Prosecution Of Sexual Offenses Including Rape, Sexual Assault, Harassment, And Indecent Exposure
1. R v. R (1991) – Marital Rape Recognition
Facts: A husband was prosecuted for raping his wife, challenging the long-standing legal principle that a husband cannot be guilty of raping his wife.
Issue: Can a husband be criminally liable for raping his wife under domestic law?
Holding: The House of Lords (UK) held that a husband can indeed be guilty of raping his wife. The marital exemption to rape was abolished.
Significance:
Landmark case recognizing marital rape as a criminal offense.
Strengthened legal protections for victims within marriage.
Influenced legislation in several common law jurisdictions to ensure marital rape is prosecutable.
2. United States v. Franklin (2011) – Sexual Assault and Consent
Facts: Franklin was charged with sexual assault after engaging in sexual activity with a woman who had verbally withdrawn consent during the act.
Issue: Does continued sexual activity after consent is revoked constitute sexual assault?
Holding: The court ruled that revoked consent makes continued sexual activity a criminal offense, and Franklin was convicted of sexual assault.
Significance:
Reinforced that consent is continuous and revocable.
Strengthened victim protections in sexual assault cases.
Provided judicial clarity on prosecuting cases where initial consent was given but later withdrawn.
3. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) – Workplace Sexual Harassment
Facts: Faragher, a lifeguard, sued her employer for sexual harassment by supervisors, claiming the employer failed to prevent and address harassment.
Issue: Can employers be held liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisors?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that employers are liable for harassment by supervisors if they fail to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment.
Significance:
Established employer liability in sexual harassment cases.
Encouraged implementation of robust anti-harassment policies.
Strengthened judicial recognition of workplace protection as part of sexual offense enforcement.
4. People v. Liberta (1984) – Sexual Assault and Protective Orders
Facts: Liberta sought protection after repeated sexual assault threats from her partner. The legal system initially offered limited recourse under protective orders.
Issue: Can courts grant protective measures for victims of sexual assault beyond immediate physical threats?
Holding: The court upheld the right to restraining orders and other protective measures, recognizing the psychological and physical threats posed by sexual assault.
Significance:
Reinforced legal remedies for sexual assault victims beyond criminal prosecution.
Highlighted the importance of restraining orders in preventing further victimization.
Influenced statutory development for comprehensive victim protection measures.
5. State v. Hernandez (2010) – Indecent Exposure
Facts: Hernandez was charged with indecent exposure after exposing himself to multiple individuals in public places.
Issue: What constitutes criminal indecent exposure, and how is intent determined?
Holding: The court convicted Hernandez, ruling that intentional public exposure of genitalia with sexual intent constitutes a criminal offense.
Significance:
Clarified the legal definition of indecent exposure.
Emphasized the role of intent in prosecuting sexual offenses.
Strengthened public protection by establishing clear standards for criminal liability.
6. R v. Brown (1993) – Consent and Assault in Sexual Activity
Facts: In this UK case, defendants were charged for consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts causing bodily harm.
Issue: Can consent to bodily harm in sexual activity be a defense to prosecution?
Holding: The House of Lords held that consent is not a defense where bodily harm is inflicted, making the acts criminal assault despite mutual consent.
Significance:
Defined limits of consent in sexual activity under criminal law.
Reinforced the principle that public policy can restrict sexual conduct to prevent serious injury.
Clarified prosecution standards in cases involving consensual yet harmful sexual behavior.
7. Davis v. United States (1992) – Sexual Assault on Minors
Facts: Davis was prosecuted for sexually assaulting a minor, involving both physical and coercive acts.
Issue: How should the law protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse?
Holding: The court convicted Davis, emphasizing that sexual assault statutes are particularly protective of minors and consent is legally irrelevant when the victim is underage.
Significance:
Highlighted special protections for minors in sexual offense law.
Reinforced that prosecutors need not prove consent from minor victims.
Strengthened enforcement measures for crimes against children.
8. United States v. Morrison (2000) – Federal Remedies for Sexual Violence
Facts: Morrison involved a victim of sexual assault seeking redress under the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Issue: Can victims of sexual assault sue their attackers in federal court under VAWA?
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the civil remedy provision of VAWA exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, limiting federal civil actions.
Significance:
Clarified the limits of federal jurisdiction in prosecuting sexual offenses.
Emphasized the role of state law in enforcing sexual offense protections.
Influenced legislative approaches to supporting victims while respecting constitutional boundaries.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Offense | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. R (1991) | Marital Rape | Marital exemption to rape | Conviction allowed | Recognized marital rape as criminal |
| U.S. v. Franklin (2011) | Sexual Assault | Consent revoked during sex | Convicted | Affirmed revocable consent principle |
| Faragher v. Boca Raton (1998) | Workplace Harassment | Employer liability | Employer liable | Strengthened workplace protections |
| People v. Liberta (1984) | Sexual Assault | Protective orders | Upheld restraining orders | Expanded victim protection |
| State v. Hernandez (2010) | Indecent Exposure | Public exposure intent | Convicted | Clarified indecent exposure law |
| R v. Brown (1993) | Sexual Assault | Consent to harm | Convicted | Defined limits of consent in sexual acts |
| Davis v. U.S. (1992) | Sexual Assault (Minors) | Consent irrelevant for minors | Convicted | Strengthened protections for minors |
| U.S. v. Morrison (2000) | Sexual Violence | Federal civil remedies | Civil remedy struck down | Highlighted state-level enforcement role |
Key Takeaways
Consent is central: Revocable consent, lack of consent, and age are key factors in prosecution.
Victim protection extends beyond prosecution: Protective orders, restraining orders, and workplace protections are critical.
Limits of federal jurisdiction: Many sexual offense remedies must operate under state law due to constitutional limits.
Marital and intimate relationships: Rape and assault laws increasingly recognize victim rights within intimate or domestic settings.
Intent and public safety: Offenses like indecent exposure and harm-causing sexual acts emphasize public protection and legal limits of consent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments