dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/01/83)
>>>From: saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) >>>For the last three days I have been hearing about a very disturbing >>>case: a woman claimed that she had been raped by two men, but later >>>refused to testify against them in court because she feared for her >>>life. >>>Consequently, she has been put in jail for seven days, and the accused >>>rapists left free. >>> >>>Does anybody know anymore about this than me? >>>Was it the women who originally laid the charges against the men or >>>were they laid for her by someone else (doctor, police)? >>>Which guarantees to her security were offered to her at the times >>>when the charges were being laid and afterwards, when she decided >>>not to testify? >>> >>>I find this event profoundly disturbing, because I think it might set >>>a precedent, and make women even more reluctant to lay charges for >>>rape. Not to mention the fact that not only has the poor women been >>>raped by two men, but to punish her for being scared, she gets sent to >>>jail and her attackers left free. From what I have read, the facts aren't quite as clear as you imply. One report states that the "threats" the woman alleged she had received were not explicit (they consisted of someone calling her and hanging up without speaking), that her mother claimed she had made unfounded accusations in the past, and that she had refused an offer of police protection. I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether a rape occurred or not. That is what the court is there for. What I find profoundly disturbing is the assumption you make that the woman was in fact raped. (See your last paragraph, "...not only has the poor woman been raped...") Unfortunately, unless she is able to testify against the accused, that statement can't be supported. The matter has been brought up in the Ontario Legislature. The provincial Attorney-General, Roy McMurtry, has stated that it is not the government's function to intervene in court matters. At any rate, the judge's point is that however unfortunate it may be for this witness, allowing such excuses for not testifying would be far worse as a precedent for society. As to charges, I believe such charges are in practise always laid by the police, upon a complaint made by the alleged victim. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/02/83)
I don't think the facts of this case matter (except to the people
directly concerned). What matters is that the woman is perceived
as a martyr to unfeeling justice and incompetent police, and therefore
other women might well avoid reporting rape. It is quite possible
that the full facts would support the justice of the sentence and
the competence of the police, but that wouldn't change the situation
at all.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtdave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/02/83)
>>>From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) >>>I don't think the facts of this case matter (except to the people >>>directly concerned). What matters is that the woman is perceived >>>as a martyr to unfeeling justice and incompetent police, and therefore >>>other women might well avoid reporting rape. I agree. But it is also possible (and this was the judge's concern) that rapists and other criminals may perceive certain advantages in threatening their criminals in order to have charges withdrawn. The issue is not an easy one to deal with. According to this afternoon's Toronto Star, the Ontario legislature will probably hold an emergency debate on the matter, although the Attorney-General has continued to point out that the government has no jurisdiction in the case anyway. (The woman involved has not appealed the sentence of one week for contempt of court.) Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/02/83)
I do agree that we do not know whether or not a rape occured and that the only people who do know are the three people involved in this affair, but I also agree with the last person's comment that this is not very important for the public's perception of the whole affair, and that this woman will be seen as a martyr, and that her case will stay in the mind of many raped women when they decide whether or not to report a rape. Therefore, I still find this case profoundly disturbing for the repercussions it will have on all women across canada. The reasons why I have assumed that a rape did happen are the following: 1- statistical: I have read in a rape handbook (sorry, i don't have the reference) that false accusations of rape occur at about the same rate as false accusations of any other crime, which is somewhere around 5% if I remember well. Now "false accusations of rape" are actually more acurately called decisions by the courts that the accusations were false, due to not enough evidence. This can happen very easily because if there are no witnesses, it is one person's word against another, and if the rape was done without any bodily harm to the woman, and if the woman's first reaction after the rape was not to go to a doctor as you are told to, but rather to go home and go take a shower to cleanse herself, then all the evidence is gone. I would imagine that after having been raped, a person would be in a state of shock, and might not do all that should be done to collect evidence, and might not even think that there is something she can do against the person who raped her, or who might simply not be sure as to whether she was actually guilty of tempting the man and "got what she asked for" and so on. The anger and desire for revenge might not come straight away either, so she might originally decide not to do anything and then change her mind once she's gotten a better grip of herself, at which time it is too late to collect evidence. This is my view of what really happens in most "false accusations of rape". I do not have any statistics to support this view, and I am sure there aren't any available anyway. 2- Assuming that a "false accusation of rape" is actually a false accusation, then one must wonder about the motives behind such an accusation. The most obvious one is slander. Rape being viewed the way it is now in society, the slanderess must realise that by doing so, she will end up as a "slandered" along with the man she accuses, so I would imagine that once a woman has decided that this is the course she will follow to ruin a man's reputation and get him thrown in prison, she knows pretty well about the risks involved in doing such a thing, has accepted those risks and will not change her mind in the middle of the process. 3- She accused two men of having raped her. If they did not rape her, she knows it will be two words against one in courts, and if she doesn't have any proof of the rape, then she knows pretty well, that her chances of winning are not that high. I think that a woman intelligent enough to go through the whole acting needed to get one person falsely accused of rape would be intelligent enough to realise that accusing TWO men without proof is just suicide. Surely, there must be better ways of getting rid of them or ruining them if this is what she wants to do! 4- Another thing that could have happened is that she thinks she has been raped while the men think they were just having a good time and she was playing hard to get. Well to me that's rape. It cannot be proved in the courts, but I consider it rape. These are the reasons why I assumed she had been raped, in my own definition of rape, which might not be the same as the court's definition. I am not saying either that the court's definition should be the same as mine, even though I would like it to be; I am just explaining why I considered that a rape has happened. Now, I would like to ask a legal question. I also found out during this case, that the (alleged) victim of a raped has to testify against her (alleged) assailants, not as a victim, but as a witness. Is this the same in cases of assault, or theft? Is there a distinction between victims and witnesses in the criminal code of canada, or are all victims considered witnesses or are there just some victims considered witnesses? If victims and witnesses are different, then what are provisions for their security are they entitled to, depending on what they are classified as?
