2020/06/29 by Hannah Bows, Jonathan Herring
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Intimate Partner and Family Violence #Sex work and related issues #Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
paper · pdf · doi:10.1177/0022018320936777
crossref issued 2020/06/29 · crossref published 2020/06/29 · crossref published-online 2020/06/29 · openalex publication_date 2020/06/29 · crossref created 2020/06/29 · crossref published-print 2020/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref deposited 2026/04/28 · crossref indexed 2026/07/29 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Several high-profile murders of women killed during alleged consensual sex ‘gone wrong’ have led to widespread calls for reform to prevent the use of what has been termed the ‘rough sex defence’. Concerns about the use of this ‘defence’ are located within broader concerns about the high rates of domestic abuse and fatal violence against women. Lobbyists, campaign groups and members of parliament have drawn attention to the increase in this ‘defence’ featuring in criminal cases in England and Wales and have consequently proposed two amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill (2020), namely a statutory prohibition of consent as a defence to actual bodily or more serious harm, including death, and introducing additional scrutiny in charging decisions by requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise charges of manslaughter (rather than murder) in cases involving rough sex/sadomasochism (SM). This article provides a critical analysis of the use of rough sex/SM in female homicide cases and proposed legal reforms and concludes that the proposed reforms would fail to capture many of the ‘rough sex’ cases that have come before the courts in recent years and may not have the intended effect. We consider potential alternative approaches.