Lawrence, a British man, met the woman Catherine on a social networking software, and the two chatted happily on the Internet because of their similar interests. After chatting for a while, the two met offline.
On the night of their meeting, the two spent the night together at the woman's Catherine's house. Before spending the night together, the woman Catherine asked the man Lawrence to take safety measures in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
However, Lawrence, the man, lied that he had been sterilized and did not need to take any safety measures. After receiving repeated assurances from Lawrence, the woman Catherine believed it.
So that night, the two spent the night together without taking any safety measures. Afterwards, the woman Catherine unfortunately became unexpectedly pregnant, and when she found out that she had been deceived, Catherine immediately called Lawrence to ask the truth.
And Lawrence also truthfully confessed that he was fertile, and indeed deceived Catherine on the night of the incident. Knowing that the man Lawrence actually deceived herself, Catherine was very angry, so in a fit of anger, she accused Lawrence of rape.
After the first instance trial of the case, the court finally found the man Lawrence guilty of rape. The reason for the first-instance judgment was that on the night of the crime, the man Lawrence obtained his consent fraudulently.
If Catherine knew Lawrence was fertile, she would never agree to spend the night with him without taking any safety measures.
In other words, Catherine's consent was given after being deceived and under the circumstances of cognitive error, so her prior consent should be classified as invalid, so the man Lawrence constituted rape.
After the first-instance verdict was announced, Lawrence, a man, appealed the verdict, and Lawrence and his defense attorney firmly argued that the fraudulent consent did not constitute rape.
(Note: The author has blurred some of the details of the case in this article and the names of the original case, aiming to use this case to explore the question of whether the man constitutes rape when the woman's consent is obtained by fraudulent means.) ）
As for the second-instance judgment in this case, after many searches, the author has not found a specific judgment result, so I can only list 3 similar classic case judgments in British history for your reference.
Brief case 1: The man deliberately concealed the fact that he had HIV and spent the night with the woman. The woman's prior consent was valid and the man was found not guilty of rape.
Brief case 2: The woman asked to wear a condom, but the man pretended to agree, but secretly took it off halfway. The woman's prior consent was null and void and the man was convicted of rape.
Brief case 3: The woman is not in an insecure period, and the man promises to take a special method and will never let her get pregnant, and the result is to break his word. The woman's prior consent was null and void and the man was convicted of rape.
From the above three cases, it can be seen that not all fraudulent means will invalidate the woman's prior consent. In other words, if the woman agrees to spend the night together on the premise of being deceived, the man does not necessarily constitute rape.
However, the author believes that for the judgment of Lawrence, the man in this case, we should refer to cases 2 and 3, because the situation is relatively similar, the woman has the intention to avoid unwanted pregnancy in advance, while the man uses fraudulent means to deceive the woman to consent, but the result is to break his word, and in this case, the man constitutes rape.
At the end of the article, the author also needs to point out that for some traditional fraud methods, such as fake treatment, the use of superstitious ideas, etc., the woman's consent after being deceived is invalid, and the man constitutes the crime of rape.
Finally, for this case, do you think that the man Lawrence constitutes the crime of rape? Welcome to leave a message to discuss.
#头条创作挑战赛 #
