If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Citizen)   Swedish court rules that it's impossible to rape a man   (thelocal.se) divider line 204
    More: Asinine, swedish, court ruling, Swedish court  
•       •       •

18028 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2012 at 11:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 12:31:16 AM

cman: And I thought Sweden was a liberal bastion


This is one of those areas there the US is actually considerably less farked up than most of the world, mostly due to issues elsewhere such as the ones this article highlights.

This is not to say that the US way of handling rape is perfect, or even nearly so. But I'm not sure what perfection would even be in this context. Modern evidence-based notions of criminal justice are not well-suited to prosecuting rape. But the past holds no solutions: earlier notions (of rape or of criminal justice) had different problems, but ultimately had just as many problems if not more, and few would argue that the tradeoffs made in moving to current notions haven't been worthwhile. If there is something better, it has yet to be devised.
 
2012-07-05 12:31:21 AM

ladyfortuna: TuteTibiImperes: Voiceofreason01: TuteTibiImperes: So FTA no rape occured, and the perp is now being charged with assault, which seems fair as that's what happened.


except if the victim had been a biological woman the crime would have been attempted rape which presumably is a much more severe charge. So the perp is being charged differently because of the gender of his victim based on the obviously mistaken assertion that a man cannot rape another man. It's bullshiat.

If Sweden has an attempted rape law on the books, go for it, though in general I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book. Prosecute what happened, not what may or may not have been the intentions of the accused.

The victim was assaulted with intent to rape, regardless of whether the attacker knew he was a she. That's attempted, in my book (and pretty sure at least the NYS Penal Law will back me up, I'm just feeling lazy). It's not the same as a 'thought' crime, or I'd be in trouble for some random thoughts about Daniel Radcliff in the last two HP movies.

/yeah, I know it's wrong
//hence why I didn't dwell on it


I think it's a gray area. The man seems to have had intentions to rape, but upon realizing his intended victim was not a woman did not actually attempt the rape. The point where an intention becomes an attempt is fuzzy.

If he ripped the guy's clothes off and grabbed his junk he should at least be guilty of sexual assault (though whether that should be considered a more serious crime than plain old beat 'em up assault is another area for debate).
 
2012-07-05 12:32:07 AM

ZAZ: The intended crime never had the possibility of being fulfilled

In the USA, or most of it, factual impossibility is not a defense to a crime of attempt. When you try to pick up that "14 year old girl" online the fact that she's a 30 year old man does not excuse your behavior.


Factual impossibility is only a defense if the fact would have negated the mental state required for any material element of the offense. Since rape is a crime of specific intent (i.e. the defendant wanted to rape a woman), then I guess you could split hairs and say since he didn't intend to rape A MAN, he's not guilty of the attempted rape (of a woman).

It's one of the few genuine technicalities I've seen in my life, honestly.
 
2012-07-05 12:32:38 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Mostly because a man isn't a woman.


Unless she is.

Anyway, the whole thing is messed up. As others have so wittily substantiated with pictures and whatnot, it's entirely possible for a man to rape another man (anally). The assaulter here may have (1) known she was a pre-op transsexual woman and was perved to that, or (2) been bisexual and an equal opportunity rapist, or even (3) gay and thought she was a "man."

Attempted rape seems to be applicable here, especially from the account of events and admitted intentions in TFA.
 
TWX
2012-07-05 12:34:30 AM
ProdigalSigh:
So in other words, it looks like Sweden is about to establish more concrete rules regarding sexual assault?

I'm ok with this.


That pretty much summed it up for me. An aggressor grabbing anyone by their genitals should be able to be charged with some form of sexual assault crime. In this case if the aggressor didn't penetrate the victim then "rape" as forcible insertion may not have occurred, but the act of attempting to do so should still qualify for some kind of relevant charge, as the victim did not consent to any kind of contact and the aggressor's intent had nothing to do with victim consent.

On the other hand, failing to stop having intercourse when a conception control method fails to function properly, to my mind, isn't rape. Biologically, pregnancy is supposed to be the result of sex, and people need to remember that when they choose to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. We're attempting to mitigate that as a result, but sometimes it doesn't work even when more than one form of conception control is used at the same time. In Assange's case his antics apparently didn't result in pregnancies, but there's a burden for a woman to make sure that there's a condom in place to start with, and there's a burden of responsibility for the ramifications when one breaks.

