In Judgment No. P.22.0306.F, the Belgian Court of Cassation addressed the material element of the criminal offense of sexism, as established under the Law of May 22, 2014 combating sexism in public spaces.
In Judgment No. P.23.0492.N, the Belgian Court of Cassation reviewed sexist and discriminatory remarks made by a lecturer during a conference held at a Belgian university. The Court of Cassation clarified how the mental element of the offense of sexism should be established. It held that intent can be inferred from factual elements identified by the trial judge, such as the nature and context of the remarks, where these cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise.
This Virginia law defines rape as sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, or causing a complaining witness to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person, regardless of the existence of a spousal relationship and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim.
On October 14, 2013, a woman reported that she had been deceived with a false modeling job offer, then transported, drugged, threatened, and sexually exploited by a criminal network. She was recruited by a university student who, together with others, kept her in conditions of sexual slavery and moved her to different locations for abuse.
In 2001, the female victim was kidnapped, tortured, raped and kept in captivity for four months. All complaints made by her sister to the competent authorities related to her sister’s disappearance were dismissed by the police. In 2007, the competent criminal court issued a partial conviction to the offender. He was convicted for the crimes of kidnapping and captivity.
In State v. Zeidell, 154 N.J. 417 (1998), the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed a case involving two young children, ages eight and ten, who observed the defendant masturbating from a distance while on a public beach. The defendant was initially convicted of second-degree sexual assault and endangering the welfare of the children. The Appellate Division reversed the sexual assault convictions, finding that the statutory requirement of specific victimization had not been proven. On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the convictions.
