If ever there was a public appearance by a celebrity who looks like death warmed over, that would be Park Shi Hoo being photographed as he went to the police station yesterday for his second interview. This summons was not for him alone, both A and K were also summoned and appeared as well. All three were summoned to undergo a lie detector test, which in South Korea carries the same general legal and reliability weight as it does most everywhere else in the world – it’s acknowledged as being highly subjective and not reliable in a court of law, but may be used in court with certain limitations. The police have resorted to a lie detector test since there is such a wide divide between Park Shi Hoo’s version of what happened that night (mutual attraction, consensual sexual intercourse) and A’s version of what happened that night (passed out drunk, woke up confused about how she ended up sleeping with Park Shi Hoo, did not consent or want sex with him). Not to mention the conflicting text messages abounding in the media, some of which bolster A’s allegation while others imply Park Shi Hoo was being targeted. The media was once again camped outside the police station and Park Shi Hoo arrived wearing an austere grey suit and looking utterly haggard with red-rimmed eyes. Once again he respectfully bowed to the media and apologized for this situation and hopes it will all be cleared up soon. Initial police reports have the lie detector tests registering such diametrically opposite responses from Park Shi Hoo and A that the police had to end the morning session so everyone could take a break for lunch before resuming. The lie detector test interview concluded in the mid-afternoon and everyone involved made a quick departure shortly thereafter. Police have said the results will be released on March 17th.
Rape spans the gamut from horrifically violent (most recent high-profile case involving the girl in India who was gang raped on the bus, with the alleged rapists penetrating her with a steel bar and ripping her intestines out in the process – yes this is gruesome and hard to read, but as a human being we need to acknowledge that brutality of a sexual dominant nature does happen way too often against women who are physically weaker by men who are naturally stronger), to leaving-no-traces and is hard-to-prosecute, such as marital rape (wife wants to sleep, husband forces intercourse against her will). A rape victim also can react in a myriad of ways, from being confused and unsure if she was raped if there was alcohol or other substances involved, to being ashamed and not wanting to report it, to being traumatized and afraid of seeking justice because the rapist might be someone in a position of power in her life. This lie detector test session is fine and all, but its not going to shed any definitive light on this situation, especially if Park Shi Hoo genuinely does not believe he raped A and A genuinely believes she never consented to sex with Park Shi Hoo.
Rape is a crime that does not require intent – some crimes requires intent, such as murder which indicates it was pre-meditated, while manslaughter does not require intent – a man does not need to know he is raping a woman or be planning to rape a woman, rape can be established because the sexual intercourse was non-consensual from the standpoint of a woman. And yes, I know that men can be raped as well, but its such a minute percentage of rape cases since human anatomy makes it harder for a man to argue non-consent when his male organ’s ability to participate in sexual intercourse indicates arousal and implied consent. I hope the police keep going with their investigation and then issue a dismissal or indictment forthwith. This investigation has been dragging on way too long and that is a disservice to the victim – whether that victim turns out to be Park Shi Hoo who was set up and then maligned and persecuted by the media, or the victim is A who was raped after she went out drinking and passed out drunk.
So there is a popularity award in both the film and the television sections of…
I have such a soft spot for C-actress Yang Mi and it just makes me…
So Queen of Tears was filmed in 2023 and wrapped awhile ago so it's not…
I think viewers are being either honest or stingy with their votes but the latest…
Oh what a great surprise! This drama was announced two years ago and I've long…
So this drama was filmed a few years ago and hasn't been intentionally shelved but…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Yikes. The lie detector will show that both parties believe the story they have been telling, and enforces the "He said, she said." nature of these circumstances.
I am super curious why the lawyers agreed to it, unless at this point they are aiming to settle fast. Money may just make it all go away.
And the civil lawsuits disappear?
Why they agreed. Because everyone believes they are telling the truth. Just think of an accident and there are six witnesses- everyone will have a different version of what happened and there assumption of the truth, it doesn't make them liars. it's just their version of it.
Let justice prevail.
Yeah, not sure what a lie detector would accomplish. Both sides seem to genuinely believe their side of the story.
It comes down to how the questions are phrased.
"Did you rape A?" Vs "were you aware that A was drunk and that her judgement had been impaired?" A very different lie detector results can arise from these two questions
Yes and sometimes no matter how they memorized the script they will trip up if something doesnt go with the script.
that is very interesting, about the "intent" that does not need to be there. I didn't know / never thought about it. But I am sure it makes a difference whether there was an intent or not in court?! Also: if there does not need to be an intent, how on earth can anybody prove that it was or was not rape? It seems impossible.
