How is sexual intent proven or disproven in Indian criminal law? The Indian Penal Code states that physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures is guilty of sexual harassment. Pikewise, POCSO act sections 7 and 11 state Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,-- (i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; How is sexual intent proven or disproven in the 2 cases? In the latter case the burden of proving a lack of intent is on the accused, while in the former case I think it's not. Nevertheless, the two provisions are similar due to &quot;sexual intent&quot; being used. How is this proven and disproven?
Sexual intent is proven (or disproven) like any other form of intent. A confession is not necessary, although that is one available method. It may be inferred with proof from circumstantial evidence. Any combination of direct and circumstantial evidence is allowed. There isn't a formula for it. The prosecution or defendant, as the case may be, simply has to convince the trier of fact that there was or was not sexual intent. Any otherwise admissible evidence that could rationally show that sexual intent is more or less likely can be presented. If it happens in a gynecological appointment, or because the defendant slipped on a banana peel after the defendant's glasses were splattered with mud so he couldn't see what he was doing, this is going to be exceedingly hard to prove in the absence of a pattern and practice in multiple cases that couldn't be a coincidence, or with something like bragging to a friend in private. If this happens at a festival celebration, or after a dinner date, or intent is corroborated by perverted photographs on the defendant's phone, or is accompanied by sexual language, any other intent is going to be highly implausible and circumstantial evidence will strongly point to a sexual intent. One way to disprove sexual intent is for the defendant to testify that there was some other intent. There is risk in that approach. You can't simultaneously testify that sexual contact never happened and that sexual contact did happen but without sexual intent, for example. Testifying that there was sexual contact without intent basically admits some other element of the crime. But it also forces the prosecution to prove that the defendant is lying, which depending upon the evidence, may be easy, or may be hard. In real life, most of the cases that get prosecuted are easy cases. But, there will always be cases that are closer and circumstances that one wouldn't easily foresee in advance, and that is why we have courts and trials. Ultimately, the prosecution presents evidence and the finder of fact has to decide if it proved that element of its case.
germany Is there any act of husband or wife which can be considered as rape? The paragraph for sexual offences is §177 StGb. Obviously there are nuances between those offences, not everything is &quot;rape&quot;, but all of it is illegal. To answer your question, yes, the same acts that are considered rape when they are not husband and wife. While marriage had been an exception, this was considered archaic by many and this exception was removed in 1997: Vergewaltigung in der Ehe ist seit Juli 1997 strafbar. Mit dem 33. Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz wurde das Merkmal außerehelich aus dem Tatbestand der Vergewaltigung, § 177 StGB, gestrichen, sodass seitdem auch die eheliche Vergewaltigung als ein Verbrechen geahndet wird. Translation: Marital rape has been punishable since July 1997. With the 33rd Criminal Law Amendment Act, the characteristic &quot;extramarital&quot; was removed from the definition of rape, § Section 177 of the Criminal Code, so that since then marital rape has also been punished as a crime. There is no mention of how consent is to be expressed or even that it needs to be expressed explicitely.
It is not obvious that is it illegal in Washington state. Everett WA has local ordinances against "lewd conduct" (there are versions of this at the state level and in most municipalities). Having sex and masturbation are included in the class of "lewd acts", and are also included in "sexual conduct". An activity is "obscene" if three things are true. First, the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, when considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest and when considered as a whole, and in the context in which it is used, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. I think having sex or masturbating could pass these two tests. The third condition is that the act explicitly depicts or describes patently offensive representations or descriptions of... [sex, masturbation, or excretion] The prohibition is more narrow: A person is guilty of lewd conduct if he or she intentionally performs any lewd act in a public place or under circumstances where such act is likely to be observed by any member of the public. If lewd conduct were completely illegal, you could not excrete or have sex withing the city limits. Now we have to turn to the definition of "public place": an area generally visible to public view, and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not), buildings open to the general public, including those which serve food or drink or provide entertainment and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them, and businesses contained in structures which can serve customers who remain in their vehicles, by means of a drive-up window Focusing not on the probable intent but on the words, it is primarily defined as "an area generally visible to public view". Your house qua building is probably generally visible to public view, as is a public toilet or hotel. The inside of your bedroom is probably not generally visible to public view, nor is the inside of a toilet stall. While the building is probably a public place, a closed stall within the building does not meet the definition (nor does a hotel room). It might however qualify under the clause "or under circumstances where such act is likely to be observed by any member of the public". The statute does not give a definition of "observe", but under ordinary language interpretation, observation may be seeing or hearing. Silent sex, masturbation or defecation might not qualify as being public. Obviously, excretion in a stall of a public bathroom cannot be a lewd act, presumably because the average person does not generally consider ordinary excretion as appealing to the prurient interest: but there could be contexts where it does. Another avenue for prosecution is the Indecent Exposure state law which is when one intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. It is totally non-obvious that sex or masturbation in a toilet stall is "open". There is a slippery slope regarding quiet sex or masturbation w.r.t. knowing that the conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. Because the contexts where sex and masturbation are not clearly spelled out by statutory law, the matter would depend on how courts had interpreted previous cases. There have been arrests in Washington of people having bathroom sex, but I don't know if anyone has ever or recently-enough been convicted for having quiet sex out of view in a toilet stall, or similar place. There is a potentially applicable case, Seattle v. Johnson, 58 Wn. App. 64, which seems to involve public sex, and the conviction was overturned because the complaint was defective, in not including the element "that the defendant must know 'that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm'". It is not clear from the appeal what the act actually was – it probably was for public nudity. There is also an decision by the state appeal court division 3 (not publicly available) in Spokane v. Ismail which, in connection with a charge of public urination declares that "A toilet stall is not a public place. The center of Riverfront Park during the lunch hour is a public place", in connection with an ordinance just like the Everett one against public lewd acts.
