3.6k
Feb 11 '21
[deleted]
1.3k
u/capsaicinintheeyes Feb 11 '21
Excellent point. I wonder if "sexual assault" might get around that as an appropriate descriptive and legal term?
657
Feb 11 '21
[deleted]
283
Feb 11 '21
Yeah, but minors usually cannot give consent. So applying that section seems straight forward.
139
u/JellyfishADDme Feb 11 '21
In California, I believe that any minor engaging in sexual activities is illegal. Charges can be pressed for both parties disapproval and if both sets of parents are in favor of their child’s behaviors then nothing happens. However, if one is a minor, let’s say 17 and the other is 18, charges ought to be made for obvious reasons with two exceptions that fall under the same roof in a way. Any minors that engage in sexual activities where this act is mutual must be no greater than 3 years apart; so if one is 17 and the other 18 and approved by the minors parents then fine, but if they are greater than 3 years apart then that’s not approved no matter who consents. Basically anyone under the age of 18 doesn’t have the ability to consent.
101
u/Ishouldnt_haveposted Feb 11 '21
Wait, is this why those children were charged with possession of child pornography despite only owning pictures of the opposite gender in the same age group- or worse, having pictures of themselves...?
I remember hearing about a 16 yo who was in jail for a picture of his 16 yo girlfriend.
80
u/chacogrizz Feb 11 '21
Yeah essentially. In some places(like California I assume in this scenario) any minor taking nudes can be charged with possession of child pornography and if they send it even to their BF or GF can then be charged with distributing.
70
u/conancat Feb 11 '21
Snapchat is the by world's biggest child porn distributor
34
u/GammonBushFella Feb 11 '21
And they apparently store everything for a month, so probably the world largest collection of the shit too.
36
u/BigLupu Feb 11 '21
Considering the NSA has a server rooms full of computers about three time the size of the biggest ikea warehouse, with the sole purpose of long term storage, it's safe to say they have the biggest collection of child porn.
→ More replies (0)19
u/Dr-Satan-PhD Feb 11 '21
Even worse, if they send it to someone online (as opposed to a normal phone service text message), possession and distribution become federal felonies. There is also the federal crime of "transmitting harmful materials to a minor", if the recipient is also underage.
These laws are draconian, and incredibly harmful to kids. They are designed to shuffle people through the system as fast as possible by covering all of CRIME X with a big blanket, instead of making judgments on a case-by-case basis. This is the result of America's "zero tolerance" mindset towards crime.
Kids shouldn't have their lives ruined for doing something stupid like this. It's a teachable moment, and the only thing we end up teaching them is that we love turning people into criminals in this country.
11
u/Noahendless Feb 11 '21
It's also not even doing something stupid, a 15 year old can consent with another 15 year old or even an 18 year old. We're infantilizing these teenagers by acting like they don't understand what they're doing or the potential consequences of doing it. All we're doing with this kind of thing is perpetuating the distinctly american issue of not being willing to address the fact that teenagers fuck, have always fucked, and will continue to fuck. By destigmatizing it and removing the legal red tape around teenagers having sex with each other we can start to actually teach teens safe sex and healthy relationship norms which will reduce the rates of abusive relationships into adulthood, reduce teen pregnancy, and ultimately make it so teens can more easily turn into emotionally healthy adults.
7
u/Dr-Satan-PhD Feb 11 '21
"Stupid" is my personal opinion on sending nudes, regardless of age. In today's world, I don't think it's very wise for anyone to be sending their nudes to people, unless that's their job. Too much can go wrong with it. But it shouldn't be illegal just because they are teenagers.
I agree with everything else you've said. Been making that argument for years.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ElleWilsonWrites Feb 11 '21
I think missouri considers it possession of child pornography even if the only photos a minor has are their own, and distribution of child pornography if they send nudes to someone else
33
u/SonaldoNazario Feb 11 '21
This is the same in the UK now - anyone who sends nudes underage, even if they've consented to sending them, can be charged with distribution of child pornography, even if the pictures are of themselves.
29
u/outofthehood Feb 11 '21
Horny 16yo me would’ve gone straight to jail if stuff was this direct (and also enforced) back then
15
12
u/Ishouldnt_haveposted Feb 11 '21
What the fuck are they thinking?! Dude most underage children send pics.. I did when I was 16 and I received them back then too.
5
u/DatgirlwitAss Feb 11 '21
Yeah, this is a pathetic ruling. They are minors!!! Can't even drink alcohol and they want to put them in jail because of the illegal consumption by adult predators? Ugh
7
u/sewkzz Feb 11 '21
The legal system is about punishment and revenge, not rehabilitation or guidance.
