Amanda Brunker article about Hugh Hefner

Lux23

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

Saruhashi

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

Quite a lot to unpack here, I think.

I'd start with the sentencing which seems ridiculously lenient. That's my initial reaction to hearing that a guy who was found guilty of several counts of rape and assault only did 11 months in prison. A serious WTF moment there.

This is an issue within the law and nothing really to do with "rape culture", as the writer puts it.

Firstly, what is the logic behind the initial 7 years suspended sentence? Does this logic also apply to other crimes? Is it possible to get a suspended sentence for murder or negligent driving or assault etc. It seems unbelievably lenient so how was this decision reached exactly?

Secondly, what was the reasoning behind the change from 7 years suspended to 15 months in prison and then why did he only serve 11 months? What was the basis of the appeal and why was the appeal successful to that degree? How does this compare to other criminal cases etc? Again 15 months seems unbelievably lenient but we see people walking free after assaults and the like so I'd need a full explanation.

That's me only 2 paragraphs into the article and there are a whole range of questions that I feel could only be sufficiently answered by a legal professional and probably it would take some time for me to understand those answers.

The problem here, in my view, is that the Irish Times is holding up a victim of a crime as an expert on that crime when realistically we need an actual legal expert to understand exactly what's going on here. I certainly wouldn't be willing to ask this lady tough questions regarding the sentencing of her rapist.
So I'd be inclined to just shut up and let her have her say. Nobody learns anything here. Except that lenient sentencing is a thing, but I think we all know that already.

You see what I'm getting at here? She's an expert on her story and if you wanted to know WHAT happened in that case then you'd ask her. If you wanted to know WHY it happened? I dunno. Is she the person to ask?

We move on to George Hook and this takes us well outside of legal territory and into opinions. George Hook states a stupid opinion and this lady wants us to accept that opinions like that are part of the problem.

OK. What are her credentials here to show that she understands the problem and that she is qualified to tell anyone what is and is not part of the problem? She is a victim of the problem, no doubt, but is she an authority?

The premise here seems to be that because she was a victim of a crime she understands the root causes of the crime and has some kind of insight into possible solutions.

I'm not seeing it though. It's appalling what happened to her and the sentencing is an absolute disgrace but I'm not sure any of this makes her an authority on the subject outside of her own personal experience.

I get that she is now working in mental health research but I don't get how this all manages to link together the crimes committed against her, the lenient sentencing and George Hooks dumb comments.

She says victims need one thing, "belief".

This will fall apart instantly in a court of law though. How can a judge sentence someone for a crime when nobody can ask for details of the crime?

If asking questions actually means "I don't believe you" and we don't ask questions then do we just have one standard crime of "rape" and administer the exact same sentence regardless of circumstances?

It all starts to fall apart and there are too many questions that keep coming up.

How can you decide to go and speak to the media about your experiences but also say to them "I don't want to answer questions, I just want to tell my story"? Surely journalists have a responsibility to ask questions? Especially hard questions?

Reading this article I can't help but feel that the main question here is how the hell this dude only spends 11 months in prison.

I honestly feel it would be better for all of us if we had an expert there explaining why it was only 11 months and then we can decide if that is unacceptable and then we can go to the government and say we want changes here.

Instead we got "she's a victim so she's an expert and she thinks George Hook is part of the problem so there you go" and the whole time I am thinking 11 months is disgraceful and maybe it should be the judge under the spotlight instead of George Hook.

Am I way out of line here?

tritium

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

I dont know if it's your intention but it kind if feels like your spinning my answer to get where you want it to be. Let me be a bit more explicit.

Everyone is entitled to contribute to the debate on sexual crimes (and indeed on other crimes lest it needs to be said). That includes the victims of the crimes as well as many other groups. They don't need to prove they were raped to have a voice but if they're going to position themselves as a rape survivor then I do think there's a higher bar than 'just believe me'. Thats for everyones sake btw, including other victims whose voice could be drowned out. Our legal system actually gives a voice to victims through victim impact statements.

That said, and especially in an accusation of a crime like rape, 'just believe me' is not really an option. Just believe me says only hear one side of the story and is the complete opposite of our legal system since it implies guilt on someone who by implication doesnt even have right of reply. Thats not to say anyone is lying or making it up-the reality, sad as it may be for the people involved, is that the legal definition of rape and the belief of rape having occured may not always be the same thing.

One thing I'd say from reading the article is, while its understandable its also unreasonable to expect people who want to talk about experiences of a rape victim won't want to discuss their actual experience. It almost feels contradictory that on the one hand the writer says what she wants is belief but she shuns away from telling her story.

Saruhashi

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

I'd actually add here if the severity of the crime has any bearing on whether or not people should ask certain questions?

Say I left the front door unlocked one day and went off to work only to come home to find my gaming PC was gone. Then my wife comes home and she's giving out about it "why didn't you lock the door", "don't you realize how reckless that was", "blah blah blah".

Hey now, I'm the victim of a crime here. Not a serious crime, but still. Nobody was physically injured but I suppose there could be mental health implications.

Of course, I know myself that I'd be thinking "I'm such a dumbass for leaving that door unlocked" and I'd be getting annoyed at people giving out to me and asking why I left the door unlocked and why I didn't check it and what was I doing that made me forget to check it. Are the questions invalid or something? Maybe just irrelevant?

At what stage is a crime serious enough that we would go from "questions will be tolerated" to "do not ask anything, just believe"? How are we making the distinction?

Wibbs

Saruhashi wrote: »

At what stage is a crime serious enough that we would go from "questions will be tolerated" to "do not ask anything, just believe"? How are we making the distinction?

