Ok so how does this sentence for GBH make sense when compared to the "rough sex gone wrong" defence?

[QoFE]

Body modification artist 'Dr Evil' admits GBH against customers

Link

Basically the court disagreed with his line that the consent of his paying customers made the body modification legal.

But.... Men get light touch sentences for saying that a woman consented to violent sexual activity that resulted in her death?

WTF?

"McCarthy took his case to the court of appeal but it was rejected. In their 12-page ruling, the three appeal court judges, including the lord chief justice of England and Wales [....] said it was not in the public interest that a person could wound another for no good reason"

So paying someone and providing written consent is not good reason, but sexy time that ends in death of a woman is?

erm......

no. I've got nothing

case 1 - the victim consented to violence, this is a valid defence
case 2 - the victim consented to violence, but this is not a valid defence

I really don't see the difference

I know Mac (same social and professional circles, although I’ve not seen him face to face in a few years) and I think this ruling is a load of bollocks.

Mac’s ‘extreme’ procedures result in less long-term repercussions than GRS - they are cosmetic only and don’t even incur the same physical risk as a general anaesthetic.

All body mods (including tattoos) should only be available to adults who are capable of understanding the risks, imo - Mac followed the same line professionally.

I haven’t checked in with him, but I would imagine the guilty plea is more to do with not having the finances to keep defending than an acceptance of doing harm - he has a young family to consider.kk

I'm not talking about GRS though?

I realise that, just putting it in context of the board.

What the difference is, imo, is that Mac wasn’t initiating pain for sexual gratification - the desired end result was a permanent or semi permanent body alteration, requested by the customer, who was not intoxicated, and had provided written consent in advance,

In the ‘sex game gone wrong’ defence, the orgasm of the inflicter is the aim.

Yy I get all that.

What I'm confused about is why courts are accepting the defence that the victim consented to being harmed when it's a rough-sex-gone-wrong defence but are standing firm that people can't consent to be harmed in this case.

It seems like a discrepancy to me.

I'm not trying to say what he did was as bad btw.

I'm confused as to why it's so clear to the legal system in this instance but so unclear in other far worse cases!

It is a discrepancy, for sure.

Conjecture, but I would imagine it’s the difference in a judge’s perception between a white, straight, middle class, man who reminds the judiciary of their younger self and the ‘other’, whether that be a tattooed/modded person such as Mac, a woman, a working class person or a black person.

It’s the old boys network taking care of itself, as always.

Mac hasn’t killed anyone, and any pain inflicted is side effect, rather than goal.
I’m tattooed from neck to toe, but I sure as shit don’t give a man permission to choke me to death during sex.

Also men in rough sex cases say the woman consented as a defence (like in rape cases) and since she is dead she can't say she didn't. When you look at those cases it is extremely unlikely that the woman consented, it's just sheer abuse and murder, not even manslaughter.

Briefly, but AIR there is clear legal precedent (R v Brown) that you cannot use consent as a defence to GBH.

The difference with rough sex may be intent - there is no question that Mr. Earchopper intended to remove his customer's ear, so his only defence is that he was asked to do so.

Whereas Mr Rapeybastard can claim in court that his partner 'liked it rough', but there was no intent to cause 'serious harm'. I think for example erotic asphyxiation is obviously very dangerous but proving that the person intended to kill would be very difficult especially when e.g. the killer can try to show the victim expressed some sort of enthusiasm for the activities involved

So you would have to outlaw 'risky sex' or at least make those involved with it fully culpable for 'accidents' and the usual suspects would be all over that

What the difference is, imo, is that Mac wasn’t initiating pain for sexual gratification

If I'm understanding it correctly, the point of the OP is precisely that this shouldn't make an iota of difference. The magic erection that makes everything OK is bullshit.

This man didn't get an erection so he didn't have the right to inflict physical harm on consenting adults, but this other man did get an erection so the harm he inflicted was somehow better? If anything it should be quite the other way around and I'd certainly look much more favourably on a man who carried out body modifications like this than on a self-confessed sexual sadist.

Though it makes you wonder why cosmetic surgeons aren't being prosecuted on the same grounds.

It;s empathy. The judge can more easily identify with the man who is in court for 'bad sex gone wrong', than he can with the 'body modification artist.

There are other cases like this. Judges essentially letting well educated young white men who have abused women because they don't want the young man's promising career to come to an abrupt halt.

It shouldn’t make any difference - imo injury of another in the pursuit of your own orgasm should make the whole thing worse.

I’m sure in legal terms Mary is correct and that it’s intent that is the crucial factor - however, seeing as intent is much harder to establish when the main witness for the prosecution is as ‘dead as a doughnut’ the law clearly needs a review.

Mac has not yet been sentenced, but if he ends up if he ends up with a stiffer penalty than John Broadburst, then justice surely has not been served?

www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/dead-doughnut-how-multi-millionaire-15536576

(PS, I do think we’re all in agreement on this thread, just the individual phrasing makes it seem like we are talking at cross purposes)

In English law you can’t consent to actual bodily harm or serious bodily harm unless it’s an exception like surgery, tattooing, boxing, horseplay (yeah, I know.) Sexual gratification is absolutely NOT an exempted activity. But in practice the law is very flexible on this point...

In the modification case the reason, it seems, why modifications weren’t treated as tattoos is because the court thought it was more like practicing surgery without a license. The activity was risky and wasn’t regulated enough so they decided to charge with GBH and wounding.

In sex cases, bdsm is not supposed to be any defence ( per Brown) but the courts have been biased and reluctant to prosecuted when straight couples are involved. There was a case where a husband (who was abusive btw) branded his wife with a hot poker, and that was ok because “the marital bed is private”.

Finally in the Broadhurst case there’s an old case (slingsby) which established that if someone gets hurt during a lawful activity like sex then it’s not GBH. So it was “lawful” to put a bottle inside her vagina, and any damage caused was an “accident”. The law is currently in a position where women cannot consent to being hurt by being caned or whipped (technically), but they can consent to hurt and injury which stems from objects being put in their body. It’s a mess, to be honest.

In the Broadhurst case, consent was not an issue (at least in the end) as he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Surely that is still an issue, if he claims manslaughter that can be over enthusiastic consensual sexual activity gone too far. If she didn't consent it's rape gone too far. Some of these women were so badly abused it's impossible to believe consent. They plead manslaughter to avoid murder charge