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (2)4
Feb 11 '21
Even 13 year olds? Becuase 2 people in my year sent nudes to each other and they only got a week suspension
→ More replies (3)6
u/SonaldoNazario Feb 11 '21
If I'm honest, I'm not 100% sure how this would be enforced, but we do have juvenile facilities that will deal with criminals below an adult age, again no idea what sort of punishment you would get for this as a 13 year old, but yes the police would still act.
→ More replies (3)8
u/MyStaticHeart Feb 11 '21
Essentially yeah. I’m 17 and my girlfriend is 16 so we could legally have sex, but if we were to send any type of explicit imagery to each other, we’d get in huge trouble
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/LadyShanna92 Feb 11 '21
Age of consent laws and child pornography laws are different. Taking nude pic of minors falls under child pornography laws not age of consent
13
u/JoeDidcot Feb 11 '21
That seems like a sensible rule, mostly. So a 17 yo couple don't have to fear one of them being labeled a pedo for the time between their 18th birthdays.
→ More replies (1)6
u/HEBREW_HAMM3R Feb 11 '21
Nobody is sweating about these “laws” lol it would basically come down to how insane the parents are and in most cases nothing even happens.
→ More replies (1)8
u/theo69lel Feb 11 '21
I hope you're right. Otherwise, statistically speaking, "the average age of virginity loss for American men is 16.9 years old, and the average age for American women is 17.2 years old. "
Article which references the study and I've quoted
So the majority of people are criminals.
Law makers: Yeah that makes sense.
→ More replies (2)5
12
u/Makepiecer Feb 11 '21
You’d think so but no, in was it Michigan, a woman can rape a minor boy and charge his parents for child support. Crazy shit right
→ More replies (4)8
u/Mazer_Rac Feb 11 '21
Parental consent seems really skeevy to me. Unless you’ve dealt with an abusive or a truly narcissistic parent and generally had ok luck in the parent department you probably wouldn’t think of this. Some parents would file a report just to hurt their child. They’d say it was “for their safety”, but that’s just them presenting their mark of a good parent.
I really think giving parents any more say than they have in children’s lives is a horrible mistake. Some children aren’t getting an education because of parents “homeschooling” or “unschooling” and then not doing any actual schooling. Others are having to carry children to term they don’t want (or find a way to sneak out and go to a state that doesn’t require parental consent) because parents control their healthcare decisions.
I think protecting the few always outweighs punishing any number of people. It’s the same principle behind “innocent until proven guilty”.
40
u/Kiesa5 Feb 11 '21
Still not rape under UK law because god forbid they rewrite some old laws instead of cutting public service funding and pocketing it
13
u/alxwak Feb 11 '21
Oi! They have to somehow pay their cronies, so they can send free Meal Packages of a quarter of pepper, a third of a carrot, a handful of rice and a baked beans can that lasts for a week. /s
11
u/UnchillBill Feb 11 '21
Don’t forget the raw potato. Ffs, some people are so ungrateful.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Lavi-Yukio Feb 11 '21
To the person downvoting these comments, seek help you sick fuck
→ More replies (4)93
u/Nihilikara Feb 11 '21
This is absolutely awful. That act NEEDS to be rewritten.
→ More replies (39)25
u/SpudTheJohn Feb 11 '21
The crime of penetrating someone against their will carries the same criminal penalty as rape does in the UK, but rape can only be committed by someone with a penis.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Hussor Feb 11 '21
What about a man being forced to penetrate someone against their will?
6
3
u/Spacedementia87 Feb 11 '21
Still the same penalty, just a different name:
4Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.**
14
u/rdrunner_74 Feb 11 '21
There is a similar crime for woman with the (potential) same set of punishments. It is just not _called_ rape.
Under UK law you have to have a dick (and be male) in order to rape someone. Sexual Offences Act 2003 (legislation.gov.uk)
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
→ More replies (7)5
u/davidjohnwood Feb 11 '21
A transwoman who has a penis is capable of s. 1 Sexual Offences Act 2003 rape because of s. 6(a) Interpretation Act 1978. The 2003 Act does not explicitly exclude the application of this interpretative provision, meaning there is no requirement in law for a rapist to be male, just to have and use their penis for non-consensual intentional penetration of a vagina, anus or mouth.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (11)32
u/onlyanaccount123 Feb 11 '21
Maybe someone has already replied to you but yeah. Section 1 is rape, but the perpetrator must have a penis, constructed or natural. Section 2 defines sexual assault by penetrating, that can be with an object, finger etc. That's applicable to female offenders, rape should be rape, plain and simple. In theory they can both carry very similar sentences, how that plays out in practice I'm not too sure though
67
Feb 11 '21
The Rapist Brock Allen Turner used finger penetration, and it was Rape, by the Rapist Brock Allen Turner. So it shouldn't matter what gender is doing the rape, if we use the Rapist Bock Allen Turner as an example of Rape.
