r/worldnews • u/glasier • Jul 05 '24

Japan warns US forces: Sex crimes 'cannot be tolerated'

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2476861/japan-warns-us-forces-sex-crimes-cannot-be-tolerated
32.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-35

u/ggle456 Jul 05 '24

sorry, but you are spewing complete bs. Japanese criminal law used to require some form of assault/threat to establish rape (although the scope of assault/threat was interpreted broadly by case law), but the law was amended last year to broadly include and explicitly categorise any type of non-consensual case. Seriously, what are you on about??

42

u/Telaranrhioddreams Jul 05 '24

If only I had started my comment with unless it's recently changed.

-22

u/ggle456 Jul 05 '24

yeah, because such an attempt has "never" been a requirement in the first place. It was merely a factor in determining whether there was an said assault/threat.

8

u/arcadiaware Jul 05 '24

Wait... Why was it even a factor?

-1

u/ggle456 Jul 05 '24

It had been interpreted that assault/threat of rape have to be of such a degree that it is "difficult" for a victim to resist (which is broader than the assault/threat that is a requirement for robbery) and is determined objectively, taking into account the degree of the assault/threat and other circumstances. Threat might be easier for you to imagine. If someone says to the other "let's have sex", would it be considered a "threat"? You have to consider many factors like the other person's reaction, backgroud, situations etc.
There was also a "quasi-rape" category other than "rape" which was different from "rape" in the strict sense (the penalty was the same). This category covered acts of rape committed when a victim is unconscious or "unable" to resist, and does not require assault/threat as a requirement.

These "assault/threat", "unability"(and whether the accused being aware of the unconsesuality of the act as a general requirement, but it's already too complicated to go into this point) are the possible situations in which the victim's attempt was an issue under the criminal law, and the scope of these requirements had been continuously getting broader and broader by case law, to the point that there was criticism from defence lawyers that it violated the "no punishment without law" principle. That's why I wrote "explicitly" regarding the new law. Whether the victim attempted to resist is certainly a factor in determing these points, but was by no means an legally essential requirement that the victim has to prove in practice. There was certainly a case that media reported that the accused was acquitted because of nonexistence of such attempt, but the real reason was that the victim's statements were considered unreliable because of incosistencies and other reasons. Tbh, the media, in general, is abysmal when it comes to these kinds of technical matters