“Wretches of Men”: Rape Law Reform in Scotland and Sweden
4:00pm - 5:30pm /
Wednesday 20th April 2016
/ Venue: Lecture Theatre 4 Rendall Building
Type: Seminar /
Category: Research
- Marketing, Recruitment and Events Team
- Admission: Free event
- Book now
Add this event to my calendar
Click on "Create a calendar file" and your browser will download a .ics file for this event.
Microsoft Outlook: Download the file, double-click it to open it in Outlook, then click on "Save & Close" to save it to your calendar. If that doesn't work go into Outlook, click on the File tab, then on Open & Export, then Open Calendar. Select your .ics file then click on "Save & Close".
Google Calendar: download the file, then go into your calendar. On the left where it says "Other calendars" click on the arrow icon and then click on Import calendar. Click on Browse and select the .ics file, then click on Import.
Apple Calendar: The file may open automatically with an option to save it to your calendar. If not, download the file, then you can either drag it to Calendar or import the file by going to File >Import > Import and choosing the .ics file.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT (ICRU): RESEARCH SEMINAR
Professor James Chalmers
School of Law, University of Glasgow
To lawyers in the United Kingdom, it may seem self-evident that rape should be defined by reference to the absence of consent on the part of the victim, rather than the use of force by the accused. That was established as far back as 1845 in English law, even if the point was not put beyond doubt until rape was defined in legislation in 1976. Elsewhere, however, the shift from a force-based to a consent-based model has taken longer to achieve or has not occurred. Scotland did not make this change until 2002, while continental European jurisdictions commonly continue to define rape by reference to force. The question has been particularly controversial in Sweden, where a consent-based definition of rape has twice been rejected in the last two decades, but with renewed public debate leading to a third official commission being formed to review the issue, with a report due in late 2016. Given the continuing persistence of force-based models in continental Europe, Scotland’s relatively recent transition has been of some interest to Swedish reformers. But why has Sweden consistently rejected a consent-based model? What explains why some jurisdictions see consent as self-evidently core to sexual offences why others reject it? Equally, what do the proponents of reform hope to achieve by a shift to consent? And what lessons – if any – are offered by the Scottish transition?
James Chalmers is Regius Professor of Law in the School of Law, University of Glasgow.
Professor James Chalmers
School of Law, University of Glasgow
To lawyers in the United Kingdom, it may seem self-evident that rape should be defined by reference to the absence of consent on the part of the victim, rather than the use of force by the accused. That was established as far back as 1845 in English law, even if the point was not put beyond doubt until rape was defined in legislation in 1976. Elsewhere, however, the shift from a force-based to a consent-based model has taken longer to achieve or has not occurred. Scotland did not make this change until 2002, while continental European jurisdictions commonly continue to define rape by reference to force. The question has been particularly controversial in Sweden, where a consent-based definition of rape has twice been rejected in the last two decades, but with renewed public debate leading to a third official commission being formed to review the issue, with a report due in late 2016. Given the continuing persistence of force-based models in continental Europe, Scotland’s relatively recent transition has been of some interest to Swedish reformers. But why has Sweden consistently rejected a consent-based model? What explains why some jurisdictions see consent as self-evidently core to sexual offences why others reject it? Equally, what do the proponents of reform hope to achieve by a shift to consent? And what lessons – if any – are offered by the Scottish transition?
James Chalmers is Regius Professor of Law in the School of Law, University of Glasgow.