would you be telling the world at public gatherings, demanding to meet the Prime Minister, and signing a book deal - before the courts had dealt with the matter?
I know I wouldn't want to do any of those things before or after the courts had dealt with the matter. I know someone else who ended up in a mental health unit after a serious attempt at suicide because she had been raped by a complete stranger in a place where she should have been safe. She was simply doing her job when it happened too.
But there is currently a case here in Downunder where a young woman was allegedly raped one night in the office of a Government Minister. She did not immediately report the matter to the police. There is nothing uncommon about that but she did report the matter to the Minister. The Minister apparently saw her in the same room as the one in which the alleged rape took place. That has, rightly, been branded highly insensitive.
Allegations of rape have to be taken seriously. It is very, very important that they are. In my mind rape is as serious as murder - except that the victim survives after a fashion.
So far the alleged perpetrator in this case has not been charged. Apparently the investigations are still "ongoing". And yes, the investigations do need to be thorough and the verdict needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Someone is going to go to gaol. A career is going to be terminated, an entire family is going to have to live with the consequences of the actions of the perpetrator - just as they are now living with the alleged actions.
There have been complaints and criticisms that the Prime Minister is not seeing the alleged victim soon enough. I disagree with that. The alleged victim has no particular right to an audience with the Prime Minister. It is likely he has sought advice about the wisdom of meeting her before the court case is complete.
And it is perhaps these things that bother me. The proper place to hear all this first is surely the courts? To me the demands of the person alleging rape are coming close to contempt of court. There should be no audiences with the Prime Minister until the matter is over - and that should not hinge on whether she wins or loses but simply on the matter being decided by the courts. There should be no book deal signed until the matter is decided by the courts either. It could be negotiated beforehand - but negotiated without publicity and not signed until the legal process is complete. There should be no appearances at public gatherings either. This potentially puts pressure on future jurors.
It is not a matter of whether the alleged victim was drunk or gave her consent - those are issues for the court to decide. Her conduct since then though is an issue even if she is acting with the best of intentions. If she is being advised to do these things then she is being poorly advised and she may well be doing other rape victims a serious disservice.
Posts
2 comments:
If you were raped or otherwise violated, Cat - what justice would satisfy you?
If youngers find your attitudes lacking, do you feel that they are wrong?
I think, if you read Cat's post again, you would find she thinks rape is as abhorrent as murder (and therefore likely deserving of the same punishment). She is a very fierce advocate for victims too.
Like Cat I find the behaviour of the alleged victim disturbing. It does suggest an attempt to pressure others into taking action without regard to due process. Trying to bypass legitimate legal processes is never a good thing. It can do other victims more harm than good even if you are acting with the best of intentions.Chris
Post a Comment