Triggering (Abuse): man uses small penis as rape defense.

[Vagina]

A man accused of rape showed courtroom officials his tiny penis in order to clear his name. 34-year-old Joel Ndebele from Dingumuzi Township in Zimbabwe is charged with the double rape of his ex-girlfriend. Ndebele spent time in prison after being convicted of a previous crime in December 2010. He was released in August last year, which is when the alleged sex attacks took place. Ndebele’s ex-lover claims he turned up at her home following his release, but she informed Ndebele that she had started a new relationship and didn’t want to see him again.
Ndebele allegedly became angry and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new man if she didn’t return with him to his home. She was held prisoner overnight and says Ndebele raped her two times. When she was released the next day she returned home and didn’t report the crimes to the police or her new boyfriend. However a few weeks later the woman was followed in the street by Ndebele, she found a policeman and Ndebele was arrested and charged with the two rapes.
Appearing in a Bulawayo court on Friday Ndebele insisted that he couldn’t have carried out the alleged rapes because his penis was shrinking and had shrunk to such an extent that he was unable to use it for penetrative vaginal intercourse. To confirm the shortness of the genital rod the courtroom was cleared while security personnel inspected the contents of Ndebele’s undercrackers.
After a short deliberation the guards confirmed that Ndebele was suitably lacking in the trouser department.
“It’s small” they said.
Ndebele remains in custody until a medical penis expert examines him more thoroughly.

Safer link: http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-7161...mall/news.aspx



thoughts? id post the link to the artical but it has a picture of his penis.

[kumar]

i guess, you might smiles about his small things?

actually, its kinda handicap!?

[CanadaCraig]

He sounds like a little prick!! haha j/k

BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS......

It's a perfectly reasonable defense.

I'd like to hear what the victims have to say.

I'm sure they would have sensed that something wasn't quite - cough - 'there'.

GBH

[Amorphous.]

Who gives a fuck whether he is big enough to penetrate someone, if he had intention there and he did what he allegedly did, he is guilty, regardless of penis size. Actus Reus and Mens Rea, if they are both there, he is guilty, regardless of size.

Waste of time defence. But I'm talking with regards to Australian law.

[CanadaCraig]

Originally Posted by Oneirophobia

But I'm talking with regards to Australian law.

Hey Hamed!

I hope you're OK.

So...... what you're telling us is that in Australia it's a crime to INTEND to do something?

Are you sure about that?

Rape is quite specific. Rape requires penetration.

GBH

[Amorphous.]

Yeah, what I mean is that for someone to be convicted, the Crown (Prosecution team) has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that a crime actually occured and the accused committed the crime (Actus Reus) and also that the accused had the intention to committ a crime and was mentally responsible for his actions (Mens Rea).

In most cases Actus Reus and Mens Rea BOTH have to be there. They mean "the guilty act" and "the guilty mind".

So for example, a murder by a schizophrenic man. Actus Reus may have been there but Mens Rea isn't and so the guy walks free and gets mandatory psychiatric and psychological treatment.

Rape requires penetration? Really? I didn't know that. Oh, then in that case, I guess that is a pretty valid defence haha, even in Australia.

Carry on.............

LOL.

[Age of Ignorance]

Originally Posted by Oneirophobia

Yeah, what I mean is that for someone to be convicted, the Crown (Prosecution team) has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that a crime actually occured and the accused committed the crime (Actus Reus) and also that the accused had the intention to committ a crime and was mentally responsible for his actions (Mens Rea).

In most cases Actus Reus and Mens Rea BOTH have to be there. They mean "the guilty act" and "the guilty mind".

So for example, a murder by a schizophrenic man. Actus Reus may have been there but Mens Rea isn't and so the guy walks free and gets mandatory psychiatric and psychological treatment.

Rape requires penetration? Really? I didn't know that. Oh, then in that case, I guess that is a pretty valid defence haha, even in Australia.

Carry on.............

LOL.

To be perfectly honest, the general legal principles you talk about are universal throughout all English-derived legal court systems. They all extend from the decisions of the Privy Council and the House of Lords in various cases. So, in fact, you're discussing numerous states, not just Australia.

Nevertheless, "mens rea" does not mean a "guilty mind" in a legal sense. It refers to the intention to perform an act, not guilt of the mind. The "actus reus" elements of a crime are specific, and they are the non-mens rea elements. According to all Commonwealth states, the legislative description of the crime needs to be broken down into sections - non-mens rea and mens rea elements. So, for rape, it requires both an intention to perform penetration, and it requires penetration of an unwilling participant. If you can't penetrate, you can't be said to have performed rape. The size of his penis is obviously a consideration if it is a material element in performing the non-mens rea elements.

If I were a juror, I'd definitely have a reasonable doubt.

It is a shame that the wife-defence doesn't apply to long-term girlfriends.

[Nightblood.]

But without penetration wouldn't it technically be considered sexual assault? Which is considered different in a courtroom to my knowledge.

[Age of Ignorance]

Originally Posted by PutYourHeartsUp

But without penetration wouldn't it technically be considered sexual assault? Which is considered different in a courtroom to my knowledge.

To the particular charge of rape, penetration is a necessary element of actus reus. The prosecution may, at any time, drop the charges and refile them as "sexual assault", which, as you say, is a completely separate charge. Just because sexual penetration is not performed, does not mean that the charge is automatically downgraded to sexual assault. Unless of course that is the norm in Zimbabwe.

[Blackwing]

Size really matters?

[Koharuchan]

Size doesn't matter. If what the woman says is true, even if he did not manage to penetrate her, he still:

-Threatened her and her boyfriend's lives
-Kept her prisoner overnight
-At least ATTEMPTED to rape her, meaning he likely stripped her naked against her will
-And later followed her down the street.

I'm sorry, but even if he didn't penetrate, he still held her captive and sexually assaulted her. So even if it isn't quite to the level of rape, it is at least attempted rape among other things. (threatening her, holding her captive, etc.)

[Amorphous.]

Stuff like that ruins the victim's life, with or without penetration........ or size.

[TakeTheLeap]

I don't think size really counts in this situation. If the prosecutor has enough evidence to charge rape, I imagine it isn't based just on what the ex-girlfriend says. There's got to be something more concrete there. Regardless of his size, other "tools" (body parts or otherwise) could have been used for penetration, which would still be rape. Clearly we're not sure whether that's the case (kudos to the articles for not giving those kinds of details. Not that we really need to know), but it is a possibility.

If that isn't the case, then the prosecution could drop the charge of rape and refile the claim as sexual assault, holding her captive, etc. My guess is that the prosecution will continue the case and if the verdict ends up being "not guilty" for the defendant, they will indeed refile the claim toward the lesser charge (as some jail time is better than none) since double jeopardy would still apply (although I'm not an expert in Zimbabwe law, haha).

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

The only thing that matters with respect to his tallywacker's size is how Zimbabian laws define rape. If penetration is a necessary criteria and upon expert testimony of the urlogist, the man has a strong defense for the charges of rape only. At the very least, the prosecutor still has the charges of kidnap and death throws to go through. If the necessity of rape isn't met (whatever it happens to be), then those charges are dropped and sexual assault is a third charge.

Either way, quite a lot of this rides on the death threats he uttered to the victim and the new boyfriend. I say this because holding her captive and any sexual assault or rape charges will come down to a, "he said-she said" battle, so any input from the boyfriend on the threats would have a great impact. I imagine his previous charge will come into play though.