This is a problem only the 21st century could create. And only a judge could see it this way.
A man who attempted to rape a woman has been cleared of the charges by a Swedish court after it turned out that the woman he tried to rape was biologically a man.
No. I’m serious. Seriously.
“The intended crime never had the possibility of being fulfilled,” explained judge Dan Sjöstedt of the Örebro District Court to local newspaper Nerikes Allehanda.
When the 61-year-old man had tried to commit the rape in Örebro, he had no idea that the intended victim was born a man, and had been taking hormonal treatment to reach the “right” identity, wrote the paper.
Wait. So it’s not rape? What?
The good news is the guy’s going to the slam for assault but I still have to wonder why no rape charge. I mean, I’ve seen prison movies. It’s possible.
You know who has it the worst here (besides the dude who was nearly raped)? Pronouns.
July 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Well, convicted or not, his soul still bares the sin. He had fully committed his will to the act. So he's guilty where it counts. Too bad the stste doesn't get it. I don't think much justice still exists this side of eternity.
July 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm
the most likely reason is how the rape law was written. In the military rape is only possible between an man and a woman not his wife:
"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses."
Sodomy covered the rest:
"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
July 7, 2012 at 6:08 am
So it's not rape? What?
That's right. It is not and cannot possibly be rape, ever.
Words mean things. The word "rape" has a distinct historical meaning and definition, which requires, inter alia, penile-vaginal penetration. In other words, one must be a woman to be the victim of rape, and it is impossible for a man to be "raped." That is and has been the case at common law for hundreds of years.
July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am
@ Bender: strictly speaking, yes, but it seems to me that since nonconsensual sodomy not only can be committed against both sexes, but has effects very similar to rape (minus the possibility of pregnancy), the crimes are close enough as to come under the same heading.
Then again slander and libel are two different things, so plainly, I wasn't consulted when our laws were written.
July 7, 2012 at 5:18 pm
I'm kinda' sorry I brought it up.
July 8, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Matt…this is one of those legal anachronisms that hang on in certain jurisdictions. Another (less lurid) one is the definition of burglary that has carried over from the common law: "the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein." Bar exams have fun with that one. What if the sun was coming up in the East? What if you only intended to retrieve an item that truly belongs to you? Still burglary?
Prosecutors can only work with the elements of the crimes as defined by the lawmakers in their jurisdictions.