An Average Rapist Category of Intelligence - Essay Example

Present Laws of Rape and How it Applies to the Criminal I. (a) Rape is deemed to be one of the worst and most conflictive crimes ever to occur in society. The damaging affects it has on the victim is every-lasting, especially if their case becomes a subject of dispute in court. Before the various types and situational rapes can be classified, the term rape must first be universally defined. According to the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, the definition of rape is: “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” (s. 1). The important factors to look for in Alice’s case are signs of both obvious and discreet objections to Ben’s sexual advances. There are no obvious verbal or nonverbal cues from Alice before or during sexual intercourse with Ben. She did not tell him “no,” and he did not threaten her in any way. Alice was not intoxicated, and there were no indications that she was drugged either. The keyword in every rape situation or incident is consent. The law is very clear on accounts of non-consensual rape, but if consent is initially given, is it still considered rape? Should it still be tried in court? CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) applies the word “effective” to consent. They explain, “The law does not allow a person’s consent to sexual activity to have effect in the following situations: where the person giving consent did not understand what was happening and so could not give informed consent, and where the person giving consent was under the relevant age of consent” (Sexual Offences- Rape, 2010). These two forms of consent are opposites of one another due to the fact that the letter would not hold up in court but the initial one would because of the lack of understanding. Alice is presumably of age. The issue that comes to light is whether or not Alice was understanding of her situation. Now, she is not mentally handicapped or incoherent by drugs or alcohol, but she was misled by Ben into believing engaging in sexual intercourse with him would in turn give her love, companionship and financial stability. The question remains about whether or not Ben is guilty of rape under the present law. In a court of law, it is unlikely that Alice would have a solid case against Ben because consent was given and there is not a clear establishment of understanding in regards to how “understanding” is defined in law. Although, that does not mean Ben is innocent, the fact remains that Alice was not affected by outside substances or health, which would be concrete evidence to support Ben’s side of the case. Looking at the accused offender, Ben, his bodily actions fail to reveal any harmful intent. Physically, Ben did not coerce Alice by means of force of threat. The disputable wrongdoing he committed was verbal manipulation. The court could argue that Alice consented to sexual intercourse with Ben based on her personal expectations of him. She was willing because he met her requirements for a mate, and at any time she could have resisted his advances. Alice could have been eager to receive a lover and that overrode her ability to spot the red flag Ben presented when he promised marriage to her so soon after they met. Some may even go so far to say that Alice wanted a wealthy companion so much she willingly fell for Ben’s deception. The idea of willingness is another dubious term that arises in court in reference to rape cases. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines willingness as “cheerful readiness to do something” (2011). Alice could be seen as happily engaging in sexual intercourse based on the cheerful prospect of marriage and love. If that is the case, Ben would have a stronger case in his defense against her in court. Too much evidence points to Alice consenting to him, especially because consent was given prior to, and during the actual act. No signs point to Alice claiming rape after-the-fact, however, Ben is not without guilt due to his intent to deceive. For Alice to take Ben to court over their encounter she would need to prove that “[She] the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the act unless sufficient evidence is abbduced to raise an issue as to whether [s]he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is abbduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it” (The Sexual Offences Act, s. 76, 2003). ii. Establishing the different forms of rape can be difficult in court and it varies with each individual situation. Specifically, in Alice and Ben’s case, physical force and/or threat was not used to gain sexual interaction on Ben’s part. He romanced Alice on a short-term basis, manipulating her into going to bed with him in order to engage in intimate activity. He did not thwart her ability to understand what was happening either through drugs or alcohol. Instead, what Ben did was be audibly deceitful by wooing Alice into believing he loved her, wanted to marry her and told her he was a wealthy man through the lie that he was a film producer. An appropriate term for this is deceit, or deception. The Sexual Offences Act of 2003, in regards to consent, states that an offender may be held responsible or liable if “the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as the nature or purpose of the relevant act” (s. 76). Ben could go to trial because he purposely deceived Alice into having sexual intercourse with him so he could be satisfied sexually. He did so by manipulation, offering her marriage and a promised future together if she consented. Not only that, but Ben fits with the criminal description of lying about his identity. “The defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant” (The Sexual Offences Act, s. 76, 2003). It does not state in Alice’s case that she mislabeled Ben as someone she knew, but he did, however, pretend to be a wealthy American film producer. He knew that this disguise vs. the reality of him being an unemployed fisherman would attract her, or other women. Ben fully engaged in deceitful portrayal of another man in order to seduce Alice into having sex with him. Another vital part of Ben’s deceit stems from the word coercion, which is the use of “emotional manipulation to persuade someone to do something they may not want to do- like being sexual or performing sexual acts” (A Definition of Rape, Sexual Assault and Related Terms, 2011). It is unclear in Alice’s case whether or not she was rushed into her intimate time with Ben, but the fact that Ben knew what he was doing makes him appear guilty. He knew exactly what Alice wanted to hear so that he could get her to engage in sexual intercourse more quickly. Their scenario explained that only after a few dates Ben professed his love and desire to marry to Alice. His understanding of her probable lifestyle as a single woman yearning for a husband made her ideal “game” for his selfish pleasure. Ben’s actions in manipulating and trickling Alice into having sexual intercourse with him should be a criminal offense. Men, or women who are deceitful by pretending they are someone they are not and/or use what their victim’s desire against