Felix Rojas, 44, arraigned after video showed him performing sexual acts on unresponsive passenger
Authorities in New York have charged a man with attempted rape after surveillance video taken showed him performing sexual acts on an unresponsive passenger who was later determined to have died.
Police have been looking for suspects in the case for weeks, after footage captured two different people robbing the corpse of a man on a train traveling from Brooklyn to Manhattan, one of whom allegedly sexually violated him.
Felix Rojas, 44, was arraigned on Tuesday, three weeks after authorities said he abused the male victim inside a subway car. Rojas, who was arrested on Sunday, has also been charged with attempted grand larceny.
8:30 AM and that’s enough internet for the day.
Don’t die in the subway if you’re not willing to accept the consequences.
Jesus. What the fuck, man.
I don’t think you can rape a corpse because the suffering of a living victim is an essential part of what makes rape rape.
I do think it should criminal to commit sexual acts with a corpse, but I don’t think we should call that crime rape.
I mean, the dead can’t consent.
Also the article says “unresponsive passenger.” We know now the person was dead, but that doesn’t mean the rapist was clear on that fact at the time.
The dead also can’t have their consent violated and feel that particular psychological trauma which I think is the real root of what makes rape such a particularly awful thing.
Fair enough, but when someone commits an arson not knowing someone’s in the building and that person dies it’s still murder, and it doesn’t seem right that defendant knowledge matters in one situation and not the other.
I’d say if the alleged conduct here is true it should be charged as attempted rape and punished the same as an actual rape, so this is kind of a semantic thing, but it’s something I feel pretty strongly about. I just think that it dilutes our understanding of what rape is and why it’s so horrible to call something rape when it doesn’t happen to a living creature.
From the details given, it’s not clear if the person was dead or only unconscious at the time of the assault and it’s not clear whether the attacker knew either.
I’m not clear on your second point; you say that it doesn’t seem right that defendant knowledge matters in one case and not the other. So if:
- Defendant commits arson not knowing they kill someone in the building > call it murder
- Defendant sexually violates a body not knowing if they are dead > don’t call it rape?
It seems like not calling it rape is what would apply a double standard here based on defendant knowledge.
Our society treats bodies as an extension of a person; for example, we do not harvest organs from a body if the person didn’t consent to be an organ donor while they were alive.
Your focus on the victim’s suffering as what determines the severity of the crime seems problematic to me. If a victim doesn’t let being raped destroy their life, do we not punish the rapist as severely? We distinguish between manslaughter and murder based on pre-meditation and intent, even though the victim is still dead in both cases, and similarly I think that focusing on the attacker’s actions and intent should be the key factor in calling their actions rape.
If the defendant were going to a morgue or funeral home and defiling bodies, I may feel differently but given the timing here it feels way too grey to not treat it as rape.
FWIW, I’m coming at this conversation as a rape survivor myself. I know the level of mental devastation it can cause. And personally, I don’t think that treating the sexual assault of someone who may or may not have been dead yet (and if they were dead, had been so for no more than 30 minutes) as rape takes anything away from the severity of the crime or my experience as a victim of it.
And anyway from a semantic perspective, according to the article it is being charged only as attempted rape.
The dead also can’t have their consent violated and feel that particular psychological trauma which I think is the real root of what makes rape such a particularly awful thing.
By that logic, you can’t steal from the dead because they no longer own the property. Because the act of stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else.
By that logic, you can’t steal from the dead because they no longer own the property. Because the act of stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else.
This is incorrect as your property is transferred to someone else upon your death, so it’s still theft.
The dead can’t consent the same way other inanimate objects can’t consent.
The dead are just bags of meat. This is like claiming that tendorizing a steak should be considered “animal abuse.” I do think there’s traction in the argument that the perpetrator didn’t know the individual was dead therefore it could be considered rape, but in our discussion of hypotheticals here, I don’t think that’s relevant.
The perpetrator very likely was not qualified or authorised to declare death.
Removed by mod
In terms of severity and violation of a human body i don’t think there’s much value in differentiating. You can give them different legal definitions, but to compound a family’s loss with sexually violating the corpse their loved one doesn’t really seem like a diminishment in the overall suffering you are inflicting on the world.
