Tahdonvastainen suostumus ja liiallisen luottamuksen hinta : Raiskauksen ja muiden seksuaalirikosten oikeudellisen tiedon konstruktiot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consent against One s Will and the Price of Undue Trust. The Legal Constructions of Knowledge in Finnish Sexual Crimes \n\nIn this study, I explore the ways in which knowledge relating to sexual crimes is constructed in the Finnish Courts of Appeal by applying the methods of quantitative discourse analysis and ethnomethodological analysis of selected cases. The quantitative research investigates the legal documentation of 98 court cases. \n\nMy findings indicate that the language used in Finnish criminal procedure and trials to describe sexual crimes demonstrates stereotypical ideas and prejudices about the female nature and sexuality. Interestingly, instances of prejudicial language do not impact on the written reasoning presented in support of the verdicts. The identities of the parties and the surrounding context of the alleged crime do however seem to influence the construction of the dividing line between legal and illegal sexual behaviour. -- The Finnish courts apply the hegemonic-masculine interaction model in their adjudication of the alleged sex crimes. A complainant who is raped in an intimate relationship and who, paralyzed by fear, submits to the intercourse can be seen by the court as consenting, albeit against their will. The paradigm recognizes as sexual violence only overt expressions of physical violence. The more subtle forms of abuse and misuse of sexual power do not come within the framework. \n\nThe discourse on trust circulates in the courtrooms, and it shapes the knowledge construction of sexual crimes. The language of trust is still in the process of finding itself. An instance of sexual assault may be named as the price to be paid for undue trust. But people s right to trust is also emphasised. My findings suggest that trust can be used as a linguistic mechanism to get round the prejudicial assumptions concerning the complainant s person and behaviour. --- My case analysis is grounded by a presentation of the cultural-historical and theoretical underpinnings of the sex crime laws. The epistemology on the law of evidence is also discussed for the purpose of defining my constructionist approach to the facts and evidence. The Finnish legal concepts are compared with those relating to the common law, with particular reference to the Canadian legal understanding. \n\nI demonstrate that the current paradigm within which the sexual crime laws operate is becoming increasingly inadequate. Grounded in feminist theory and the case analysis a new approach to the sex crime legislation is proposed. The new paradigm is designed for the safeguarding of sexual integrity and trust. The proposed model is based on the ideas of socially-constructed autonomy and breach of trust.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.070 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".