The Ugliest Definition

The case of a 19-year old college student who was found guilty of raping an underage girl, and ordered by the Session Court to undergo 240 hours of community service within 12 months [The Star]. The victim was a 14-year old girl, three months shy of her 15th birthday. Apparently, there was something in the order of an outcry from the public — most people considered the punishment as too light for the crime of rape.

"Rape" is an ugly word, and most people see that word to mean one thing — and only one thing — which is the act of sex involving the use of force by the rapist on his victim. But actually, there may be different meanings of that word, at least in the eyes of the law. 

In Malaysia, the law is such that sex with an underage girl, even if it's consensual sex, i.e. no element of force in the act, falls under the definition of statutory rape. There is, therefore, no necessity to prove the element of force in the act. As long as the "victim" is an underage girl, it is rape. If, on the other hand, the man marries the underage girl, and then have consensual sex with her, then that is not rape. Of course there will be numerous legal requirements to be met in order to marry an underage girl, but the point is that it's entirely possible in Malaysia. So what we have here are two possible scenarios of sex with an underage girl, both consensual in nature, but one falls under the crime of rape in the eyes of the law.

However, the law may be different from one country to another. Such law may not be available in some other countries. Which means that in those other countries, if two minors have consensual sex, the issue of rape does not arise at all. No rape, therefore no punishment.

"Crime and punishment" is a difficult subject, but although I pay attention on the "crime" itself, I tend to pay a closer attention on the "intensions" of the parties. I'm thinking, the circumstances of the "crime" are totally different, depending on whether the girl was forced into having sex, and whether she's a willing party. To me, the extent of the punishment shall reflect the nature of the "crime" and where exactly does it sit on the scale of  the victim is "forced into doing it" and "willing to do it". Unfortunately, most people only see that word "rape", and then take the ugliest definition of that word, and would therefore expect the heaviest punishment for the "crime". Hence the outcry.

The reality is that most people don't really care about the micro aspect of the case; they only see it from the macro perspective. In fact, it's also possible that they only read the headline and the first paragraph, and then comment on the subject. They see that ugly word "rape" and then become overwhelmed by the kneejerk reaction!

On the other hand, journalists, when reporting on the case, also made it a point to omit the justifications for the punishment. Whatever justification given by the judge — I'm sure there must have been at least some justifications for the punishment — is carefully left out, because the papers are only seeking to sell papers, and to attract as many eyeballs as possible to the article. They're seeking the kneejerk reaction that I speak of above from the public, because they knew that the article will be shared like wild fire.

I've delayed posting this article for a few days in the hope that the papers will follow up with another piece, perhaps that of the judge's justifications for the punishment. Maybe that report will come soon, but so far I have not seen any. Because I only know the macro of the case, and not the micro, I can't comment on whether the punishment is sufficient or justifiable for the crime.