[1]: 143 According to Scholz (2021), the only law in the Code of Hammurabi (composed c. 1750 BCE) that scholars universally agree relates to rape is § 130:[1]: 147 šum-ma a-wi-lum aš-ša-at a-wi-lim ša zi-ka-ra-am la i-du-u-ma i-na bit a-bi-ša wa-aš-ba-at u-kab-bil-ši-ma i-na zu-ni-ša it-ta-ti-bil-ma iș-șa-ab-tu-šu a-wi-lum šu-u id-da-ak zinništum ši-i u-ta-aš-šar If a man force the (betrothed) wife of another who has not known a male and is living in her father's house, and he lie in her bosom and they take him, that man shall be put to death and that woman shall go free.
[1]: 153–154 In some rare cases, ancient laws did consider the (lack of) consent of a person (particularly a woman) involved a relevant factor in determining whether or not a sexual offence had occurred.
"Those committing rape were subject to a wide range of capital punishments that were seemingly brutal, frequently bloody, and at times spectacular.
It was seen as an example of hubris in the original sense of the word, i.e., violent outrage, and its punishment was so severe that it destroyed not only Laius himself, but also his son, Oedipus, his wife Jocasta, his grandchildren (including Antigone), and members of his extended family.
Raptus ad stuprum, "abduction for the purpose of committing a sex crime," emerged as a legal distinction in the late Roman Republic.
[10] The Lex Julia de vi publica,[11] recorded in the early 3rd century CE but dating probably from the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, defined rape as forced sex against "boy, woman, or anyone".
The Augustan historian Livy seemed "embarrassed" by the rape motif and emphasizes the redeeming political dimension of traditional stories.
The "rape" of the Sabine women was interpreted as showing that Rome was constituted as a "blended" population in which people resolved violence and coexisted by consent and treaty.
[13] In the 50s BCE, the Epicurean poet Lucretius condemned rape as a primitive behavior outside the bounds of an advanced civilization,[14] describing it as "a man's use of violent force and imposition of sexual impulse.
[17] The official position under the emperor Diocletian (reigned 284–305 AD) held that:[18] The laws punish the foul wickedness of those who prostitute their modesty to the lusts of others, but they do not attach blame to those who are compelled to stuprum by force, since it has, moreover, been quite properly decided that their reputations are unharmed and that they are not prohibited from marriage to others.
[22] Men who had been raped "by the force of robbers or the enemy in wartime (vi praedonum vel hostium)" were exempt by law from infamia.
[24] The rape of a freeborn male (ingenuus) or a female virgin is among the worst crimes that could be committed in Rome, along with parricide and robbing a temple.
[26] The victim's consent was usually not a factor in Roman rape cases, since raptus could refer to a successful seduction as well as abduction or forced sex.
[29] Augustine's interpretation of the rape of Lucretia (in The City of God Against the Pagans 1.19) has generated a substantial body of criticism, starting with a satire by Machiavelli.
Historian of early Christianity Peter Brown characterized this section of Augustine's work as his most vituperative attack on Roman ideals of virtue.
[30] Since under Roman law raptus could also mean cases of abduction or elopement without the head of household's permission, Constantine ordered that if the female had consented, she should be punished along with the male "abductor" by being burnt alive.
Constantine's law against sexual abduction was changed to shift blame to the man, on the assumption that the participation of the woman, even if voluntary, was caused by male seduction.
The law for other kinds of sexual violence continued to be handled by means of the older Roman legal principles governing cases of 'stuprum.
[36][37][38][notes 1] A lawsuit against the famous late medieval English writer, Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400), demonstrates that the legal term "raptus" could not only be applied to actual cases of rape or sexual assault, but also to the unlicensed transfer of a female servant from one household to another.
[citation needed] According to Professor Oliver Leaman, the required testimony of four male witnesses who eyewitnessed the actual penetration applies only to consensual illicit sexual relations (whether adultery or fornication), not to the non-consensual crime of rape.
In this category, Muslim jurists included abductions, poisoning of water wells, arson, attacks against wayfarers and travellers (highway robbery), assaults under the cover of night, and rape.
But if the army victoriously entered the town by force, the conquering men could and would rape women (and sometimes adolescent boys) of the defeated peoples as one of the spoils of war.
[49][50] Some portion or all of the population of a town taken by force might also become slaves, who lacked legal protections against rape and who might be exploited as prostitutes or non-consensual sexual companions.
Bride capture is common in the cultures of Central Asia, and is also found in Southern Europe and is additionally practised traditionally by the Hmong.
[55] Adult women were often extremely reluctant to bring up charges of rape: public admission of having been raped was severely damaging to one's social standing, courts tended to be skeptical of the charges, conviction rates were low, and, in the event that the accusation could not be proved, the victim could then be accused of committing adultery with the rapist (traditionally a serious offense that could have been punished by mutilation[56] or even death).
[59] Since the 1970s, many changes have occurred in the perception of sexual assault due in large part to the feminist movement and its public characterization of rape as a crime of power and control rather than purely of sex.
On September 2, 1998, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda delivered a precedent-setting verdict that made sexual violence a war crime.
The ius primae noctis ("law of the first night") is a term now popularly used to describe a supposed legal right allowing the lord of an estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters.