Felix Rojas, 44, arraigned after video showed him performing sexual acts on unresponsive passenger

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.

  • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    154·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • valentinesmith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2·
          3 months ago

          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

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      21·
      3 months ago

      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?

    • spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      21·
      3 months ago

      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.