Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[TimmyB]

It's not looking good for him to be honest.

If did do it and it's true he was absolutely legless and can't remember it, I do feel a degree of empathy for him. If you're that hammered and out of control, in my opinion it's on a completely different ethical plane to sexual assault whilst sober. I'm not sure it even makes him a 'bad' person. There's no doubt one can drink so much they aren't controlling their faculties. To the extent that one can't even tell right from wrong. Obviously that doesn't (and shouldn't) exhonerate him in the eyes of the law. I'd just find it hard to write off as a person someone who commits a crime whilst in that state.

Obviously the above in no way diminishes my sympathy for the victim, or the importance of justice being served.

 

[sneagle]

I don't even think the DNA test were used as evidence to charge Stewart, because ABC had reported a night before that they will take 1 week to process.

No pretty sure it wasn't.

Would like to know who or how many witnesses there are though, other than the alledged victims family. And in what setting - was it to the stairwell, the driveway or witness to a crash tackle.

 

[perverse]

It's not looking good for him to be honest.

If did do it and it's true he was absolutely legless and can't remember it, I do feel a degree of empathy for him. If you're that hammered and out of control, in my opinion it's on a completely different ethical plane to sexual assault whilst sober. I'm not sure it even makes him a 'bad' person. There's no doubt one can drink so much they aren't controlling their faculties. To the extent that one can't even tell right from wrong. Obviously that doesn't (and shouldn't) exhonerate him in the eyes of the law. I'd just find it hard to write off as a person someone who commits a crime whilst in that state.

Obviously the above in no way diminishes my sympathy for the victim, or the importance of justice being served.

that is an absolute crock. i've been minced off my brain more times than i care to count... but i have NEVER done or said anything that i wouldn't have at the very least thought about doing sober.

 

[TimmyB]

You feel sorry for HIM if he's found guilty? Yet you've no concern for the victim whatsoever?

Does that mean if one of your family members wandered down to the shops and shot 5 strangers to death you wouldn't give a toss as long as they were found not guilty?

I know what he's saying to be honest. I obviously feel empathy for sexual assault victims as a class of people. Obviously the victim deserves greater empathy.

However, where the alleged victim remains unidentified, there is no nexus between us and her. How is one to feel empathy, on a personal level, for the victim when for all intents and purposes she doesn't exist to me?

That's not to say she (if the allegations are true) isn't by far the more aggrieved party in this situation.

 

[TimmyB]

that is an absolute crock. i've been minced off my brain more times than i care to count... but i have NEVER done or said anything that i wouldn't have at the very least thought about doing sober.

Well I don't know you and perhaps that's true for you. People do plenty of stuff when they'er hammered that they would never ever do - or even dream of doing sober.

It's provded for in the crimes act for that reason.

It doesn't excuse the behavior but in my opinion it puts it on a different ethical plane.

 

[perverse]

It doesn't excuse the behavior but in my opinion it puts it on a different ethical plane.

so you're saying we should go soft on poor old brett?

honestly i'm confused what you're trying to insinuate. do you think him being drunk makes it any better for his alledged victim? quite the contrary i would imagine, it would make it worse.

 

[TimmyB]

so you're saying we should go soft on poor old brett?

Obviously that doesn't (and shouldn't) exhonerate him in the eyes of the law.

do you think him being drunk makes it any better for his alledged victim? quite the contrary i would imagine, it would make it worse.

Obviously the above in no way diminishes my sympathy for the victim, or the importance of justice being served.

Perhaps you should read posts in their totality.

For the record, how would him being drunk make it worse? I don't think there would be any difference whatsoever.

 

[Pass the Ball]

I know what he's saying to be honest. I obviously feel empathy for sexual assault victims as a class of people. Obviously the victim deserves greater empathy.

However, where the alleged victim remains unidentified, there is no nexus between us and her. How is one to feel empathy, on a personal level, for the victim when for all intents and purposes she doesn't exist to me?

That's not to say she (if the allegations are true) isn't by far the more aggrieved party in this situation.

TimmyB - Do you think that someone who kills someone driving is bad, but at least if they were drunk it is not so bad...????

 

[perverse]

then why even bother distinguishing this on a different ethical plane if his punishment should be the same?

perhaps you should stop trying to soften the blow on brett when you clearly have no reason to, according to your posts? you can't have it on a different ethical plane and being treated the same.

really sick of people trying to defend these actions. it's tiresome. even before the alledged sexual assault, stewart was out of line.

 

[CharlieF]

TimmyB - Do you think that someone who kills someone driving is bad, but at least if they were drunk it is not so bad...????

