Crime | News | Sweden

BigGayDeal.com

Swede Not A Rapist Because Victim Was A Man, Says Judge

SwedishFlagThis is problematic: a Swedish judge dismissed rape attempt charges against a man because the woman he tried to rape is transgender and, according to the judge, "the intended crime never had the possibility of being fulfilled."

From The Local:

"We believe that he wanted to rape this woman in particular. But as she turned out to be a man, the crime never was actually committed,” said [Judge] Sjöstedt, adding that the case against rape was “invalid”.

"There are different theories about how this should be handled, and so we’re looking forward to seeing the verdict from the Court of Appeals,” he said, adding that he would appeal the decision if he were the prosecutor or the defense.

Despite the fact that the rape charge was dismissed, the attacker was convicted of assault and may be sentenced to four years in prison.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Are you stupid?

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Jul 5, 2012 12:16:42 PM


  2. If I went in to hold up a bank with a "fake gun," and threatened to kill everyone, would it be invalid because my gun wasn't real? Get your head out, Swedes...

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Jul 5, 2012 12:17:49 PM


  3. This judge is an idiot! It wouldn't surprise me if this out-of-touch judge was really old.

    Posted by: John | Jul 5, 2012 12:18:47 PM


  4. I'm going to examine the background of the case - the story seems extremely problematic.

    However, I would note that when 'rape' began to be included in modern criminal codes, there was a specific definition attached to it, i.e. vaginal penetration. Without it, there would be no rape as under the code.

    When laws around sex crimes have been revised, they've (normally) tended to de-emphasize 'rape' to focus on the broader category of sexual assault, to reflect the reality that penetrative rape is only one form of sexual assault, and there are other, equally heinous ones.

    I'm interested in the background to this though because it would surprise me if a modern, developed country like Sweden had not yet revised its criminal code to reflect the new legal standard.

    Posted by: Nat | Jul 5, 2012 12:38:13 PM


  5. Before launching into an attach against the Swedes (who are quite liberal and progressive), I'd also like to check out the background. It doesn't state in the article if there was penetration of any kind at all. Whilst the woman may have been attacked with the intention to rape, unless he actually raped her then you obviously can't charge him with that. The judge did acknowledge his intention after all. You can only convict someone of the crime they committed, which in this cases is assault with intention to rape.

    It's like charging someone with murder if they wanted to kill you, but didn't go through with it!

    Posted by: Cburg | Jul 5, 2012 12:51:11 PM


  6. Saw this on another site, looks like it is more a confusion on the legal system and translation issues, looks like the judge thinks it should be rape and has pushed it up the ladder to clear what the "jury" said was not. Also the term Jury is not what Americans would be used to thinking of but more of a group of lawyers or other judges who out voted the presiding judge... If anyone can read Swedish and can look at the original article that might help.

    Posted by: RandyOwen | Jul 5, 2012 12:58:56 PM


  7. I'd bet Nat is right. The historic definition of "rape" would not include this situation. And criminal laws are (for good reason) usually very strictly construed. That the judge might think that "rape" should cover this situation wouldn't matter if the way the law is written doesn't actually do so.

    Posted by: Glenn | Jul 5, 2012 1:06:21 PM


  8. The Swedes are generally thought to be very intelligent and civilized. Guess this judge is an exception?

    Posted by: Jack M | Jul 5, 2012 1:06:22 PM


  9. Dumbest judge ever!

    Posted by: Matt | Jul 5, 2012 1:33:18 PM


  10. It seems to be, like @RANDOWEN suggests a case of unclear translation mostly. Not to say it isn't controversial. I only did a quick search, so the following excerpt is from a tabloid called aftonbladet (apolgies for possible gaffes):

    [..]This means the rape trial could never lead to a completed rape, according to the district court.
    “Legally there are feasible and unfeasible attempts. One can not, for example murder a murdered person. In this case the crime has already been completed. But where the boundaries are drawn is a bit unclear in practice,” says [judge] Dan Sjöstedt.

    But you can still rape a man?

    “Right. But what was the man's crime plan? That is what the district court has written about. The district court has required that his crime plan was to rape a woman”

    Have you heard of an outcome like this?

    “No, but the verdict is open to criticism, and I suspect that the prosecutor will appeal and it is very possible that the outcome will change in the Court of Appeala. But the boundaries are controversial and intricate.

    61-year-old was convicted of assault to four months in prison and SEK 15 000 in damages.

    Posted by: calcifer | Jul 5, 2012 1:34:44 PM


  11. *RANDYOWEN
    *apologies

    Posted by: calcifer | Jul 5, 2012 1:37:59 PM


  12. "The district court has required that his crime plan was to rape a woman”"

    This sounds -somewhat- similar to a strict adherence of subjective mens rea (the "guilty mind") in the common law.

    Posted by: Nat | Jul 5, 2012 1:50:16 PM


  13. The attacker already WAS sentenced to 4 months in jail AND has to pay damages to the victim.

    Also the case is likely to go to the next instance.

    And while I agree that the Judge was wrong, let's keep something in mind here: What happened is that the attacker touched the crotch of the victim, then her boyfriend came to her aid.

    So before you jump to conclusions and judge Sweden as a country try to name a single other country in the world that would even consider touching someone's crotch "rape", no matter which gender the victim may have.

    Posted by: Elias | Jul 5, 2012 4:06:40 PM


  14. @CALCIFER
    No Problem :-) The more i have looked into this today (slow work day) it does appear that this was how it needed to move forward in their system, because it was controversial, and by moving forward they will be able to address a loophole that has not been tested before. In a lot of countries, and even stated in the USA this would not even make it to court because she was trans. It is always better to shine the light on controversial issues instead of sweeping them under the rug.

    Posted by: RandyOwen | Jul 5, 2012 4:32:43 PM


  15. @CALCIFER
    No Problem :-) The more i have looked into this today (slow work day) it does appear that this was how it needed to move forward in their system, because it was controversial, and by moving forward they will be able to address a loophole that has not been tested before. In a lot of countries, and even stated in the USA this would not even make it to court because she was trans. It is always better to shine the light on controversial issues instead of sweeping them under the rug.

    Posted by: RandyOwen | Jul 5, 2012 4:32:49 PM


  16. this is absolutely ass backwards ridiculous - what year is it?????

    Posted by: jessica | Jul 5, 2012 4:48:21 PM


  17. At least in the US it would still be considered "attempted rape" (a little unclear from the story how Sweden's law varies). I could be charged with attempted robbery even if someone had removed all the valuables from a particular location prior to my break in.

    Posted by: Daniel in MO | Jul 5, 2012 5:37:11 PM


  18. If I live to be 100 I'll never understand Swedes.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jul 5, 2012 10:19:03 PM


  19. Well I hope this judge gets raped but you know, because he's not a woman, it's alright.

    Posted by: Nate | Jul 6, 2012 1:12:46 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch Randy Rainbow's First Dates With Tom Cruise And Anderson Cooper: VIDEO« «