It certainly seems the distinction is one of gender for the most part. Like the "always believe women" line that was trending in the US a while back.

From the article:

I categorise this as the “homogeneity of victimhood” in the media. It occurs when the same set of hackneyed descriptions of individuals who have experienced sexual abuse/violence are trotted out each time a new case is discussed. These people who tell their stories, for the most part women, are brave and often articulate. They give heart-rending accounts of their experiences. And yet when they do, they must put up with commentary that suggests they are as culpable as their assailants. Or that they could have prevented their attack. They are told they are promiscuous – as if there is a type of sex that naturally leads to one being raped. They are told in many different ways that, basically, they asked for it.

Citations please. I would like to see an example of this in "the media". For my part I've never seen any article in Irish media saying a victim was "culpable", "promiscuous", or "asking for it". George Hook skirted closest to it and he was mercilessly pilloried in the same media she claims does exactly the same thing, if not worse every time a new case comes along. I'd like to see examples or I'm afraid my first thought is she's seeing things that she wants to see. Well in her first paragraph she uses the term "rape culture" so I near automatically read ahead with that filter in place.

As for questions themselves. Of course society will ask questions. It asks questions of all serious crimes(and not so serious). Questions come up in murder cases, including lurid ones. And victims are often "rated" according to background. EG someone who is a low level drug dealer/junkie gets murdered there is far less sympathy compared to someone innocent who is killed in a gangland crossfire.

tritium wrote:

That said, and especially in an accusation of a crime like rape, 'just believe me' is not really an option. Just believe me says only hear one side of the story and is the complete opposite of our legal system since it implies guilt on someone who by implication doesnt even have right of reply. Thats not to say anyone is lying or making it up-the reality, sad as it may be for the people involved, is that the legal definition of rape and the belief of rape having occured may not always be the same thing.

This. We developed legal systems throughout history to try and wrest judgement from inference, hearsay and from the mob. "Just believe me" is fine as a support mechanism, as a way of judging guilt or innocence it most certainly is not and never should be. Why have trials at all?

Bowlardo

Saruhashi wrote: »

Quite a lot to unpack here, I think.

I'd start with the sentencing which seems ridiculously lenient. That's my initial reaction to hearing that a guy who was found guilty of several counts of rape and assault only did 11 months in prison. A serious WTF moment there.

This is an issue within the law and nothing really to do with "rape culture", as the writer puts it.

Firstly, what is the logic behind the initial 7 years suspended sentence? Does this logic also apply to other crimes? Is it possible to get a suspended sentence for murder or negligent driving or assault etc. It seems unbelievably lenient so how was this decision reached exactly?

Secondly, what was the reasoning behind the change from 7 years suspended to 15 months in prison and then why did he only serve 11 months? What was the basis of the appeal and why was the appeal successful to that degree? How does this compare to other criminal cases etc? Again 15 months seems unbelievably lenient but we see people walking free after assaults and the like so I'd need a full explanation.

That's me only 2 paragraphs into the article and there are a whole range of questions that I feel could only be sufficiently answered by a legal professional and probably it would take some time for me to understand those answers.

The problem here, in my view, is that the Irish Times is holding up a victim of a crime as an expert on that crime when realistically we need an actual legal expert to understand exactly what's going on here. I certainly wouldn't be willing to ask this lady tough questions regarding the sentencing of her rapist.
So I'd be inclined to just shut up and let her have her say. Nobody learns anything here. Except that lenient sentencing is a thing, but I think we all know that already.

You see what I'm getting at here? She's an expert on her story and if you wanted to know WHAT happened in that case then you'd ask her. If you wanted to know WHY it happened? I dunno. Is she the person to ask?

We move on to George Hook and this takes us well outside of legal territory and into opinions. George Hook states a stupid opinion and this lady wants us to accept that opinions like that are part of the problem.

OK. What are her credentials here to show that she understands the problem and that she is qualified to tell anyone what is and is not part of the problem? She is a victim of the problem, no doubt, but is she an authority?

The premise here seems to be that because she was a victim of a crime she understands the root causes of the crime and has some kind of insight into possible solutions.

I'm not seeing it though. It's appalling what happened to her and the sentencing is an absolute disgrace but I'm not sure any of this makes her an authority on the subject outside of her own personal experience.

I get that she is now working in mental health research but I don't get how this all manages to link together the crimes committed against her, the lenient sentencing and George Hooks dumb comments.

She says victims need one thing, "belief".

This will fall apart instantly in a court of law though. How can a judge sentence someone for a crime when nobody can ask for details of the crime?

If asking questions actually means "I don't believe you" and we don't ask questions then do we just have one standard crime of "rape" and administer the exact same sentence regardless of circumstances?

It all starts to fall apart and there are too many questions that keep coming up.

How can you decide to go and speak to the media about your experiences but also say to them "I don't want to answer questions, I just want to tell my story"? Surely journalists have a responsibility to ask questions? Especially hard questions?

Reading this article I can't help but feel that the main question here is how the hell this dude only spends 11 months in prison.

I honestly feel it would be better for all of us if we had an expert there explaining why it was only 11 months and then we can decide if that is unacceptable and then we can go to the government and say we want changes here.

Instead we got "she's a victim so she's an expert and she thinks George Hook is part of the problem so there you go" and the whole time I am thinking 11 months is disgraceful and maybe it should be the judge under the spotlight instead of George Hook.

Am I way out of line here?

Exceptional post. Worth the read. Completely on point