A legal studies perspective on the R. v. J.A. case
Milena Stanoeva, Congress 2011 Team
Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its ruling in the R. v. J.A. case. The case questioned whether or not an unconscious person can grant consent in advance to sexual activities.
The defendant, J.A., and his girlfriend often had high-risk sex, during which he would strangle her into unconsciousness. In the incident that led to J.A.’s conviction, he strangled the complainant into unconsciousness and inserted a sex toy into her anus. Despite the complainant’s testimony that she had consented to the sex before losing consciousness, the court ruled against the defendant, affirming that a person must be conscious to grant consent.
Lise Gotell, one of the researchers at Congress this year, is presenting a paper entitled “R. v. J.A.: The Dark Underside of Affirmative Consent,” dealing with this case and its implications for sexual assault laws in Canada. A member of the Canadian Legal Studies Association, Gotell will examine the case within the context of Canada’s affirmative consent laws and draw conclusions as to their values and weaknesses. Gotell’s presentation will take place during a panel discussion on May 30th at 11:00.
Photo courtesy of JoeGratz on Flickr
