I think it might be sexual exploitation under Swedish law. It’s possible they went for the sexual assault charge first, since that’s the most serious, so that they could set a precedent and test the law. They can now downshift to other offences. It looks like you can still get 6 years for this. It may also fall under child porn or something – I didn’t check the law on that.

So what this shows is that Sweden needs to expand its definition of the law.

I’m not a lawyer.

This

In criminal cases if something isn’t outright illegal then it’s legal. There is very little room for interpretation. A while ago someone was raped with a bottle, but the law said that sexual intercourse against someones will was rape. So they couldn’t send that rapist to jail. They changed the law and now apart from sexual intercourse an act that is “comparable” is illegal too. It’s up to the courts to determine what is “comparable”.

As my internet is messing with me right now I can’t comment on the actual case since I haven’t read it, but it is not illegal to photograph a person without their consent. Spreading nude pictures where you can identify someone on the other hand can be prosecuted as slander and/or some kind of child porn.

Just taking pictures is not seen as an assault in and of itself.

In general we have pretty low sentences for criminal charges. You won’t see someone in Sweden getting a life sentence plus sixty years. You can get ten years for homicide (minimum sentence for homicide is ten years)

I think they changed that particular law after this case, because people were outraged, but yes, I’m not surprised at all about this. Our laws tend to be very direct; if it doesn’t say in the law that something is forbidden, it’s not a crime.

Another example: transgendered people have to get divorced before transitioning because if they were formerly in a straight marriage they can’t get their sex reassignment surgery without being single – as two people of the same sex can’t be married.

Actually, the law about same sex marriage changed this year, maybe that’s not true anymore. But yeah. Down-to-the-last-letter laws. All the way.

Sadly.

Also: are you telling me that in Sweden, it is not illegal to undress a person without their consent? Because if undressing a person without their consent is legal in Sweden, that would certainly be good to know, and I will thank you for the information! I mean, that’d be a whole other post, right there. If, however, you are just overlooking the fact that the perpetrator in question did assault the victim by lifting up her skirt, I am unimpressed.

I will however refrain from asking you, Bob, who presumably identifies as male, how exactly it is that litigious people causing headaches is worse than sexual assault being legal. Because I don’t want to know.

The problem with creating a law prohibiting this type of conduct is that it would have to be standards, rather than rule based. That of course would lead to myriad problems of interpretation and application and open the door to even greater headaches. There is no easy drafting solution.