Germany refines the law concerning unwanted sexual contact.

[sarahtasher]

(Unwanted sexual contact is a generic term that obviously include sexual assault, but also, well, groping)

That post could come with a picture of Admiral Ackbar at Endor....(IE : there is a fairly obvious way how it risk to play out. The aim of this post is not to ''troll'' but it's going to end this way....So to be explicit : I post there with the assumption that the usual suspects will say it's a law made by feminists, with the usual drivel about ''now we need signed contracts'', etc, etc. Prove me wrong, that would be nice for everyone involved)


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36726095

As I'm someone with a very cartesian mindset, I will point out the obvious : to prosecute people, the act have to be clearly illegal, which was not the case with current German law. Therefore, now, they can prosecute, which is good.

[Independent voter]

In Germany a woman had to say "no" and I think that meant a lot of rapes went unprosecuted. With the new law they can prosecute rapists even if the woman didn't or couldn't say no. I think.

There will be many more rapes reported now.





Under existing law, defined in Section 177 of the criminal code (in German), victims should have defended themselves for an act to constitute rape. Simply saying "no" is not sufficient to find the defendant guilty, and there is no attempt to define what constitutes consent.

The inadequacy of the law means many perpetrators are getting away with rape, according to a 2014 study of 107 cases by the German association of women's counselling centres and rape crisis centres (BFF).

The authors said that in every case, sexual assaults had been committed against the victim's unambiguous will, which had been communicated verbally to the perpetrator. However, they said, either charges were not filed or there was no court conviction.

The study went on to note that the law placed too much focus on whether the victim resisted and did not reflect real-life scenarios in which people are raped.

Only one in 10 rapes is reported in Germany currently, according to Germany's n-tv news website. And of those, the conviction rate is only 10%.

What would the new regulations do?

They would take into account both physical and verbal cues from the victim when assessing whether rape took place, meaning - in theory - that saying "no" could prove a lack of consent and, therefore, rape.

[lonely zergling]

In Germany a woman had to say "no" and I think that meant a lot of rapes went unprosecuted. With the new law they can prosecute rapists even if the woman didn't or couldn't say no. I think.

There will be many more rapes reported now.

[/B]

Not true, woman didnt have to say "no" with current law.

[Independent voter]

Not true, woman didnt have to say "no" with current law.

Why don't you explain what the BBC is talking about?

[lonely zergling]

Why don't you explain what the BBC is talking about?

Didnt read it .

[Saiona]

If me and my girlfriends safe word was "no" I don't think we would ever have sex lol

[lonely zergling]

He said she said is still a thing so, nothing changes in the end. They only made the law far more complicated.

The whole "no means no" campaign is just a joke. And the "only 10% of rapes get reported" statistic you quoted is actually from a non representative survey (aka crap).

[Independent voter]

He said she said is still a thing so, nothing changes in the end. They only made the law far more complicated.

The whole "no means no" campaign is just a joke. And the "only 10% of rapes get reported" statistic you quoted is actually from a non representative survey (aka crap).

It has something to do with that mass groping in Cologne on New Years...

[lonely zergling]

It has something to do with that mass groping in Cologne on New Years...

You mentioned rapes though.

[Cosmic Janitor]

It has something to do with that mass groping in Cologne on New Years...

You guys really need to learn to differentiate between rape and sexual assault.

(1) Wer eine andere Person1.mit Gewalt,
2.durch Drohung mit gegenwärtiger Gefahr für Leib oder Leben oder
3.unter Ausnutzung einer Lage, in der das Opfer der Einwirkung des Täters schutzlos ausgeliefert ist,
nötigt, sexuelle Handlungen des Täters oder eines Dritten an sich zu dulden oder an dem Täter oder einem Dritten vorzunehmen, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter einem Jahr bestraft.
(2) In besonders schweren Fällen ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter zwei Jahren. Ein besonders schwerer Fall liegt in der Regel vor, wenn1.der Täter mit dem Opfer den Beischlaf vollzieht oder ähnliche sexuelle Handlungen an dem Opfer vornimmt oder an sich von ihm vornehmen läßt, die dieses besonders erniedrigen, insbesondere, wenn sie mit einem Eindringen in den Körper verbunden sind (Vergewaltigung), oder
2.die Tat von mehreren gemeinschaftlich begangen wird.

(3) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter drei Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter1.eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug bei sich führt,
2.sonst ein Werkzeug oder Mittel bei sich führt, um den Widerstand einer anderen Person durch Gewalt oder Drohung mit Gewalt zu verhindern oder zu überwinden, oder
3.das Opfer durch die Tat in die Gefahr einer schweren Gesundheitsschädigung bringt.

