming leniency in sentencing, because he (supposedly) got PTSD from strangling Catherine Campbell (36), and off-duty police officer.

"Pink [defence lawyer] argues Garnier should serve 10 years behind bars — 10 years for the second-degree murder charge and two years for interfering with a dead body, with the sentences to be served concurrently.

He said Garnier should be on the lower end of that spectrum because he has been described as a "kind, caring person" who has shown remorse for the killing, which Garnier has argued happened accidentally during rough sex. The lawyer also included 31 letters of support from friends and family."

The diagnosis of PTSD came from a psychiatrist hired by the defence.

There were 10 victim impact statements, but 31 letters of support for him, being the Nice Guy he is. They met at a bar just a few hours before he murdered her.

This is DARVO in the courtroom. No justice for murdered women.

- understanding that the rules around ‘sex games’ which the relevant community promotes would NOT include:
- that you have just met, before agreeing to do a life-threatening ‘sex game’
- that games involving fantasies of submission and domination do NOT acceptably translate into any real life situation where the submissive person’s life can be non-culpably taken

-that men who are having sex must take responsibility for their contribution to the safety and well-being of their partner whether they think she consents to doing something dangerous or not. (And Including when they ‘don’t recall’ or ‘didn’t hear’ an objection from the victim)
-The responsibility for NOT Killing always lies with the (potential or actual) killer.
- this obligation can never be delegated to the victim. The victim is not required to speak, utter a ‘safe word’ or perform a ‘safe action’, nor otherwise act to defend herself to STOP the killer from killing.

All excellent points, these ones particularly.

we ask judges to treat the consent as irrelevant if death results, or if a living complainant brings a case stating that an abusive and violent sexual experience happened.?

YY to this, and the rest of your comment Chatty
All perfectly logical.

Another 6 year one!

This should be highly relevant- on the man who strangled Chloe Miazek:

During the hearing, Bruce’s lawyer said his client accepted he did not get consent from his victim to choke her.

What the fucking fuck?

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1448262/man-jailed-for-six-years-after-killing-20-year-old-chloe-miazek-in-aberdeen-flat/

Bowel punctures and vaginal lacerations are common in women of reproductive age.

Overwhelmingly the majority are seen during childbirth.

It sickens me that this is part of 'sex play' as well.

Haven't rtft yet but may be worth collating all these "sex games gone wrong" as I suspect there are an appalling number of them.

Here was one where this woman's injuries (in addition to strangulation) were so severe that her bowel was punctured. Not murder, apparently:

www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/our-daughter-was-killed-then-they-destroyed-her-1-1299637

He pleaded guilty to the charge brought before him.

I'm not sure what that charge was.

In pleading guilty it meant that there wasn't a jury but a judge for his trial.

Fucking hell, 6 years'. How? Her family must be absolutely shattered by this. Manslaughter for someone who keeps a knife under his pillow specifically to hold against the throat of women he has sex with, is that not the fucking definition of premeditated?

It is clear to anyone with more than 2 brain cells that this violent, misogynistic scum was building up to to this. Any previous acts were mere practice.

I think that what would need to happen is that a prosecution developed an argument in court, for a specific case, that "sex games gone wrong" constitutes high, or very high, culpability under the new sentencing guidelines. The time span of the negligent behaviour seems to be the main plank to show - so, like I say, this guy keeping a knife under his pillow, presumably for regular use in this way, would show a lengthy time span of negligent behaviour?

But I am no legal expert.

then perhaps there should be a new crime of eg ‘death by dangerous fucking’ like there is with dangerous driving.

Sad but true.

A case a few years ago in portugal involved a 91 year old woman who died following 'a sex game gone wrong' or murder as I prefer to call it

The age is not a typo

I wondered if this organisation might be helpful: justice.org.uk/our-work/areas-of-work/criminal-justice-system/prosecuting-sexual-offences/

Their membership includes other possibly relevant criminal justice organisations: criminaljusticealliance.org/members/

I read a media report on this case, they just kept on and on repeating that she'd met him the same night they had sex. I had to stop reading. The fucking cheek of the insinuation that she wasn't a good woman so I guess we're meant to take that into account. I hope her family aren't reading the reports.

Of course

Ugh that could have done with an edit.

I worry that judges apply outdated standards to their judgements from their own long ago experience and in effect they are naive around-

-the desensitising nature of sexually violent porn being presented as ‘normal’ to porn consumers. 24/7 availability on a smart phone to any adult or child with next to no regulation at all. Commercial forces dictate these are becoming more extreme to attract and retain viewers who are increasingly desensitised.

-the exacerbating psychological and physical effects of drugs on these scenarios. Cocaine especially is disinhibiting and physically desensitising making orgasm harder to achieve. Leading to solipsistic approach and greater physical force in the sexual encounter. Also alcohol disinhibits and numbs.

