While several co-defendants in the Mazan rape case were questioned this week, their speeches shed light on the question of the integration of consent in the definition of rape.
After looking into Dominique Pélicot, who drugged his wife to deliver her to strangers, the Vaucluse criminal court focuses on the 50 co-defendants who are appearing for “aggravated rape”. This week, six men took the stand. For everyone, the question of Gisèle Pélicot’s consent was at the heart of the interrogation. They were all asked a somewhat similar question by the president of the court, Roger Arata: “Was, in your opinion, Gisèle Pelicot able to give her consent?” The answer has often been “No.”
One of the accused, Husamettin D., who had denied the facts since his arrest, ended up admitting his guilt this Wednesday: “I took the consent from her husband. And I never thought that a guy could do that to his wife (…) Now yes, I recognize that it is rape”, reported France Blue. Just like Mathieu D., who assured that he “became aware in police custody” of the absence of consent from Gisèle Pélicot.
Fabien S. for his part admitted that “in the excitement”, he “did not pay attention” to the fact that the victim did not wake up. “The shots where the woman is sleeping don’t interest me at all. (…) I was in the mood, I didn’t think she was on drugs. I believed that she was an accomplice”, he then justified himself. Likewise, for Joan K., who admitted not “once” to have asked herself the question of the victim’s agreement He is also one of those who claim that they did not know the concept of consent until then, indicates. France Info. For Andy R., who noticed that the woman was “snoring”, the husband’s “permission” was enough for him not to turn back. “For me, she agreed,” he added.
A trial that revives the debate on the redefinition of rape
Permission from the husband, lack of knowledge of consent, lack of attention… All the co-accused tried to justify themselves. If they admit that there was no consent from the victim, they maintain the defense argument that they did not “intend” to rape. They assure that they were thinking of going to the Pélicots’ house for a swingers’ game. Dominique Pélicot, the main accused, on the contrary, affirmed that they were all well aware of his wife’s state during the sexual acts.
However, consent does not today fall within the definition of rape specified in article 222-23 of the penal code as “any act of sexual penetration, of whatever nature, or any oral-genital act committed on the person of another or on the person of the perpetrator by violence, coercion, threat or surprise.” Rape is a crime, but according to article 121-3 of the penal code, every crime requires intention. This is the argument that defense lawyer M.e de Palma, assuring that “there is rape and rape”, a statement which had been widely singled out. “From the moment when, in fact, there is a guilty intention, from the moment we can provide proof of the fact that the person who committed the acts was aware of committing acts of rape, there is rape Otherwise, there is no rape,” he explained to clarify his position. This situation has thus relaunched the debate on the redefinition of rape, notably with the integration of the question of consent.
Didier Migaud, new Minister of Justice, has, in fact, declared on France Inter this Friday, September 27 that he was in favor of changing the definition of rape in French law, in particular to integrate the notion of consent. Last March, Emmanuel Macron made the same speech and wanted a proposed text “by the end of the year”, an initiative disrupted by the dissolution of the National Assembly last June. Some countries such as Sweden have already taken the plunge, with rape now defined as any sexual act without explicit agreement, even in the absence of threat or violence. Will the Mazan trial make it possible to reach the same stage in France?