There are several misunderstandings here. First of all, the US exclusionary rule applies only to evidence gained by the police, or by people acting as agents of the government, and not always to them. Secondly it applies only in criminal cases. The question does not say which state this would be in, and these are largely matters of state law, so it makes a difference. But I don't know of any state where taking a video without explicit consent, in a place where the person has a right to be, is a crime. In some states it would not even be a tort. If a video is taken without the subject's consent, that may be an invasion of privacy, and the subject might be able to sue (not "file charges). In such a case the video itself would absolutely be put in evidence, and if it recorded verbal permission to take the video, the case would be promptly dismissed, quite possibly with sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. Even if the video were taken by a police officer, and was presented as evidence in a criminal case, the office could testify to the verbal permission. That would be enough for the judge to view the video as part of a suppression hearing (which is not before a jury). If the judge saw and heard verbal permission to take the video, that would be an end to the motion to suppress, unless it was claimed that the permission was somehow coerced or faked, and evidence supported such a claim.
There is a relevant law, Title 18 section 907 which states that "A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally". So possession of lock picks is not a crime per se. In Com. v. Gendrachi 389 A.2d 604 we are reminded that "intent need not be directly proved, but may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident out of which the charges arise". The accused was busted in mildly suspicious circumstances at 5:20 am in the dead of winter, urinating. The court notes that "There is no evidence that appellant's hands were on the door or that he made an attempt to extract the tools from his pocket and apply them to the door. In fact, there is no act or statement by appellant that would lead one to infer that he intended to use the tools at that time", and that "appellant is a certified locksmith and it is not unreasonable to find the tools of his trade in his pocket, especially when he is wearing his work attire". Note that this is on appeal: he was convicted initially. The point is that there is a lot of slop in cashing out the legal concept of "intent". Pennsylvania does not, apparently, have any specific laws that refer to lock picks. It does have a statute that addresses having criminal tools, which are defined as (including) "Anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have". Mr. Gendrachi had those very tools, and the appeals court did not say anything to suggest that the tools were not "criminal tools" (and in FN 5 they actually point out that the Commonwealth cannot say that the tools were weapons, a ludicrous proposition never raised by anyone – so by failing to deny that lock picks are criminal tools, they are adoptively admitting that they are criminal tools). Thus I conclude that there is a law in PA, that lock picks are burglary tools, and that the government would have to prove intent to use criminally.
