Refusing to hide, gang rape victim fights back [Australia - ROP]

theage ^ | July 22, 2006 | Paul Sheehan

[Young Scholar]

You don't think the defendant should be able to challenge and question the accuser in court?

[DustyMoment]

You don't think the defendant should be able to challenge and question the accuser in court?

I don't think that the defendant's attorney should be allowed to make the victim of a rape a victim again by making accusations that they enticed the accused by suggestive dress, actions, words, or thoughts and deeds.

I would be negligent and a downright fool were I to suggest that no woman ever falsely claimed rape (the Duke case is a notable example), but the exceptions should not be the rule. The victim of a rape has already been victimized once, they shouldn't be victimized again in court when yhey are seeking justice. Rape is a violent, brutal and humiliating crime. Having to relive every moment of it and deny that the victim caused her own rape, shouldn't be allowed.

[darth]

The Aussies should claim a bit of Abo culture and castrate rapists. I hear that this was the old practice.

[Young Scholar]

I don't think that the defendant's attorney should be allowed to make the victim of a rape a victim again by making accusations that they enticed the accused by suggestive dress, actions, words, or thoughts and deeds.

That's a hard one. If the only evidence is the accuser's word against the defendant's, I think almost anything that might reflect on the reliability of the accuser's testimony has to be allowed, or there could be a much higher risk of falsely convicting someone (which is a far greater tragedy than letting a guilty person free).

If, however, the attacks have no relevance at all to the trial, they could be prevented without harm to the defendant.

[Uncle Vlad]

Why does that not surprise me?

[DustyMoment]

If the only evidence is the accuser's word against the defendant's, I think almost anything that might reflect on the reliability of the accuser's testimony has to be allowed, or there could be a much higher risk of falsely convicting someone (which is a far greater tragedy than letting a guilty person free).

Let's alter the circumstances. Suppose the victim is the relative of someone who was murdered and the victim was badly wounded. Should they be allowed to be victimized again by the justice system via an ultra-aggressive defense attorney trying to blame the murder on them? What about the victim of a homocide bomber?? Should the bomber's family be allowed to sue the victims for the fact that their dead homocide bomber kin killed a bunch of people and died in the process? This, in essence, is the position that you are espousing - that it's the victim's fault.

There was a case many years ago, in San Antonio, Texas, of a doctor who was sued for malpractice by the guy who murdered the doctor's patient. The patient arrived by ambulance at the hospital and was treated and hospitalized by the doctor. After 3 weeks, the patient died of his wounds. The (now) murderer, promptly sued the doctor for malpractice. The doctor sat in the courtroom for three days listening to the nonsense being spewed in the trial before he had his fill. He stood up and announced that he was leaving. If they wanted to have a trial, they were more than welcome to do so, but they would do it without him. He pointed at the murderer and said "He shot the victim, I tried to save him. It isn't my fault that he was more successful than I was." And with that, he left. The judge was finally shocked into realizing what a joke of a trial he was presiding over and dismissed the case the next day.

Under most circumstances, for a rape case to come to trial these days, the prosecutor has a pretty substantial amount of forensic evidence that points to the accused, and the defense has usually examined the evidence before trial begins. Virtually no rape case comes to trial on the basis of circumstantial evidence and a "He said/She said" scenario. There is no excuse whatsoever for the disgustingly cheap theatrical drama staged by defense attorneys who blame the victim.

By the grace of God, I have known relatively few women who have been raped. The ones I know were horribly traumatized by the episode and were virtually unable to allow themselves to be involved in a normal relationship. And, they never reported the crime, because they felt so ashamed of something done TO them by someone who has pathological hate and violence toward women. Rape, I'm sure you are aware, isn't about sex, it's about dominating the victim as a symbol of domination over ALL women. You think that's a hard line?

[Young Scholar]

Should the bomber's family be allowed to sue the victims for the fact that their dead homocide bomber kin killed a bunch of people and died in the process? This, in essence, is the position that you are espousing - that it's the victim's fault.

