News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I don't think you can rape a corpse because the suffering of a living victim is an essential part of what makes rape rape.
I do think it should criminal to commit sexual acts with a corpse, but I don't think we should call that crime rape.
I mean, the dead can’t consent.
Also the article says “unresponsive passenger.” We know now the person was dead, but that doesn’t mean the rapist was clear on that fact at the time.
The dead also can't have their consent violated and feel that particular psychological trauma which I think is the real root of what makes rape such a particularly awful thing.
Fair enough, but when someone commits an arson not knowing someone's in the building and that person dies it's still murder, and it doesn't seem right that defendant knowledge matters in one situation and not the other.
I'd say if the alleged conduct here is true it should be charged as attempted rape and punished the same as an actual rape, so this is kind of a semantic thing, but it's something I feel pretty strongly about. I just think that it dilutes our understanding of what rape is and why it's so horrible to call something rape when it doesn't happen to a living creature.
From the details given, it’s not clear if the person was dead or only unconscious at the time of the assault and it’s not clear whether the attacker knew either.
I’m not clear on your second point; you say that it doesn’t seem right that defendant knowledge matters in one case and not the other. So if:
It seems like not calling it rape is what would apply a double standard here based on defendant knowledge.
Our society treats bodies as an extension of a person; for example, we do not harvest organs from a body if the person didn’t consent to be an organ donor while they were alive.
Your focus on the victim’s suffering as what determines the severity of the crime seems problematic to me. If a victim doesn’t let being raped destroy their life, do we not punish the rapist as severely? We distinguish between manslaughter and murder based on pre-meditation and intent, even though the victim is still dead in both cases, and similarly I think that focusing on the attacker’s actions and intent should be the key factor in calling their actions rape.
If the defendant were going to a morgue or funeral home and defiling bodies, I may feel differently but given the timing here it feels way too grey to not treat it as rape.
FWIW, I’m coming at this conversation as a rape survivor myself. I know the level of mental devastation it can cause. And personally, I don’t think that treating the sexual assault of someone who may or may not have been dead yet (and if they were dead, had been so for no more than 30 minutes) as rape takes anything away from the severity of the crime or my experience as a victim of it.
And anyway from a semantic perspective, according to the article it is being charged only as attempted rape.
By that logic, you can't steal from the dead because they no longer own the property. Because the act of stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else.
This is incorrect as your property is transferred to someone else upon your death, so it's still theft.
I mean... The post explicitly says "attempted rape" and never just "rape", so isn't it doing exactly what you're asking for then?
The perpetrator very likely was not qualified or authorised to declare death.
I’m responding a second time because I think this is an important point to make as a top-level response.
This is a fucked up take. This says that a rape victim must suffer, and if they aren’t suffering, then it wasn’t rape. Just, no. People process things differently. Some will be more and some will be less traumatized by being raped.
Forcing a particular experience onto a victim, saying they must feel a certain way, is just so incredibly problematic. A victim can feel whatever they feel and process a crime against them however they want. And the way they do so doesn’t change whether a crime was committed against them.
Edit: And with a very literal reading of the statement, it also says that if someone kills their victim after raping them, then it’s not rape—because there isn’t a living victim who is suffering. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, but it’s important to think about these things and how we convey them.
It doesn't say that at all. What it does say is that it shouldn't be considered rape if it was performed on a dead body, which makes sense since this type of stuff is usually considered "abuse of a corpse."
In terms of severity and violation of a human body i don't think there's much value in differentiating. You can give them different legal definitions, but to compound a family's loss with sexually violating the corpse their loved one doesn't really seem like a diminishment in the overall suffering you are inflicting on the world.
I'm not saying one is worse or more traumatizing than another or trying to diminish the horrible thing that was allegedly inflicted on the deceased's family and friends here, and I would be totally in favor of sexual assault of a corpse carrying the same penalties as rape. I just believe that it's a disservice to rape victims to call sexual assault of a corpse rape. The particular harm that was inflicted here is different than the harm that's inflicted when a living creature has their consent violated. It might just be a semantic distinction but words mean things and powerful words like "rape" should be defined very narrowly.
Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.
I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.
In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)
So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.
Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now