Here are two letters to the editor of the Times Online found here and here. In the first, Britain's Attorney General repeatedly calls rape accusers "victims." In the second, she is taken to task for failing to recognize the reality of false rape claims.
LETTER NUMBER ONE:
Rape and the CPS
Improving the way rape cases are handled is a priority across the criminal justice system
Sir, As superintending minister for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) I keenly feel any criticism that prosecutors are failing rape victims (“Rape audit to find out why so few win justice”, May 14). There has been a real improvement in how justice agencies work with victims and witnesses, for example the growing number of sexual assault referral centres that bring together all the legal and care agencies and departments in one place.
I would certainly reject the idea that a CPS lawyer would only take on a case that was “200 per cent watertight” — if that were true the conviction rate would be nearer
100 per cent than the current 58 per cent. Prosecutors will explore every avenue to find sufficient evidence to charge, but the verdict has to be left to a jury, the CPS having gone through all the steps to support the victim to give their best evidence.
As you rightly pointed out in your leading article (“The vilest crime”, May 14), the often quoted 6.5 per cent conviction rate is for rapes that are reported but does not account for how many of those are actually able to go as far as a court case.
Can we influence how juries see an alleged rape victim? Yes, to a degree, by building the most informed case we can and being well aware of the myths and stereotypes that surround this crime. Prosecutors now also have the option of pre-trial witness interviews that allow the prosecutor first to assess the reliability of, or clarify, a witness’s evidence; second, to assist the prosecutor in understanding complex evidence; and third, to explain the criminal process and procedures to the witness.
There have been improvements in the conviction rate of cases brought to trial. But nobody who cares about justice could be satisfied with the rate of rape allegations that currently result in conviction. Equally, nobody pretends that all victims get the sensitive and supportive service they deserve. I can assure you that continuing to improve the way rape cases are handled is a priority across the criminal justice system and for me personally.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Attorney-General
______________________________
LETTER NUMBER TWO:
Rape complainants are not always victims
Unhelpful and inappropriate vocabulary will not help improve the rape conviction rate
Sir, We are both practising barristers with extensive experience of defending in rape cases. Those who serve on juries in rape cases will be aware from what they read in the press that rape complainants are not always genuine victims. For while it is probably right that the majority who report rape ordeals to the police have, in fact, been victimised, there is a small but significant proportion who undoubtedly complain falsely and maliciously, occasionally going to cynical lengths to bolster their accounts by, for example, attributing self-inflicted injuries to their alleged attacker. This is reflected in not infrequent reports of prosecutions of false rape complainants for offences of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice when their lies are — often fortuitously — uncovered.
Potential jurors are, thus, apt to be reactive to statements from people in authority — such as the Attorney-General (letter, May 19) — implying that complainants are necessarily “victims”, and to give vent to their scepticism in acquittals that may or may not be merited.
It is, of course, right that efforts should be made to ensure that real victims achieve justice through the conviction of the guilty, but this ambition will not be assisted by pronouncements from those who ought to know better using inappropriate and unhelpful vocabulary when suggesting what needs to be done to improve the conviction rate.
Anthony Heaton-Armstrong
David Wolchover
London WC2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I'm going to have more to say about Baroness Scotland of Asthal in an upcoming post. Her letter to the editor is disgraceful in its disregard of the falsely accused.
What a manhater. She won't be satisfied until all of the liars are believed.
I wonder how many of those convicted men were really innocent.
Break the "gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance".
This Alliance of manufactured statistics is a stain on the American constitution.
And they don't have to convict you to ruin your life, guys. You have few rights in court, and absolutely none in the media and in the job market. To be charged is to be convicted.
It is, of course, right that efforts should be made to ensure that real victims achieve justice through the conviction of the guilty,
That right there says it all, and is exactly what we have been stating here for a long time. Bravo to Messers Anthony Heaton-Armstrong and David Wolchover.
Why do I have a feeling that they may come under scrutiny and attempts to disbar them may occur?
Not if there isn't any evidence.
http://law.wustl.edu/Courses/Rosenbury/Spring2005/flt.syllabus.5.pdf
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/courses/details/426/Feminist%20Legal%20Theory/
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/law.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Et1Xd3H0abcC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=feminist+legal+theory+and+feminist+jurisprudence&source=bl&ots=MyC02c35QM&sig=uywTcQmElHJuy4XNeNSZdCf_2HA&hl=en&ei=LGQWSvXMLZzFtgfk0ISADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-256.html
" Feminists also criticize mainstream jurisprudence as patriarchal. They say that male-dominated legal doctrine defines and protects men, not women. By discounting gender differences, the prevailing conceptions of law perpetuate patriarchal power. Because men have most of the social, economic, and political power, they use the system to subordinate women in the public spheres of politics and economics as well as in the private spheres of family and sex. The language, logic, and structure of the law are male created, which reinforces male values. Most troubling, these concepts and values are presented as and are widely perceived to be both neutral and objective. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Feminist+Jurisprudence
You would think the lack of evidence would be enough to at least suggest the word of the alleged victim would need to be examined and scrutinized but, those who profit from the rape,sexual assault and ,violence against women hysteria ignore this possiblilty.
You legitimize false claims just by allowing the filing of charges without evidence. The standard is "just take the liar's word for it."
"Because men have most of the social, economic, and political power, they use the system to subordinate women in the public spheres of politics and economics as well as in the private spheres of family and sex"
Thirty years ago this was true.
It is now a distant memory, and one that needs to be put to rest.
Women like this won't aknowlege this social shift until THEY have themselves firmly established in the same way as men once were.
When women are fully in charge of politics and the legal system, when 'good old gal' dealings rule the day, and women have finished over taking colleges and are undisputed heads of households - they'll still complain about how their 'foremothers' were subjugated by men.
The deal is, however, unlike men, they can't or won't fully step up to the plate.
When brute force is needed women just don't step up, they step aside.
In times past (not recently, of course) even the most wealthy and powerful men lost their sons to war.
I grew up in a era when most men ruling this country participated in it's defense.
They earned the right.
Since the '80's, when moral panic and witch hunting became all out 'warfare', it seems one pretender after the next has stepped into that leadership role with dubious outcome...Ronald Reagan was never a soldier, he just 'portrayed' one. Clinton at least had the decency to admit he was a draft dodger in an unpopular war. Then came our suited up 'Mission Accomplished' AWOL returnee. Currently the leader of this country is a guy who was in league with anarchists.
In the weeks and months following 9/11, women's shelters were emptied. Child abuser sightings disappeared from the news. Heroes were applauded. Memorials were suggested.
This is awful to repeat, but years ago I speculated this country needed a good strong depression to slap it back into reality, and a big bad war to restore the peace within our gender ranks.
But that's big picture stuff, and we're all just here on the ground fighting at the shadows.
It wasn't true then, either.
Post a Comment