i’m not certain on how austrian laws worked in early 20th century in regards to sodomized rape. what i’m certain is that austria had more severe charges regarding sodomy(or homosexual practices to put it that way) than other european countries. so if sasya were to be candid about being raped, leave alone how sodomized rape was approached, he would be convicted for not only the murder/manslaughter of a soldier(it is factual that murder incurs heavier charges than rape)…but also for sodomy(if the law enforcement dug deep enough into his relationship with karel).
if in 21st century modernity, sexual assault and rape of men is trivialised (especially by other men), think of how it would be in the early 1900s for a low class russian immigrant at the inception of the 1st world war.
oh thank you for explaining, this makes so much sense now! i was super confused about it
It would be irrelevant even if it was in self-defence as Sasya is a commoner and the rapist was a noble, therefore he would still have to be convicted due to status difference. Even the captain mentioned to Karel that if the guy he killed was not a noble he would have wiped out the crime as he was a war hero.
yes thanks for this information i forgot the guy was a noble too!
that the ‘murder’ sasya was supposedly guilty of is actually not first degree murder, especially in the case of self defence from rape. so he technically wouldnt be charged? or did they refrain from telling of this because he wanted to protect sasya’s pride and not tell others that he was raped??