them for personal gain should be tried for rape. Ben is no exception. These types of criminals only get better at what they do. The deception can become flawless to the point that the victim cannot tell the difference between falsity and honesty. No red flags would arise to inform the victim that he or she is being played. In Alice’s situation, she could have picked up on how fast Ben moved their relationship along. Even from the beginning he let her know his intent was to settle down with a woman and make her his wife. However, in Alice’s defense, it is a human’s natural instinct to trust someone he or she likes on first impression. The problem with that is criminals understand how not to be the universally imagined predator. Ben is a handsome American, wealthy, which entices Alice into wanting to believe every thing he has to offer. He does not fit the physical description of a sleazy rapist. Ben’s knowledge of how just to act around his victim puts him into the category of intentional criminal activity. His intent to be deceptive in attempt to engage in sexual intercourse with Alice should make him guilty in the court of law. That kind of deception attempted or practiced on any gender by any gender needs to be reprimanded by law. Especially, based on the fact that victims are intentionally emotionally harmed and damaged by their offender. Most importantly, what stops a verbally deceptive rapist to turning to physical force or threat if his or her manipulation does not work? (b) In Charlie’s case, the intention to harm or deceive is not present. He is not a calculating predator who manipulated Diana into having sexual intercourse with him. He is, on the other hand, liable for rape because Diana made an attempt to resist him. What gets tricky or unclear is that Charlie has a learning disability, which in turn may make him a socially inept person from rejection by peers. That personality paired with his lack of experience sexually could make the court question Charlie’s ability to read Diana when she resisted him. The scenario is very bleak on details like how exactly did Diana try to resist Charlie? How did she specifically resist his advances? Section 74 of The Sexual Offences Act defines a person is guilty of an offence if “he or she acts intentionally, the victim does not consent to the act, and if he or she does not reasonably believe that the victim consents” (Definition of Rape, 2004-2008). The question is whether Charlie fits into an average rapist category of intelligence. The law does discuss the impairment of the victim in regards to a mental handicap, but what about the offender? Charlie is not mentally handicapped, but he does have learning difficulties that could make him socially impaired, which could work in his favor if he were brought to court. Social Impairment is defined as “the impairment of social relationships, communication and imagination” (What is ASD, 2011) and it can be applied to a person with disability in learning since that often times makes him or her an outcast in their peer group. If Charlie is socially inept because of his learning disability, then Diana’s nonverbal cues may have not meant any thing or been clear to Charlie in the same manner it would on a healthy individual. However, learning disability or not, if Diana resisted Charlie verbally, like by saying “no,” Charlie should have understood her and backed off. Diana is also nervous by nature and this should have affected Charlie’s decision into pushing her into sexual intercourse with him. He may have overlooked that part of her, or deemed her resistance to be a product of her nervousness and nothing more. Even so, by continuing to engage in sexual intercourse with Diana, Charlie becomes liable for rape. Her hesitation could even lead her into presenting false allegations against him, and Phillip Rumney warns that: "A lack of critical analysis of those who claim a low false reporting rate and the uncritical adoption of unreliable research findings" (Rumney, Phillip N. S., 2006, p. 157), which means she could get him falsely accused. The fact that Charlie has little experience with sexual aspects of relationships, or interactions does not mean he is suddenly guilt-free of his illicit behavior. This is so because it does not matter who a person is or how much sexual experience he or she has. If a member of the opposite party resists and says no, etc, it is universally understood. One of the places where it gets hazy in Diana’s case is how she resisted. In most laws, resistance is resistance, i.e., no means no, but how did Charlie receive Diana’s expression of resistance? If it was done in such a way that pertained to his disability then how does the court respond? More details about how exactly Diana resisted, and how Charlie’s learning disability paired with his lack of sexual encounters effects his daily life and social interactions needs to be exposed. That is what makes it so difficult to determine whether Charlie was guilty or not, but it is evident that he is at least held liable for his actions if Diana were to press charges. In Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act, it describes that, “any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him” (2003). The legal dictionary (2011) states that rape is when a victim “does not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts of verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance.” Diana’s scenario only portrays her as being nervous, and initially resisting Charlie, but not fearful that he would be violent with her if she denied him. Nonetheless, he remains liable for the mere fact that she did not give her consent at first, and may have experienced a form of pressure to sleep with him. If Charlie is deemed behaviorally and socially capable just like the average man, then his case in court would be dire because that would mean he was able to interpret Diana’s initial resistance, but chose to ignore it. Reference List “A Definition of Rape, Sexual Assault and Related Terms”., 2011. Clark University: Dean of Students [Online] Available at: http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm [Accessed 23 March 2011]. “Rape”., 2011. Find Law [Online] Available at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html [Accessed 23 March 2011]. “Rape”., 2011. Legal Dictionary [Online] Available at: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/date+rape [Accessed 23 March 2011]. Rumney, Phillip N. S., “False Allegations of Rape.” (2006) 65(1) Cambridge Law Journal, p. 157. “Sexual Offences- Rape”., 2011. The Crown Prosecution Service [Online] Available at: http://cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_rape/index.html [Accessed 23 March 2011]. “The Sexual Offences Act of 2003”., 2003. Legislation.gov.uk [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents [Accessed 23 March 2011]. “What is ASD?”., 2011. Brookdale Care [Online] Available at: http://www.brookdalecare.co.uk/what-is-asd [Accessed 23 March 2011]. “Willingness”., 2011. Merriam-Webster Dictionary [Online] Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/willingness [Accessed 23 March 2011]. Read More