colorado Short Answer This woman was engaged in legally permitted self-defense when she killed the man with a knife in the kitchen under Colorado law, and she has not committed any crime. Her conduct would also not provide a basis for a valid lawsuit for money damages against her. Long Answer Applicable Law In Colorado's state criminal code, the relevant statutory section, Colorado Revised Statutes, § 18-1-704, states, in the pertinent parts (emphasis mine): Use of physical force in defense of a person - definitions. (1) . . . a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself . . . and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: . . . (b) The other person is using . . . physical force against an occupant of a dwelling . . . while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit . . . sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000. The referenced definition of burglary as relevant to this fact pattern is that: A person commits . . . burglary, if the person knowingly breaks an entrance into, enters unlawfully in, or remains unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful entry in a building or occupied structure with intent to commit therein a crime against another person or property. Note also that it doesn't matter for purposes of the burglary statute, if this is her kitchen, or someone else's, so long as it is not his kitchen. Also he need only be &quot;attempting to commit burglary&quot;, so even if he was trying unsuccessfully to get into the house and assaulting her from just outside a door or window, her use of deadly force to prevent burglary would be justified. On the other hand, if he was lawfully present in the home (perhaps a husband or roommate), the burglary justification for the use of deadly force would no longer be present. The referenced sexual assault statute states in the pertinent part that it is committed if: Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will . . . [which includes any case in which:] The actor causes submission of the victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence[.] Even if he does not &quot;reasonably appears about to commit&quot; sexual penetration or intrusion (which are necessary for the crime to be sexual assault for purposes of the use of deadly force law in Colorado), unlawful sexual contact is a crime against a person in an occupied dwelling, so it constitutes burglary that justifies the use of deadly force, even if it doesn't constitute sexual assault. Under these circumstances, the woman may use deadly physical force if she reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate to cause the rapist to cease committing sexual assault, and any other crime against person or property in the home. Application Of Law To Facts There is no reasonable doubt that the man is, at a minimum, in the process of committing burglary, and very likely sexual assault as well, although the language of the question is somewhat coy on this point as relevant to the Colorado definition of sexual assault. He has proven himself capable of physically overpowering her efforts to resist him with non-deadly force without success. This demonstrates that non-deadly force was inadequate. She used a knife to kill him for the legally authorized purpose of ending a burglary and probably also a sexual assault. Therefore, her use of a knife to kill him is almost certain be a use of deadly force for purposes of self-defense which is permitted by Colorado law. As a result, she would not be legally guilty of any crime for killing him with a knife in these circumstances. Incidentally, she would also have no civil liability in tort for money damages in this situation in Colorado. Application To Other U.S. States The exact wording of self-defense statutes differ from one U.S. state to another and I don't personally know every fine statutory detail of every one of them. But, Colorado's statute is quite typical. A state where her actions did not constitute legally justified in these circumstances would be an extreme outlier in U.S. law. I would be surprised if there was any U.S. state in which her actions would not constitute legally justified self-defense. Historical Note Suppose that the man in the question were the woman's husband in their own home where they were both lawfully present. Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was legal in every US state. It was partially outlawed in Michigan and Delaware in 1974, then wholly outlawed in South Dakota and Nebraska in 1975. The court case Oregon v. Rideout in 1978 was the first in which someone stood trial for raping his spouse while they lived together. By 1993 marital rape was a crime nationwide. (Source) Under current U.S. law in every U.S. state, the sexual assault justification analysis would be no different because there is no marital immunity for the crimes of sexual assault, although the burglary justification would no longer be present, so an intent to commit unlawful sexual contact without penetration or intrusion would not justify the use of deadly force. But, when marital immunity to sexual assault was part of the law, as it was in every U.S. state prior to 1974, and as it was in some U.S. states until 1993, she would be guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. The distinction between second degree murder and manslaughter in that case would hinge upon whether she had an intent to kill or only intended to harm (as in a case cited by Jen in her answer). Also, she would have a good argument for manslaughter due to provocation by the victim that was not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force, even if jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that she did intent to kill him. Colorado's self-defense statute (in a subsection omitted because it was not applicable to the facts in the question) also permits the grade of a criminal offense caused in the course of conduct intended as self-defense that does not meet the statutory standards for self-defense (e.g. because non-deadly force would have been sufficient) to downgrade the severity of the offense for which the person may be convicted, in a manner similar to the &quot;heat of passion&quot; defense. But, these facts present no plausible justification for a first degree murder, which is often a charge punishable by death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole, since it was not premeditated or committed in connection with a crime by the perpetrator. Realistically, under the circumstances of the question, if he was her husband and they were in their own home, during a time frame when there was marital immunity from sexual assault charges, she would most likely be convicted of manslaughter under these circumstances. Side Observation The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) that the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution, directly and as incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a rape not resulting in death (even the rape of a child). The death penalty has been unconstitutional in cases involving the rape of an adult woman in the U.S. since U.S. Supreme Court case of Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). There are many serious felonies (including some omitted from the Colorado statute above because they were not applicable to this fact pattern) for which the use of deadly force in self-defense is authorized even though the U.S. Constitution prohibits the use of the death penalty upon a conviction of that offense which does not result in someone dying.
