Canadian rape laws have been extremely problematic in the past; they reflected the fact that the criminal justice system was more concerned with the victim’s credibility than with the perpetrator’s innocence or guilt. One’s husband or wife could not be accused of rape, as they were protected under spousal immunity. The victim’s sexual history was often examined and used to, in essence, blame them for the crimes committed against them and strip them of their dignity in court.
Bill C-127 was passed in 1983, with the objective of redefining rape and indecent assault as violent crimes and changing public perceptions of what defines sexual violence. In the past these had been considered crimes of sex, not aggression, and it was thought that …show more content…
The federal government subsequently drafted new legislation that protected victims from cross-examination unless the judge decided that the information was relevant. The revised laws also define consent more clearly, and a number of situations are listed in which consent is assumed not to exist – for example, when the victim is unable to consent because of intoxication (Newman & White, 2012, p. …show more content…
The new terminology, being broader and less well-defined, has had a “homogenizing effect” on the severity of recommended punishment: it has brought rape sentences down and indecent assault sentences up. This is clearly a negative and unintended consequence of the bill, as a crime labeled “sexual assault” tends to be punished less severely than the same crime labeled “rape” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The concept of rape in Canada, then, “is sufficiently embedded in the culture to resist modification with the space of a few years: people perceive a rape as a rape, whether it is called that or sexual assault” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The media, for example, particularly mainstream news outlets, often uses the term “rape” instead of “sexual assault”, contributing to a lack of awareness (granted, this may have changed since the source data was collected in 1996). This corresponds with the lack of public awareness of the new label – if it is little known, it will have little impact (Roberts et al.,
Bill C-127 was passed in 1983, with the objective of redefining rape and indecent assault as violent crimes and changing public perceptions of what defines sexual violence. In the past these had been considered crimes of sex, not aggression, and it was thought that …show more content…
The federal government subsequently drafted new legislation that protected victims from cross-examination unless the judge decided that the information was relevant. The revised laws also define consent more clearly, and a number of situations are listed in which consent is assumed not to exist – for example, when the victim is unable to consent because of intoxication (Newman & White, 2012, p. …show more content…
The new terminology, being broader and less well-defined, has had a “homogenizing effect” on the severity of recommended punishment: it has brought rape sentences down and indecent assault sentences up. This is clearly a negative and unintended consequence of the bill, as a crime labeled “sexual assault” tends to be punished less severely than the same crime labeled “rape” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The concept of rape in Canada, then, “is sufficiently embedded in the culture to resist modification with the space of a few years: people perceive a rape as a rape, whether it is called that or sexual assault” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The media, for example, particularly mainstream news outlets, often uses the term “rape” instead of “sexual assault”, contributing to a lack of awareness (granted, this may have changed since the source data was collected in 1996). This corresponds with the lack of public awareness of the new label – if it is little known, it will have little impact (Roberts et al.,