Sunday, December 04, 2005

 

Humiliated and Abused Twice

Why don't more women come forward to report cases of rape? Because of shit like this, that's why.

The main piece of evidence is that the woman's friends (who, as Kevin Hayden, who knows the girl in question, were either drunk out of their minds or the ones who actually convinced the girl to go to court) thought that she didn't "act" traumatized. There is no "one trauma fits all" rule. Some people shower constantly; some never shower, out of fear of nudity. Some react with anger; others, with tears. Just because a woman does not "act" traumatized does not mean that everything is peachy keen.

If this woman lied, then it was bad. But in any case, the judicial system has punished this girl for coming forward to report a rape. In an area of crime where only 39% of attacks go reported, how is this going to help?

Comments:
I don't think we have the whole story here. I have only found one or two news agencies covering the story, for the most part it is bloggers throwing in their opinions. As much of a beacon of journalism the Sunday Oregonian represents, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some aspects of the case being left out.

Also, the main piece of evidence doesn't seem to be that she didn't act suitably traumatized, that is simply how it has been reported. What seems to be the most significant piece of evidence according to the judge is that there were significant inconsistencies in her testimony. (Granted he also noted inconsistencies in the testimony of the men, but that they seemed more credible.)

I certainly don't know if she was or wasn't raped, the judge certainly has more information to go from than any of us. And I don't know if he made the right call here, but I have to say I think you are wrong to suggest that she should be allowed to make a false claim. The last paragraph of your post suggests that women are so in need of encouragement to report rape cases, if we were to prosecute those who make false claims we are doing a disservice.

To move away from the specifics of this particular case, there are many women who fabricate rape cases because they do something when drunk they later regret. I agree that rape is a despicable action, one that deserves sterner punishment than it currently does, but ruining someone's life because you made decision you didn't like the next day should not be permitted either. You say if she lied that's bad, but she is being punished for coming forward to report a rape (which you concede may not have happened). Do you honestly believe that if someone reports a rape which can be shown to be false, they should not be punished for filing a false report?
 
I agree that those who lie about horrible things occurring out of petty revenge should be punished, of course. The thing is, I think the judge was too quick in this case. I'll agree that we don't have a good look into the case, but as far as the article presents it, the judge's decision was basically, "Well, they had some good points, but they had some good points... I'll call it a tie." The case could have been dismissed with an explanation, but the judge felt fit to hammer home something that wasn't conclusively proven.

I don't know. Maybe I got caught up in the blograge. But rape's just such a sensitive issue these days. In between the current statistics about the small number of rape cases that actually do make it to trial, and the resurrection of the Good Girls Don't meme amongst the far right, I just don't want things to happen without good reason that could make a girl believe that she shouldn't come forward.
 
I think part of my reaction stems from something that happened a few years ago. I was up late one night and I get an IM from an old friend of my ex's. She was quite drunk, and felt the need to tell me that she had just gotten laid. I patronizingly congratulated her and logged off. The next day I bump into her and she is distraught, I ask her what is up and she tells me that she was raped.

This seems weird considering that she IM'ed me saying that she got laid the night before. After a ten minute conversation I realize that he didn't force himself on her after they had consensual sex, but rather, she had decided what happened the night before was something she didn't want to have happened.

She never said no, he never forced himself on her, and she was happy about it at the time. But, to this day, she still is still adamant that she was raped.

OF course all of this is far off from the actual case at hand, but it has changed how I feel. There simply is no good way to balance the protection of the victims and the proper handling of law. At least not in the case of date-rape. Most of the cases come down to "she says rape" and "he says consensual." If you were to apply the law in the fashion that is expected of most crimes, her testimony alone (particularly if she was drunk at the time) wouldn't be enough to be 100% certain of guilt.

That is before you even consider the ideas of what rape constitutes. Does having sex with a girl who consents but is too drunk to make a clear decision count as rape? How about a male who is too drunk to make sound decisions, is it rape to copulate with him?

Rape is, unquestionably, one of the most insidious of crimes. But there is no way to hand down justice that is fair in these cases.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?