In sweden, its LEGAL to rape an aspie!

Post Reply New Topic

Ill be sure to stay clear from Sweden then and Im a Guy.

Dagens Nyheter, 23 March 2012, Editorial.

One-eyed Judges Society
Signed — Hanne Kjöller


Men can not be raped, wrote Märta Tikkanen 35 years ago. Appearantly, girls with asperger's can't be raped either.

An evening last summer a 17-year-old girl eloped from a psychiatric clinic for children and youth where she was hospitalised since several mounths. She got on a train, got off in a neighbouring town, where she wandered around "planlessly", it says in the sentence that described what happened.

She is approached by a boy who asks, together with his crowd, if she wants to tag along to a party. She doesn't. The girl has Asperger's syndrome and social contacts are difficult for her.

She finally went along anyway. According to witnesses she sat alone in a sofa while the others were dancing and playing music. She was offered vodka and finally she fell asleep where she was sitting.

According to her account she is awakened by the boy who invited her. He and another boy pull her up and drag her to the toilet. At that time everyone else had gone home. The other boy, we can call him Max, then pushes out the first boy from the toilet and locks the door.

Max tries to remove her trousers. She tries to get away. Max raises his voice saying that she must stop trying to escape, for otherwise he might get violent. He removes her trousers, pushes her up against the sink and rapes her. She begs him to stop. She vomits in a waste basket. Then she can't remember anything until she wakes up alone on the toilet floor.

Later in the night a police car on patrol notice a thinly dressed, shy young woman. The police realize that something has happened and try to talk to her, but she won't talk easily. The police don't feel any smell of alcohol and she doesn't appear to be intoxicated.

Finally the police at least get her to say that she has eloped from the hospital in the neighbouring city. They drive here there and report to the staff that it seems that something has happened.

Now the whole thing unfolds. Max, who is a rather hardened criminal although he's born in the Nineties, denies even having had sex with the teen girl. When his sperm is found he changes his story and says that they first kissed and made out, and then went to the toilet, that she undid his trousers and bent over for him to insert his penis.

Neither the district court nor the court of appeal believe a word of this. A testimony from a senior psychiatrist describes how the girl eschews all forms of physical contact, even a friendly tap on the arm. She has never had a relation involving kisses and hugs.

The district court sentence Max to two years in prison for rape. The court of appeal acquit him. This is where things get really unpleasant.

For on the whole, the court of appeal make the same assessment as the district court. They state that the girls acount, though scanty in words and expression, has been "clear, detailed and devoid of inconsistencies". That there has not been any signs of exaggeration and that she is credible, whereas Max' account is gainsaid by the testimonies of both a physician and of the others at the party.

"By way of conclusion the court of appeal find that there are very strong arguments supporting the claim that the plaintiff has against her will been subject to sexual assault", the court writes, and then it goes on to say why Max should still be acqitted.

It is because the young woman in the police interviews had difficulties finding words to describe for instance vaginal intercourse, finding words for whether it happened from the front or from behind, and other things in the sexual world of which she knows nothing. It is because she said herself that she was confused when she met the police and did not really understand what had happened.

"These memory problems" and unclear statements regarding whether the penetration occured from the front or from behind "calls into question whether the plaitiff's memories are altogether correct".

Max is acquitted because the girl's "modes of expression might have been difficult to interpret". Ergo: Because the girl was so weired it was impossible for Max to understand that she—who never allows any form of touch—was not willing.

Here the court of appeal opens for a new take on consent. The mentally ill, the ret*d, the demented, or others with "modes of expression difficult to interpret" simply have to accept being raped because the layers do not think that they say no in the right way.

Håkan Hydén and Karsten Åström are professors in sociology of law at Lund university. Their view is that legal decision making primarily means interpreting social reality and secondarily the law. In a debate article they write that in 75 percent of all trials the main issue is the essessment of testimonies and the ability to understand the situation surrounding the legal matter (Sydsvenska Dagbladet, 13 March, 2012).

All people have prejudices. And all people are governed by them.

In order to make rational decisions one must first be aware of one's own thoughts, images and conceptions.

The guild of judges as a whole seem moderately interested in this. Instead they go on interpreting reality from their own frames of reference. Without understanding the fact that this is happening.

Hanne Kjöller
[email protected]

So we could be like Sweden in 20 years, and it makes me worry.

This information should be considered together with what P.R. [long time clinician, specializing in ASD and A:s doctor] testified about A:s established and documented difficulties, which includes an extreme reluctancy to engage in any physical contact with anybody, and she shys away when anyone in the surroundings tries to make physical contact with her, like a friendly pat on the shoulder. Even though A had consumed alcohol, which she most likely is not familiar with, it appears unreasonably unlikely that her disorders and reluctancy towards physical contact should make such a profound change in her behaviour that she should engage in the behaviour described by J.P. [the accused] and especially with a total stranger.Considering these statements from P.R., the story of J.P. is regarded as obviously truthless.

Regarding the just mentioned statements, Tingsrätten trusts the description of the events from A and concludes that it is without doubts established that J.P. forced A into this chain of events with violence and threats of more violence. Tingsrätten goes with the prosecutor and this deed is to be regarded as rape.

In conclusion, Hovrätten is aware that there are strong reasons to believe that A against her will has been subject to sexual abuse.

On the other hand she has some hesitations in her statements, adding the fact that her expressions might have been hard to interpret for J.P. and there is also no independent proof that gives A:s story enough support. This makes it impossible to judge without doubts that J.P. consciously forced intercourse upon her in the way the prosecutor claims.

The indictment is therefore to be dismissed.

There is more to this story. Bloggers often tend to put only their own take on a situation into their postings, so I dug a little deeper.


http://www.fark.com/cgi/go.pl?i=7012089&s=1

There doesn't seem to be a whole not more in depth information about this case that's very easy to find on the web. Not yet anyway.

This is just sad... poor girl i feel like the world isn't fair to us but what could we do? Nobody wants to listen to a bunch of aspies they just don't care.