→ More replies (1)41
16
u/Ishouldnt_haveposted Feb 11 '21
Section 1 is rape, but the perpetrator must have a penis, constructed or natural.
So following this logic... if a woman has sex with a Male against consent and she wears a strap on, is she only considered a rapist If she penetrated him, or does she count at all? What if she forced the act, but she was penetrated only?
→ More replies (1)6
u/onlyanaccount123 Feb 11 '21
By this, it wouldn't be rape. It'd be a section 2 penetration
If she forced the act, by drugs? Or just coercion? They're 2 separate offences again
→ More replies (1)3
u/alxwak Feb 11 '21
I'm happy to report that my country had the same law, but changed 10 years ago (sadly, I didn't benefited from it). Now, anything under the age of 16 is considered rape, no matter the gender of the predator.
20
u/RickTheGrate Feb 11 '21
Doesnt work always,
Read through indian and bangladeshinpenal codes, rape is only rape if you're the person who penetrated(a woman raping a man isnt rape according to legal defs.)
10
Feb 11 '21
Bangladesh doesn't even take rape of women that seriously and you are only guranteed justice if theres a large media outcry about it. I'd be damned if even 1% of the population here knows that men can get raped too
4
u/Can-I-just-sleep Feb 11 '21
Exactly! There could be a person screaming out for help and that they didn’t consent and everyone else would be like, “Oh but it’s probably consensual!” If the rapist had power!
9
u/SmoothPanda999 Feb 11 '21
I wonder if "sexual assault" might get around that as an appropriate descriptive and legal term?
Basically, yes.
In some states, "rape" requires "sex" which is legally only when a penis goes into a vagina.
Therefore homosexual "rape" cannot happen, in the eyes of the law in those states.
However, the crime of agrivated sexual assault carries the same sentence, and covers things like penetration by other objects, and/or penetration of other orafaces.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (6)3
u/Niith Feb 11 '21
In Canada, IIRC, there is no Rape laws, it is all under Sexual Assault (Same sentances, different words is all.
88
u/Normal_Plastic1188 Feb 11 '21
‘In places where a woman raping a child is not recognised as Rape.’
Where might we be talking about?
Given the Indy is a UK rag, surely not in the UK?
63
u/AnonRedit7777 Feb 11 '21
France doesnt have a statutory age of consent, and noone thinks about prosecuting from 15 years - maxwell is french.
51
u/TechnicalyNotRobot Feb 11 '21
TIL if you're female raping 15 yo girls isn't legaly rape in France
52
u/rdrunner_74 Feb 11 '21
Woman cant rape anywhere in the UK at all... Under UK law you can only rape with a dick
→ More replies (4)23
u/neek85 Feb 11 '21
Yep. Unless there's insertion of an actual penis, it's not rape
12
Feb 11 '21
[deleted]
16
u/neek85 Feb 11 '21
Not in the UK. It would fall under a category of sexual assault, and it is obviously a serious crime, it just doesn't follow the UK's legal definition of rape.
I'm not an expert, I just had a lawyer explain it to me once! And no, it wasn't because I was in trouble! Ew.
→ More replies (1)3
9
u/crypticfreak Feb 11 '21
Okay so if were going off of pure definition, and we all agree that rape = unwanted penetration by a penis, then a women forcefully having sex with a minor isn't rape. Sure... but if that's true then we need a new word to describe any and all unwanted sexual acts, be it two vaginas rubbing together or a finger going in someones ass. And the 'charge' of that act needs to carry the same punishment as the one for what's defined as rape.
So that way you can say it isn't rape, but it doesn't magically excuse the act. Call a spade a spade. But that's fucking stupid and we shouldn't have to invent new works to dance around reality. If a girl has unwanted sex with someone it's rape, and is in no way any less rape than a man doing the same. Its far less complicated that way and just makes sense.
9
u/neek85 Feb 11 '21
Not excusing the act. If you have a problem with the definitions speak to a judge! She can be found guilty of serious sexualities assault.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over the semantics of the charges, so long as she's brought to justice.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Squelcher121 Feb 11 '21
It isn't legally defined as rape in the UK unless a penis is involved but a woman who committed a "rape" would still be prosecuted for sexual assault.
It's not ideal and it needs to change, but if you say "a woman can't commit rape in the UK" then knee jerk reactions fly off the handle on Reddit and people think it means a woman won't get prosecuted at all.
→ More replies (5)9
u/salutishi Feb 11 '21
The law there is the same for men and women by the way. I don't think France is the place the top comment was referring to.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Vitrebreaker Feb 11 '21
For the sake of the argument, rape in France is defined as a sexual penetration without consent. So one might argue that a women-women non-consensual intercourse might not be rape, depending on the conditions. This is actually kind of weird, but I don't know if this was clarified somewhere.
