Sentencing for rapists

quote:

---

assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.

---

Show remorse and take responsibility? I can see the "I'm sorry" bit but how does a pedophile take responsibility for molesting children? By listing them, maybe getting togeather after release from prison (yes I'm sure that is the first thing someone who has been raped wants) maybe do a little restitution work for the victim?

Hey stupid! If someone is willing to commit rape or is a pedophile they are not to likely to have a problem with not being entirely honest if it means they can get off the skinner floor.

Or do you think those master minds down in parole will just use their "mad skills" and weed out those who might do a little fibbing to get let out to have some more fun?

Talk about not having a clue!

I can't say as I really care if they are rehabilitated or punished. Just as long as they can never be a threat to the public again is good enough for me. And that means, for the benefit of Apey here, that they never get released from prison untill they are so frail and weak that a 6 year old girl could drop them to the ground with a good shriek.

As a woman who's met with a man who assaulted me, I can say that it was a very powerful and empowering experience for me. And I'm not alone.

In fact, it's been recorded time and time again that women who live with the nightmare of their rapes for years are released from their torment when they confront their assailants in person, under safe circumstances. Suddenly, the monster is just a man. And she is able to tell that man exactly how she feels, exactly what she experienced and experiences.

It's also been recorded that men who are offered the opportunity to meet with those they assaulted are afraid to do so.

I encourage those who want to learn more about this dynamic to read "Sexual Offending and Restoration" by Mark Yantzi, Herald Press ISBN 0-8361-9081-5.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Maybe he got confused between nonprefferential pedophiles and pedophiles who preffer the same gender???

From my experience with them it's quite common, so perhaps that's what he was thinking.

This line blurring could soon become a danger in Canada, since "sexual orientation" has not been defined by our Parliament in our laws. Hopefully that will be dealt with in the upcoming session, as Svend Robinson's PMB asks for "sexual orientation" to be protected under the Charter. It won't go through, but perhaps it could draw attention to the big problem that the term has not been defined to exclude pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.

quote:

---

The whole thing of proof is laid on the victim, not on the perpetrator.

---

But do we really expect the perpetrator to convict himself? I think the conviction rate would then really go down.

Exactly. That's the problem, isn't it? You can't say that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, "except for those nasty rapists - they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and that's it."

Of COURSE they have to be proven guilty. And since the rape victim is the person the crime was committed against, then yes, that means that the rape victim is usually the star witness for the prosecution. You can't have it any other way - when you're dealing with an accused person's life and liberty, they have to have the same benefit of the doubt that anyone else has.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole thing of proof is laid on the victim, not on the perpetrator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for not being clear on this. This is quite a hurtful subject for me. What I meant is that the woman not only has to prove she was raped, she has to prove that the rapists claim that she wanted it isn't true. In the meantime, all the rapest has to do is state he had reason to think she wanted it because of the way she was dressed, or she was drinking, or she was walking alone, or she was at a busstop, or she spoke to him, or whatever. He can even get away with saying she said no but he thought she was lying, or she fought him meant she liked it rough. I think he should be put in a position to have to have a legitimate reason for thinking this way to present to the court. Though I don't condone rape or forced sexual activity in any form, I can see where inviting a man in for coffee could be misconstrued. I can see where necking for a couple of hours could be mistaken for consent. I can see stripping in front of a guy being seen as an invitation. I can't see talking to a friend of a friend at a party where everyone is drinking as being the same thing.

I agree with you, dale cooper, but the example I gave is in response the the legal system accepting that a man may have had a reason to think his actions were acceptable. That is a standard in judging this sort of thing. The first set of excuses are totally unacceptable and should be to the courts as well. The problem is, these are being accepted and getting rapists off. The second set are at least a little more reasonable. Though they don't cut any ice with me, I can understand a court listening to them, even when they don't justify anything.