I’m not saying one is worse or more traumatizing than another or trying to diminish the horrible thing that was allegedly inflicted on the deceased’s family and friends here, and I would be totally in favor of sexual assault of a corpse carrying the same penalties as rape. I just believe that it’s a disservice to rape victims to call sexual assault of a corpse rape. The particular harm that was inflicted here is different than the harm that’s inflicted when a living creature has their consent violated. It might just be a semantic distinction but words mean things and powerful words like “rape” should be defined very narrowly.
Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.
I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.
In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)
So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.
Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now
Removed by mod
Just curious, does the same apply to “theft?” The article says someone also took the deceased’s belongings, should we use a different word for that too?
I would say that at the moment of death, ownership of that person’s belongings transfer to the next of kin. By then taking those belongings, you are stealing from the next of kin.
Yeah, basically, if theft can be committed against a corporation or business entity (which I don’t think anyone would dispute) surely it can be committed against an estate (i.e. the legal representation of a deceased person for settling their will, which may or may not include next of kin, but the basic idea is still there)
Salvage?
because the suffering of a living victim is an essential part of what makes rape rape.
You are still violating the bodily autonomy of someone who did not consent to being in that situation. That’s basically the definition of rape. The suffering of the victim, while horrendous, is not what the crime is.
I’m responding a second time because I think this is an important point to make as a top-level response.
the suffering of a living victim is an essential part of what makes rape rape.
This is a fucked up take. This says that a rape victim must suffer, and if they aren’t suffering, then it wasn’t rape. Just, no. People process things differently. Some will be more and some will be less traumatized by being raped.
Forcing a particular experience onto a victim, saying they must feel a certain way, is just so incredibly problematic. A victim can feel whatever they feel and process a crime against them however they want. And the way they do so doesn’t change whether a crime was committed against them.
Edit: And with a very literal reading of the statement, it also says that if someone kills their victim after raping them, then it’s not rape—because there isn’t a living victim who is suffering. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, but it’s important to think about these things and how we convey them.
This is a really important point and definitely not how I wanted that to be interpreted. I agree 1000% with all of this
People process things differently. Some will be more and some will be less traumatized by being raped.
Forcing a particular experience onto a victim, saying they must feel a certain way, is just so incredibly problematic. A victim can feel whatever they feel and process a crime against them however they want. And the way they do so doesn’t change whether a crime was committed against them.
I think forcing another person to go through that process, whatever process that might be for them, is the essential thing that makes it the crime that it is, but I definitely don’t mean to say that a survivor needs to have a specific experience. It’s the heinous nature of making someone a survivor and forcing them to go through that personal journey that sets it apart as a particular kind of harm to me.
Apologies my initial statement was clumsy here, and thank you for your reply because I really do think all the points you made are extremely important.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and consideration of how you phrased this originally. I know you are making the point with the best of intentions in trying to ensure that the word “rape” isn’t diluted down.
I struggled for many years to move beyond my experiences of being raped. I’m in a good place now, but it took time. I generally wouldn’t say I’m suffering from it any more (even if there may be moments where I’m triggered), so I think the comment here just hit me hard.
I also know there are other victims who have gone through weird levels of guilt and self-doubt because they haven’t felt the level of suffering that’s “expected.”
We both have the same desire here, but slightly different stances on where that line should be drawn and that’s ok.
Thank you.
Yeah, I’ve struggled a bit to process a really good friend of mine being raped years and years ago, and the “weird levels of guilt and self-doubt” is something I experienced in my own way, because I thought I got traumatized “more” than my friend did (though I know now that’s not how trauma really works) and thought that was selfish of me (which I know now was a silly thing to think), and sorting all of that stuff out was a big part of my own journey. And I guess watching my friend wrestle with that stupid “what is the right way to feel about what happened to me and how should I perform those feelings” aspect of trauma, and watching her have to deal with other people’s feelings about her feelings, and hearing her “joke” multiple times about how being murdered would have been less of an inconvenience for her is all a big part of what makes me feel like I do about what rape is and isn’t.
We both have the same desire here, but slightly different stances on where that line should be drawn and that’s ok.
Thank you a million times over for understanding.
This says that a rape victim must suffer, and if they aren’t suffering, then it wasn’t rape.
It doesn’t say that at all. What it does say is that it shouldn’t be considered rape if it was performed on a dead body, which makes sense since this type of stuff is usually considered “abuse of a corpse.”
Hey America how’s Capitalism going?
Holy shit…