Fix the laws. For a long time here, spousal rape was essentially legally impossible. What was on the books was a misdemeanor, and the burden to prove it was rape was extraordinarily high. They fixed it.
 
2012-07-05 12:35:20 AM

TuteTibiImperes: ladyfortuna: TuteTibiImperes: Voiceofreason01: TuteTibiImperes: So FTA no rape occured, and the perp is now being charged with assault, which seems fair as that's what happened.


except if the victim had been a biological woman the crime would have been attempted rape which presumably is a much more severe charge. So the perp is being charged differently because of the gender of his victim based on the obviously mistaken assertion that a man cannot rape another man. It's bullshiat.

If Sweden has an attempted rape law on the books, go for it, though in general I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book. Prosecute what happened, not what may or may not have been the intentions of the accused.

The victim was assaulted with intent to rape, regardless of whether the attacker knew he was a she. That's attempted, in my book (and pretty sure at least the NYS Penal Law will back me up, I'm just feeling lazy). It's not the same as a 'thought' crime, or I'd be in trouble for some random thoughts about Daniel Radcliff in the last two HP movies.

/yeah, I know it's wrong
//hence why I didn't dwell on it

I think it's a gray area. The man seems to have had intentions to rape, but upon realizing his intended victim was not a woman did not actually attempt the rape. The point where an intention becomes an attempt is fuzzy.

If he ripped the guy's clothes off and grabbed his junk he should at least be guilty of sexual assault (though whether that should be considered a more serious crime than plain old beat 'em up assault is another area for debate).


that would make sense, there is no rape if he didn't try once he realized it is a man, now I wonder if he attempted this from the backside and didn't realize for a few minutes it was a man would he be charged with rape
 
2012-07-05 12:35:49 AM
But other man has a penis too, so he can self defend.
 
2012-07-05 12:36:18 AM

TuteTibiImperes: ladyfortuna: TuteTibiImperes: Voiceofreason01: TuteTibiImperes:

I think it's a gray area. The man seems to have had intentions to rape, but upon realizing his intended victim was not a woman did not actually attempt the rape. The point where an intention becomes an attempt is fuzzy.


FTFA: "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, according to the paper.

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."

Unless we've got really different definitions, that doesn't sound like 'didn't attempt', that sounds like 'forcibly stopped' from furthering the attempt. Especially since the cops picked him up after; the ex must have held the guy down till they got there.
 
2012-07-05 12:36:41 AM

Voiceofreason01: TuteTibiImperes: I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book. Prosecute what happened, not what may or may not have been the intentions of the accused.

So, as an example, if I take out a gun, yell "I'm going to kill you" and start shooting, you think I should be charged with simple assault and maybe illegal discharge of a firearm instead of attempted murder?


If you hit me with a bullet and I survived, OK, I could see that being a case where an attempted murder charge makes sense.

If you make the threat and start shooting but miss I'd say it's illegal discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment and terroristic threatening.
 
2012-07-05 12:37:28 AM

Chafed Willi: Coco LaFemme: Swedish courts understand that rape doesn't just involve the genitals, right? People can be sodomized with inanimate objects, and that's still considered forcible sexual assault.

So if i punch a dude in the nuts, that's rape? Because according to TFA that's essentially what happened here.


Yes. If you punch a dude in the nuts, that's totally rape. You done cracked the case, Lou.

What a stupid farking question.

I was merely stating that the Swedish courts are wrong to say that a man cannot be raped, irrespective of what TFA is about.
 
2012-07-05 12:37:52 AM

Waldo Pepper: that would make sense, there is no rape if he didn't try once he realized it is a man, now I wonder if he attempted this from the backside and didn't realize for a few minutes it was a man would he be charged with rape


Most rape statutes require some degree of penetration (I don't know how it is in Sweden). So if he tried it from behind WITH penetration, that should at least be sexual battery.
 
2012-07-05 12:38:18 AM

TuteTibiImperes: So FTA no rape occured, and the perp is now being charged with assault, which seems fair as that's what happened.