I never said anything about suing the victim; I said the defendant should be able to bring up anything that might reflect on his guilt or innocence.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the disgustingly cheap theatrical drama staged by defense attorneys who blame the victim.

No one is defending rapists who torment their victims on court, but what rules do you propose that would prevent this, without in any way restricting the defendant's constitution rights or increasing his chances of being falsely convicted?

[DustyMoment]

No one is defending rapists who torment their victims on court, but what rules do you propose that would prevent this, without in any way restricting the defendant's constitution rights or increasing his chances of being falsely convicted?

You are. Let me ask you this, and YOU answer your own question: Suppose you are raped by a man in a park at night? What rules would YOU impose to prevent the defense attorney from tormenting you without restricting the defendant's right to a fair trial? Should the defense attorney be allowed to accuse you of provoking the rape? Should he be allowed to imply that the way you dressed or acted in some way provoked the defendant into raping you? Is it a protection of the defendant's Constitutional rights if his attorney is allowed to introduce a witness who claims that the rape was consensual? If the victim is your mother or your sister, how much leeway do you think the defense should have in executing their defense?

[Young Scholar]

You are.

I never did; defending their right to make a defense does not equate to defending them personally. I could believe someone is the vilest of scum, but he still deserves the right to defend himself in court.

Let me ask you this, and YOU answer your own question: Suppose you are raped by a man in a park at night? What rules would YOU impose to prevent the defense attorney from tormenting you without restricting the defendant's right to a fair trial?

I don't know. I asked you to propose a few rules, since you're the one who stated that there should be more. If they don't violate the defendant's constitutional rights, I'm sure people would be open to them.

Should the defense attorney be allowed to accuse you of provoking the rape? Should he be allowed to imply that the way you dressed or acted in some way provoked the defendant into raping you?

It might be reasonable for the judge to consider it in advance; if he considers it material, it should certainly be presented. If he deems it immaterial, it seems reasonable to prevent it, but I'm no expert on the constitutional law in that area.

Is it a protection of the defendant's Constitutional rights if his attorney is allowed to introduce a witness who claims that the rape was consensual?

If he has a reasonable witness who can make that claim, he should obviously be able to present it at trial; the entire case might hinge on that issue. Preventing this could very easily put an innocent man in prison.

If the victim is your mother or your sister, how much leeway do you think the defense should have in executing their defense?

He should have the right to a fair trial; and if found guilty beyond doubt, the electric chair.

[DustyMoment]

I asked you to propose a few rules, since you're the one who stated that there should be more.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was the the defense attorney should not be allowed to victimize the victim again on the witness stand.

Should the defense attorney be allowed to accuse you of provoking the rape? Should he be allowed to imply that the way you dressed or acted in some way provoked the defendant into raping you?

It might be reasonable for the judge to consider it in advance; if he considers it material, it should certainly be presented. If he deems it immaterial, it seems reasonable to prevent it, but I'm no expert on the constitutional law in that area.

There are ways to ask a question and ways to ask a question. Instead of asking a rape victim to describe how she was dressed or how she acted when she was raped, most defense attorneys will use this form of asking a question: "Isn't it true that you were seductively dressed and that you intended to attract the attention of men when you went to (a club, a party, the park, for a walk, whatever)"? This is despicable and goes beyond the pale. The defense attorney can still put on his defense without asking the questions of the victim in that manner. And, BTW, if these question were provided to the court prior to trial, the defense would probably claim that the court suppressed their evidence and didn't allow them to execute "their case". This leads to endless appeals and re-trials on taxpayer dollars. You should note, BTW, that the defense attorney typically considers any female who dresses in anything but a burkha or shapeless, floor length sack as being seductively dressed and/or acting like a harlot.

Is it a protection of the defendant's Constitutional rights if his attorney is allowed to introduce a witness who claims that the rape was consensual?

If he has a reasonable witness who can make that claim, he should obviously be able to present it at trial; the entire case might hinge on that issue. Preventing this could very easily put an innocent man in prison.

