France enshrines need for consent into rape law in wake of Gisèle Pelicot casese

3 comments

1. Seems absolutely insane that drugging somebody and then having 50 people rape them was, previously, just kinda up in the air as far as it being rape in France. Wtf

   That said and with the assumption I’m gonna have at least one person get mad at me. Making it were anything is rape, basically, unless you get verbal consent seems odd and maybe too much of a swing the other way. 

   Couldn’t have made it like “If they’re in a state were they cannot without any doubt consent” instead? Or something a lawyer could say better than me

2. >The French parliament has ratified an amendment to add consent to the legal definition of sexual assault and rape law.

   >Previously, rape or sexual abuse in France had been defined as “any form of sexual penetration committed with the use of violence, coercion, threat or surprise”.

   >Now, the law will say that all sexual acts done to another without consent constitute rape.

   >The change is the result of a cross-party, years-long debate which gained renewed urgency after last year’s Pelicot rape trial, in which 50 men were found guilty of [raping Gisèle Pelicot while she had been drugged unconscious by her husband Dominique](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c390d8nd4n4o).

   >The defence of many of the accused hinged on the fact they could not be guilty of rape because they were unaware Ms Pelicot was not in a position to give her consent.

   >Some defence lawyers in the Pelicot case had therefore argued that there could be no crime without the intention to commit it.

   >The new bill will make this argument more tenuous, as it says that consent must be “free and informed, specific, prior and revocable”,

   >The law now says consent will have to be evaluated according to the circumstances, noting that it cannot be inferred from “silence or lack of reaction”.

   >”There is no consent if the sexual act is committed through violence, coercion, threat or surprise, whatever their nature,” it states.\

   Gisele Pelicot is one of the bravest people in the world, and her bravery in testifying and being known as the victim in one of the most terrible crimes will help others not face the same fate she did. What an incredible woman. Nothing can ever be taken from her again.

3. So for a court everybody’s a rapist unless you have a recorded consent that you can show as evidence? Or will it come to the victim to prove that there was no consent? Because if it’s the former then it’s a breach of the presumption of innocence, and if it’s the later then nothing changes because anyway there will have to be proof of something (violence, denial, etc, or drugs like for example in this terrible case)

   Edit: seeing the replies that I’m getting accusing me of not knowing how to get consent I see that you don’t know what you’re talking about either

   There’s a big difference between getting consent (clear) and recording that consent so it can be used on a court of law to defend yourself in case that said court assumes consent wasn’t provided unless there’s proof of it

Comments are closed.