neut said:
Is this a court room? When did the judge enter? And what makes your stance any more right than anyone else?
You missed my point - it is neither funny nor interesting to joke about some dude getting his rocks off in his sleep at the expense of a woman who has accused him of rape.
Second, the nature of rape in general and the sexism that allows most rapes to remain unprosecuted is the point. You can't kinda rape or kinda kill anyone, it's about the level of intent in each action. Your point about falling asleep while driving is comparing an apple to an orange - if you're driving and too tired to drive further, it is your responsibility to do something about it. If you hit someone and kill them, then the question is not whether you killed them, it's the intent behind the murder, which is why there are various degrees of murder and manslaughter.
In this circumstance, if this "condition" really exists and the guy being accused of rape was admittedly conscious of it, then it was his responsibility to communicate the nature of his disorder to the woman the second he got into bed with her. What the defense is trying to do is alleviate the responsibility of rape by blaming his disorder, which I would point out is possible because of sexism.
In your example, neither manslaughter nor any degree of murder alleviates the responsibility of the action. Also, in the case of this particular gentleman, the question of intent is irrelevant since he was fully aware of his condition. He knew it could happen, and regardless of his intent when it did, he didn't take any responsibility for the potential that it could occur. However, since rape trials are prosecuted differently than trials involving death, what the defense is doing is conflating responsibility with intent - in effect, saying, "hey, he might have had this problem, but he didn't intend for anything to happen, therefore he can't be responsible for it if it did." This would get the defendant a free pass from prosecution, whereas someone who fell asleep driving and killed someone as a consequence would at the least be prosecuted for manslaughter because it was not their intent to kill but the responsibility for killing someone still rests with them.