R v McCraw , [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada about the threat of rape. The court found that the threat should be regarded as a threat of physical damage under the Criminal Code.
Video R v McCraw
​​â € <â €
The case involved a Stephen Joseph McCraw, who was interested in the cheerleaders of the Ottawa Rough Riders football team. One day, he called some cheerleaders and sent letters to them. The letters state that he wants to have sex with them and if necessary will rape them to do so. One letter quoted by the Supreme Court read,
Sandy Let me tell you, you are a beautiful woman, I am disappointed you wernt on the calendar, you are the most beautiful cheerleader in the squad. I think you should pose naked for playboy. Every time I see you, I get an instant erection. I masturbate thinking of you every night. Your fucking will be like a dream come true. I will lick your whole body, starting with your toes, your feet, then right into your vagina. I would love to taste your watery vagina. Then I will suck your perfect and well-shaped breasts, I will then turn you over and lick your asshole. Then you will come down and suck my dick. After I am nice and horny, I will put my dick in your vagina. Then I'll push my cock into your nice tight bastard. Then you will suck my cock, and I will shoot my sperm all over your face. I will make love to you even if I have to rape you. Even if it keeps me till the day I die. There must be a more beautiful woman around you.
See you again and have a nice day! [ sic ]
McCraw was arrested and cheerleaders told the court that they were very afraid of the letters. Nevertheless, the judges found that while the letters did indeed threaten rape, they may not be physically threatening. Instead, the judge called the contents of the letters "fantasy worship" and said rape could be done without causing any physical or emotional damage to the victim.
Maps R v McCraw
Decision
The decision of the Supreme Court was written by Peter Cory. He notes that until 1985, the Criminal Code prohibited threats to kill or injure a person except the threat uttered in front of a person. The big decision about the law was R v Nabis (1975), and the Canadian Parliament thereafter decided on a better law was needed. The new law prohibits all kinds of threats related to physical harm or murder. Cory finds that body damage does not just mean killing.
Since the law also refers to "serious bodily harm," Cory consulted with the Oxford Shorter Oxford Dictionary and found that "serious" means "substantial", so "serious bodily harm" means considerable damage to the health of the victim.. Cory concluded that this law would likely include emotional damage, since the types of bodily harm covered by the law were infinite. The Supreme Court also ruled that the new law is intended to guard against threats that terrorize people, and that legislation has a significant goal to uphold individual freedoms. Rv LeBlanc (1989) is another case that finds that terror is important and not whether the crime actually happened.
Cory asserted that "Violence is inherent in the act of rape." He explained that in rape, sex and violence are intertwined, and that rapists are using force that may have temporary physical effects but still have the potential to have permanent emotional effects. Cory said,
It seems to me that a woman who is forced to have sexual intercourse is not necessarily serious and seriously abusive is to ignore the woman's perspective. For women, rape under any circumstances should be a major disruption to their physical integrity. Moreover, with the force or threat of violence, it denies women have the right to use freedom of choice for their spouse for sexual intercourse and the time of the relationship. This is a very important choice that may have a substantial effect on the life and health of every woman. Parliament's intention in replacing the law of rape with sexual assault is to convey the message that rape is not just a sexual act but is essentially a violent act.
To support this, Cory points to journal articles explaining how victims often become depressed, unable to sleep, feel guilty or lose value, lose faith in people and become uninterested in sex. Thus, in order that the law does not recognize this will be a step back for sensitivity.
Aftermath
The case of McCraw has been quoted by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases. For example, in the Rv CD; Rv CDK (2005), the Court noted that while the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not define "violent violations" and "serious bodily harm," McCraw indicates that this phrase is called substantial damage to victims' health.
References
External links
- The full text of the decision
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments