Nova Scotia man gets 18 months for poking holes in girlfriend's condoms

[Swede]

HALIFAX - A Nova Scotia man convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend's condoms and having intercourse with her was given an 18-month prison sentence Friday in a case the Crown said was without precedent.

Craig Hutchinson, 41, attempted to hug his father but was pulled back by officers and taken into custody after he was sentenced in provincial Supreme Court in Halifax.

Judge Richard Coughlan said Hutchinson's pre-meditated actions in piercing the condoms and his breach of trust with the woman were aggravating factors in the case.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/crown-seeks-two-prison-term-nova-scotia-man-154715832.html

[Drale]

1. What a dick

I don't know if prison time was called for, but I certainly would understand if his girlfriend beat him to death.

[Odin2005]

2. Probably one of those assholes who defines their manliness by how many women they knock up.

[Posteritatis]

8. That's the impression local coverage of this gives, yeah. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

3. If you look, you can find women trying to get pregnant this way

and through other methods without their boyfriends/husband's consent, and asking for advice on how to do it on the web.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Will the men need to have an invasive and risky medical procedure performed?

Would they risk death by giving birth?

This was a sexual assault and only a misogynist wouldn't understand the difference.

:puke:

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. No, none of those options are available to them. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

9. Pregnancy puts the woman's health and life at risk.

Again, if you can't see the difference...

[RZM]

18. You're right, this man did put his partner's health at risk

I think what he did was wrong. But it's also valuable to ponder the opposite scenario as well. If a woman were to do something similar with, say a diaphragm (as a character did in the movie 'Parenthood'), she would not be endangering the man's health. But the act would also violate the man's rights, as he would then be legally obligated to support that child after it was born.

I am NOT saying those scenarios are the same, but both constitute a breach of the partner's rights.

Bottom line is, if having children is that important to you and your partner still refuses, you should either make your peace with it or find a new partner. Even if the risks involved are not the same, both men and women are equally obligated to respect their partner's decision on whether or not to reproduce.

[seabeyond]

19. told the boys.... woman claims on the pill, use a condom, too.

and always understand a preg could be in the works regardless. i have a condom baby, myself. ooops, lol

[beam me up scottie]

27. Thank you for admitting that the scenarios are not the same.

It's more than I expected to see on this thread.

[RZM]

30. They certainly aren't the same

But at the same time, I think they are comparable in how wrong they are. Deceiving a man into a fathering a child he is legally obligated to support for 18 years is pretty bad as well. One carries physical consequences, the other financial, but both carry serious moral implications.

[beam me up scottie]

33. No, they are not comparable, no more than gang rape is comparable to copping a feel in an elevator.

In one case the unwilling father's bank account suffers, in the other the woman's health is seriously compromised and the "consequences" could be fatal.

If this woman had poked holes in the condom in order to transmit AIDS or another disease to her partner, then THAT would be a comparable crime.



edited for clarity

[LisaL]

20. I frankly don't see much difference.

It's wrong either way.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Really? This woman had to have an abortion and her uterus got infected.

No, no difference at all... :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

10. Both scenerios are sexual assault.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369#1

Definition

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent. Some types of sexual acts which fall under the category of sexual assault include forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual acts), child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape. Sexual assault in any form is often a devastating crime. Assailants can be strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family members. Assailants commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure or tricks. Whatever the circumstances, no one asks or deserves to be sexually assaulted.

Obviously, women have the burden of all the medical issues surrounding pregnancy, but both acts are sexual assault.

"only a misogynist wouldn't understand the difference"

Although this line of reasoning is very common, it is also fallacious. It is the same intellectual mistake Palin makes when she claims, "all real Americans know..." Usually, these types of statements are only really true in definitions; e.g., anyone who thinks one ethnicity is superior to another ethnicity is racist.

[beam me up scottie]

11. The sex was consensual.

The 'assault' was recklessly and willfully putting the woman's health at risk.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I am not disputing that, and I don't see how that contradicts my reply in any way. nt

[beam me up scottie]

13. My dispute was with another poster who tried to marginalize this particular crime.

Posters do the same thing in GLBT threads and I find this just as repulsive.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Nope. n/t

[msanthrope]

24. Don't read the Assange threads, then.

Lots of defense of this behavior---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

[beam me up scottie]

25. Thanks but fuck it, I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread.

Every story about a minority victim generates the following knee jerk posts: white males are oppressed too, christians are persecuted too, heteros are victims of hate crimes too, etc.

Some things never change on DU.

[fishwax]

31. indeed n/t

[beam me up scottie]

26. dupe

[LoZoccolo]

22. Well it's a good thing that I understand the difference. n/t

[Hissyspit]

14. Ugh.

Yeah, I'm a man. I've been aware for that for decades.

So what?

[beam me up scottie]

4. He deserves prison time.

More from above link:

At the time, Coughlan said the woman only consented to sex on the understanding intact condoms were being used, and that Hutchinson knew she didn't want to have a baby.

The woman became pregnant and had an abortion in the fall of 2006, and later suffered an infection of her uterus, which was treated with antibiotics.

Coughlan found that Hutchinson sabotaged the condoms and aimed to have a baby with the woman, who cannot be identified under a court-ordered publication ban.

The judge said Hutchinson later told the woman about the sabotaged condoms through text messages.

Crown lawyer Kim McOnie argued earlier in the day that Hutchinson's crime warranted a two-year prison term because he exhibited no remorse for what happened.

[treestar]

6. OK, no beefs with child support, has he?

Sounds straight out of a soap opera!

[Edweird]

15. He's an idiot. I'm 41 and I can't wait to get a vasectomy.

[saras]

16. He's not an idiot. It is premeditated crime, not stupidity.

[Edweird]

17. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[beam me up scottie]

29. +1

This crime endangered her health and life.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ilsa]

32. After he's released, he should carry around a 15 pound flour sack

On his abdomen for nine months as part of his probation.