Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Myths about rape victims

1356

Comments

  • #62
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Dolorous wrote: »
    Justice Carney has a history of seemingly being quite sympathetic to alleged rapists.

    I don't see how he was being sympathetic to the accused. They were in custody too, were they not? From what I can see, he was merely insisting that the accuser give testimony to substantiate her accusations. As horrible as that may have been for her, what's the alternative?


  • #63
    Dolbert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,154 ✭✭✭Dolbert


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    I don't see how he was being sympathetic to the accused. They were in custody too, were they not? From what I can see, he was merely insisting that the accuser give testimony to substantiate her accusations. As horrible as that may have been for her, what's the alternative?

    I was commenting on that particular judge's track record with rape cases more than anything.

    You honestly don't see anything wrong with imprisoning a suicidal gang-rape victim because she couldn't face the ordeal he was about to put her through? He could have chosen video link evidence but no, he wanted her to stand there and face them again. Horrific.


  • #64
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Dolorous wrote: »
    You honestly don't see anything wrong with imprisoning a suicidal gang-rape victim

    Excuse me?
    Last Wednesday the three men accused of raping her were acquitted by a jury after a two-week trial.

    She wasn't raped.


  • #65
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Yes they were acquitted due to her not being able to testify.
    So yes they were acquitted as the case fell apart, but that doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

    Seriously one of them lived in the same house was drinking with the other two who were his friends, first they assaulted her boyfriend and then insisted she had sex with them. she didn't want to but was afraid they would beat her up the same as the boy friend and it would cause her to miscarry as she was pregnant at the time.

    No wonder she is a mess and on prescribed medication and she is dealing with all that and the court case and they have the baby to looking after.


  • #66
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Yes they were acquitted due to her not being able to testify.
    So yes they were acquitted as the case fell apart, but that doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

    In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of civil society at large, it means that she was not raped. If she was and wouldn't testify, then that's an absolute tragedy.

    I'd wholeheartedly agree with the previous posted that this kind of thing should be done via videophone.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Dolbert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,154 ✭✭✭Dolbert


    Exactly. Just because they were acquitted does not mean that she wasn't raped!

    Edit: cross posted


  • #68
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Dolorous wrote: »
    Exactly. Just because they were acquitted does not mean that she wasn't raped!

    Edit: cross posted

    In general I'm not a supporter of that kind of statement. I think if people are acquitted of a crime we have to accept the courts findings (until we come up with a better system, its all we have as a measure of justice).

    There does seem to be many suspicious areas in this case, and whether or not the men are guilty, that woman has been roundly failed and abused by the system.

    Even if she isn't a rape victim, she's had a highly traumatic experience, is obviously ill as a result, was pregnant and is now caring for a very young baby. The judge did not exercise his discretionary powers appropriately in my opinion.


  • #69
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,948 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of civil society at large, it means that she was not raped.

    If I killed you, but was aquitted of your murder, does that mean that in the eyes of the law and civil society you were not killed, and therefore are still alive?


  • #70
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Neyite wrote: »
    If I killed you, but was aquitted, does that mean that in the eyes of the law and civil society you were not killed, and therefore are still alive?

    Nope. Just means that you didn't do it.


  • #71
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Neyite wrote: »
    If I killed you, but was aquitted, does that mean that in the eyes of the law and civil society you were not killed, and therefore are still alive?


    No, it means you weren't responsible for his death.

    I don't get your point! :)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,948 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    Nope. Just means that you didn't do it.

    Ah, but you are wrong. it just means that in the eyes of the law there is insufficent evidence to prove that I did. If I still killed you, and got off scott free, the crime remains, just not prosecuted and justice not served.


  • #73
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of civil society at large, it means that she was not raped.

    I think more accurately it means it wasn't proven that these men raped her, and for all purposes they are not rapists rather than she wasn't raped, if you get my distinction.

    Its hard to find another crime with the same parallels.


  • #74
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,948 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Giselle wrote: »
    No, it means you weren't responsible for his death.

    I don't get your point! :)

    My response was to the quote below. This is what Barack wrote:
    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of civil society at large, it means that she was not raped. If she was and wouldn't testify, then that's an absolute tragedy.

