Topic: Canadian man sentenced to 18 months for piercing girlfriend's condoms
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc started this discussion 15 years ago #14,822
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/38938-man-sentenced-18-months-piercing-condomsA Shelburne County man who sabotaged his girlfriend’s condoms has been sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Craig Jaret Hutchinson, 41, of Clyde River was found guilty in September of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend’s condoms in 2006 so she would get pregnant and not break up with him.
The woman became pregnant and had an abortion, later developing an infection in her uterus.
On Friday in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax, Justice Richard Coughlan sent Hutchinson to jail, rejecting the defence’s request for a suspended sentence and two years on probation.
"Sexual assault is a serious offence," Coughlan said during the sentencing.
"Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
Craig Jaret Hutchinson, 41, of Clyde River was found guilty in September of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend’s condoms in 2006 so she would get pregnant and not break up with him.
The woman became pregnant and had an abortion, later developing an infection in her uterus.
On Friday in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax, Justice Richard Coughlan sent Hutchinson to jail, rejecting the defence’s request for a suspended sentence and two years on probation.
"Sexual assault is a serious offence," Coughlan said during the sentencing.
"Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later[^] [v] #261,378
> the Crown failed to prove that her pregnancy was a result of having had sex using those condoms.
yet he is still being convicted of sexual assault for having consensual sex
thats some bullshit
yet he is still being convicted of sexual assault for having consensual sex
thats some bullshit
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,392
@previous (B)
She didn't really consent to the act, though, which was unprotected sex. She consented to protected sex.
She didn't really consent to the act, though, which was unprotected sex. She consented to protected sex.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,394
@261,378 (B)
> >the Crown failed to prove that her pregnancy was a result of having had sex using those condoms.
Did they at least prove it was his semen that got her pregnant? This would be very uncool otherwise.
> "Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
Looks like we're going to be locking up a whole lot of bitches for getting 'accidentally' pregnant in the future.
> >the Crown failed to prove that her pregnancy was a result of having had sex using those condoms.
Did they at least prove it was his semen that got her pregnant? This would be very uncool otherwise.
> "Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
Looks like we're going to be locking up a whole lot of bitches for getting 'accidentally' pregnant in the future.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,398
@261,392 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
but they never proved that she ever had unprotected sex with him, their evidence seems to be circumstantial in nature
@previous (C)
it doesn't say but she did have an abortion so i don't know what they would do a DNA test on...
> > "Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
> condemnation
> condomnation
> condom
i see what they did there
but they never proved that she ever had unprotected sex with him, their evidence seems to be circumstantial in nature
@previous (C)
it doesn't say but she did have an abortion so i don't know what they would do a DNA test on...
> > "Incarceration is the only way to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Hutchinson’s conduct."
> condemnation
> condomnation
> condom
i see what they did there
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,405
@previous (B)
Another story said he sent her text messages admitting to it, and obviously she would have testified to it as well. Circumstantial evidence is fine anyway.
Another story said he sent her text messages admitting to it, and obviously she would have testified to it as well. Circumstantial evidence is fine anyway.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,408
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
doesn't circumstantial evidence need to be especially damning (as in beyond a reasonable doubt) to be considered in court?
he sent a text warning her not to use the specific condoms that were then currently in her bedside table drawer as he had poked holes in them
i don't think he ever admitted to constantly doing this for the entire duration of their relationship since he continues to say he is not guilty
so the pregnancy may not have been the result of his tampering at all
doesn't circumstantial evidence need to be especially damning (as in beyond a reasonable doubt) to be considered in court?
he sent a text warning her not to use the specific condoms that were then currently in her bedside table drawer as he had poked holes in them
i don't think he ever admitted to constantly doing this for the entire duration of their relationship since he continues to say he is not guilty
so the pregnancy may not have been the result of his tampering at all
(Edited 1 minute later.)
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,411
@previous (B)
I don't know Canadian standards of evidence, but in the US it's perfectly admissible as long as it's relevant and meets the other normal standards. No piece of evidence alone needs to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just the total weight of all of the evidence does.
"I wanted a baby with you so bad I sabotaged the condoms so now they are not safe," the Clyde River man said. <-- You're right, not quite an admission, but pretty close.
I don't know Canadian standards of evidence, but in the US it's perfectly admissible as long as it's relevant and meets the other normal standards. No piece of evidence alone needs to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just the total weight of all of the evidence does.
"I wanted a baby with you so bad I sabotaged the condoms so now they are not safe," the Clyde River man said. <-- You're right, not quite an admission, but pretty close.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,434
heh