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/02/83)
Sophie, if you have read that "false accusations of rape" consist of 5% of such accusations, I would think that that's just what it means. When the court acquits an accused, it is *not* deciding "that the accusations were false". It (or the jury) is determining that the accused cannot be proven guilty *beyond a reasonable doubt* and *upon sufficient legal evidence*. An acquittal should carry no implication that the complainant was lying. >>>From: saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) >>>Now, I would like to ask a legal question. I also found out during this case, >>>that the (alleged) victim of a raped has to testify against her (alleged) >>>assailants, not as a victim, but as a witness. Is this the same in cases of >>>assault, or theft? Is there a distinction between victims and witnesses in >>>the criminal code of canada, or are all victims considered witnesses or are >>>there just some victims considered witnesses? >>>If victims and witnesses are different, then what are provisions for their >>>security are they entitled to, depending on what they are classified as? There is no such thing as a "victim" in terms of the Criminal Code. A witness who is called to give evidence in court has the same legal status whether he or she was a victim, a bystander or even another accused. As far as I know, security arrangements are informal arrangements with the police force and perhaps the Crown Attorney (==public prosecutor). There are provisions for compelling attendance of reluctant witnesses, but as far as I know nothing in the Code about security for witnesses. The federal Departmen of Justice has been considering amendments to the Code which would permit "victims" to make a statement to the court before sentencing. This would be the first legal recognition of the existence of victims. In rape cases, there is a limitation on asking questions as to the sexual conduct of the "complainant", which is defined as "the person against whom it is alleged that the offense was committed". I don't practise criminal law, so I could be mistaken about any of the above. (I'm also using an old copy of the Criminal Code.) Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/03/83)
Your argument about "nobody going to the trouble of going to court and dragging themselves through the mud" may not hold for precisely the sort of person who would do such a thing. There are always people who "consider their lives ruined" and really want to get back at a person. They do not feel that they can be dragged down any lower. I remember reading about a women who decided to charge her divorced husband with rape for this reason. Unfortunately for her (though fortunately for him) he was at a friend's wedding at the time that the rape was alledged to occur, and so had *lots* of witnesses. At the time it was not clear whether the alledged victim really believed the rape had taken place or believed that it *hadn't* and was well aware that she was lying. Either way, it could have been very messy for the person accused. I also know of one case where a woman who was raped was prepared to swear on anything that you care to name that a person in a police lineup was definitely, and without a question of a doubt the person who raped her. The problem was that he was an undercover policeman who was definitely not the rapist. This is not surprising, given that if you read police reports of any accident you will find huge discrepancies on simple things like "what colour was the car" "was it a station wagon, a 2-door, or a 4-door" and "was the man or the lady driving". Suppose you do not have any idea that being raped is something to be ashamed for, but you want to milk it for all the sympathy you can get. Or suppose that you don't think that it is shameful and you really want to hurt someone. Win or lose, if *you* don't feel that you have something to lose it will have terrific effect. there are people who will look at anyone charged with rape as a rapist even if he is found not guilty. So, until the whole story comes out it is not a good idea to assume that it is a case of the woman being threatened. Remember that if the man charged did *NOT* rape her, then this is a good thing -- unless people start spreading rumours that he *did* and he threatened her... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (12/03/83)
I have very mixed feelings about this issue:
a) I agree with Sophie that the woman was probably raped, and putting her
in jail for a weeks seems like adding insult to injury.
b) If witnesses regularly are allowed to withdraw willingness to testify,
criminals will obviously be encouraged to imtimidate victims or other
witnesses even more than at present.
These are complicated further by:
c) The attorney-general says that a variety of offers were made to the
woman; including: change of ID, extra police protection, assistance
in relocating, assistance in appealing the contempt-of-court charge
that put her in jail. She apparently refused all attempts (I wouldn't
want to change my ID or relocate, but extra protection would seem ok),
and wanted round-the-clock police car outside the front door, ready to
escort her, her mother, or her sister anywhere they wanted to go for
20 YEARS! This women was obviously VERY SCARED, or crazy.
As an interesting sidelight, a woman in Quebec was allowed to not testify,
not because of fear of the rapist, but because she was afraid of the
(presumably personal - not violent) repercussions of her boyfriend finding
out she had been raped. Although I realize this is not uncommon, I can't
believe how any man could feel anything more negative than sympathy when
a woman (particularly one close to him) suffers such a personal affront.
--
-- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{utzoo,linus,cornell,watmath,ihnp4,allegra,floyd,decwrl,
decvax,uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!masondave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/04/83)
>> From: mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) >> As an interesting sidelight, a woman in Quebec was allowed to not testify, >> not because of fear of the rapist, but because she was afraid of the >> (presumably personal - not violent) repercussions of her boyfriend finding >> out she had been raped. Actually, I believe the woman was not forced to come to court, which technically is somewhat different from being in court and refusing to testify. The latter is contempt of court. Not that it makes much difference to the point being made. Dave Sherman -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave