Following the infamous gang rape of a young woman in New Delhi in 2012, India introduced a host of legislative reforms, including harsh punishments for sexual offences. Indian feminist groups, though invested in some of these reforms, have been critical of the carceral approach, but other than denouncing the death penalty, they have largely abstained from conversations around appropriate punishments for sexual crimes. Mapping the responses of feminist groups to the J. S. Verma Committee, this article underscores inconsistencies between the positions on defining sexual offences on the one hand and suggesting appropriate punishments on the other. It argues that the absence of engagement around complex issues of criminal law and sentencing not only left feminists divided on the outcome in Mahmood Farooqui’s case but also revealed unintended consequences of the newly introduced law on rape. The article concludes by questioning the use of criminal law as a site for feminist reform.

2012年，在新德里臭名昭著的一名年轻女子遭到轮奸之后，印度实施了一系列立法改革，包括对性犯罪进行严厉处罚。印度女权主义者团体虽然投资了其中一些改革措施，但仍对采取cer子手法持批评态度，但除了谴责死刑之外，他们在有关性犯罪的适当惩罚的讨论中也基本弃权。本文根据女权主义团体对JS Verma委员会的回应，强调了在界定性犯罪的立场和建议适当的惩罚的立场之间存在矛盾。它认为，围绕复杂的刑法和判刑问题缺乏参与，不仅使女权主义者对Mahmood Farooqui案的结果产生分歧，而且还揭示了新颁布的强奸法的意外后果。本文的最后是质疑使用刑法作为女权主义改革的场所。