• understanding that the rules around ‘sex games’ which the relevant community promotes would NOT include:
• that you have just met, before agreeing to do a life-threatening ‘sex game’
• that games involving fantasies of submission and domination do NOT acceptably translate into any real life situation where the submissive person’s life can be non-culpably taken
• that it is a consentibg sex game where there is no relationship of trust built up with that person before the sex game (so a long term abusive relationship that starts ‘playing sex games’ before an incident of harm or death is not OK by this standard, because she does not trust him due to the abuse)
• that the most recent consent to do with this sex game (ie relating to the pertinent occasion- and regardless of any victim’s history of ‘sex games’ interest before) must be regarded as void l, if the complainant or dead woman or the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

• this obligation can never be delegated to the victim. The victim is not required to speak, utter a ‘safe word’ or perform a ‘safe action’, nor otherwise act to defend herself to STOP the killer from killing.

I read a media report on this case, they just kept on and on repeating that she'd met him the same night they had sex. I had to stop reading. The fucking cheek of the insinuation that she wasn't a good woman so I guess we're meant to take that into account. I hope her family aren't reading the reports.

I can't even say much more about it. That absolute scum will likely be out in 3 years.

Or there is another possible pragmatic argument given the misogynistic courtroom environment?

If judges believe the myth that something particular is going on when a man has sex (ie that sex compromises the man’s normal awareness, such that the man is more likely to unknowingly/unheedingly seriously injure and/or kill his sexual partner and can’t really be blamed for this).. while the partner of the man is of course uniquely vulnerable and accessible to the man to hurt or kill while they are having sex:

then perhaps there should be a new crime of eg ‘death by dangerous fucking’ like there is with dangerous driving.

This would not challenge the bullshit of the (male) fucktrance but it would subvert it by creating a new special circumstance in which the accused is obliged to take on a specific responsibility not to kill or hurt another person to whom they have unique access to during the occasion of them being sexual partners.

This new duty of care would intend to recognise that sex (with men) can be a potentially dangerous scenario for women.

Not sure if any of this makes much sense or does the job we need.. any lawyers around?

I’m trying to think about good points for letterwriting. I’m not a lawyer and am wondering what the most effective actions will be that we could to call on judges and others to do?

Is it best to call for ‘sex games gone wrong’ to be regarded no longer permissible as a defence in these scenarios at all?

So, even if there WAS provable consent by victims to take part in that instance of the claimed ‘sex game’ (and certainly ignoring defendants who just claim there was consent to a dangerous sex game without proof) ... we ask judges to treat the consent as irrelevant if death results, or if a living complainant brings a case stating that an abusive and violent sexual experience happened.?

This seems reasonable to adopt because we know that abusers and murderers do use ‘sex games’ or ‘sex games gone wrong’ as a cover.

The community who are into consented sex games assert that all the power in the game is with the submissive person, so surely it would fit with that to conclude that if sex games are played according to their ‘rules’, then sex games should create zero harm to the person who was submissive in the game. (Harm as defined only by that person’s subjective definition of harm)

So if there complaint of harm arising from what the defence says was a ‘sex game’, or if a death arises from a claimed ‘sex game’ then:

By definition that episode was NOT a sex game and it was abuse. Because either

• the victim pressing this case hadn’t consented to the hurt she complains of. That hurt was NOT what she had wanted (even if at some point she had said yes to sex or to some another type of hurt) so it was abusive because lack of consent.

Or
Victim is dead, her death could not have been as part of a sex game with her consent because sex games rely on consent (otherwise they are just abuse) and nobody can consent to being killed. A fatal ‘sex game’ happened by definition without her capacity to have consented to it therefore it is fatal abuse, (ie murder) by the perpetrator.

So defendants who have harmed or killed women could no longer rely on ‘we were playing a sex game and I didn’t hear her say the safe word’ as a defence.

This I think would make no change or interference to the private sex lives of those who enjoy sex games with mutual consent but would remove the cover of ‘sex games’ from those who seek to abuse partners.

A defence account given of ‘sex games gone wrong’ therefore becomes an admission of abuse, so that should be considered an aggravating factor at sentencing. (Certainly not any mitigation as it would appear to be at present).

Defendants would not be able to absolve themselves of their normal everyday responsibility not to kill other people just by saying ‘sex game’ any more and they would have to rely on finding other mitigations for their actions to defend themselves.

Try Milly Gentleman at the Guardian.

I can PM her email.

Would Janice Turner at the Times be interested I wonder?

So I've been looking at the proposed new guidelines for gross negligence manslaughter sentencing. Most of the advice concerns workplace or professional negligence - eg Grenfell or employers with dangerous working conditions.

The new guidelines allow for maximum sentences of 18 years for very high culpability:

High culpability under the draft Manslaughter Guideline has a custodial sentence starting point of eight years and a category range of six to 12 years’ custody; ‘very high’ a starting point of 12 years’ custody and a range of 10-18 years’ custody.

one of the suggested factors in the draft Manslaughter Guideline indicating high culpability is where the negligent conduct persists over “weeks or months”

www.kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/gross-negligence-manslaughter-custodial-sentences-under-review

It's difficult to put legal advice about workplace issues into this context - but surely a man who kept a knife under his pillow for sex encounters has established persistent negligent conduct?

That’s really great Science.