(4) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter1.bei der Tat eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug verwendet oder
2.das Opfera)bei der Tat körperlich schwer mißhandelt oder
b)durch die Tat in die Gefahr des Todes bringt.



(5) In minder schweren Fällen des Absatzes 1 ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren, in minder schweren Fällen der Absätze 3 und 4 auf Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren zu erkennen.

Too lazy to translate it now, but there is nothing in the law that states you have defend yourself. or anything like that. The biggest issue is he said, she said, which in a proper constitutional state is night on impossible to prove if there are no physical signs on the victim or if the victim waited 5 years.

[Independent voter]

You guys really need to learn to differentiate between rape and sexual assault.

I'm trying to understand the article.

[Slant]

Why don't you explain what the BBC is talking about?

Basiclaly, the definitions of the old paragraph were too narrow for modern moral standards:

For reference:

Section 177 Sexual Coercion; Rape

(1) Whoever coerces another person:

1. with force;

2. by a threat of imminent danger to life or limb; or

3. by exploiting a situation in which the victim is unprotected and at the mercy of the perpetrator’s influence,

to suffer the commission of sexual acts of the perpetrator or a third person on himself or to commit them on the perpetrator or a third person, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year.

(2) In especially serious cases the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than two years. An especially serious case exists, as a rule, if:

1. the perpetrator completes an act of sexual intercourse with the victim or commits similar sexual acts on the victim, or allows them to be committed on himself by the victim, which especially degrade the latter, especially if they are combined with penetration of the body (rape); or

2. the act is committed jointly by more than one person.

As you can see, it required a) physical force, b) threat of physical harm or c) a situation in which the victim is unable to defend itself (shock freeze, a state that didn't actually have the intended effect as it was very narrowly interpreted (requiring coercion as a prerequisite, thus this paragraph was rarely ever actually put on trial)).

This definition doesn't take into account surprise, threats that do not harm the victim physically (threatening social status, slander, not giving you a promised loan, the threat of destroying furniture in the aparment, etc.), the victim assuming it's defenseless when it objectively isn't (which used to make a difference, but not anymore) and cases where the threat of physical harm and the act of the raping doesn't have a final context (I'd have to look this one up, but I'm thinking a woman offering sex to avoid the daily beatings of her husband).

Despite the populistic "no means no" bullshit, which legal experts have said is just.. a nice phrase but really not suitable for laws, these are the cases that are meant to be dealt with the new legislation. It widens the definition to cases that could not be clearly prosecuted as rape and were instead treated as sexual assault or something else minor.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys really need to learn to differentiate between rape and sexual assault.

Yeah, Cologne maybe has emotionalised the discussion, but it didn't play a big role on the legal text.

[Ravenblade]

The reason for the change is well-meant and I can't hardly think of anyone, except MRA fanatics, disagreeing with it. The problem is that it makes it a lot more difficult now. It's been silly that someone has to literally defend oneself against sexual assault but now it's almost down to the level of requiring a present notary that sex has happened under absolute consent. "Hey, love, how was I?" - "You raped me!"

[Slant]

The reason for the change is well-meant and I can't hardly think of anyone, except MRA fanatics, disagreeing with it. The problem is that it makes it a lot more difficult now. It's been silly that someone has to literally defend oneself against sexual assault but now it's almost down to the level of requiring a present notary that sex has happened under absolute consent.

No, it doesn't. We're not California where you have to ask every 20 second if she's okay with you fucking the living daylight out of her.

For normal people everything will stay the same. What does get addressed by this is sneaky people that read a criminal text and think "Oh, so if I don't harm her physically, it'll be okay.. let's see, she wanted that promotion..."

[Barnabas]

Then you have this.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Personally I don't see much changing. The 3rd line could (and afaik has been) interpreted in the victims favor, but I wouldn't choose to die on that hill. They now added "against the discernible will of the victim", which, well won't change a thing really. I don't think the change is negative but the whole no means no or yes means yes bullshit has nothing to do with it. If your girlfriend is a dead fish though you better be careful now .

- - - Updated - - -

The reason for the change is well-meant and I can't hardly think of anyone, except MRA fanatics, disagreeing with it. The problem is that it makes it a lot more difficult now. It's been silly that someone has to literally defend oneself against sexual assault but now it's almost down to the level of requiring a present notary that sex has happened under absolute consent. "Hey, love, how was I?" - "You raped me!"

I haven't seen the actual text but spiegel.de (urgh) quoted the addendum as "gegen den erkennbaren Willen". That won't change a thing because we are back to I didn't see anything and he said, she said. There is no way to ever get this right without abandoning constitutional principles. A women can fuck your life by falsely accusing you and an actual victim doesn't see justice being served because they couldn't actually prove it.

