The rough sex defence
It was consensual manslaughter.
A man jailed for choking a woman to death during sex will not have his prison sentence increased, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Sam Pybus, 32, was jailed for four years and eight months after admitting the manslaughter of Sophie Moss, 33, at her home in Darlington on 7 February. Attorney General Suella Braverman said the sentence was unduly lenient and referred it to the Court of Appeal.
But three judges said nah, it’s all good. He was drunk, you see.
Pybus, who was married, had told police he and Ms Moss had been in a casual relationship for three years and that she encouraged him to strangle her during consensual sex.
Ah those sweet carefree casual relationships where the man casually strangles the woman during sex.
Or as Julie puts it…
Why don’t they just ask the woman: “Did you really ask for it?” Since she’s dead now, she doesn’t have to fear repercussions from him, so she can speak honestly. Oh wait, that doesn’t work, because the dead can’t speak.
“Section 72 of the Act re-states the current law, particularly in relation to the use of the so-called ‘rough sex defence,’ making it clear that a person cannot consent to the infliction of serious harm or, by extension, to their own death, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification.”
And therefore >>
“…the defendant will remain liable to prosecution for a relevant offence—sections 18 (grievous bodily harm with intent), section 20 (inflicting grievous bodily harm) and section 47 (actual bodily harm) of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”
(from http://www.gov.uk)
Not to mention manslaughter by gross negligence, or second degree murder, with sentences of up to life in prison and up to 40 years respectively in the UK which are the relevant crimes. Simply on the personal testimony of her killer and a former partner that she consented to this behavior? Even if she did Section 72 still applies.
This is (very) local to me. On top of everything else, Sophie Moss was particularly vulnerable and it’s believed that Pybus had previously exploited and abused her and that the relationship was coercive. Of course, that does not change the particulars of the case; no woman can consent to being choked past the level of unconsciousness. But it makes it all the more sad and the sentence even more of a disgrace. Pybus seems to be a manipulative, perhaps violent man and his version of events suspect at best.
The comments from readers on the local paper’s site range from disheartening to horrifying. There are many assumptions that Moss wanted to be choked, based on such evidence as the many tiktok videos they claim to have seen featuring (other) women “begging to be choked” (why are they watching these videos?). There is much underlying misogyny, particularly regarding single mothers. There’s a great deal of resentment over women’s groups becoming involved in the case and against Julie Bindel in particular (she’s from Darlington herself and her partner was involved in the case) and against Harriet Harman, who was among those calling for the sentence to be reviewed. Men are complaining that those women’s groups would not have become involved if it had been Pybus who was killed.
There are some comments, of course, sympathetic to Moss and her friends and family, but none quite seem to grasp the harm that’s been done with this verdict and the message it has sent.
GW @4, it’s part of the UK domestic abuse act.
As twiliter said, right under the two quoted passages.
So if you’re a white man and you kill a woman? “Rough sex.”
If you’re a white man and you kill a person of color? “Self defense/stand your ground.”
If you’re a white man and you kill another white man? Insanity, I suppose.
latsot, the obvious question is why should women’s groups become involved if Pybus was killed? This seems like a job for men’s groups, but they’re too busy dogpiling feminist women online to concern themselves with the real problems of real men.
iknklast:
But you’re forgetting that feminism is for everyone, not just women!
Yeah, latsot, I have a big problem with that. Probably means I’m a TERF.
The thing that bothers me is that if someone wants to be choked, isn’t that akin to someone wanting to be pushed into traffic for jollies? I mean they’re likely to survive it, and I understand it’s a personal choice, but what’s the responsibility of someone else who knows this? Do you try to get them the help they obviously need, or do you push them into traffic? Assuming she actually desired to be choked, which wasn’t proven. To me it seems like the level of sociopathy on the part of the one doing the pushing exceeds the level of a risk seeking mental issue that could be addressed in a more caring way. If you actually care about the person that is, which is a big if. But why be in a relationship with someone if you don’t care about them in the first place? This man is obviously a predator, and a dangerous, drunken, opportunistic, sociopathic one. The judges who allowed this sentence don’t care about her or her children much either, and by this example, other women and children. Lots of things “gone wrong” to go around, innit.
@11: YES!!! Exactly, every word you wrote!!
Aw shucks GW, lol
Absent a series of letters, texts, or emails in which the victim has enthusiastically requested to be choked during sex, I am confounded as to what the judges used as evidence that this sort of thing was what she wanted to have done. Unless of course the judges watch a lot of that sort of porn? Nah. They’re men of honour.
I’ve never choked anyone, but that being said, I am sure that I would be able to recognize the signs of someone dying and stop in time to prevent death. No matter how close to orgasm I would be. Note, that I have never in my life been asked by a partner to choke her during sex. That may be due to the rather conventional nature of my sex life, or it may be that it’s just never done except when someone gets caught killing a woman during sex and only then is it asked for posthumously.
The judges accepted that he was drunk enough to accidentally kill someone, yet sober enough to be able to differentiate between coerced consent and non-consent. Because, and correct me if I’m wrong, women don’t ask to be put in danger of their lives during sex. Men autoasphyxiate, I’m not aware of any women who have died from it.
So, I haven’t delved into this very far, but my impression from the article and twiliter’s comments is that there are two separate legal issues here: the victim’s consent, and the killer’s intent.
Consent is an affirmative defense to some crimes. To give a trivial example: you can’t convict a boxer for assault and battery because he punched his opponent during a match. There have always been some acts to which the law deems that consent is not applicable. It would appear that the Domestic Abuse Act clarifies that “a person cannot consent to the infliction of serious harm or, by extension, to their own death, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification”
But that is a separate issue from the question of intent. Most crimes have some sort of intent (mens rea) requirement, whether it’s negligence, recklessness, or intent, and you can break some of those categories down further (gross negligence, general vs. specific intent). That’s why, e.g., murder is different from manslaughter which is different from negligent homicide.
It sounds like technically this was not an issue of meeting the elements of the offense, but the exercise of discretion in sentencing, but either way, the court is considering the issue of intent. It would appear that the Domestic Abuse Act disallows a “consent” defense based on “rough sex,” but that doesn’t mean that a defendant can’t dispute the issue of intent by saying “I didn’t intend to kill her or even injure her, I only intended to engage in rough sex.”
You could probably make a good argument for having a rule that punishes all deaths from “rough sex” as homicide or manslaughter, something analogous to the felony-murder rule — basically, this kind of thing is so dangerous that if you want to engage in it, you’re deemed to have intended all the consequences that might result. But that does run counter to the modern trend; the felony-murder rule has been abolished or limited in many places.
But then, this may not be a problem with the law at all, but rather with the “fact-finding” — courts may be a little too willing to believe that these deaths are accidents.
[…] a comment by Screechy Monkey on The rough sex […]
Scrrechy:
Some more information about how the women’s groups involved in the case would like the law to change:
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19713703.mp-speaks-courts-declines-increase-sentence-darlington-sam-pybus/
Anyone else wishing to know more about the case:
The Northern Echo is the place to look. Search for Sophie Moss.
Screechy, from what I read, it was the lack of evidence for her NOT wanting to be choked, if you can believe that. As if we shouldn’t assume basic survival instincts in human beings or something? It seemed rather backward to me.
Thanks, latsot. This part is basically what I was suggesting (and would personally support):
#14
I have read that accidental death by choking is a very real risk. Police are supposed to have banned ‘choke holds’ because no matter how they are done, deaths WILL ensue. The steady trickle of reports of accidental death from self-asphyxiation are another illustration.
‘Rough’ sex while drunk adds another layer of reckless indifference.
Otherwise known as gross negligence.