Should Intent Matter in a Rape Trial?
Let’s take a closer look at the Pelicot defendants’ assertions that no intent means no crime
Author’s note: First of all, major trigger warning here. Please protect your mental health and skip this one if the subject matter makes you feel vulnerable.
I originally published this on October 13, 2024, one of several articles I’ve written about this trial. As it comes nearer to its end, I wanted to share what I’ve written about it so far, as I know I will have a lot more to say in the very near future.
You can read more of my thoughts on this case here.
“There’s rape…and there’s rape.”
These words echoed around the world when Paul-Roger Gontard, one of the defense lawyers in the Gisèle Pelicot rape case, first uttered them in court, inspiring disgust and outrage both in and out of the courtroom.
Since 2017, women have been standing up, insisting on the acknowledgement of the prevalence of violence against women and on the many forms that it takes, all deserving of the same name. We are no longer buying the excuse that rape is only something that a stranger in a hoodie commits against a woman who foolishly decided to go stumbling into a dark alley after having one too many drinks. Rape, we are finally acknowledging, happens on the casting couch, in boardrooms, and yes, even marital beds.
Seven years later, the world is reeling from one of the most monstrous acts of rape ever reported in modern history — a decade-long rape spree in which a man drugged his unwitting wife into unconsciousness, then invited nearly 100 men (that we know of) into their bedroom to rape her.
What’s so extraordinary about this story is that the men of the world, as well as those involved, have found the case a little harder to dismiss as just another woman telling lies.
In this case, Gisèle Pelicot’s husband, Dominique, took over 20,000 videos and photographs of himself and the other men on trial raping her. The evidence against them is staggering.
Nevertheless, the majority of these men are denying any wrongdoing. Each one of them has their own story, but the overall theme seems to be exactly what Gontard hinted at early in the trial: that you can’t call it rape or convict for rape if the perpetrator didn’t intend to commit the crime.
As if this case couldn’t get any more horrific… Now we have men trying to set a legal precedence that rape doesn’t really matter so long as the perpetrator says he didn’t mean it.
Now let’s not be disingenuous. Intent matters when it comes to the law. I won’t pretend otherwise.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that there’s a difference between murder and manslaughter and that that difference is intent. There are even different degrees of murder, as well as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
When it comes to intent, the law cares.
But why is it important? Intent is a critical part of criminal law because it defines what charges can be brought against the accused, determines the “standards of proof” a prosecutor must meet in order to secure a conviction, and influences the sentencing that follows a conviction.
The men accused in the Pelicot trial are, therefore, not wrong that intent should matter. But there are two major problems that they are willfully ignoring, and one glaring conclusion they don’t want to consider.
First of all, these men are arguing that they should not face charges, nor even be on trial because of their alleged absence of intent to rape. Let’s not forget that an action that causes the death of another person, even without intent, by design of the law, still calls for a trial and potential sentencing.
It’s essential that we do not let this point pass us by. This is how rape culture continues to flourish. These men are arguing that rape without intent should have no consequence — and in fact, that it is not rape, at all, as Gontard argued earlier in the trial.
That alone is something that we should all take a collective moment to consider. The gravity of that argument is horrifying, and the fact that there is any ethical space at all for them to make it in the first place says a lot about western patriarchal culture.
But sadly, we don’t have time to dwell there because there are too many other issues we have to give our attention to, including the second point here. Arguing that this many men don’t know what rape is isn’t an excuse for their behavior. It should, instead, be recognized as what it is: damning evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a failing society.
I’m sure a lot of people would be surprised to hear that I agree that men, in general, don’t know what rape is. I even believe that most of the accused who are claiming to have gone to the Pelicot home without any intention to rape Ms. Pelicot actually believe their own delusional thinking.
But I also believe that most men are failing to acknowledge that their ignorance of the many iterations of rape is by design. Seven years after the #MeToo movement, if you still believe that a husband can give consent on behalf of his wife or that it’s okay to have sex with a nonresponsive woman who appears to be sleeping, then it’s quite obvious that you don’t want to know.
There’s an unconsidered intent right there — the intent to remain ignorant seven years into a critical cultural conversation. Make no mistake about it: that’s a deliberate act that serves a specific purpose.
Imagine if the vast majority of people didn’t know what murder was, couldn’t quite define it, and weren’t held to any social expectations to be able to do so. I’m pretty sure we’d take immediate action to correct that.
But when it comes to rape, we don’t because that would disrupt men’s access to power — and that’s not something we do in a patriarchal culture.
This collective ignorance, or, as Jenn Biddle brilliantly put it, “sanctioned befuddlement,” is the product of our dominance hierarchy. It is a social agreement that protects men and perpetuates the disempowerment and abuse of women.
This is why a so-called unimaginable rape spree could go on for so long and include so many men — and why so many of them have the audacity to plead not guilty and argue that no rape occurred even when their crimes were documented on video.
But what would happen if we pushed back on the “sanctioned befuddlement”? What would happen if we took a more critical view of the actions of these men versus their words? Do their pleas of ignorance hold up?
The two most common assertions made by the accused are that 1) they believed Dominique Pelicot could give consent on his wife’s behalf and 2) that the Pelicots were simply a couple acting out some strange kinks and that the entire routine was nothing more than a game, one in which Ms. Pelicot was only pretending to be asleep.
