TW: this article discusses sexual assault, abuse, violence
On the 19th of December 2024, the 51 men accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot over ten years were sentenced, bringing one of the largest and ground-breaking rape trials in the country’s history to an end. Pelicot’s story fostered outrage and fostered feelings of injustice for many people in the country. All the men accused in the trial were sentenced to at least 3 years and at most 20 years. Pelicot’s husband, Dominique Pelicot, was given the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, crying in court when his sentence was announced.
Gisèle Pelicot, a 72-year-old woman from France, had been with her husband Dominique Pelicot for 50 years. When asked about him, she could only speak of his good nature. She was completely unaware that for the last ten years of her life, he had been drugging her and letting men into their homes to do as they pleased with her. She had been raped by her husband and these unknown men over 200 times during this period.
Dominique Pelicot was originally under suspicion for a different crime he had committed in 2020 during which he had filmed under the skirts of three young girls. This put him on police radar and they soon discovered a much darker background the 71-year-old was hiding. Over 4,000 videos and pictures were found on various computers and USB sticks of his wife, Gisèle, being raped by himself and other men.
Criticism has since struck the French criminal system: for 10 years of abuse, drugging and enabling his unconscious wife’s rape, 20 years seems much too little given the number of incidents that had happened. Many have seen this sentence as unjust, critiquing and questioning the French courts.
To understand this criticism better, I think it’s worthwhile to break down criminal sentencing in France, specifically for rape crimes, and understand how the legal system produced the outcomes in this case.
France distinguishes between “simple” rape, said “viol simple”, and “aggravated” rape, “viol aggravé”. Both crimes are punished by 15 years and 20 years of prison respectively. A convicted rapist can only land a higher sentence of 30 years if their victim consequently dies.
A first comment that can be made here of the French penal code is that it seems to weigh the punishment of crimes by the gravity of such crimes. This is why “aggravated” rape is punished by 20 years of prison but in cases where the victim dies, the sentence is upped to 30 years.
This offers a good reflection of the gravity of crimes that is useful to better understand how the law reflects right and wrong and the nuance of these moral concepts. However, many comparisons have been drawn with other countries’ legal systems which handle sexual offences more severely than France without such emphasis on crimes being punished proportionally compared to each other. In the UK for example, a rape conviction can be punishable by up to a life sentence as per the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In comparison, the 20 years in France as the highest punishment paints the crime of rape as much less serious than it should be seen.
Another aspect of proportionality to consider, are the sheer number of charges being dealt with in the case. Considering the 200 or so rapes Gisèle Pelicot was victim to, over 100 of which were performed by her husband, does 20 years reflect the number of criminal offences Pelicot’s husband carried out?
By common law standards, not exactly. France applies a sentencing system which does not sentence cumulatively. When a defendant is charged with multiple crimes, the French courts are only able to give them the highest sentence of their gravest conviction.
The answer lies in the interpretation of prisons and their core function; whether they should be interpreted as rehabilitation centers or used as means of punishment, to protect the public from crime. France clearly sees prisons as more of a rehabilitation sentence, disallowing petty crimes from ruining a defendant’s life through the means of extended and disproportionate prison time.
But in this case, the principle of non-cumulative sentences seems unfair. Given the severity of the case and the lengthy period during which his crimes had been committed, the application of this principle seems wildly unfair and does not feel like it carries out justice in its purest sense. Crimes should be punished; reducing hundreds of rapes and severe privacy violations to one conviction does not represent the extent of the abuse that Gisèle Pelicot faced.
Therefore despite being charged with “aggravated” rape as well as breaching rights to privacy in regards to the images and videos he obtained and distributed, the French courts looked at the gravest crime Pelicot’s husband had committed, rape, and could convict him up to the highest sentence of that crime regardless of how many times it had been committed.
It would be a huge ask to simply reform the entire sentencing system of the French courts and as mentioned cases of petty crimes may not be favourable. Despite this, it is clear that some crimes are so terrible and should be seen as such that the defendant should not be sentenced with their “rehabilitation” in mind. Rape and murder are prime examples. It would not be favourable to view convicted rapists and murderers as people who may be rehabilitated. Instead, they should be treated with regard to the safety of the general public. Perhaps this calls for a re-evaluation of the view of prison and its role in criminal proceedings in France.
Furthermore, the charges do not fully represent the extent of Dominique Pelicot’s crimes. It should also be reminded that he enabled and thus was an accomplice to all rapes done by the 50 other men who violated his unconscious wife as he was the one drugging her and bringing the strangers into their home. This would most certainly count as a violation of article 121-7 of the French penal code which outlines that a person can be convicted of being an accomplice to any crime if he was aware and intended to do so. This nuance was not outlined in Mr. Pelicot’s sentence as having any influence;. although, it would not have changed his sentence, it seems important to emphasize that as per article 121-6 of the penal code through being an accomplice he would be punished as if he had committed the crime himself. This effectively gives him full culpability for all rapes committed against his wife
In addition to sentencing, some argue the definition of rape used in the French penal code is outdated. Article 222-23 of the penal code states that rape occurs through “violence, constraint, threat or by surprise.” This definition omits the concept of consent directly which is arguably at the core of rape. Gisèle Pelicot’s case, although not posing any difficulties to be included in this article, has prompted discussion around consent to resurface in France.
One positive takeaway of this case is the French government’s vow to take “soumission chimique”, the act of drugging someone to make them unconscious, seriously. The previous French prime minister Michel Barnier brought up talks about implementing specific hospital services to deal with such incidents and having at-home testing kits to detect chemical substances to be covered by social security.
To finish my thoughts on this controversial case and discussion surrounding its legal procedure and substance, it is equally important to acknowledge Gisèle Pelicot’s bravery throughout the trial. Not only did she attend every hearing facing her 51 abusers including her soon to be ex-husband, she insisted on giving her name and showing her face so that her story could be told and that she could serve as hope to all women going through abuse. She insisted on her trial being open to the public and broadcasted so that everyone would be made aware of cases like hers, in which perpetrators chemically sedate victims for grim purposes. She insisted on these conditions not for herself but to help all women around the world. Gisèle Pelicot has enabled much needed discussion on French law and her remarkable strength has paved the way for the coming legal reforms.
At the end of the trial, the scene of Gisèle Pelicot leaving the courthouse surrounded by news reporters and police was intense in emotion for everyone. Her strong, emotionless expression showcased her impressive strength. Furthermore, the fact that she was surrounded solely by men with only one female police officer at her side is symbolic of the criticisms to be made of this case and of the treatment of women as a whole. The scene, to me, encompasses the lack of tact and sensitivity towards victims and the poor state of criminal punishments for perpetrators. Perhaps the case of Gisèle Pelicot will finally shed light on the many areas in which improvements are still needed in regard to sexual assault and the treatment of women. We must now more than ever be having these conversations in the hopes of advancing protections against abuse in law.
*image courtesy of Lewis Joly / AP
Antonia James-Cameron
First Year English and French Law
If you or someone you know is experiencing or has experienced sexual assault or rape, a 24/7 Rape & Sexual Abuse hotline is available in England and Wales.
0808 500 222 or visit their website for a free online chat.
Comentários