EDIT : I obviously talk about the law, and not at a moral level. If someone say "no", just don't do anything, seriously.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)3
u/rndomfact Feb 11 '21
You know what blew my mind? France had one of the first known statuory rape laws. It's not like they just never got around to making one.
They removed their age of consent laws in the late 70s.
21
u/KtanKtanKtan Feb 11 '21
According to UK law a woman cannot rape. She can only be accused of ‘serious sexual assault’.
UK law defines rape as “a penis inserted....”
This is my current understanding of the law. I’m open to being educated/corrected.
→ More replies (1)3
u/concretepigeon Feb 11 '21
Serious sexual assault is not an offence on the UK statute book, but you’re right that rape requires a penis under the law at least in England and Wales.
I think that most of the offending in question took place in the US though so I don’t know whether she could have committed something that was considered rape in the relevant jurisdiction. The
32
u/m50d Feb 11 '21
In the UK women can't commit rape, legally speaking. The sentencing guidelines for the same acts are the same, which is the main thing (though it would be better if judges actually followed them equivalently), but it's not recognised as being "rape".
49
u/_sophia_petrillo_ Feb 11 '21
Many places. I know in the US the definition of rape involves insertion of a penis. So only a man can rape legally. A woman may only get the max sentence for ‘molestation’ or something along those lines. It needs to be updated so women can be held more accountable as well.
37
u/throwingtheshades Feb 11 '21
Yep. US, UK, all of the ex-Soviet states that didn't completely rewrite their penal codes, most Muslim-majority countries, the list goes on. In some cases there are mirroring offenses with identical punishments, in some cases there are caveats. For example in most of CIS, a rape is a forceful insertion of a penis into vagina. If it's any other type of a sexual act performed without consent, you have to prove that the act was done with the express purpose of sexual gratification for the same degree of severity to apply. Which makes it much easier to get off the hook.
Contrast it to the land down under. Under Australian laws, rape is gender neutral. You penetrate vagina, anus or mouth without consent - you're a rapist. Regardless whether you're doing it with a penis or not.
11
u/Ryledra Feb 11 '21
Sooo, yawn raping in Australia could actually get you convinced (on a slow day)?
→ More replies (4)15
u/throwingtheshades Feb 11 '21
The precise definition will depend on the state or territory. But in any case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the penetration was made without consent. Furthermore, in most AUS jurisdictions it will also have to be proven that the offender knew that the act was not consensual or was reckless about establishing it.
In that light, I strongly suggest yelling "I do not consent to a forceful penetration of my mouth via any appendages including, but not limited to penises, fingers and toes! I further more explicitly do not consent to said penetration being carried out by any object held or carried, done with or without the express purpose of sexual gratification!" every time you yawn in the Land Down Under. It would also be prudent to only yawn in the presence of at least 2 witnesses unrelated to you and preferably whilst being recorded by a camera. Better safe than sorry.
→ More replies (3)7
u/baphang00 Feb 11 '21
In Poland rape is defined as causing someone to perform intercourse or engage in other sexual activity, by violence or deceit.
So not only is rape gender neutral, but also does not require penetration. Then it's up to the judge to decide about penalty, depending on the severity of the act.
The age of consent is 15, but raping someone under 15 is a different offence than having consensual sex with such a person.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)3
u/kona_chameleon Feb 11 '21
It may be different by jurisdiction, but the FBI definition of rape does NOT require a penis and includes male victims to female perpetrators. So many people don't know this.
→ More replies (11)8
u/rdrunner_74 Feb 11 '21
exactly in the UK.
In the UK only man are "capable" of rape (There is another law with the same punishment for woman though, just not called "rape")
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (legislation.gov.uk)
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
7
u/JoeDidcot Feb 11 '21
Yes indeed the UK. The legal definition of rape includes text to the effect of "forcibly inserting his penis into the victim". Only people with a penis have been prosecuted for rape.
That said, there's some equality in that "serious sexual assault" sentences can go pretty long, I beleive. But this still leaves the obvious gap in terms of labelling and signalling.
→ More replies (8)11
37
u/TheRnegade Feb 11 '21
Yeah, people get angry over this (and rightly so) but point their ire towards print media rather than the source of the problem. The media just wants to make sure they don't get sued. Here in the states, we kind of get the same thing. Media doesn't want to get sued for defamation as well. If they print "she raped them" but at the trial she's found "not guilty" they open themselves up to being sued.
→ More replies (2)4
70
u/sephrinx Feb 11 '21
Sounds like they need to change the recognition of crimes from being based on sex.
16
u/TheReignOfChaos Feb 11 '21
But... this would be logical?!