    I'd wholeheartedly agree with the previous posted that this kind of thing should be done via videophone.

    And I wrote this in reply:
    Neyite wrote: »
    If I killed you, but was aquitted of your murder, does that mean that in the eyes of the law and civil society you were not killed, and therefore are still alive?

    I was pointing out that just because someone is aquitted, does not mean that the crime didnt exist. It does not mean that the woman was not raped (in the eyes of the law) as Barack suggests, it only means that the accused were aquitted and therefore not guilty of the rape.

    So a more accurate way of putting it if I can paraphrase Baracks original sentence would be "in the eyes of the law and society it proves that she was not raped by these men"


  • #75
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Neyite wrote: »
    Ah, but you are wrong. it just means that in the eyes of the law there is insufficent evidence to prove that I did. If I still killed you, and got off scott free, the crime remains, just not prosecuted and justice not served.

    Ultimately it means you're not a murderer. Just like these men are not rapists. End of story. Bottom line. That's why we have a judicial system. You're free to make judgements about these men if you like but, to me, they are innocent. If the system of justice doesn't work - it needs to be fixed. I think we're in agreement there.


  • #76
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Neyite wrote: »
    So a more accurate way of putting it if I can paraphrase Baracks original sentence would be "in the eyes of the law and society it proves that she was not raped by these men"

    I mentioned the same in the post above.

    Your post was saying you wouldn't be dead, not that you would be considered dead by another hand, hence my confusion as to your point.


  • #77
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Neyite wrote: »
    So a more accurate way of putting it if I can paraphrase Baracks original sentence would be "in the eyes of the law and society it proves that she was not raped by these men"

    You have a strange logic going on here.

    If the men are found not guilty, no crime exists. The jury may find that either the act itself did not exist (ie. there was no sex) or the jury may find that the act did occur (ie. there was sex) but that there was also consent. In which case, the act exists but there was no crime.

    Either way, no crime has been committed.

    Even if the men got off on the basis of mistaken identity (ie. someone else had sex with her), no crime has been committed as there has been no adjudication as to whether the other men committed rape.


  • #78
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Giselle wrote: »
    I mentioned the same in the post above.

    Your post was saying you wouldn't be dead, not that you would be considered dead by another hand, hence my confusion as to your point.

    You're right. It doesn't mean that she wasn't raped. But there hasn't been a court case to prove that she was, the men accused were acquitted and the accuser refused to testify. So what actually happened is pure speculation. A previous poster said...
    Dolorous wrote: »
    You honestly don't see anything wrong with imprisoning a suicidal gang-rape victim

    ...my response to this was that neither I nor anyone else have any idea whether she is or is not a gang-rape victim and the justice system has done absolutely nothing to enlighten us.


  • #79
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    drkpower wrote: »
    Either way, no crime has been committed.
    Well, it means that particular crime was not committed.


  • #80
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Giselle wrote: »
    Well, it means that particular crime was not committed.

    Well, I suppose to be very pedantic, no crime has been committed until it has been adjudged that a crime has been committed. Thats how the system works.


  • #81
    Jack B. Badd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭Jack B. Badd


    Kooli wrote: »
    A fabulous blog post about 'rape culture'

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

    I'd advise you to read it to the end. It touches on victim-blaming and other myths about rape that perpetuate sexual violence against women.
    Powerful stuff (and, obviously, potentially triggering).

    That is a fascinating and eloquent post. One of the parts that particularly jumped out at me was the concept of a "normal" rapist because this leads into the concept of the "normal" rape victim (female, young (but not prepubescent), good looking, etc). It seems to me that this group is the one that mostly has to justify their actions (or appearance), defend against talk of false accusations, act in a "sensible and safe manner" to ensure that they can't be said to have "asked for it", etc...
    The "normal" rapist (whose crime is most likely to be dismissed with a "boys will be boys" sort of jocular apologia) is the man who forces himself on attractive women, women his age in fine health and form, whose crime is disturbingly understandable to his male defenders. The "real sickos" are the men who go after children, old ladies, the disabled, accident victims languishing in comas—the sort of people who can't fight back, whose rape is difficult to imagine as titillating, unlike the rape of "pretty girls," so easily cast in a fight-**** fantasy of squealing and squirming and eventual relenting to the "flattery" of being raped.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Jack B. Badd wrote: »
    defend against talk of false accusations

    This is absolutely fine IMO. Women who accuse men of rape should be cross-examined or have their story investigated. The accused are entitled to defend themselves as per any other crimes.
    Jack B. Badd wrote: »
    act in a "sensible and safe manner" to ensure that they can't be said to have "asked for it", etc...