Someone earlier in this thread said "asking for it" is the same as "consent". Women do not "ask for it" by dressing the way they do or doing the things they do. Mutual agreement is very different from that. As a woman who was victimized and had no opportunity to bring the issue to court because it wasn't accepted to do that back then, I keep watching the injustices in disbelief. It really isn't that much different than it was 40 years ago. The female is still blamed.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Trisha ]

I don't know... seems to me the justice system is harder on vigilante types, seeing them as a slap in the face. We're supposed to belive the justice system is total and fair in all its judicial dealings and have total repsect for that....

quote:

---

What I do have a problem with, is that in rape cases, specifically with women, a woman has to prove that she did not want sex. It's not enough for a woman to swear that she did not want sex, she cannot be in any situation that (based on sexist and ridiculous standards) would equate to her consenting.

No one seems to be denying that this happens.

---

It may be enough that the woman swears she does not want sex. There are thousands of cases where this has been enough. On the other hand, there may be times when the woman's word is not enough to send someone to jail, even for those "pathetic"
two to three year periods complained above.

A common situation is this: sex occurs between a man and a woman who have been dating. Her family, specifically her father, hears about it, and confronts her. HE will chose her husband, he says.
And SHE must remain a virgin, or at least, virginal. And so, it is decided that she was raped, and never consented.

At a trial, it is necessary that this scenario, for example, be probed. Just because she says, now, that she did not want sex, is not proof that this is true.

I myself have cross-examined a woman, age 18, in a trial. She testified that she went to meet my client in a motel, and stayed there ONE WEEK. He worked every day, and came there in the evening, where sex regularly occurred. She said that she never wished to have sex.

Should I have been allowed to show her a letter she wrote to my client speculating about where they might "honeymoon"? Or ask her about the fact that her father had received $18,000.00 from a groom in Sri Lanka HE had chosen?

Or should we just take her word that she did not want sex, even once, during the whole week?
-------------
Unless one has a theory which allows lies, exaggerations, and convenient deceptions to be exposed, many injustices will result.

It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would.

quote:

---

I myself have cross-examined a woman, age 18, in a trial. She testified that she went to meet my client in a motel, and stayed there ONE WEEK. He worked every day, and came there in the evening, where sex regularly occurred. She said that she never wished to have sex.

---

Did you ask her why she stayed in the hotel room for one week having sex with your client if she didn't want to have sex with him?

Doesn't that sound about as phoney as ordering a 12 course meal and managing to get through desert before you realize you didn't like the food and refuse to pay?

I would also be in favor of huge punitive settlements for those who try to lie and use the system to harm some one innocent. (I would suggest my idea of huge is some where around the dollar value that would bury someone in debt for about 80 years. If they worked at a good paying job that is.

quote:

---

Despite her saying NO, he has sex with her.

---

In this scenario, he did not have sex with her. He assaulted her.

For those who have a hard time with the difference, I substitute other violent / traumatic crimes into a similar structure as that quoted:

"Despite the fact that the homeowner tried to close the door and lock it, the visitor insisted that he come in and help himself to a few gifts, including the homeowner's wallet."

"Despite her saying, 'No, don't hit me on the head with that,' Wendy was greeted by her friend with a hearty tap with a baseball bat."

"Despite having expressed no interest in ending his life just yet, Joe passed away after his non-voluntary assisted suicide."

---

The one-story-versus-the-other, adversarial legal structure is a huge part of the problem in dealing with rape. The process adds to a victim's trauma. It feeds an assailant's denial. It ruins the life of a person who's been wrongly accused.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

I wrote: It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shenanigans replied:

That's quite the assumption, are you certain this discussion has only occured between only the middle class?

My reply: Of course not. I didn't say it did. But
the idea that "she wouldn't lie" is common among people from middle class backgrounds, such as many of the readers here may be.

In your posts, you seem to adopt this idea. For example, you speak about the right to question her "when she said no". But of course the whole point is that we do not know what she said. We know only what she now says she said.

Of course, as you say, many women suffer rape or other sexual assault, and after telling the story, are either disbelieved, or, more commonly in my experience, the judge entertains a doubt as to what occurred. This requires acquittal in the Canadian justice system.

The alternative, to presume guilt, or to require the defendant to disprove the allegation, carries its own dangers.

Oh, I know that. I didn't mean to sound like I was saying that the system is just fine the way it is. It's not. But if the system we have isn't working, then does that mean we need a new system or improvements on the old. That's what I was trying to ask (and not doing it very well, obviously! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] )

quote:

---

In this scenario, he did not have sex with her. He assaulted her.

