Amirkhani trial exposes arguments used in sexual offence cases

A public trial involving mixed martial artist Makwan Amirkhani and Mira Luoto has revealed the arguments used in sexual offence cases, Yle crime and legal affairs reporter Tuomas Rimpiläinen writes. The case is not unusual in its substance, he says; what sets it apart is that the proceedings are open to the public.

The prosecution alleges that Amirkhani kissed, licked and touched Luoto without her consent in a forest in Nuuksio National Park, despite her resisting and telling him to stop. It says he then masturbated and ejaculated. Amirkhani strongly denies the allegations.

Rimpiläinen’s analysis focuses on Amirkhani’s defence, not on whether he is guilty. At the first day of the trial, Amirkhani and his lawyer, legal scholar Kari Uoti, suggested that Luoto had made the allegations for reasons including attention, publicity or money, or to take revenge after being rejected.

Amirkhani said Luoto had tried to kiss him, but that he did not want to continue because her breath smelled. Uoti also argued that it was implausible Amirkhani would have wanted sex with Luoto, describing her as nearly 40 and much older than him. He called Amirkhani, then 27, an athletic young man and an appealing romantic prospect.

Rimpiläinen says arguments about a complainant’s sexual appeal reflect a so-called rape myth: sexual offences are not necessarily driven by how sexually attractive the person is to the perpetrator.

Luoto’s request for an open hearing made both her case and the arguments used in sexual offence trials visible. Such trials in Finland are almost always held behind closed doors, and public summaries of confidential hearings vary in how much detail they provide.

Rimpiläinen says that, in other cases, arguments made in court have blamed complainants, including claims that an assault could not have happened because the complainant danced provocatively, could have bitten the perpetrator, may have wanted it or did not scream. He says he has heard more extreme comments during his career, but they cannot be verified because the cases are confidential.

Some lawyers have also been accused of using closed hearings to blame complainants more harshly than they would in public, where they could face damage to their reputations. Rimpiläinen says the secrecy surrounding sexual offence trials helps maintain myths about these crimes.