A recent rape case in Sweden has ended with acquittal because the judge decided that the defendant really didn’t intend to rape his victim, even though there’s no other way to describe what he did to her.
“I expressed very clearly that I didn’t want to, so there was no way he could misunderstand me,” the woman told investigators. She explained, however, that the man became more aggressive as her protests increased, adding that he “seemed to like it”.
The woman screamed so much and so loudly that she eventually lost her voice while the man continued. At one point, he covered her nose and mouth so she couldn’t breathe and slapped her in the face, Metro reported.
While the woman told investigators she “expressed very clearly” that she didn’t want to have sex, the man told the court that he was convinced the woman was into rough sex, saying he received “very clear signals” that she enjoyed what he was doing.
However, the court ruled it had not been proven that the 27-year-old had acted with intent to act against the woman’s wishes, a ruling that left many observers seething.
The burden of proof in this case was apparently for the prosecution to read the defendant’s mind and prove that he KNEW his victim wasn’t just playing a sex game when she kept screaming NO.
(Quick digression, for anyone unfamiliar with BDSM play: the procedure is for both partners to agree on a safe word before they begin the sex game. The safe word is something totally random, like “Armageddon.” That way, there’s a way to distinguish the “NO” in the game from a genuine withdrawal of consent.)
Just to be clear: there’s no dispute over whether the defendant violated the woman. There’s no confusion on the part of the court over whether she made a clear refusal.
It is because the defendant says he thought she was into it, that the judge has decided he must not be guilty of a crime.
To bolster his judgment of “but he didn’t MEAN to be a rapist,” Mr. Larsson points to the stages earlier in the events leading up to the rape, the defendant accepted the woman’s refusal of other sex acts, such as oral and anal sex. So…the guy demonstrated that he is ABLE TO DISTINGUISH REFUSAL FROM CONSENT, and then when he IGNORED HER REFUSAL, Mr. Larsson figured that meant the accused just couldn’t understand what his victim meant by all that screaming “NO.”
Whereas, I would look at that fact pattern and conclude that the accused proceeded to force his cock into his victim over her protests because he’s a violent, predatory piece of shit who gets off on women’s fear and pain.
Furthermore, the judge thinks he’s a really brave soul for refusing to bow to the pressures of the screaming masses on Twitter and Facebook. I think he’s just trying to convince himself he’s so much better than all those other judges, who might let little things like reality and reason get in the way of enabling rapists to escape consequences.
All that said, I would really like to be able to read the entirety of Larsson’s op-ed, but I don’t know Swedish and there doesn’t seem to be a reliable English translation online.
The op-ed at SVT Debatt is here.
Do I have any Swedish readers who’d do us a favor and give us a non-terrible English translation of this? I tried reading the Google Translate output, and it is word salad.
The most clearly translated part of his piece is this last sentence here:
Next time it’s about your son or your brother sitting in the court, and then you will certainly want to judge not to give in to the mass media pressure.
Everything else is basically incomprehensible. Are there any Swedes present who can make Larsson’s rape apologism accessible to us Anglophones? Please?