Preview

Lex Russica

Advanced search

Lack of Consent to Sexual Intercourse and the Fault of the Rape Survivor under U.S. Criminal Law

https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2024.215.10.077-092

Abstract

The greatest attention to the lack of consent to sexual intercourse as a mandatory feature of rape is paid under the US criminal law. This issue is closely related to the main changes in US state legislation that have occurred as a result of a departure from the traditional understanding of rape as a crime. There are three approaches to understanding the term «consent» in doctrine and legislation, namely, «no means no», «yes means yes» and a negotiation model. Each model imposes features on the process of establishing the fault of the subject and the rapist’s possible error in consent. Difficulties arise when the subject and the victim are intoxicated. Based on the experience of the United States, recommendations are formulated that are useful for the Russian legislator and law enforcement officer. It is not necessary to consolidate any model of consent to sexual intercourse in the criminal law, as well as to abandon signs of the use of violence, the threat of its use or the use of the helpless state of the victim. It is required to distinguish harassment and overcoming the will of the victim, to assess the silence of the victim, victim’s words and actions, finding out whether the victim’s will was distorted. A woman has the right to withdraw her consent after sexual intercourse starts, in which case, if there are other signs of a crime, the   continuation of sexual intercourse against the will of the victim is qualified as rape.

About the Author

I. I. Nagornaya
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Irina I. Nagornaya, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law, Procedure and Criminalistics, National Research University «Higher School of Economics», Moscow



References

1. Avdeev VA, Avdeeva EV. Crimes against sexual inviolability and sexual freedom of the individual in Russia. Moscow: Yurlitinform publ.; 2018. (In Russ.).

2. Agafonov AV. Sexual crimes. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2009. (In Russ.).

3. Esakov GA. Mens rea in the criminal law of the USA: historical and legal study. St. Petersburg: Legal Center- Press; 2003. (In Russ.).

4. Esakov GA. Anglo-American criminal law: evolution and current state of the general part. Moscow: TK Velby, Prospekt; 2007. (In Russ.).

5. Kameneva AN. The problem of the victim’s «consent» in the qualification of rape in Russia and foreign countries. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 11, Law. 2008;2:76-85. (In Russ.).

6. Kozochkin ID. Criminal Law of the USA: Achievements and Problems of Reform. St. Petersburg: Legal Center- Press; 2007. (In Russ.).

7. Naumov AV, Fletcher J. Basic Concepts of Modern Criminal Law. Moscow: Jurist Publ.; 1998. (In Russ.).

8. Korobeyev AI (ed.). Complete Course of Criminal Law: in 5 volumes. Vol. 2: Crimes against the Person. St. Petersburg: Legal Center-Press; 2008. (In Russ.).

9. Model Criminal Code (USA). Official Project of the Institute of American Law. Translated from English by A. S. Nikiforov. Moscow: Progress Publ.; 1969. (In Russ.).

10. Anderson MJ. Negotiating Sex. Southern California Law Review. 2005;78:1401-1438.

11. Buchhandler-Raphael M. The Conundrum of Voluntary Intoxication and Sex. Brookline Law Review. 2017;82(3):1031-1108.

12. Buchhandler-Raphael M. The Failure of Consent: Re-Conceptualizing Rape as Sexual Abuse of Power. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law. 2011;18(1):147-228.

13. Charlow R. Negotiating Sex: Would it Work? Criminal Law Conversations. PH. Robinson, SP. Garvey, KK. Ferzan (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

14. Ferzan K. Consent, Culpability, and the Law of Rape. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 2016;13(2):397-439.

15. Hemming A. Reforming the Law of Rape in the United States: Some Advice from the Antipodes. Florida Journal of International Law. 2020;32(1):1-48.

16. Kuylman E. A Constitutional Defense of «Yes Means Yes» — California`s Affirmative Consent Standard in Sexual Assault Cases in College Campuses. Review of Law and Social Justice. 2016;25(2):211-239.

17. LaFave W. Criminal Law. 5th ed. Тhomson Reuters; 2010.

18. Larkin P. The Injustice of Imposing Domestic Criminal Liability for a Violation of Foreign Law. Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum. 2013;94. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/report/the-injustice-imposing- domestic-criminal-liability-violation-foreign-law#_ftn4 (Accessed 27.03.2024).

19. Loewy A. Criminal Law. 5th ed. Thomson Reuters; 2009.

20. Lyon M. R. No Means No: Withdrawal of Consent during Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2004;95(1):277-314.

21. Spohn C. The Rape Reform Movement: The Traditional Common Law and Rape Law Reforms. Jurimetrics. 1999;39(2):119-130.


Review

For citations:


Nagornaya I.I. Lack of Consent to Sexual Intercourse and the Fault of the Rape Survivor under U.S. Criminal Law. Lex Russica. 2024;77(10):77-92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2024.215.10.077-092

Views: 173


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1729-5920 (Print)
ISSN 2686-7869 (Online)