Among other things he argues around a theoretical example where a woman and man has regular sexual relationship, but one day the female goes to the police and says that she one night told her man that she didn’t want to have sex, but the man did her anyway during which she remained passive. Hillegren claims that this should not be constituted as rape and that there is no reason for having an additional law or interpretation of the law in order to be able to convict the man in this example. In this he is, of course, completely accurate in his judgement. This cannot, no matter if you look at it from a moral, juridical or from an intellectual standpoint, be the same as rape. Consequently it cannot either be punishable according to the same law.
However, he sort of, again, steps into it. This because he argues (at least that’s how one can interpret it) that the rule of consent isn’t applicable according to any kind of law, which is not true. Even if we ignore statutory rape wherein a minor, in dependent position, can be taken advantage of an elder, there is still other situations where force isn’t necessarily needed. Imagine a situation where one woman is surrounded by 4 men, she knows they are going to rape her, no matter what she does. She might not even say no or resists at all, what’s the point? And since the government conveniently have outlaw self-defence she is at the mercy of those men and gets raped. This is a situation Hillegren avoids taking into account and, of course, this will be one of the points his adversaries will jump at. I don’t think he really argues that this is not rape, but if one read his article this can be read into it and, of course, many will do just that. However, he also has a point in this regard, only looking at the law. How can you ever prove that a female didn’t want to have groupsex if there is no evidence?
I think this entire situation is bad for the entire justice situation in Sweden. On one side we have rabid feminist ass-holes that believe that all men are evil incarnated and that even sex itself is an abomination hence a “no” in any form always means that the man is a rapists. On the other side we have a dogmatic lawman that only looks at the law and what can be proven according to that law. Although the debate is in the table, which is good, the arguments thrown around are, for the most part, about the wrong things. What should be debated is the law itself, and the potential punishments in addition to a discussion about self-defence and how to reduce the number of rapes. Everything about rape and the law in this regard is very hard to discuss because there is so much feelings involved.
I agree with Hillegren on his basic points, that his fictive scenario cannot be construed as rape and IF a situation like that is punishable, it is not anywhere near the levels of “real rape”. I also agree with the adjustments in the law and that our courts cannot only listen to statements and words, they need to have evidence. However, the discussion should really be expanded and involve more of reality, not just the law as it is or about fictive patriarch structures.
The current law is wrong in the sense that any “ordinary” rapists almost always get around 2-2,5 years in prison if convicted, and since almost no one sits their entire jail-time he (or she) will be released before that time has passed. Also the retribution that should be paid to the victim is always paid by the state, which is nonsense. We should never let a rapist out of jail until that person has paid his dues. This is ridiculous and the jail-time for violating someone in this manor should rend at least ten times that sentence, preferably much more. I do believe in letting people, within reason, have another chance, also regarding such idiots as rapists. However, a repeated offender should never be let out or, rather, be executed.
Also, we need to debate and really change the law so people actually can defend themselves. How can a 90lbs female defend herself against a 200lbs man? With a couple of 9mm bullets.
No comments:
Post a Comment