Text-book of forensic medicine and toxicologyBuchanan, R. J. M. (Robert James McLean)
Science
Text-book of forensic medicine and toxicology
Buchanan, R. J. M. (Robert James McLean)
Medical jurisprudence; Poisons
According to the Statute 24 and 25 Vict. c. 100, sec. 48, rape in
England is defined as the “carnal knowledge of a woman against her
will.” In Scotland rape is held to be “the carnal knowledge of a woman
forcibly, and against her will, or of a girl below twelve years of age,
whether by force or not” (Hume, i. 303). An Act passed in 1885 (48 and
49 Vict. c. 69) has materially affected the law on this subject as
regards the age of females. To constitute the offence of rape, there
must be _penetration_, but proof of the actual emission of semen is
not now necessary. Before the Statute 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, sec. 18, it
was also necessary to prove emission, which might be proved either
positively by the evidence of the woman that she felt it, or it might
be presumed from circumstances; as, for instance, that the defendant,
after connection with the prosecutrix, arose from her voluntarily
without being interrupted in the act. The slightest penetration of the
male organ within the vulva will be sufficient, and the hymen need not
be ruptured (R. _v._ Russen, 1 East P.C. 438, 439). The resistance of
the woman must be to the utmost of her power. If, however, the woman
yield through fear or duress, it is still rape; but of course much
will depend upon the previous character of the woman, and her conduct
subsequent to the alleged outrage. The party ravished is a competent
witness to prove this and every other part of the case; but the
credibility of her testimony must be left to the jury. The defendant
may produce evidence of the woman‘s notoriously bad character for want
of chastity or common decency, or that she had before been connected
with the prisoner himself; but he cannot give evidence of any other
particular facts to impeach her chastity (R. _v._ Hodgson, R. & R.
211). She may be asked if she has had connection with other men, but
she need not answer (R. _v._ Cockcroft, 11 Cox, 410, per Willis, J.).
If she deny connection with the men named to her, they cannot be called
to contradict her (R. _v._ Holmes, L.R. 1 C.C.R. 334).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account