Your going to an extreme there now in Stewarts case. Drunkeness, by law, can be used as an excuse for violent behaviour. You may not like it, but that is the law. I believe they only changed it recently so that you can't use drunkeness as an excuse for rape.

 

[TimmyB]

I think it's an utterly different scenario. In the above, in neither case is their intent to kill. Clearly if someone sexually assaults somebody, there has to have been intent to do so. I think if it's a ludicrous amount of alcohol that has precipitated that intent, then there is less moral culpability than if the intent existed whilst sober.

EDIT: As CharlieF stated, the mitigating nature of alcohol is a part of the jurisprudence of the crimes act. See Part 11A.

 

[TimmyB]

then why even bother distinguishing this on a different ethical plane if his punishment should be the same?

perhaps you should stop trying to soften the blow on brett when you clearly have no reason to, according to your posts? you can't have it on a different ethical plane and being treated the same.

It makes an enormous difference at how I view him as a human being.

really sick of people trying to defend these actions. it's tiresome. even before the alledged sexual assault, stewart was out of line.

So it's ok for you to be minced off your brain?

 

[Eels Dude]

I think it's an utterly different scenario. In the above, in neither case is their intent to kill. Clearly if someone sexually assaults somebody, there has to have been intent to do so. I think if it's a ludicrous amount of alcohol that has precipitated that intent, then there is less moral culpability than if the intent existed whilst sober.

EDIT: As CharlieF stated, the mitigating nature of alcohol is a part of the jurisprudence of the crimes act. See Part 11A.

Do you know if that's used as a defence though? It might just be helpful if attempting to downgrade a charge... eg murder to manslaughter, or for sentencing purposes. I cannot see it being used to get someone off the hook entirely though.

 

[perverse]

So it's ok for you to be minced off your brain?

absolutely. i'm not being paid as a professional sportsman, or as the face of a new advertising campaign. i'm not a role model for thousands upon thousands of children. additionally, i know my boundaries when i'm in public on the drink, and don't get minced of my brain. that is reserved for private get-togethers and parties of an insular nature... as i feel my reduced motor abilities to be detrimental to my enjoyment of a night out on the town.

 

[sneagle]

I was wondering what it was he was actually accused of. I guess this is it. How the f**k does someone that drunk even manage to do that? Something about this still makes me think theres more to it. I feel bad constantly trying to find reasons why the alleged victim is lieing, but to me it just seems odd that a bloke completely off his chops has the time and coordination to get through two layers of clothing and commit the act before someone helps her, if indeed she was screaming from the start. With his "I don't remember" defence, as a few people have said, its her word against nobodies, unless a witness can shed more light on the matter. He's up sh*t creek big time.

Just another take on it - according to the rape crisis centre nsw (link provided earlier) - sexual assault also covers the putting of a finger into someones mouth against their will.
I think we may have jumped to the other conclusion.
Now if that were the case it would have been much easier to do under any scenario...

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Yeah I think Eels Dude is right, drunkenness may be used to get a reduced sentence but in my uneducated opinion it won`t let him off the hook.

Anyway, I can`t talk for TimmyB, but for me the law is completely irrelevant, whether he is found guilty or innocent, it doesn`t change the person he is. Which I believe is a good man who may (or may not) have made a big mistake under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol. I don`t think this can be compared to hurting someone while drink driving, cos drink driving in itself is a crime (even without injury), but getting so drunk you don`t know what you`re doing is not.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

sexual assault also covers the putting of a finger into someones mouth against their will

So is that why they took saliva samples from her, and also DNA samples from his fingers?

 

[TimmyB]

Do you know if that's used as a defence though? It might just be helpful if attempting to downgrade a charge... eg murder to manslaughter, or for sentencing purposes. I cannot see it being used to get someone off the hook entirely though.

If it's self induced intoxication it's only a part defence to a murder charge - ie: if successful the best one can hope for is a downgrade to manslaughter.

I'm actually not to sure what happens for other offences - I only studied it's application for murder and sexual assault (where there is no effect). Sentencing wasn't part of the unit. Someone who has done more on this might know. I guess my main point is that what I'm saying is reflected to a degree in the crimes act.

 

[sneagle]

So is that why they took saliva samples from her, and also DNA samples from his fingers?

Only an assumption, but could make sense....

(trying to figure out how someone with such a good record both on and off the field could get into so much trouble).

 

[perverse]

yes, but not in the crimes act in relation to sexual assault.. the argument is therefore null and void.