Here’s something to put an end to the controversy. The Federal Court takes advantage of the appeal of a man convicted after rape to clarify that the duration of the act cannot be considered as a favorable factor when setting the sentence. On the other hand, this duration can be taken into account in an aggravating sense if it demonstrates particularly significant criminal energy.
In July 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison after raping a woman he met in a bar in Valais. Before the Federal Court, he considered that the previous instance should have taken into account new case law providing that the relatively short duration of a rape would be a mitigating factor.
Read also: Camille Perrier Depeursinge: “It is enough for the victim to say no and not change her mind for the perpetrator to commit rape”
Inadequate wording
In a ruling published on Tuesday, the Federal Court returned the church to the middle of the village. The judgment of September 2023 (in a famous Basel case) to which the appellant refers contains “isolated and inadequate” wording, recognize the Mon Repos judges. However, the duration of the rape was not the subject of developments in this decision.
Generally speaking, the duration of a sexual assault has no link with the seriousness of the offense, underlines the 1st Court of Criminal Law. The notion of “short-term rape” is in itself nonsense because the attack occurs from the first moments of the sexual act.
From the perspective of culpability, the “relatively short duration” of a rape cannot therefore be considered a mitigating circumstance. On the other hand, its prolongation over time can constitute an aggravating factor since it demonstrates particularly significant criminal energy.
Judgment 6B_612/2024 of September 18, 2024