Also, FTA:

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.'

Wait, where did a woman come from? I can understand the difficulties in finding a way to report the sex of TG folk, but can we a least be consistent within an article?


Attempted murder, what's that? Do they give out a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
 
2012-07-05 12:42:47 AM
would this not be the same as you think your robbing a armored truck and it looks like an armored truck from the outside, you attack it and open it up and find it is an ice cream truck, you steal nothing from the truck.

can you be charged with armed robbery if you didn't try to steal anything once you found out it was only ice cream.
 
2012-07-05 12:44:06 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
Disagrees
 
2012-07-05 12:47:53 AM

WhippingBoy: Strange... not a lot of Fark "feminists" in this thread for some reason...


satwcomic.com
 
2012-07-05 12:54:21 AM

TuteTibiImperes: though in general I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book.


You're thinking of "conspiracy" charges. Attempted means that you made an obvious try and failed.
 
2012-07-05 12:54:41 AM
The farker assaulted her/him trying forcefully to sate his teeny-weenie's requirements. That is RAPE, whether tor not he victim is male or female. Put the shiathead away for a LONG time. No one has the right to force himself (or herself) on another.
 
2012-07-05 12:55:09 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-05 12:56:32 AM
Not quite the same thing, but just as bad - This is already explicitly declared by law (not a court ruling) in the U.K. The U.S. only recently changed similar laws.


"Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
- A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
- B does not consent to the penetration; and,
- A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The offence of Rape (Sec 1(1) SOA 2003) can only be committed by a man; however, a woman can be charged with, or convicted of rape as a secondary party. For example, a woman may be convicted of rape where she facilitated (helped) a man who has raped another person."



It is physiologically impossible for a woman to commit rape in the U.K because a woman does not have a penis. From what I have seen in a few fark threads over the years, American feminists support this definition of rape 100%.


The same goes for what we call "statutory rape" in the U.S.

"Definition of unlawful sexual intercourse:
by a man with a girl under 13, section 5 Sexual Offences Act 1956, (Archbold 2004, 20-63 and Archbold 20-64).
by a man with a girl under 16, section 6 Sexual Offences Act 1956, (Archbold 2004, 20-74"


It is impossible for a female schoolteacher to rape a boy in the U.K. And note that what Jerry Sandusky did would not be considered rape in the U.K.
 
2012-07-05 12:57:08 AM
This guys is basically using the "I meant to put it in the vagina but it slipped and went up the pooper" defence. Just like thousands of frat boys before him.
 
2012-07-05 12:57:56 AM
WhippingBoy

Strange... not a lot of Fark "feminists" in this thread for some reason..

I'm a feminist and I'm disgusted. Men can't be raped? WTF?

/I'm also not too keen on the transsexual victim being referred to as a "man"...
 
2012-07-05 12:58:13 AM
You'd think he'd still be guilty of battery and/or false imprisonment.
/At least.

Violent rapists are on my list of those who should be executed.
 
2012-07-05 12:58:35 AM

cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: And I thought Sweden was a liberal bastion

Male rape is OK in conservative societies?

...actually, don't answer that

I was referring to the fact that the woman was not recognized by the court as such


Whoosh!
 
2012-07-05 12:59:35 AM
A great deal may be lost in the reporting and translation of what happened.

Possibly, the specific statute under which the defendant was charged made some reference to vaginal penetration, and the decision rested on the fact that the complainant does not have a vagina. The defendant apparently intended forcible vaginal penetration, a crime impossible to commit under the circumstances. I have no idea how Sweedish law treats impossible offences.

If my assumption is correct, the gender identity of the complainant is irrelevant, and only actual anatomy matters.
 
2012-07-05 12:59:45 AM

TuteTibiImperes: If Sweden has an attempted rape law on the books, go for it, though in general I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book.


Come here. I am going to attempt to skull-fark you.

/Don't biatch about it unless I am successful.
 
2012-07-05 01:00:22 AM

MeanJean: I'm also not too keen on the transsexual victim being referred to as a "man"...


Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
 
2012-07-05 01:00:34 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Not quite the same thing, but just as bad - This is already explicitly declared by law (not a court ruling) in the U.K. The U.S. only recently changed similar laws.

"Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
- A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
- B does not consent to the penetration; and,
- A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
.


So this isn't rape?

/ Will choose penis over a taser in my ass any day if those are my options.
// Doesn't feel good, man.
 
2012-07-05 01:01:24 AM

Waldo Pepper: would this not be the same as you think your robbing a armored truck and it looks like an armored truck from the outside, you attack it and open it up and find it is an ice cream truck, you steal nothing from the truck.

can you be charged with armed robbery if you didn't try to steal anything once you found out it was only ice cream.


No, because armed robbery is taking of another's property by force or fear. You can be charged with robbery because of the "force or fear" element. The fact that you didn't get away with what you wanted is not relevant, any more than when a robber holds up a bank but flees when the teller refuses to give him money gets off the hook for the robbery.

Mistake of fact only applies if the fact negates the MENTAL element of the crime: If you intended to rob the truck and were only prevented from completing the crime because there was nothing inside you wanted, that would not be sufficient. Plus, the mistake has to be "reasonable". If you held up a truck thinking it was an armored car on the outside, then the fact you didn't know what was inside would not be reasonable.
 
2012-07-05 01:01:27 AM

LoneWolf343: TuteTibiImperes: though in general I'm not a fan of 'attempted' crime charges, they come too close to 'thought crime' in my book.

You're thinking of "conspiracy" charges. Attempted means that you made an obvious try and failed.


Yeah, I think I overstated my intended point. I can see the logic in 'attempted' crimes, but there does need to be a point of no return to determine what constitutes an attempt.

If you try to rob a bank, pull out a gun, give a note to the teller, but don't leave with any money, I can see that being attempted robbery. If the security guard sees the gun in your pocket and takes you down as you enter the building that shouldn't be attempted robbery.

Likewise if someone grabs a victim, whips out his penis, and tries to penetrate a victim but can't get it up or is fought off before he can that should be attempted rape. If he grabs the victim but never actually tries to have intercourse it shouldn't be.
 
2012-07-05 01:01:54 AM

jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.


What this is I dont even........
 
2012-07-05 01:10:12 AM

Tainted1: jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.

What this is I dont even........


Well, obviously not because penis.
 
2012-07-05 01:10:39 AM

detritus: So this isn't rape?


Also a good point.
 
2012-07-05 01:12:48 AM
That's...pretty awful. It sounds like how most nations treat the prison rape crisis.
 
2012-07-05 01:13:57 AM

jodaveki: Tainted1: jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.

What this is I dont even........

Well, obviously not because penis.


It is hard being a guy. No doubt about it. Hell, if you are a guy AND you are white I fell for you.
 
2012-07-05 01:14:32 AM

Sabyen91: jodaveki: Tainted1: jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.

What this is I dont even........

Well, obviously not because penis.

It is hard being a guy. No doubt about it. Hell, if you are a guy AND you are white I fell for you.


Did that sound gay?

/FEEL
 
2012-07-05 01:16:15 AM

shanrick: Ghastly: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!


Who's first?

[i.imgur.com image 294x239]


break me off a piece of that kit kat bar
 
2012-07-05 01:18:13 AM
No male rape in Sweden? What's it called if you handle their meatballs?
 
2012-07-05 01:18:13 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: detritus: So this isn't rape?

Also a good point.


It is now, depending on the state statute.

Rape used to be carnal knowledge of a female not one's wife. So there wasn't any allowance for oral rape, anal rape, or spousal rape. Oral/anal were formerly covered under sodomy statutes, and it was impossible to rape one's wife.

A lot of rape statutes still say that, but have been superceded by subsequent statutes, or amended to include anal, oral, and penetration by a foreign object. Nearly all rape statutes require some degree of penetration, so there is a charge of sexual battery where there was contact but no penetration. Spousal rape statutes have been updated to include any forcible penetration without consent.

It's a big mess. Rape needs to be redefined as "any sexual contact without consent" period.
 
2012-07-05 01:21:46 AM

ZAZ: The intended crime never had the possibility of being fulfilled

In the USA, or most of it, factual impossibility is not a defense to a crime of attempt. When you try to pick up that "14 year old girl" online the fact that she's a 30 year old man does not excuse your behavior.


