The sentence for rapist is lowered because the victim could defend himself | the Chronicle

the Supreme Court of Spain lowered the sentence imposed on a man for rape of 12 to 6 years in prison, given that the 18-year-old victim was not in a vulnerable situation at the time she was abused, because even though she was drunk and high I know defended and opposed the sexual assault.

The Provincial Court of Valencia had condemned the defendant at first instance at six years of age for sexual assault, but later on Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community increased the sentence to twelve years of deprivation of liberty when applying the aggravating situation of particular vulnerability.

The events took place in 2016 on a site near the parking lot of a Valencian bowling alley. As collected the proven facts of the first sentence, the victim “She was very affected by the alcohol and the drugs taken.“, For what”I was not aware of the reality “ and had “His intellectual and volitional faculties have been disturbed, to the point of not being able to determine his sexual behavior with freedom and knowledge of the meaning of his actions.”

However, now the Supreme Court in the resolution of the filed cassation, remember that the worsening of special vulnerability “It is not in the absence or limitation of the consent of the offended person, but in the reduction or elimination of their mechanism of self-defense against sexual assault.”

Thus, they estimate the appeal of the convicted person, who maintains that “the victim never lost consciousness, rejected the accused’s requests, resisted and essentially recalled the development of relations with the accused “, then they argue that “the victim’s situation does not greatly restricts their ability to oppose “.

In this way, the Supreme Court supports the thesis presented at first instance by the Provincial Court, which held that the accused “He must have used enough force to overcome the resistance” of the victim, but that the victim’s situation, after having ingested drugs and alcohol, was not “Such seriousness that this aggravated subtype can be appreciated.”

In addition, the Supreme Court refers to the judgment of the TSJCV which ruled that nothing indicated “that the force deployed on XXX (…) would not have been sufficient to consummate the aggression if their situation had been different. “

In this way, the halving of the sentence is based on the fact that “despite his condition, the victim resisted from the first moment “ and in which the victim’s condition “It did not weaken their ability to effectively counter aggression”, despite the fact that the effectiveness of the opposition is clearly in question, because the sexual assault materialized.