There’s a major flaw in the VI criminal code
At first glance, the sexual offenses section of the Virgin Islands Criminal Code seems pretty straightforward. It’s something the public typically see referenced in a RVIPF arrest blotter. However, when taking a closer look at the Code, there’s a glaring issue with the language used.
The Code explicitly states that “a man who rapes a woman commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.” They specify this by saying “a man commits rape if (a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse did not consent to it, and (b) at the time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she consented to it.”
If you’re wondering if there’s a version where it explains how a woman can commit rape, or a man can be a victim of rape—there isn’t one. However, there are more ways listed for a man to commit sexual offenses against women and girls.
For example, Section 118 and 119 say that a man who has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 and 16 respectively is subject toimprisonment of up to 14 years (with the under 13 offense carrying a harsher sentence). Section 120 also states that a man cannot have intercourse with a woman who is deemed a ‘mental defective.’
It may occur to you that this Code is probably justarchaic, as most laws are, and merely needs to be updated to use more gender-neutral terminology. However, it is interesting to note that it was first passed in April of 1997. Should we really consider the Code outdated, as it is technically not even old enough to be a millennial? Perhaps a better argument is that the gender discourse in 1997 is significantly different to that which we have today.
But, can we truthfully say that conversations about gender in the Virgin Islands should be considered modern as opposed to archaic? Doesn't this Code represent the social psyche of VI society? Although we can argue that it is possible for a man to be raped by a woman in the VI, have we ever publicly heard of any instance of this? Can we confidently say that a man would feel empowered enough to take legal action against a woman who sexually assaults him in this community?
To be fair, the Criminal Code does specify one offense where the man is the victim—just not a victim of rape or even sexual assault. Section 138 states, “any person who commits or attempts to commit an indecent assault on a man or procures or attempts to procure a man to commit an indecent assault on another man, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.”
No, it does not define what “indecent assault” actually means.
Okay, maybe men would have some justice under this section if a woman should sexually assault or rape them. We haven’t seen this in practice, but, it’s theoretically possible. Yet, there’s still a gaping hole in this Code.
What about young boys?
The Code expressly notes that under the sexual offenses part, the word “man” includes “a boy.” So, you can therefore be charged with indecently assaulting a boy. The code also includes a section that says “indecency with a child” which allows any “person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of 14” to be charged.
However, the sections referring to victims of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse clearly only include women and girls, not men nor boys. Therefore, the Code does not cover an offence for a man or woman who flat out rapes a boy under the age of 18. They would have to instead be charged with indecent assault or indecency with a child.
The issue with this does not need to be spelled out. However, for anyone now concerned about a man or boy who is raped or sexually assaulted, it is important to note that a rapist can be charged with indecent assault and other charges simultaneously. For example, a woman who rapes a young boy under the age of 14 can be charged with indecency with a child, indecent assault, and incest by a woman when applicable, ultimately facing several years imprisonment with these stacked charges—but, should it have to be like this?
Why can’t we just say a young boy or man has been raped and a woman has raped them? Why do we have to skirt around what actually happened by breaking it down into several different, non-explicit, things?
The New York State Penal Code, for example, explicitly states “A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person...”
Simple. No disputing that a man or woman can be the victim or perpetrator. Yet, that’s New York. Should we expect the Virgin Islands legislation to be as modern as a place like New York?
The Cayman Islands (a British Overseas Territory like us) says in their penal code that “A man who rapes a woman or another man commits an offence.” In this case, at least men can be the victim but, yet still, women are expressly left out as the perpetrators.
What about the UK? Much of the VI Criminal Code uses UK Legislation as a benchmark anyway. The UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a “person (A) commits an offence if—(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis.”
In this case, the pronoun “he” is a gender-neutral term used throughout UK criminal legislation. However, you may have noticed that the penetration in this case must be done with a “penis.” Therefore, just like the Cayman Islands, a man can be a victim of rape, but a woman cannot be a perpetrator.
It is important to note that several groups in the UK have raised this issue, arguing that the Act should be amended to include women perpetrators. This is surprising for a jurisdictionlike the UK that is often considered “modern.” Especially when we consider the tone of UK arguments in favour of reform in the Virgin Islands. For example, the UK Government’s position on same-sex marriage is often used as a lead it would like its overseas territories to follow, stating that it “demonstrates society’s respect for all individuals.” Yet here we see that there is perhaps a lack of respect in their own laws for male victims of rape, no matter the age.
While other countries in the Caribbean, as well as the “modern authority” that is the UK, may be stuck in the past to some degree, the Virgin Islands is even further behind by not acknowledging men as victims of sexual offences.
It’s time for a modern discussion of gender politics in the VI. A closer look at the Criminal Code’s dismissal of male victims of sexual assault is only the tip of the iceberg for a piece of legislation that also does not expressly state a husband can rape his wife. Until these laws are updated, Virgin Islands men and boys remain vulnerable and at risk to sexual violence without the same recourse available to women and girls.
Comments