I can't stand seeing people using the US CJ system as a measuring device for CJ systems in other countries. I mean come on, the US CJ system is pretty much as farked up as they come a lot of the time, if not more so. Keep in mind that this is the same system that gives people life in prison for looking at child porn, yet child molesters get off* with farking probation (especially if you have a vagina).

Don't get me started on the war on drugs...

*no pun intended.

/25% of the world's prison population, war on drugs, yada yada yada.
//not a troll, not trying to threadjack, just frustrated.
//end mini-rant.
 
2012-07-05 01:22:54 AM

banandar123: ZAZ: The intended crime never had the possibility of being fulfilled

In the USA, or most of it, factual impossibility is not a defense to a crime of attempt. When you try to pick up that "14 year old girl" online the fact that she's a 30 year old man does not excuse your behavior.

I can't stand seeing people using the US CJ system as a measuring device for CJ systems in other countries. I mean come on, the US CJ system is pretty much as farked up as they come a lot of the time, if not more so. Keep in mind that this is the same system that gives people life in prison for looking at child porn, yet child molesters get off* with farking probation (especially if you have a vagina).

Don't get me started on the war on drugs...

*no pun intended.

/25% of the world's prison population, war on drugs, yada yada yada.
//not a troll, not trying to threadjack, just frustrated.
//end mini-rant.


That has a shiat-load to do with rape...
 
2012-07-05 01:25:46 AM

Sabyen91: Sabyen91: jodaveki: Tainted1: jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.

What this is I dont even........

Well, obviously not because penis.

It is hard being a guy. No doubt about it. Hell, if you are a guy AND you are white I fell for you.

Did that sound gay?

/FEEL


NTTAWWT, dear...
 
2012-07-05 01:26:33 AM

Gyrfalcon: Sabyen91: Sabyen91: jodaveki: Tainted1: jodaveki: Well, considering men are responsible for every ill conceived of on Earth, it only stands to reason that they couldn't possibly be a victim of rape.

What this is I dont even........

Well, obviously not because penis.

It is hard being a guy. No doubt about it. Hell, if you are a guy AND you are white I fell for you.

Did that sound gay?

/FEEL

NTTAWWT, dear...


Sorry, I forgot the disclaimer.

/Thanks.
 
2012-07-05 01:34:00 AM
Shame on Sweden. What a terrible ...well, everything. There's no excuse these days for any legal system to not have a gender neutral definition of rape.
 
2012-07-05 01:35:06 AM

Gyrfalcon: Rape used to be carnal knowledge of a female not one's wife. So there wasn't any allowance for oral rape, anal rape, or spousal rape. Oral/anal were formerly covered under sodomy statutes, and it was impossible to rape one's wife.


Such wording also excludes the legal possibility of a woman raping a woman. Which, while certainly a small minority of cases, is the subject of several books on female victimization.
 
rpl
2012-07-05 01:35:36 AM
I think the lesson here is that when you're walking down the street and a man tries to get your business, and the people that you meet want to open you up like Christmas, then you gotta wrap your fuzzy with a big red bow so that ain't no biatch gonna treat you like a ho.

/'cause you're filthy
//Oooh and i'm gorgeous
 
2012-07-05 01:36:41 AM
I agree with the courts. No harm, no foul. It is probably best to let the guy go so he can get it right next time. Then they would actually have something on him.
 
2012-07-05 01:51:36 AM
I'll rape the court's goldfish, then we'll see how they feel about impossible rape crimes.
 
2012-07-05 01:52:13 AM

dopeydwarf: [content9.flixster.com image 461x346]

Things just got a whole lot easier in gen. pop.


Yeah that and Shawshank are the first things that popped into my head.
 
2012-07-05 01:52:56 AM
I can tell you from experience that it is impossible to rape the willing.
 
2012-07-05 01:54:49 AM
Yeah, obviously this guy isn't a danger to society, let him go. Transgender people aren't really people, they don't have souls or anything. So it's all cool and not a blow to trans rights or rape law in general.

Good to know I can't legally rape anyone, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report