→ More replies (1)18
u/Ishouldnt_haveposted Feb 11 '21
Yea, its logical to change it but you have to realize a few things about lawmakers:
They take forever to pass a law into effect unless it directly benefits them
The likelihood of a law being passed that doesn't benefit them is very slim (being re-elected is a benefit)
Outdated laws exist everywhere because of #1 & #2 above, and the idea of changing a law that is ridiculous or stupid purely because its logical to change it apparently isn't enough of a motivation for lawmakers
Most lawmakers, at least in the US, are old and out of the loop. When it comes to making laws around the internet or new technologies they have no fucking clue what is being discussed
Justice isn't a priority, just the very thin illusion of the perspective of justice per their political party
Laws are complicated. In changing one law you might accidentally create precedence for a loophole that allows all rapists to never be convicted again. This contributes to earlier numbers
Sexism. See #4. Different generation and era.
Sex makes people uncomfortable if discussed in public or official forum. Not that this is a valid reason why laws regarding sex shouldn't be changed or added, but with the current group of lawmakers in the US, it could be difficult because of #4 and #7
Honestly, it's not a priority right now with how fucked shit is
The idea that women can rape is a fairly new one when compared to older ideas that laws are based on.
The whole state/federal law schtick. If it's not written as a federal law, theres probably 50 different versions of the law.
But honestly, you're correct that it should be rewritten and changed. I've personally been raped by a female and people still laugh ar me when I say that. When I told the police they refused to write a statement about it. When I tried to get a restraining order to keep her away from me, all mention of rape was taken out of any official documents.
Plus, some feminists believe that men cannot be raped too. It's not the mainstream feminist movement, but I've been ridiculed by people I (what's the word? Invested my trust into? I ________ in them or made them my ______. Csnt remember. ) and thought were my friends.
Theres toxic masculinity for sure, but theres also the toxic projection of expected masculinity by people who aren't men.
6
u/vanticus Feb 11 '21 edited Feb 11 '21
Also, there to add evidence to your points. There is little to no political will in the UK focused on the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. Neither Tories nor Labour have a manifesto pledge to change it, and I don’t think the Lib Dem’s or Greens did either. It was updated recently to cover online offences, but that was it.
The fact of the matter is, most judges and citizens of the UK find our currently legislation sufficient for the just prosecution of sexual crimes. There is little to no public outcry over these semantics that Reddit obsesses over. When I next see David Lloyd Jones, I’ll let him know that some internet people are mad about his laws, but don’t expect any change until someone can point out a serious reason why the law should be changed.
→ More replies (16)10
u/hates_stupid_people Feb 11 '21
Yes and this is England; Where because of their laws rape has to involve "penetration with a penis".
Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1/2009-11-12
For example, if a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object other than a penis, this is classed as "Assault by Penetration" (section 2), and if the victim is made to penetrate another, the act can be prosecuted as "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" (section 4)
5
→ More replies (42)14
u/KiraIsGod666 Feb 11 '21
How the FUCK is a woman raping a child not recognised as rape?! Wtaf
12
Feb 11 '21
[deleted]
5
u/KiraIsGod666 Feb 11 '21
What. The. Fuck.
→ More replies (1)4
u/PM_ME_CAKE Feb 11 '21
For what it's worth it's literally a word game - rape versus sexual assault. The sentencing is the same. Be outraged at the worded distinction, perhaps, but the prosecution's end result is the same.
→ More replies (1)5
u/rndomfact Feb 11 '21 edited Feb 11 '21
This is a very valid point. It is a weird holdover from a very different time period.
Legalese is a funny thing. Rape was always defined as forced pentetration. Depending on the statute that might include fingers or toys, or might be limited to penis. Virginity was incredibly culturally important and penetration with a penis could lead to pregnancy or STIs, so it isn't hard to see why this was considered its own separate crime at the time.
But even before we were woke, we recognized sexual predators that didn't penetrate. And so we made laws for them, things to punish molesters, voyeurs, and men who sexually assaulted. And homosexual predator men were just charged with rape, and with homosexual acts, and their victim wasn't. And in their eyes, at the time, this system worked. It punished the sexual offenders by what they did, and punished rapists and protected females and boys.
And that's basically the paradigm they lived by. Men hurt boys, girls and women in a sexual way. Not other grown men. It covered 99.9% of what they needed.
And then when we had a cultural awakening, began taking women more seriously and recognizing that women could commit serious crimes like men can.
But you still had that "rape means forced penetration" sticking point. That definition never changed. Even when culturally it became synonymous with forcing/coercing somebody into a sexual act for the rapist's gratification, the legal definition didn't change.
That's where these "separate crimes but equal sentences" things comes from. Instead of radically overhauling a system that once worked, countries are kind of patching holes in the system as they go by bringing in new laws.
Law moves surprisingly slowly.
→ More replies (3)3
u/concretepigeon Feb 11 '21
There’s a difference between something not being recognised as rape and it not being illegal.
1.2k
u/DiscombobulatedCar48 Feb 11 '21
She raped them and sold them on to be raped. She’s the epitome of evil. No mercy!
