Citizens' Issues
Discourse on Intercourse
Voluntary, forced, accidental, or innocent?
 
The legal definition of rape has changed. Previously, rape was restricted to physical touching of the genitals; the expanded version includes mere non-consensual physical contact. The line between rape and molestation is being blurred.
 
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man because he “ ...had pulled the prosecutrix towards his chamber with the intention to sexually assault her...” The Nirbhaya aftermath is spawning new thought.
 
Juvenile delinquency is no longer just ‘delinquent’. The 18-year limit, set ages ago, was, and is, a legal fiction. Too high or too low? Can all juveniles be equally capable of rational thought? At what age does mens rea, a guilty mind, start? Is sexual impulse in a child, unaware of the harm he can cause, be rape or molestation?
 
You be the judge.
 
A number of cases have exercised our mind recently. How would you decide?
 

A) A school teacher, female, has sexual intercourse with a male student.

B) A man indulges in the act, promising the woman marriage.

C) A couple gets involved physically; the woman falls in love; the man shies away. Or vice versa.

D) A male teacher seduces a girl student, under 18 years of age.

E) A male professor seduces a female student, over 18.

F) Both parties throw caution to the wind, under the influence of stimulants.

G) A voluntarily inebriated woman commits multiple acts; then cries gang rape.

H) A woman thinks that this is the way to get the man to commit to marriage. Or vice versa.

I) A juvenile knows he is raping, aware nothing much can happen to him.

J) Another juvenile acts similarly, but is punch drunk.

 
A flood of possibilities!
 
The teacher in case A) was convicted. Undue influence was cited, in America, where mores are less strict. Case B) has had differing results. The latest, in Delhi, where the woman, unable to convince the court of any serious intention on the part of her partner, failed in her prosecution. The judge was a woman.
 
Case C) can go either way for the woman, because proof is the key. Case D) has, rightly, seen convictions for statutory rape. Case E) is similar to A); coercion is a necessary ingredient. A friend of the author, in the US, talked of female students offering ‘services’ to get pass marks. Is that tantamount to rape? After all, the professor is in a dominant position.
 
Cases F) and G), under the influence, present serious problems. Who is to be believed, especially when both admit to lack of proper senses? Can one party ‘take what is offered’? Case H) amounts to entrapment and courts have frowned on this.
 
The last two involve juveniles. If a boy knows what he is doing, and knows that it is wrong, how should he treated? As a man or a kid? Is one day less in 18 years sufficient to escape criminality which would be the case the day after? The jury is out on this; but, as of now, the thin red line determines reformation or incarceration. 
 
It boils down to this. Was the deed the result of a guilty mind? Or was it innocent ‘fun’? Was it blackmail (photos/videos), intimidation, false promises, use of drugs, forced intoxication, threat to life or to that of a loved one? These would be punishable, and rightly so.
 
On the other hand, can the voluntary involvement of two people, later soured, be the basis of a crime? On this, the courts have, often, seen through the complaint. Again, rightly so.
 
Readers, of both sexes, will have different views but will agree that the situation is complex. When a dastardly act is committed, we bay for blood. ‘Off with his head’ is the formula for rapists. But a death penalty may ensure that the victim is later murdered. After all, the rapist cannot be hanged twice. 
 
Society needs to tread carefully.
 

User

COMMENTS

Ralph Rau

1 year ago

Sorry try this link

https://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBTxIQAg1aw

OR this link

http://tinyurl.com/pynrkpw

Ralph Rau

1 year ago

Rape or Consensual ?

Exlained as only the British can - over a cup of tea

https://http://www.facebook.com/thisisinsider/posts/148...

Need balance between empathy for stray dogs, safety of humans: SC
Holding that there was a need to strike balance between empathy for stray dogs and safety of humans, the Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted municipal bodies to kill irretrievably ill and wounded stray dogs suffering from rabies, in accordance with the laws.
 
Permitting municipal bodies to go ahead with the elimination of dangerous dogs under provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules 2001, the bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh said the life of a dog was not more important than that of a human.
 
"We are disposed to think for the present that a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human beings, which is called a glorious gift of nature, may harmoniously co-exist," the court said, giving the go-ahead to the killing of stray dogs that have become a menace to people.
 
Allowing local bodies in states and union territories to go ahead with the elimination of dangerous stray dogs, the court made it clear that its order would override any contrary order by any of the high courts.
 
"We would also request all the high courts not to pass any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules pertaining to dogs. Needless to say, all concerned as mentioned herein, shall carry out this order and file their respective affidavits as directed," the court said.
 
The court in the last hearing on October 26 had said: "These rules (Animal Birth Control Rules 2001) have not been declared unconstitutional. If rules are there, then they have to be followed, and any killing of dogs has to done according to the rules."
 
While seeking details from the states on the number of cases of dog bites and the killing of dangerous stray dogs, the court also sought details on the steps taken by them for the welfare of dogs.
 
The court order came during the hearing of a batch of petitions, including one by Anupam Tripathi contesting the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation (TMC) decision on mass culling of stray dogs.
 
The Animal Welfare Board of India too moved the court in the matter.
 
Tripathi moved the apex court challenging the Kerala High Court order approving the TMC decision to cull stray dogs.
 
Culling of stray dogs is being carried out in Kerala following an all-party meeting where it was decided that more than 2.5 lakh street dogs should be eliminated.
 
Petitioner Tripathi contended that the decision to cull stray dogs was against laws.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

Saradha scam: Accused Bengal minister steps down
On a day the CBI cited his continuance in the state cabinet as a proof of his immense influence, West Bengal's transport minister and Saradha scam accused Madan Mitra stepped down from the post on Wednesday.
 
According to sources, Mitra's resignation was accepted by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who forwarded it to Governor K.N. Tripathi.
 
The move came hours after the CBI, seeking cancelation of his bail, pointed to a division bench of the Calcutta High Court about Mitra continuing as a state minister despite being indicted and jailed in the multi-crore-rupee scam.
 
Mitra was granted bail by a lower court on October 31 nearly 11 months after his arrest on December 12 last year.
 
The CBI subsequently moved the high court's division bench of Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice Tapas Mukherjee seeking cancelation of the bail.
 
Following the CBI's move against the bail, the high court subsequently ordered Mitra be kept under house confinement till the disposal of the matter.
 
To buttress its claims of Mitra being an influential person who might hinder investigation and tamper with evidence if not kept in custody, the CBI counsel on Wednesday argued before the court how Mitra has remained in the cabinet despite being in custody for almost a year.
 
The counsel also drew the court's attention towards Mitra's stay at the government-run SSKM Hospital where he has spent a large part of his incarceration period.
 
Contending that the bail granted by the lower court was illegally passed, the counsel pleaded to the bench to cancel his bail.
 
Refuting charges that Mitra may tamper with the evidence, his counsel asserted that the minister had tendered his resignation even before his arrest but was not accepted.
 
The case will again come up for hearing on Thursday.
 
The opposition called Mitra's resignation a "desperate attempt" to prevent cancellation of his bail by the court.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)