Monday, February 18, 2008
I Don’t Understand Your Defense
If I understand it correctly, a man accused of sexually assaulting and killing an model in the UK is offering up a very strange defense:
- I didn’t kill her, I just found her after the initial assault--in her driveway, in a pool of blood, having been stabbed seven times.
- Instead of calling for help or finding out if she was still alive, he looked on this battered woman and found himself overcome with lust.
- So, he had sex with her before realizing that she was already dead.
- Because that makes things better. Somehow.
First, this is the least believable defense I’ve ever heard--Mark Dixie is admitting to raping Sally Anne Bowman, who had been viciously assaulted, because he didn’t realize that she was deceased and he couldn’t control his sexual urges. Am I missing something?
Apparently Mr. Dixie thinks that explanation sounds plausible and (somewhat) reasonable. I think it sounds so seriously screwed up that no reasonable society could possibly accept the idea of you remaining free to rape and brutalize women ever again--the only two options available are life imprisonment with no chance of parole or death. A man who would rape a presumably unconscious woman as she bled to death (the most charitable reading of his defense in that it assumes that he thought she was unconscious instead of dead) can never, ever be trusted in civilized society again.
Of course, it’s much easier to believe that he’s lying and that he’s a brutal, murdering, rapist and the need to keep him locked up is even more obvious.
His barrister makes things worse by adding this to the “defense”:
Commenting on the charge of murdering Miss Bowman, Anthony Glass QC, defending, said: “It is, you may think, a very unattractive defence.
“He did not know she was dead until intercourse was concluded.
“Even though you may think his conduct is disgusting, he allowed his lust to get the better of him.”
I know it’s just a title, but I’m still guessing that the Queen would not be amused with the Queen’s Counsel in this instance…
Comments & Trackbacks
Well, sure the defense is a bit implausible but after all it is Britain ... given the state of british society they may find it more believable than you or I do.
Plausible or not, I think it comes down to a sentencing advantage. Murder + necrophilia apparently has a longer incarceration than rape + negligence (not getting her care).
After thinking about it further, I think the barrister is basically trying to shift the crime to an action of uncontrollable passion, which in liberalized societies like the UK, means shifting the blame to society or upbringing, i.e., he needs help, not jail time.
I’m of the firm belief that his problem is high blood pressure. In his case, the appropriate blood pressure is 0/0.
I am 100% sure this was a plot of an episode of a TV crime drama. I think it was on one of the Law & Orders.
Has anyone asked the Archbishop of Canterbury his opinion on the case?
Doug, I changed my mind. You are hereby required to attend
my birthday partythe RMBB.As for this guy, man oh lordy. I personally have very loose standards on what I consider hot. As in, doormats can get me going in the proper context. However, people with holes in them oozing blood? No one but serial killers find that hot.
I’ve been told I have a tendency to be a doormat, but I doubt that’s what gets you hot.
If he’s into necrophilia, I think they should ask her family if he can be buried with her. They wouldn’t even need to kill him first.
Disturbing story. Disturbing thread.
I think I’ll do a little work now…