[Slant]

Personally I don't see much changing. The 3rd line could (and afaik has been) interpreted in the victims favor, but I wouldn't choose to die on that hill. They now added "against the discernible will of the victim", which, well won't change a thing really. I don't think the change is negative but the whole no means no or yes means yes bullshit has nothing to do with it. If your girlfriend is a dead fish though you better be careful now .

I think you're right. For normal people like you and me, nothing much will change. Germany was never hung up on the idea that you have to explicitely hand in a written no-consent form in triple copy for your non-consent to be clear. This law opens up the crime status for a wider range of cases that cropped up recently and refined the definitions. That's how proper lawmaking works. And I think it's a good step into the right direction. It should give victims more protection without actually violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't seen the actual text but spiegel.de (urgh) quoted the addendum as "gegen den erkennbaren Willen". That won't change a thing because we are back to I didn't see anything and he said, she said. There is no way to ever get this right without abandoning constitutional principles.

This is true. The very nature of these crimes almost always rule out witnesses and lead to evidence based cases, which makes the whole area so difficult to judge. It all ends up with telling girls to be more careful. Something that triggers the uninformed into saying "that's victim blaming!"

Well, yeah, maybe it is... but in legal practicality, that's the best protection they have. Because abandoning constitutional principles ain't gonna happen.

[GhostShotIV]

The article is bs.
Its like they didn't even try to read the german law they linked to...

rough translation inc:

(1) Wer eine andere Person

1.
mit Gewalt,
2.
durch Drohung mit gegenwärtiger Gefahr für Leib oder Leben oder
3.
unter Ausnutzung einer Lage, in der das Opfer der Einwirkung des Täters schutzlos ausgeliefert ist,

nötigt, sexuelle Handlungen des Täters oder eines Dritten an sich zu dulden oder an dem Täter oder einem Dritten vorzunehmen, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter einem Jahr bestraft.
(2) In besonders schweren Fällen ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter zwei Jahren. Ein besonders schwerer Fall liegt in der Regel vor, wenn

1.
der Täter mit dem Opfer den Beischlaf vollzieht oder ähnliche sexuelle Handlungen an dem Opfer vornimmt oder an sich von ihm vornehmen läßt, die dieses besonders erniedrigen, insbesondere, wenn sie mit einem Eindringen in den Körper verbunden sind (Vergewaltigung), oder
2.
die Tat von mehreren gemeinschaftlich begangen wird.

(3) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter drei Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter

1.
eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug bei sich führt,
2.
sonst ein Werkzeug oder Mittel bei sich führt, um den Widerstand einer anderen Person durch Gewalt oder Drohung mit Gewalt zu verhindern oder zu überwinden, oder
3.
das Opfer durch die Tat in die Gefahr einer schweren Gesundheitsschädigung bringt.

(4) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter

1.
bei der Tat eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug verwendet oder
2.
das Opfer

a)
bei der Tat körperlich schwer mißhandelt oder
b)
durch die Tat in die Gefahr des Todes bringt.

(5) In minder schweren Fällen des Absatzes 1 ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren, in minder schweren Fällen der Absätze 3 und 4 auf Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren zu erkennen.

(1)If someone forces someone else by
1. using force
2. threatening to use force or threatening their life
3. abusing a situation in which the person is helpless to the other one
to comply with anything sexual by the offender or a third party or to do anything sexual to the offender or a third party, will be punished with a jail sentence no shorter than 1 year.

(2)In exceptionaly severe cases, the jail time is not to be under 2 years. A exceptionaly severe case is if
1. the culprit has sexual intercourse with the victim or does similar things to the victim (or forces the victim to do these on him), that are exceptionaly cruel, especially, if they are combined with penetration
2. the deed had been done by multiple people.

(3)No less than a 3 year sentence is to be given if the culprit
1. carries a weapon or other dangerous tools
2. carries a tool or substance to break the resisstance of the other person by force or by threatening of force
3. 's action damages the health of the victim

(4)No less than a 5 year sentence is to be given, if the culprit
1. used a weapon or dangerous tool
2. a) harmed the victim severly
2. b) killed (or nearly killed) the victim.

(5)In less severe cases of point 1 a sentence from 6 month up to 5 years is to be given, in less severe cases of point 3 and 4 a sentence from 1 year up to 10 years is to be given.

So there is nothing said about "you have to defend yourself" or anything like that.
By the way, the use of "Gewalt" (translated to "force") in german law includes any kind of body contact. So even just touching a person or holding them is a use of force.

[Ryme]

It's fine in concept, in practise this change does nothing in almost all cases since it's usually impossible to verify verbal cues.

[Bushtuckrman]

They should have included something about women needing to wear 'don't rape me' wristbands like progressive Sweden.