I'm no criminal lawyer (and definitely not an SK one), but I think what constitutes rape depends on the wording of the relevant penal legislation of the jurisdiction. The general rule is that a criminal offence requires both mens rea (intention) and actus reus (action), although there are strict liability offences which do not require the demonstration of intention on the perpetrator's part (eg sexual activity with an underaged minor).
Here's an interesting article on SK rape law, dated last year: http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120424001151
"For the South Korean rape law requires a perpetrator have sexual intercourse with a female either through the use of violence or intimidation or by taking advantage of the victim’s condition of unconsciousness or inability to resist. And Korean prosecutors and courts define the latter as requiring complete and total unconsciousness or inability to resist, not just an alcoholic blackout brought about by excessive alcohol consumption."
We will never know what happened in the bedroom that night. Assuming that the law described in the article is current, while the CCTV footage does suggest that she was under the influence that night, nobody can be sure that she was "totally unconscious" during sexual intercourse. Plus, there was a period of delay before a rape kit was done, so any evidence of use of drugs or substances might be inaccurate.
Back to the issue of intent. I would think that from the excerpt above, it could be argued that 1) if a woman is conscious and she says no and you proceed to have sexual intercourse with her, there is intention to commit rape; and 2) if a woman is unconscious and thus is unable to consent or refuse sexual intercourse, and you proceed to have sexual intercourse with her, there is still intention because you know that she is unconscious and you still took advantage of her (especially in the case of stranger or acquaintance rape). It's harder to prosecute marital rape or rape within a romantic/sexual relationship in the second scenario, because past conduct might suggest that consent has been impliedly given.
I clarify here that I am not suggesting that rape in the second instance do not occur under such circumstances, just that it is more difficult to prove. The burden of proof usually rests on the prosecutor and the standard is usually that of: "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the defendant is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". So the Defence usually just need to persuade the jury/judge that the prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim had refused consent or is absolutely unconscious.
Argh... Messy messy messy - this is why I decided not to pursue criminal law!
Thank you for an intelligent and informative comment.
Geeez! Marvellous input! Brings back memories of those long days memorising the Penal Code and the long list of cases for criminal law course! Brilliant summary - in a very nutshell but with conspicuous clarity on the basics of criminal law! Rape is really one of the shady area with different shades of grey...
Justice? Money can butt in? Truth prevail? Who is lying? Framed? Trapped? Such tangled web & intricacies of the words of the law. Again this drew my nostalgic memory lane during my first few lectures when my lecturer stressed that in interpreting the law, 1+1 doesn't equal to 2 all the time!
Good luck Park Shi Hoo! As much as tried not to follow on this issue, I can't help to still join the discussion - LOL :)
Finally, the police is taking some notable action to try and solve this. Although it is pretty hard to give out a definitive answer, the lie detector can give traces of who's telling the truth or not, if one or both of them has something to hide, or believes one thing, but says another.
The lie detector is - as far as I remember - the 3rd step the police officially took to try and clean up with mess. The first two being the investigation of PSH and the CCTV footage. This is a great step towards the right direction, rather than interviewing the extras A-Z and taking their word for the case, when honestly, they had absolutely nil involvement.
The three people directly related to the case is A, K, and PSH. Let us get back to the story and have the main leads take over.
Ms. Koala, if anything, I want this case to be a wake up call to people in Korea about these issues. The event may not be nearly as horrific as that in India, but being there at the time, I saw people really stand up for women in sexual issues for the first time. I don't know what happened in this case, but I hope that regardless of result, the state of sexual issues in K-ent will improve drastically.
This case is eerily similar to the Steubenville, Ohio rape case. The victim was drunk didn't remember a thing until video was shared via multiple social media outlets and she says she didn't consent. The defendants' attorney says it was consensual. It would be interesting how this will turn out.
I don't think anything can be compared to the Ohio case. That case is too horrifying. The way the guys video taped it and were calling her the dead girl while they were gang raping her and laughing about it on social media beyond comparison, imo.
That one gives me shivers.
I was referring to the drunken state of the victim but yes, the Ohio case is horrendous.
Also, witnesses said that the 16 yr old victim was so drunk that she threw up twice and had to be carried by the alleged perpetrators. Prosecutors say too imparied to give consent. Sound so similar huh?
The plot thickens...