And, therein, lies the heart of your argument - sending an innocent man to prison. No one wants to do that, but in nearly every case, the manipulation of law, evidence and facts in the case often do not represent what passes for the popular impression of a fair trial. The judge has the freedom to approve or suppress evidence at his/her discretion, and testimony can be stricken from the record that the judge feels might prejudice the case. Pre-trial motions and plea deals have little to do with serving justice, and more to do with negotiating conditions of trial and punishment with lawbreakers. It is only those of us who abide by the law and avoid encounters with the criminal justice system that believe that the system is all about the law - it isn't. As far as Constitutional rights go, the defendant's Constitutional rights are being upheld by virtue of the fact that he is having a trial by a jury of his peers, and he is prevented from incriminating himself. The defendant's Constitutional rights also extend to the fact that he is considered innocent until proven guilty. That means that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. IMO, when an aggressive defense attorney tries to implicate the victim as complicit in the crime perpetrated against them, that attorney knows his client is as guilty as the day is long and is in it more for show than substance. As far as the witness, goes, I agree with your contention that if a legitimate witness can be found that can make the claim, it's fair game. Typically, however, under the offer of legal favors, the defense attorney will introduce a bogus witness to make the claim - and is often exposed later in the trial as having made the assertion against the victim in exchange for some for of compensation or favors.

If the victim is your mother or your sister, how much leeway do you think the defense should have in executing their defense?

He should have the right to a fair trial; and if found guilty beyond doubt, the electric chair.

But, should the defense attorney be allowed to accuse your mother or your sister as being complicit in the crime that was perpetrated against them?

[ZULU]

"Ms Wagner was 14 when, in June 2002, she was raped by three brothers from Pakistan>"

Isn't there something in the Christian religion about dealing with raping heathens? If not, there should be.
I think there was back in the 1000's.

When is the west going to learn that Islamics are psychologically unfit to live with civilized people?

We still haven't learned it in this country.

[Young Scholar]

But, should the defense attorney be allowed to accuse your mother or your sister as being complicit in the crime that was perpetrated against them?

I really can't say. Ideally, no, and if it can be prevented effectively without compromising the right to a fair trial, then by all means go for it. But almost by nature, this is a difficult thing to deal with; a rape trial will always be an ugly affair, and there is only so much that can be done to limit this.

[DustyMoment]

Our Men are withdrawing from Churches, Schools, Movies, TV, and society in general. They perceive that decades of Anti-Male Hatred and hatred of Fathers gives them no stake in this culture. Zero. When will Conservative Women speak up for their Sons, Brothers, Nephews and Grandsons? When Damit?

See how you feel about it after it happens to someone you love. See how much of a rat's tookus you care about the defendant getting a "fair trial".

[DustyMoment]

Let me try this again, with the CORRECT quote, this time:

Ideally, no, and if it can be prevented effectively without compromising the right to a fair trial, then by all means go for it.

See how you feel about it after it happens to someone you love. See how much of a rat's tookus you care about the defendant getting a "fair trial".

NOW it's correct!! :-)

[Young Scholar]

I already know how I'd feel about it if it happened to someone I know. I'd feel like beating the perp with a baseball bat. I'd feel like castrating him with a chainsaw. But obviously, we can't go entirely with my feelings at the time...

[DustyMoment]

But obviously, we can't go entirely with my feelings at the time...

GOTCHA!!!! It works for leftists!!! :-)

Of course, you're correct, that's why we have a system of laws and religion that control and guide our behavior. And, this is my whole point. What the perp did once to someone you care about, his defense attorney is allowed to do again in court. This is why I am so angry about the experiences that the young lady in the story went through. Her attacker brutalized her, then his attorney did it again in court. And her "friends" (and I use THAT term loosely) thought it was appropriate to "tease" her about it because they understand so little of the emotional roller coaster such a brutal action initiates. She deserved (and was entitled to) justice, not having mud thrown at her.