Rape - Let the jury decide
PHILIP LEWIS
http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/8/4/p-14475.html
The Guardian
Tuesday August 4, 1998
Let the jury decide
Protecting rape victims from cross-examination by their attackers will not
bring justice
By Dea Birkett
Let's not mince words. Non-consensual penetration of the vagina by the
penis - rape - is a very serious crime. It is traumatic, demeaning, and, by
definition, violent. And accusing someone of such a crime is itself very
serious, sometimes leading to a life sentence in the isolation of a special
wing for sex offenders. The role of the court in such a case is to establish
the facts as fairly as possible. When such an accusation is raised, for the
sake of both sides, justice must be done.
But Home Secretary Jack Straw believes that justice is not the only thing to
be considered in rape trials. Uniquely for a court case, he thinks the
trauma suffered by the complainant during the process of the trial should be
taken into account. And with this in mind, he proposes that an exception to
the established right of a defendant to defend themselves should be made for
those accused of rape. They must not be allowed to cross examine the
complainant.
These proposals to silence the accused are contained in a report entitled -
with no apparent sense of irony - Speaking Up For Justice. Last week, the
Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham dared to suggest that the effect of such
measures might be quite other to that which the Home Secretary intended. He
suggested that if defendants were not allowed to question their accusers,
jurors might feel they'd been denied a fair trial and simply acquit. I would
be one of those jurors. I believe the removal of this right is both damaging
to the criminal justice system and an insult to women.
It was an extraordinary and remarkably resilient woman who brought this
issue to the attention of government. In 1996, at the Old Bailey, Julia
Mason was subjected to six days of questioning by the man accused of raping
her, Ralston Edwards. Edwards made Mason describe his genitals in graphic
detail. Mason waived her right to anonymity in order to draw attention to
the horror she was experiencing inside the courtroom, and campaigned for the
law to be changed. Her summary of the trial was captured in a soundbite
still used by campaigners today: 'Why did they let him rape me again?' But
it is essential for any criminal case that the facts are trawled over and
over and over. The jury must be informed. Their decision must be reached
with the knowledge that there has been nothing left unsaid, no stone
unturned. In a recent murder trial I attended, the horrific details of the
case were repeated several times throughout the trial. The video of the
murdered girl's mutilated body was shown twice in open court, the second
time at the request of the jury. A reconstruction of the frenzied attack on
her was staged using the actual weapon - a foot long metal tent spike that
was rained so hard down on her skull that it bent.
Imagine the pain of the family of the murdered girl watching this play out
before them. In this case, they were not called to the witness box. But in a
similar case, they could well have been. Should they, and the jury, be
spared the full details of this case because of the distress it might cause
them? Of course not. They needed to know this in order to reach a verdict.
The accused was found guilty of murder.
So why this exception with women complainants in rape trials? The
presumption must be that women are more vulnerable than male witnesses.
Women are too feeble to stand up to the adversarial process. And women who
have been raped are particularly feeble, too pathetic to face their alleged
attacker. By implication, they are unable to tell the truth about their
experiences without breaking down. These very same proposals that are
intended to give women dignity treat them as if they were lesser citizens.
Speaking Up For Justice also considers live video links and screens for
women accusing rape - identical to special legal processes advocated for
underage witnesses. The new proposals see women like children - incapable,
vulnerable, needing guidance.
The picture is painted of damaged, blubbering women being pitched against
hardened rapists. Rapists shouldn't have rights. But the man in the dock who
may question them is not a rapist; he is just accused of being so. This is
so obvious that it ought not to have to be stated, but in the current
climate, unfortunately it does - he is innocent until proven otherwise. Not
until after the jury has pronounced its verdict is the accused guilty of any
crime. And, as innocent men, they have a right to dismiss a lawyer they find
inadequate. They have a right to defend themselves.
The unarticulated assumption lurking behind all these debates is that rape
is something women simply never lie about. Once a woman has pointed her
finger at him, the man in the dock is certainly guilty. But, unfortunately,
women can and do lie. Sara Hinchliffe of Feminists For Justice, admits,
"There are very good reasons why they do, which most of us can identify
with. It's a very good way of being malicious to somebody and getting
revenge. There's also the issue of child custody. If we say that every woman
who alleges rape is telling the truth, every acquittal is a criminal going
free." Eleven thousand men were prosecuted for rape in the year that Ralston
Edwards's trial hit the headlines. Cross examination of the complainant
happened in just a handful of these. And it is no accident that the case,
which was the spur behind the Home Secretary's proposal matches most women's
nightmares - the shifty man in a darkened street. Mason was approached by
Edwards, a stranger, while standing at a bus stop; he bundled her into an
alleyway.
But this case no more represents a standard incident of rape than child
murder by a stranger does of child sexual abuse; most rapes are not by
strangers, but by people we know, usually very well. The defence of those
accused of rape is a subject that it is almost impossible to approach
rationally. And, as a result, there is little alternative thinking. Like the
treatment of child sex offenders, it is an issue around which both liberal
and conservative snuggle up together in the same camp. We all agree rape is
wrong. And therefore, the argument goes, defending the rights of a man
accused of rape is wrong. It is seen as tantamount to defending, even
denying, the rape itself.
I hope Lord Bingham is right. I hope that juries - representatives of the
people - see through this swamp of emotion. I hope they demand the facts,
upon which they can form sound judgments as to what really happened. In
Julia Mason's case, it seems justice was, after all, done. Ralston Edwards
was given two life sentences. Let the accused and the complainant both have
their day in court. Then let the jury decide.
Zardoz Greybeard
> Source
> http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/8/4/p-14475.html
>
> The Guardian
> Tuesday August 4, 1998
>
> Let the jury decide
>
<snip>
> But, unfortunately,
> women can and do lie. Sara Hinchliffe of Feminists For Justice, admits,
> "There are very good reasons why they do, which most of us can identify
> with. It's a very good way of being malicious to somebody and getting
> revenge. There's also the issue of child custody. If we say that every woman
> who alleges rape is telling the truth, every acquittal is a criminal going
> free."
A couple of years ago here near Santa Fe, NM, USA a woman made national news
coverage claiming she had stopped to change a tire next to I-25 and was raped by
a passing motorist. My brother read the story in South Carolina. A few days
later when the police asked her how she in particular gets raped so often she
admitted that she fabricated the story because she was late to dinner and needed
an excuse. Being late to dinner seems to be a "very good reason" to lie about
rape, to at least one woman. No, the correction was only printed locally and
readers all across the country never got to read about her lies.
Then there were the teenage school girls who accused a male teacher in Espanola,
NM, of raping several of them. He lost his job, his career, his home, his family
and his reputation before some other girls told of the plot to get rid of him
because he graded so hard they actually had to learn something to pass his
classes. Poor grades are apparently a "very good reason" to lie about rape to
some young women. His life was ruined, and the girls got a new teacher who
presumably graded easier.
Unfortunately this kind of incident is all too common. Without the means to
defend himself, and without any prosecution or penalty for falsely crying "rape"
there are far too many women who will use their "rape card" whenever it gains
some minuscule advantage. Even if the guy wins and is acquitted, like the
Espanola school teacher, his life is probably ruined. Those who cry rape
falsely ought to be at least liable for damages and court costs, and probably
subject to criminal prosecution equivalent.
Justice is not being done when school girls can cost the teacher his entire
life's work, home, money, career, family, everything just because they don't
like his grades and cry "rape."
It is wrong to hurt a child - even a boy
MGM really has to end!
Zardoz Greybeard
[Note: Please disregard the "personal vendetta" follow on posts by the
pro-mutilation jackasses. Thanks]