Yet most of these men admitted that they were told ahead of time that Ms. Pelicot would be knocked out by “sleeping” pills, though some claim they can’t remember if they were told that she was taking them or if her husband was administering them without her consent. And not one of these men thought to investigate that further?
Defendant Lionel R., 44, father of three and one of the few who admitted to rape, said, “I’m not asking too many questions [about the drugs], I was convinced it was a game at the time,” a statement echoed by many other defendants.
Once again, we need to ask ourselves some critical questions. Are these men suggesting that, so long as a sexual encounter seems like a game, according to their own definition, anything goes? No questions need be asked? Consent is a given?
Jacques C., 74, an ex-fireman, was also told that Ms. Pelicot would be drugged, yet like Lionel, this did not concern him. He said he simply believed Ms. Pelicot was a swinger who was “shy.” By his logic, shy to the point of needing to be drugged into unconsciousness in order to have sex with a new partner. Hmmm…
As for the acceptance of the idea that Pelicot could give consent on behalf of his wife, ask any of these men to flip the genders and let’s see if they have any confusion at all about what rape looks like. Would they also argue that there’s no intent, and therefore no actual crime, if their wives drugged them, then invited random men to come to the house and have sex with their husbands while they recorded it all on video? Because I’m pretty sure every single one of those men would suddenly have a very clear understanding of rape in that case, and I doubt they would believe any claim of an absence of intent.
But let’s not forget the most damning evidence of all. As far as I understand this case, all (or at least most, including Jacques C.) of these men encountered Dominique Pelicot on Coco, a now-defunct website that was well-known for posts containing illegal activities. Pelicot was posting videos of himself and others raping his wife on a message board called Without Their Knowledge. If there was no intent to rape Ms. Pelicot, what were they doing on that message board?
Further, each of the accused, already knowing Ms. Pelicot would be drugged and asleep, was instructed to follow strict rules in order to avoid waking the victim, including removing their clothing in another room and adhering to particular personal hygiene rituals, which they would have had to do well before arriving at the Pelicot residence.
Now how can any of these men claim there was no intent to rape under these circumstances? And yet I have no doubt that most of them truly do not believe they did anything wrong.
Considering the evidence, which includes over 20,000 videos and photographs documenting a decade of Gisèle Pelicot’s victimization, each one meticulously labeled then stored in a folder titled “Abuses,” it is undeniable that Dominique Pelicot carried out his crimes with malicious intent. He has even admitted to this, blaming his crimes on past trauma and his wife’s refusal to sexually engage with people outside their marriage.
He has also corroborated the evidence in his videos, admitting that he had invited each of the men featured in them to participate in raping his wife. “They all knew her condition before they came, they knew everything. They cannot say otherwise.”
Despite this damning evidence of intent, defense attorneys are, predictably, arguing that it’s nothing more than a legal strategy. Gontard, for his part, is insisting that Pelicot is trying to “dilute his responsibility by dragging down 50 other men.” All 50 of those men are seen engaging in sexual acts with Ms. Pelicot’s unmoving body, the sounds of her snoring often audible, so I’m not sure how much Pelicot’s statement factors into the alleged “dragging down” of these men, who all showed up in that bedroom by their own free will.
Gontard goes on to assert the possibility that these men were tricked, and insists that there are “gray zones” in the trial.
“The question today is when did they realize something was wrong? This realization varies among [the accused]. The question often arises — why didn’t they leave? It’s not that simple to leave at that moment when faced with a clearly dominant personality in a situation where they are naked and recorded by a camera.”
But this doesn’t sound very gray to me. What happened between the time they knocked on the door and ended up naked in front of a camera? Aren’t we skipping ahead and leaving out some key details here? Or better yet, how about what led them to knock on that door in the first place?
There’s a very, very long timeline here between encountering Pelicot and ending up naked in front of that camera — especially for those who raped Ms. Pelicot multiple times on different occasions. There was plenty of time to question the red flags — unless the red flags were what attracted them to this situation in the first place.
And yeah, it must’ve been really scary for these men to arrive at that house and realize that Pelicot was an even more dangerous predator than they were.
Despite Gontard’s assertion that this isn’t a simple case, Gisèle Pelicot makes a compelling argument to the contrary when she said, “…if a man came to have intercourse with me, he still should have asked for my consent.” Does it get simpler than that? That is where intent begins and ends, and why the argument that intent should count in this case doesn’t hold water.
You see, a person’s untimely demise by another’s hand might happen accidentally (without intent) — but rape is always intentional.
A penis doesn’t accidentally fall into a woman’s mouth, anus, or vagina. Failing to ask for consent isn’t a mishap. Choosing to sexually engage with a person who is physically unable to respond in any way is not an oopsie. Deciding not to use a condom when she insisted that he wear one isn’t a faux pas. Coercing or threatening someone into a sexual encounter isn’t a social blunder.
Rape is, by definition, intentional, and that intent stretches all the way back from the perpetrator to a culture that taught him to objectify women, eroticize violence, and protect other men who do the same.
It doesn’t matter how innocent these men claim to be, nor what Gontard believes when he argues that there are types of rape that aren’t really rape. As I said, it’s really quite simple: All rape is rape.
Case closed.
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/drugs?r=4up0lp