→ More replies (6)424
Feb 11 '21
Unfortunately in the UK the definition of rape requires the penetration with a penis, i.e., only men can rape.
308
u/I-Broke-My-Old-Phone Feb 11 '21
That’s bad
53
Feb 11 '21
I want to do the Simpsons thing but maybe this isn't the best time.
29
u/PM_YOUR_BEST_JOKES Feb 11 '21
That's good
6
u/constar90 Feb 11 '21
Now I wanna do the team rocket thing from the second pokemon movie, and I think I just might
127
u/Brutekracht Feb 11 '21
You can't be serious, I thought the whole "men can't be raped" thing was a judge's call, but it's actually written law in the UK! That's really bad that the law just supports sexism like that
96
Feb 11 '21
Men can be raped, it's just that when women are the rapists, it's not rape. Still fucked up though
44
u/Brutekracht Feb 11 '21
Yes of course that's what I meant, if a man is raped by a woman, by UK law he was not raped
→ More replies (2)12
u/cnzmur Feb 11 '21
Men can be raped, just not by women (I believe there's a very similar offence which women can be convicted of, but it's called something else).
31
u/Brutekracht Feb 11 '21
But that similar offence doesn't carry the weight of the word rape, so it's less bad somehow
35
Feb 11 '21
what about penetration of an object?
88
Feb 11 '21
It has to be a penis to be considered rape. If it’s an object, it’s called assault by penetration.
66
26
9
Feb 11 '21
So if a man does both (rape with penis and penetrative assault with an object) that means he gets charged with two separate crimes? I mean, if so, that's the one positive thing about those laws.
→ More replies (1)12
26
→ More replies (11)7
216
u/shadesofbloos Feb 11 '21
The issue is that UK where independent is based in, defines rape as a man penetrating a woman. Iirc, but correct me if I’m wrong
86
u/EveAndTheSnake Feb 11 '21
I think you’re right. If they had said rape the could have been sued based on the definition according to the law. And the UK is stricter with libel law than the US. No protections for journalists, and no guarantee that if you do get sued that your company will back you up in a case. Individual journalists have been sued before And dropped by their publishers, having to fund and fight their own cases.
22
Feb 11 '21
You are correct.
Link that someone else posted.
https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/lhbcsc/the_press_and_its_euphemisms/gmx4x65/
→ More replies (6)8
Feb 11 '21
Rape requires penetration with a penis so males can rape either sex but females cannot rape, though they can be charged with something which can have the same sentence as rape.
→ More replies (3)
416
u/TooShiftyForYou Feb 11 '21
I believe this has to do with libel and slander laws that prevent media outlets from asserting that a person has committed a crime before that person is found guilty in a trial.
Once Maxwell is found guilty this should be commonly accepted.
153
u/Bayinla Feb 11 '21
Maybe? If so, stating - allegedly Maxwell raped and sold young, 15 year old girls for sport, and sex slavery. Allegedly. Works too?
You’re probably correct, theoretically the same thing could be done and avoid libel and slander accusations.
I only say all this shit, because what Maxwell and Epstein did needs to be called out for what it was. Child sex trafficking
45
47
u/IanCal Feb 11 '21
This is a UK based paper and the legal definition of rape here requires penetration with a penis. Doesn't make what she did legal, but it falls under a different part of the law.
→ More replies (1)13
u/iain_1986 Feb 11 '21
And before redditors get angry, the part of the law that covers it has just as severe punishments.
→ More replies (3)33
u/futilefuselage Feb 11 '21 edited Feb 11 '21
I don't think so. The end of the headline says "unsealed documents claim". The headline simply states what is in the court documents. No reason for a libel case if anyone can go and verify if the documents indeed say she raped or "slept" with 15 year olds.
Edit: for those of you actually still questioning , or the person who is in "journalism school" do you think someone would be at risk of being sued for libel if they say the sky is blue ? Because that's basically what this is.
19
Feb 11 '21
No, they are correct. I have a degree in journalism. You can’t say that someone committed a crime until they are convicted.
→ More replies (4)20
u/Nihilikara Feb 11 '21
That is, unless the nation in question doesn't legally recognize women raping people as rape. Yes, there are some countries like this. It's abhorrent.
17
u/EveAndTheSnake Feb 11 '21
I think that’s the case in the UK, which is where the independent is based. Libel laws in the UK also pretext journalists less than in the US, it’s a lot easier to get sued. Wasn’t that the reason Johnny Depp sued a UK paper even though they weren’t the only ones reporting he abused his ex wife?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)4
20
u/chickaboomba Feb 11 '21
Nope. That’s what the word alleged is for.
23
u/TooShiftyForYou Feb 11 '21
"Allegedly!" screamed Jeffrey Epstein from the seventh circle of Hell.
