The Federal Supreme Court issued two rulings concerning the offense of “theft”. In today’s sexual criminal law, it is only sexual harassment and not profanation.
Announcement
basic information at a glance
- Taking a condom secretly during sex is referred to as “hiding”.
- Sneaking is not a desecration under current law, a federal court ruled.
- That is why feminists insist all the more on the “yes means yes” solution in the revision.
“On the other hand, the acquittal of the profanation charge must be confirmed”: The Federal Supreme Court handed down two landmark sentences in the sexual sphere on Thursday. Both are about “stealing”, removing a condom without the consent of the sexual partner. Women are almost always affected when men secretly take a condom off during sex.
Two stealth cases have gone to federal courts because the perpetrators had been acquitted in previous convictions. Current sexual criminal law only recognizes profanation or rape as such if the victim is unable to resist. As a result, the Federal Supreme Court also had to acquit the perpetrators of the profanation: “The victim’s self-defense capacity as such remained intact,” both judge said.
However, a federal court ruled that the claim was inconsistent. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate whether the ruse is at best understandable under sexual harassment criminal law.
The principle of consent is indispensable in criminal law
Both judgments met with great interest. This is probably also due to the amendment to the sexual criminal law which is currently under debate. Léonore Porchet, president of the Sexual Health organization and national councilor (Greens / VD) to the question: “I am disappointed with the verdicts of the Federal Supreme Court. But it is also a way to show that the legal situation is currently inadequate. “
That’s why Porchet is committed to the “Yes Means Yes” solution. She is not sure if the “no means no” variant in sex criminal law would also consider theft as a profanation: “I’m concerned about legal uncertainty.”
According to her preferred wording, any sexual act without consent would be considered assault, Porchet said. But disagreement with hiding is hard to prove. Even a federal court wrote that “the consent of the victims has been violated,” a Vaud woman said.
Therefore, it is also a close-to-reality solution. “And that’s what we want: a criminal code that reflects the reality of rape and sexual violence!”
In the case of the word “no means no,” hiding will not necessarily be considered profanation
Lisa Mazzone gives more clarity: the councilor of the states in Geneva (the Greens) defended – in vain – a yes-means-yes solution in a small chamber. From their point of view, there is a risk that disguising “No Means No” would not be considered a profanity or rape.
“For example, if a man puts on a condom without having to be agreed between the partners,” says Mazzone. If she then secretly takes off the condom, the victim has never had the opportunity to “express a refusal in any form.” That is why the principle of consent is so important.
Mazzone believes it is inappropriate that the perpetrators should at best be found guilty of sexual harassment: “It is definitely not the molestation, but the penetration. For this reason, it is necessary to change the law ”.
Which version of the definition of rape do you prefer?
Will the judgments now help dissolve consent in a debate in the National Council? “It is clear to me: these judgments are further evidence that we need a” Yes, this is so, “replies Léonore Porchet. “But there is still a lot of resistance to getting all victims recognized.”
Rape. Federal Court. National Council. Not guilty violence
Source link