When the 61-year-old man had tried to commit the rape in Örebro, he had no idea that the intended victim was actually a man in women’s clothes, who had been taking hormonal treatment to reach the “right” identity. After following the woman for some time, the would-be rapist was “brutally violent” in the "attempted rape", tearing off the victim's pants and grabbing at the victim's crotch.
The incident occurred in front of the victim’s ex-boyfriend’s house, and it was him who came rushing to intervene. When police arrived, they arrested the attacker. However, the court has ruled that the 61-year-old had intended to rape a woman, as he had been following her before the attack, making a conscious decision to rape her specifically. The man also referred to his victim as "she" throughout the court case. As this “woman” was actually a man, his intentions were impossible to commit as the rape could never be completed.
“We believe that he wanted to rape this woman in particular. But as she turned out to be a man, the crime never was actually committed,” said Sjöstedt, adding that the case against rape was “invalid”. "There are different theories about how this should be handled, and so we’re looking forward to seeing the verdict from the Court of Appeals,” he said, adding that he would appeal the decision if he were the prosecutor or the defence. The 61-year-old is now convicted for assault. The punishment is four years prison and 15,000 kronor ($2,161) in damages to the woman.'
8 comments:
To me (for what its worth) that if in his mind he was attempting rape then they charges of attempted rape should stand. That how it was where I grew up. It is his intent not the reality.
It could be as well that he did actually know that it was a man but lied when caught.
I remember some sort of law question whereas if a man sneaks up upon someone and shoots them in the head and checks their pulse to find them dead and runs away, he can be charged with murder. But what if the victim had already died of natural causes before the shooting but the man did not know it? Still murder as that was the intent?
What if, instead of a transgendered person, the victim had been a natural born woman lacking a vagina for one reason or another? Would the court's decision be the same? That there wasn't an attempted rape?
I think this is preposterous.
I agree, SteveC. It's intent that matters, not the mechanics dictating outcome. Of course, it's in one of Those Cold Countries, so I've no idea how jurisprudence works over there, but I'd guess "not very well," going on evidence.
The judge should spend a week in prison and see for himself whether a man can rape another man.
Shak, the judge didn't imply it's impossible to rape a man. He simply seems to have reasoned that if the assailant was going to rape the person he thought was a woman, he was necessarily going to do it vaginally, and since there was no vagina to be raped, there could not be an attempted rape.
Not all rape is vaginal, even if it is a woman. Hardly matters since this is an attempted rape. I don't care if she/he didn't have the necessary equipment for a "vaginal" rape.
If a man tried to rob a store, but it turned out that there was no money inside, would the charges be dropped?
I didn't say all rape is vaginal. That's what the judge appears to have thought, which is stupid. That was my whole point.
Post a Comment