canada In Canada it all depends on whether it is Bob or Alice who is female. If it is the male who lies about the use of contraception it results in sexual assault (R. v. Hutchinson), and in the case of sexual assault it is possible to sue for damages in civil court. In contrast if it is the female who lies about the use of contraception it does not result in sexual assault (🤦), and thus suing for damages is not possible (PP v. DD, 2019 (this is literally the case you describe)). To understand this legal difference one has to go back to the 1998 case R v. Cuerrier, which was about which lies cause consent to sex be withdrawn. Does lying about your identity count (impersonating your twin)? Does lying about your wealth count? Does lying about your religious believes count? Specifically in that case someone had not disclosed that they had HIV. The court ruled in that case that sexual assault laws should only concern themselves with lies that create a risk of physical harm, and thus 'causing someone else to get you pregant' does not count, whilst 'causing someone else to become pregant' does count. Anyway, an amazing article about this can be found on thewalrus.ca, which discusses exactly these cases. It's definitely worth a read, but here is their description of PP v. DD: THE CONSEQUENCES OF Hutchinson played out earlier this year in PP v. DD, a decision released recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In PP, the plaintiff and the defendant were in a brief sexual relationship that resulted in a child. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had lied to him about being on birth control, and that this lie had both robbed him of the ability to choose the timing and circumstances of the birth of his first child, and exposed him to the significant expense of childcare. In PP, the plaintiff chose to seek a remedy in civil court—meaning, essentially, that he wanted damages, not the imposition of criminal liability—arguing that the defendant had defrauded him. The plaintiff’s case in PP failed, mostly for policy reasons. Canadian law, like many other jurisdictions, is extremely reluctant to recognize any cause of action that might allow people to circumvent child-support obligations. But the Court of Appeal also commented on whether the plaintiff could advance a claim for sexual battery—the non-criminal counterpart of sexual assault. Relying on Hutchinson, the Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff’s consent to the sex he had with the defendant had not been cancelled out by her alleged fraud, because a woman who lies about being on birth control does not expose her male partner to any risk of significant bodily harm.
Does cybersex count as pornography? The law does not define pornography, so this is up to an interpretation of the courts. However, it appears to be common consent that a depersonalisation of the subjects is an essential aspect. For example, this verdict notes (translations and emphasis mine): Pornographie liegt nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs und der Oberlandesgerichte vor, wenn eine Darstellung unter Ausklammerung aller sonstigen menschlichen Bezüge sexuelle Vorgänge […] in den Vordergrund rückt […] (vgl. BGHSt 37, 55 (60); 32, 40 (44 ff); OLG Karlsruhe NJW 1974, 2015 (2016); OLG Düsseldorf NJW 1974, 1474 (1475); ebenso BVerwG NJW 2002, 2966 (2969)). […] Hinzukommen muss deshalb als weiteres Kriterium die sog. „Apersonalität des Geschlechtspartners“ (vgl. Erdemir, MMR 2003, 628 (631)). Die Darstellung muss mit anderen Worten durch eine Verabsolutierung sexuellen Lustgewinns unter gleichzeitiger Entmenschlichung der Sexualität geprägt sein. Pornographie ist danach anzunehmen, wenn der Mensch im Rahmen der Darstellung zum bloßen, auswechselbaren Objekt sexueller Begierde degradiert wird (vgl. S/S/Lenckner/Perron/Eisele, StGB 27. Aufl., § 184 Rdn. 4; MK-Hörnle a.a.O., § 184 Rdn. 15; jeweils m. w. Nachw.). […] According to the Federal Court’s and the state courts’ jurisdiction, a depiction is pornography if it emphasises sexual procedures disregarding all human aspects [references] […] Therefore, a necessary further criterion is the so-called “depersonalisation of the sexual partner” [reference]. With other words, the depiction must be dominated by a absolutisation of sexual pleasure and a simultaneous dehumanisation of sexuality. Therefore pornography has to be asserted if a depiction reduces human beings to mere replaceable objects of sexual desire [references]. (Also see the German Wikipedia for another summary and further references on the subject.) Now, cybersex usually, if not inherently, is a personal procedure, as opposed to a depersonalised one. Therefore I would not consider it to fall under the quoted definition of pornography. What other laws do regulate cybersex? The law governing the age of consent is § 176 StGB (translation), which includes: (4) Mit Freiheitsstrafe […] wird bestraft, wer […] auf ein Kind mittels Schriften (§ 11 Absatz 3) oder mittels Informations- oder Kommunikationstechnologie einwirkt, um […] das Kind zu sexuellen Handlungen zu bringen, die es […] vor dem Täter […] vornehmen […] soll, […] (4) Whosoever […] influences a child with written materials (section 11(3)) or with information or communication technology to induce him to engage in sexual activity […] in the presence of the offender […] shall be liable to imprisonment […]. *Translation adapted from this one to reflect recent changes to the law. Note that Kind (child) was established as Person unter vierzehn Jahren (a person under fourteen years of age) before. I would interpret this to capture cybersex. The only thing about this that may be debatable is whether the sexual activity during cybersex happens in the presence of the offender (i.e., the other person).