For those who have a hard time with the difference, I substitute other violent / traumatic crimes into a similar structure as that quoted:

---

You're completely right writer. I apologise for my poor wording. It is an extremely violent crime and the victims often carry the trauma with them for a long time. I'll try to be more careful.

I was confused by your post, too, Apemantus. You said:

quote:

---

If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married [b]gay men[/b], do they have the choice whether to 'express' [b]their paedophilia[/b], to which the answer is yes [...]

---

(emphasis added).

I believe you didn't mean to be homophobic, but I can see how you were misread.

I also really really love it when the "feminism" forum gets to host pissing contests between two men.

quote:

---

But if the system we have isn't working, then does that mean we need a new system or improvements on the old. That's what I was trying to ask

---

Ok. Here's what I propose. We cease running the system the way it is. We install a system of vigilante-based justice. The person administering the vigilante justice will be a fair-minded individual, having no judicial biases in any way. He/she will thoroughly research any accused rape scenarios and call down a fair judgement. Upon the judgement, the accused will be given the chance to repent and enter into a rehabilitation camp where they will be forced to face demons the never knew existed. If they refuse repentance, they will be dealt with severely and fairly by the vigilante administator in a manner which will leave them begging for mommy. Does this sound fair to everyone?

quote:

---

It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would

---

What unfortunate wording. Although I'm fairly sure you don't mean to imply that rape victims are lower class and therefore liars or that middle class people don't lie in court, you really should have phrased it better. I'm amazed that no one has flamed you to a blackened smoking crisp over this statement.

I'm trying to calmly go over the thread to discover just how a discussion of sentencing for convicted rapists got around to a discussion of women lying about rape. Because whenever there's a discussion about sexual assault, it always turns to a discussion about women lying about sexual assault. Lying on the witness stand, something all kinds of people do, has nothing to do with what a woman might have been wearing at the time, whether she had a couple of cocktails earlier in the day, or whether she fought back "sufficiently". The length of skirt does not establish credibility.

Or, it shouldn't. But it does.

Because we live in a sexist society that still believes that women who say "no" are just being coy, because good girls aren't supposed to like sex, and if they do they must pretend they don't. Such a crock of antiquated fecal matter.

So, it comes down to physical evidence, if the woman had the presence of mind to go to Emerg and we swabbed with a rape kit. If there's anything more than semen to be found. Because maybe she didn't put up a fight because he said he'd fucking kill her and she believed him.

You won't find many women-centred self-defense courses telling women to acquiesce to their attacker's demands. They say, 'assume he's going to rape and kill you, fight for your life'. You get beaten up while being raped, maybe they'll believe you in court when you tell them your injuries weren't from 'consentual rough sex'. Maybe they won't. Cops tell women to submit, that submitting may save their life. You submit, there's no evidence that it was forced, that you said no, that non-consentual sex took place, that you were brutally raped.

You, the rape victim, are sooooooooooooooo fucked by the system, what's the point in reporting the crime? Well, you don't. Most rape victims don't because they know something that almost all women know, that the only thing worse than being raped, is being re-victimized by a system that fails to protect women and fails to effectively prosecute the angry sacks of misogynistic shit who rape women.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Why thanks Slick, I can tell you wanted to apologise, but couldn't bring yourself to. I understand.

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

It is because of these types of unanswered questions that the judicial system has no choice but to apply the maximum term possible.

---

It is clear that for the prosecution to obtain a greater sentence because of aggravating circumstances, the said circumstances must be proven.

Since people have the right to remain silent, an "unanswered question" cannot be an aggravating circumstance.

That which has not been proven cannot be used against an accused. Even in Australia.

-----------------

quote:

---

What unfortunate wording. Although I'm fairly sure you don't mean to imply that rape victims are lower class and therefore liars or that middle class people don't lie in court, you really should have phrased it better.

---

I said nothing about rape victims. Nor did i say middle class people do not lie in court. Everybody lies in court.

However, the opinion that "she would never complain if it was not true" is one which I have heard from many middle class people. This opinion reverses the presumption of innocence which is a central underpinning of trials in the English speaking world.