    On the other hand, obviously this is completely insane. How many rape cases have been thrown out because it was deemed that the woman was dressed in such a way as to have deserved it? Genuine question!


  • #83
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    The cases don't get throw out, they never get to court.
    They are complied by the DPP and then not put forward for prosecution.

    If you want an example of clothes being a the midigating factor.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jury-acquits-accused-rapist-rules-woman-skinny-jeans-tight-helped-remove-article-1.447567



    If my window gets smashed and I don't report it to the garda and don't give a statement,
    then my window has still been smashed.


  • #84
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Sharrow wrote: »
    The cases don't get throw out, they never get to court.
    They are complied by the DPP and then not put forward for prosecution.

    Is that generally due to the unwillingness of the accuser to take it further? Or lack of evidence? Or both?
    Sharrow wrote: »
    If my window gets smashed and I don't report it to the garda and don't give a statement,
    then my window has still been smashed.

    You should really go to the Gardaí and seek justice.


  • #85
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    Is that generally due to the unwillingness of the accuser to take it further? Or lack of evidence? Or both?

    Victims can have with drawn statements due to pressure put on them, or there is not enough evidence (as the attacker used a condom) or it would be too hard to prosecute due to the 'calibre' of the witness or there are several cases coming up were the person who administered the rape kit was no longer certified and those cases may now not be prosecuted.
    http://www.imt.ie/blogs/2011/05/rcni-blames-hse-for-rape-evidence-fiasco.html
    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    You should really go to the Gardaí and seek justice.

    Ideally I should be able to but we live in a far from ideal world and I would be wasting my time and that of the garda.


  • #86
    BarackPyjama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭BarackPyjama


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Ideally I should be able to but we live in a far from ideal world and I would be wasting my time and that of the garda.

    If you're not willing to do anything about it, please don't expect entitlement to victim status.


  • #87
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    If you're not willing to do anything about it, please don't expect entitlement to victim status.

    So people who have been raped who don't see it through to prosecution haven't been raped and are not victims?


  • #88
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Seriously folks - have a look at the forum title and read the forum charter - stop forcing every discussion here into a discussion from a male perspective or trying to make discussions about rape victims into a discussion about false rape allegations.

    BarackPyjama - you cannot continue to post in this manner in this forum. This is a forum for women to discuss issues pertinent to them, from their perspective - there have been posters on this thread describing their experiences of being raped and with the judicial system - do not tell posters they are not entitled to be victims.

    If posters continually derail and make inflammatory, disruptive statements which ignore the charter and ethos of this forum then we will have no option but revoke their posting rights to this forum.


  • #89
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    OK I'm gonna nip this in the bud. Every time this subject comes up in the Ladies lounge it's not long before it gets into "but whatabout men falsely accused", followed by a tit for tat exchange derailing the thread. Not this time. Please stick to the topic from - I dunno, here's an idea - the ladies point of view. The clue is in the forum title. Thanks to all.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #90
    Tigger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭Tigger99


    God forbid if I was raped, I really don't know if I'd report it. The low prosecution rate combined with the trauma of going through a trial and the level of victim blaming would make me think twice. That's awful isn't it? :(


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    That article about how that lady was treated by the judge is just heartbreaking- regardless of whether the men were guilty or innocent she should never have been treated like that and I can see this story having serious implications for women's willingness to come forward after a rape and follow their accusations through to trial.

    As to why women don't report rape, there was a very interesting bit of research done on this in America, the number one reason women don't report rape is that they don't want their rapists to go to jail. Here's a link to the paper, I'd say most people won't have access, which is a pity because it gives a good breakdown of the reasons why women do and don't report sexual assaults. If you've access to the paper through your work/college it's well worth a read.


Advertisement