The Supreme Court is set to review its strict interpretation of the level of violence and intimidation required to establish a rape charge.
Under current precedent, the criteria for a rape charge stipulate that the violence or intimidation must be sufficient to make the victim's resistance impossible or significantly difficult, known as the 'narrow interpretation.'
Since a ruling in 1979, the Supreme Court has maintained this narrow interpretation, which has faced criticism for failing to adequately address the realities of sexual violence. Critics argue that if the level of violence or intimidation does not reach a 'significantly difficult' threshold, it becomes challenging to punish the perpetrator, even if the victim did not consent to the sexual act.
The Supreme Court en banc is the highest decision-making body that can change existing precedents or address issues with significant social impact, requiring the participation of at least two-thirds of the Chief Justice and Justices. If the en banc decides to relax the existing standards for violence and intimidation or establish new legal principles, the previous precedent will be ultimately discarded.
According to legal sources on the 16th, the Supreme Court has recently referred a case involving an individual charged with rape to the en banc, with the first hearing scheduled for the 22nd.
In the first trial of this case, the defendant was found guilty. However, the appellate court ruled that it was difficult to conclude that the defendant had exercised violence or intimidation to the extent that it made the victim's resistance impossible or significantly difficult, resulting in an acquittal. This decision adhered to the existing narrow interpretation set by the Supreme Court.
The prosecution appealed this ruling, bringing the case before the Supreme Court en banc. Legal experts are closely watching whether the Supreme Court will change its precedent, especially after it previously relaxed the standards for determining sexual assault.
In September 2023, the Supreme Court officially abolished the narrow interpretation of sexual assault after 40 years. The court ruled that even if the level of intimidation did not make resistance difficult, the act of using illegal physical force or instilling fear could still constitute sexual assault.
Additionally, lower court rulings applying the narrow interpretation to cases of quasi-rape are currently under review by the Constitutional Court. In June, the Constitutional Court received a case from a victim of 'non-consensual sexual violence' seeking to overturn a not guilty verdict, which is now being deliberated by the full bench.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.