It often comes from insufficient exposure to a certain underworld which does exist, and which functions on lies, frauds, scams, and evasion.
After one has experience with this world, the unlikely becomes the probable.

-------------------------

quote:

---

Because whenever there's a discussion about sexual assault, it always turns to a discussion about women lying about sexual assault.

---

On this thread, the initial topic, sentencing for rape, was broadened by Shenanigans, who thinks that the courts unnnecessarily brutalize victims of rape by way of the procedures which are used.

Unfortunately for rape victims, false claims of rape or sexual assault do occur. Some system which reliably distinguishes between the two categories must be found.

The system in use which requires the Crown to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" goes some ways to insure that few people go to jail for rapes they did not commit. A crucial tool in the process is the right to cross examine, to see whether the complainant is lying, or telling the truth.

In the nature of the standard, "beyond reasonable doubt", some rapists will be acquitted, because the jury will be in doubt about guilt. It is a high standard.

I believe many of those who do not like "the court system" for allegations of rape would in fact like to remove the right to cross examine,
because they generally believe any complainant.

I will not put words into Shenanigans mouth, or post, but what does this comment suggest about the right to cross examine:

quote:

---

This is the beauty of the Canadian legal system when it comes to rape. Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped.

---

No, the Crown has to prove that she did not consent to the sexual act. Because that is what is the essence of the crime. If the Crown doesn't have to prove that, any intercourse becomes rape on the say-so of the complainant.

No one is so above suspicion that they should be given such power.

Thoughtful suggestions about the legal system must be looked at, but those suggestions which undermine fundamental liberties must be opposed.

So is it better to ensure that all who committed rape are jailed at the expense of those few who are falsely accused, or to ensure that no one is wrongly imprisoned and in doing so, let the guilty go free to do it again?

quote:

---

I said nothing about rape victims.

---

No, you didn't. So, what are we talking about now, lying stock brokers? Inveigling hairdressers? Dissembling dentists? Ya know, I don't recall anyone in here suggesting that "alleged" rape victims shouldn't be questioned, or that anyone charged should be presumed guilty until proven otherwise. What many people, mostly women, some survivors of sexual assault, contributing to this thread have said, repeatedly, is that women who are raped are often treated like lying sluts by a system that doesn't value them and refuses to be cognizant of the centuries of degradation of women by men, and that men who rape are often acquitted, or receive a slap on the wrist for crimes of sexual violence against women because WOMEN ARE DEVALUED BY THE SYSTEM AND BY THE SOCIETY THAT CREATED IT.

Jeezus, is that so effing hard to understand?

The moment you start saying that it is better to jail ten innocent people than let one guilty person go because of a relaxed burden of proof is the day I check out of this society.

... because one day you may be accused of a crime you did not commit, and because of the relaxed standard of proof, you will be convicted and you will have no-one to blame but yourself for advocating a relaxed burden of proof.

quote:

---

WOMEN ARE DEVALUED BY THE SYSTEM AND BY THE SOCIETY THAT CREATED IT. Jeezus, is that so effing hard to understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, rhetoric is easy to understand

---

Jeff, I really wish it were rhetoric. Then I would feel safer, would worry less for my daughter, for other women and children. But your dismissive tone is reflected throughout the legal system.

The system gives rapists preferential treatment over victims. I know this, because the guy who assaulted and suffocated me never saw the inside of a jail cell. Even without personal experience with the callous indifference of authorities in such cases, the evidence of how little the system and society gives a shit about women and girls is everywhere I look. Every girl, every woman is surrounded by that crap all her life. You don't see it because you don't experience it. We try to explain it, offer some realistic picture of what it's like to be devalued as a human being, and people like you call it rhetoric.

Oh, what's the fucking point.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

It seems like we are at an impasse. Rebecca wishes to discuss how society treats the matter of rape by trivializing women's experience. Jeff wants to talk about the legal practicalities of detrivializing women's experience in the legal system. Because these are two different things that are being discussed, we are having an unproductive argument.

So perhaps we should restate the question and begin again: "What changes to the system can be made that both detrivialize women's experience of rape and respect the full rights of the accused to a fair trial? Are these things ever in conflict? In whose favour should we resolve the conflict?"