“A sex attacker who made legal history when he became the first defendant to be convicted of a rape offence in the absence of a victim was due to be sentenced today. Farhan Osman admitted attempted rape of an ‘unknown person’ after he was captured on CCTV attacking a woman in an underpass in Elephant & Castle. Harrowing film footage showed his victim pleading into the lens of the security camera as the 27-year-old ripped at her clothes and forced her to the floor. The attack only ended when another man walked into the subway, allowing the woman to escape. Osman was seen to move to another part of the underpass where he was caught on film performing a sex act on himself. Police arrested him minutes after the 4.30am attack on March 28, having being alerted by security guards. Officers tried to trace the woman but she was never found. The Crown Prosecution Service took the decision to charge Osman with attempted rape because the CCTV footage provided overwhelming evidence. In June, Osman, of Southwark Bridge Road, pleaded guilty at Inner London Crown Court to the attempted rape. Prosecutors believe it was the first time a man has been convicted of a rape offence in Britain without the victim being found.” —ICSouthLondon (UK)

Sometimes people speak of a “victimless” crime, which is defined as “an activity that is outlawed even though nobody involved is an unwilling participant.” Sodomy laws were (and are) a great example of this. They prohibit an activity in which many people willfully and consensually engage, thereby outlawing a common act with no victim. However, this case in the UK defines a much different sort of “victimless” crime. In this case, there was an activity that clearly involved an unwilling participant. However, that participant disappeared and was unable to assist the court in the prosecution of the accused rapist. In that sense, it’s not really a victimless crime but rather a witnessless one.

Witnessless? Yes and no. Here in America, the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that an accused person has a right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This is commonly taken to mean that a person has a right to face his accuser, though sometimes this right is mitigated by circumstance. (For example, children are not necessarily forced to face their abusers in a trial.) In this particular case, there was no accuser to be found — and yet there was a compelling videotape of the attempted rape. But can a videotape take the place of an accuser / witness? Apparently the answer is yes. And common sense says that, in this particular case, justice is probably being served. At the same time, though, it’s hard to feel comfortable with the thought that a person can be convicted of a crime when the only thing to accuse him is a videotape. After all, it’s no secret that a video can be made to lie. How long will it be before there is a case in which the tape is murkier, more ambiguous, and the accused defends himself by saying that he’s being framed by people with advanced video-editing skills?

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.