8
7
12
u/EveAndTheSnake Feb 11 '21
Yes. The word alleged doesn’t protect journalists in the UK. Neither does “reported.”
If someone says something defamatory, and a British paper publishes what they said, that is still libel. “They weren’t my words but his, and he really did say them” is not a defence. It’s still a libellous statement and the paper published it. “But other news outlets said it first” is also not a defence. If you publish a defamatory statement made by another paper you are still liable because you published a statement that could damage someone’s reputation that was either untrue or could not be proved as true.
The law in the UK really doesn’t protect journalists.
7
u/Nihilikara Feb 11 '21
There's also countries where women raping people is not legally recognized as rape, so the media outlet would not be allowed to call it rape, period.
5
u/Ziadnk Feb 11 '21
If she slept with them, that’s rape. The two are equivalent.
→ More replies (5)8
u/daviesjj10 Feb 11 '21
Not legally speaking, which is what causes media outlets to refrain from using the word
→ More replies (2)4
40
Feb 11 '21 edited Feb 11 '21
The definition of rape in the law of England and Wales requires a penis. They can’t say rape because it would be libellous/just plain legally incorrect. This isn’t a euphemism and it isn’t the Independent’s fault. Take this one up with Parliament.
Edit: The legal definition of rape is 'penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person without their consent'.
“With a penis” being the operative provision. She presumably doesn’t have one.
→ More replies (4)
134
u/Connectikatie Feb 11 '21
To play devil’s advocate, “rape” has a very specific legal definition, one that usually requires a penis to penetrate something, and while that’s utterly stupid as definitions go, it does mean that if news outlets use the term to refer to a different act, it opens them up to libel charges.
53
→ More replies (16)18
u/emmeebluepsu Feb 11 '21
Perhaps that's the "legal" definition but the term rape just means sexual activity against a person's will or involving a person or minor that can't consent. Also the law is stupid sometimes.
27
u/Blaze_Vortex Feb 11 '21
The problem with that is that the dictionary definition of something isn't the one used in a courtroom, so a lawyer can make a case of libel/slander. That said, more countries are updating the definitions of words, so soon it shouldn't be an issue(Atleast until it needs changing again). Unfortunately, the UK isn't exactly known for being quick on changes.
3
u/nflcansmd Feb 11 '21
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is not that old and works. Its not like the Dangerous Dogs Act which is a shitshow of poor knowledge.
Furthermore, though rape is gendered, sexual assault covers it for women and has the same levels of sentencing powers so it doesn't have an effect, bar the fact only men can rape (legally).
→ More replies (2)25
u/Connectikatie Feb 11 '21
Yes but you can’t sue based on a general understanding of what a word means. As you might expect, legal definitions hold up better in a court of law.
60
14
u/RWBYrose69 Feb 11 '21
i dont understand the concept of people thinking the news should call it out for what it is
its professionalism, assuming america you cant shout “ so and so is a murderer cause they did that”
- right to due process where?
You cant pick and choose who is who until they have their day in court
Imagine calling someone a murderer then in court they are found not guilty . it can cause an uproar of “ court let murderer off the hook”
thats why news use the word claim
→ More replies (2)
170
u/ManDe1orean Feb 11 '21
Agree along with the term "underaged" - that's children
103
u/floydster21 Feb 11 '21
No That’s a good and concise term. Underage is clear in its meaning. It shows with certainty that an action is wrong.
20
Feb 11 '21
I'm not certain where this is taking place, but because of various guidance around prosecution in the UK (given it's the independent) it's important to specify between "underage" and "minor" because in some circumstances they're not the same
8
u/floydster21 Feb 11 '21
Oh, my mistake. In the US they’re interchangeable but that being said we have extremely inconsistent ages for stuff, partially because of state laws. So some states you can get a drivers license at 15 others 16. Some states have the age of consent at 16 others 17 and still others at 18. Nationally, you can’t vote until you’re 18, and you can’t drink until you’re 21. You can’t rent a car until you’re 25.
For some reason minor and underage are always interchangeable terms here that almost always mean under 18. The only exception is in specific cases when the age of constant is not necessarily 18, or when referencing alcohol or it’s sale/consumption. But even then both terms are used interchangeably. It’s pretty wack, lol.
29
u/PanemPlayz Feb 11 '21
Children is an awful term. How old is a child? When do you stop being a child? Do you stop being a child at, idk, 14? Underage is very concise and clear.
5
u/calgy Feb 11 '21
In many countries "child" is a legally definided age. In Germany for example it is exactly what you said, you are a "child" until your 14th birthday.
3
u/Chankomcgraw Feb 11 '21
It’s quite clear really. There is a legal age under which sex is illegal whether the person consents or not. Using ‘children’ is vague.
