Man cleared of rape charge when his victim turns out to be male. WHAT?

[Bill Mattocks]

This is disgusting...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oman--female-victim-turned-male.html?ITO=1490

Man cleared of attempting rape of woman - after female 'victim' turned out to be male
Charge 'invalid' as the attacker's intent was to rape a woman
Brutally assaulted transsexual woman with the intention to rape her but discovered that she still has male genitalia
Ex-partner witnessed the attack and fought the assailant off with a shoehorn

I think the law is wrong in Sweden in this case. The issue is not that the man intended to rape a woman, the issue is that he intended to rape at all.

If I throw a punch at Bob, but I hit Jeff instead, does that mean I can't be charged with assault, because my intent was to hit someone else? Give me a break.

 

[aedrasteia]

Thanks Bill - for posting this - and your outrage.
I'll try to run down more on this case.

Just to make clear - here in the US during the mid-1970s and into the 80s, we (a group of people, mostly feminist women) changed the laws on CSC (criminal sexual conduct) in almost every state. Sadly, the FBI data collection
did not reflect this change until recently (last year I think).

We changed them from mostly 'carnal knowledge' statutes - which are specific to P in V, male to female - assault. We changed them in specific ways:

* gender neutral language - meaning both men/women could be perpetrators or victims. Prior to this change
only men could be perps and only women could be victims. No perp of s.assault on a male child (for example)
could be charged with rape.

* defined acts, defined bodily parts

* defined 'classes' of assaults (CSC of minor child) made charging easier, clearer and included
acts that had previously been ignored or not included or treated as a joke (male on male assault).

* created criminal definitions for acts that are not typically covered in CSC (forcing someone to perform an
act on the perp, thru threat or coercion; forcing someone, especially a child. to view porn or an actual sexual act).

* changing status exclusions: marital sexual assault was an is still a common form of domestic violence but there
was a specific exclusion, even though those assaults were some of the most hideous and violent I ever encountered.

Changing took years. Yes, years.

Lots of opposition, I know, seems incredible but I was there and did liaison with
LE agencies and prosecutors. Some of them were on board early, prosecutors wanted help clarifying a
muddy jumble of confusing statutes and definitions. And some of the LEOs were the best witnesses we had,
(after actual victims), testifying in front of legislative committees and making public statements.

But the opposition was ferocious. And the repulsive, cruel 'rape' jokes were endless. Nauseating and heartless.

Jokes about women and men and even children. the jokes went on and on and on. And on and on
I finally figured out that the tellers wanted to see me upset, so I learned the flat/neutral face - but I kept
a written record of the jokes and cruel comments. I wrote them all down.

When the effort was over and we had gotten the first round of basic changes into law, I shared the written
comments (with attribution) usually made privately to me to shake me up, with press and others (family and friends)
of the 'jokers'.

the next round was easier. and gradually some of the 'joking' disappeared. some jokers still survive.
But the law is now clearer. and covers everyone.

we still have some trouble with enforcing when a trans-gendered person is assaulted, but less.
and the laws apply to everybody.

with Everyone's body protected under the law. as it should be.

thanks for your willingness to post this.
with respect,

 

[zDom]

Thanks goodness laws were changed to reflect what we have learned rather than sticking by

"That's the way it has been for as long as we can remember."

 

[Touch Of Death]

This is disgusting...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oman--female-victim-turned-male.html?ITO=1490



I think the law is wrong in Sweden in this case. The issue is not that the man intended to rape a woman, the issue is that he intended to rape at all.

If I throw a punch at Bob, but I hit Jeff instead, does that mean I can't be charged with assault, because my intent was to hit someone else? Give me a break.

True but if you hit someone that looks like Obama, did you assault the President? LOL. This is one of those things that make me go huh? I see both sides quite clearly.
Sean

 

[pgsmith]

True but if you hit someone that looks like Obama, did you assault the President? LOL. This is one of those things that make me go huh? I see both sides quite clearly.
Sean

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can possibly see "both sides" of an attempted rape. Does that mean you are pro-rape? I'm confused.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm saying I understand how he wasn't charged with rape. Call that what you will.

 

[blindsage]

Yup, cause they don't call it rape in prison.

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

At least the guy was charged with assault. Once word gets around, he'll be the laughing stock of the hoosegow. He'll probably also be on the receiving end of a few "non-rapes" himself. Karma will get him in the end .

Actually, I'd like to know how this shoehorn was used to fight off the attacker. If it was like any of the shoehorns I've encountered, it's not much of a weapon.

 

[pgsmith]

I'm saying I understand how he wasn't charged with rape. Call that what you will.

He wasn't charged with rape, he was charged with attempted rape. Seems to me that he made a pretty nasty attempt at it. I don't see how the reason that he didn't succeed can possibly make any difference. Of course, I am of the opinion that rape is a terrible violation of a person, but I'm aware that not everyone thinks that way.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Barbs noted. Lol

 

[granfire]

Of course, I am of the opinion that rape is a terrible violation of a person, but I'm aware that not everyone thinks that way.

well I suppose the rapists even would agree on that, cos that's why they do it, no?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He wasn't charged with rape, he was charged with attempted rape. Seems to me that he made a pretty nasty attempt at it. I don't see how the reason that he didn't succeed can possibly make any difference. Of course, I am of the opinion that rape is a terrible violation of a person, but I'm aware that not everyone thinks that way.

But he wasn't convicted of attempted rape, he was convicted of assault because the judge said he could not have raped a man, therefore it could not be an attempted rape. I don't agree. It was an attempted rape no matter whether he could or could not have completed the act. Many people don't know it, but rape is a crime of violence, not necessarily a sex crime. Many rapists can't even get an erection anyway - does that make what they do less criminal? He planned to rape. The fact that he was unable to do so doesn't change what he attempted to do. I just do not agree with the judge in this case, and I don't think it would have gone that way in the USA.

 

[jezr74]

This is disgusting...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oman--female-victim-turned-male.html?ITO=1490



I think the law is wrong in Sweden in this case. The issue is not that the man intended to rape a woman, the issue is that he intended to rape at all.

If I throw a punch at Bob, but I hit Jeff instead, does that mean I can't be charged with assault, because my intent was to hit someone else? Give me a break.

That's disgraceful, and to then go on to say the act could not have been completed


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[granfire]

That's disgraceful, and to then go on to say the act could not have been completed


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I m sure millions of male prisoners will disagree...