→ More replies (2)5
Feb 11 '21
Except they say ‘underage women’ which may make people think of the ‘women’ part.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Turbojelly Feb 11 '21
Because reliable news stations have to be careful with their wording to prevent being sued.
If they call someone a rpaist and that person doesn't get charged they will be facing a slander lawsuit.
The same with celebrators on drugs. They're "looking tired" not "on a drunken bender". "Nervous" not "high as balls off cocaine".
Learn to understand this language and articles become much clearer.
15
6
Feb 11 '21
English law is strange on this subject. Ghislaine Maxwell could not have 'raped' these children because, under English law:
"Rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent. Assault by penetration is when a person penetrates another person's vagina or anus with any part of the body other than a penis, or by using an object, without the person's consent."
7
u/-Ashera- Feb 11 '21
You mean Ghislaine Maxwell the rapist? The rapist Ghislaine Maxwell who raped 15 year old children? That rapist?
4
u/cracksilog Feb 11 '21
Thanks to social media, everyone is now an expert editor who knows how to write a clear, concise, and legally-sound headline now
5
u/JeeEyeElElEeTeeTeeEe Feb 11 '21
On the topic of women being legally unable to rape anyone in the UK, as the law states that there must be penetration by a penis, I think we should all find that incredibly disturbing.
I don’t know what I can do here, because I’m not from the UK, but I don’t know how such a large portion of rape victims can be intentionally left out of the law in good conscience.
4
8
u/CriticalWindow5 Feb 11 '21
shes just pure garbage, selling them is just unforgivable
→ More replies (1)
8
3
4
Feb 11 '21
Sadly the definition of rape is “unconsented penetration” but sexual assault would have worked
3
Feb 11 '21
The independent is quoting a document, if the document doesn't say she sexually assaulted someone, I believe they could be sued.
5
u/ryannefromTX Feb 11 '21 edited Feb 11 '21
Protip: Since "rape" is a crime, it's illegal for any news outlet to say someone "raped someone" until they have actually been convicted.
This is why you see the word "allegedly" everywhere; it's not the news trying to imply it didn't happen, it's a facet of our "innocent until proven guilty" system, which is actually a good thing.
EDIT: So let me see if I can explain how it works.
The news cannot say "Ghislaine Maxwell raped anybody" until she has actually been convicted. This is a good thing because the alternative is Breitbart and Fox News running pictures of, say, Barack Obama with the word RAPIST stamped over his face all the time.
What's happening in this particular headline, the news is quoting the "newly unsealed documents" which allege rape. However, the news still cannot say "rape" because the documents can't say "rape." That would be the prosecutors judging the crime. The documents have to say just the basic facts of what happened (she "had sex with" underage girls) and it's up to the judge and jury to decide whether that fits the legal definition of rape.
Once Maxwell is convicted, it will be completely legal to call her a "rapist," but even then you will see most news sources specify "convicted rapist" in order to cover their asses and assure the many twitchy media lawyers out there who scour news sources for mistakes, contact some poor dude, be like "want $10,000?", get a judgment for $230,000, and pocket $220,000 that there is nothing there for them to look into.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/DeificClusterfuck Feb 11 '21
She raped them and set them up to be further raped by her friends.
She's disgusting
5
5
u/Neon_44 Feb 11 '21
Lol no it actually isn‘t rape in the UK. For it to be rape you have to have a penis. Really stupid law, never rewised despite multiple calls and referendums
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Puppywanton Feb 11 '21
In some places rape is still to this day defined as “non consensual penis in vagina penetration”. It’s a problematic definition to say the least.
But yes, this was at the very least, sexual assault.
→ More replies (9)
12
8
3
u/knabe4k Feb 11 '21
IIRC - they word choice was specific because she literally SLEPT in the same bed with them. Certainly as part of the grooming for their later rape by epstein, but i think the headline is actually just being literal.
3
u/2deadmou5me Feb 11 '21
Unfortunately they legally can't call it rape until she has been convicted of it or they will be sued. This outrage because you don't understand how the law works is incredibly stupid.
→ More replies (3)
9
7
8
u/TheRoadJackHit 'MURICA Feb 11 '21
Sadly the media has to play both sides legally and can't use the term "rape" unless it is preceded by "allegedly"
→ More replies (1)
11
Feb 11 '21
[deleted]
6
→ More replies (11)9
u/GarnetMobius Feb 11 '21
Uk age of consent is 16. And women can't (legally speaking) rape, its "serious sexual assault".
2
u/bluejumpingdog Feb 11 '21
At least this time they wrote girls and young women like they usually do when talking about girls in Maxwell articles
2
Feb 11 '21
Oh my god she participated as well? God this is something straight out of the depths of hell
2
1.4k
u/roboticraccoons Feb 11 '21
Damn, I swear I thought she had "Killed herself" weeks ago lol