As anyone who knows me will tell you, I'm not generally stuck without an opinion on a subject. I like to think I'm quick to revise that opinion in the face of further evidence, but things just give me a gut feeling and then my mind justifies it.
However when a "well known entertainer" goes on trial for violating a girl under 12 and THIS is all we see of it, I find myself at an impasse.
On the one hand, the "entertainer" is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, a review of 1,955 sexual violation offences involving adults reported to the police between 1 July 2005 and 31 December 2007 concluded that 31% of all reported complaints led to prosecutions and 42% of these prosecutions resulted in a conviction. So the police themselves, having decided that the complaint is real and justified, can't put over half of offenders away because (presumably) the defence lawyers are doing too good a job. Point: not getting convicted definitely doesn't mean the offender was innocent.
On the one hand, I think anyone who sexually abuses anyone, especially a minor, should be named and shamed (and castrated). On the other hand, it is bad enough finding out that a member of your family is a sex offender (trust me, I know) and having the whole community know can obviously hurt innocent family and friends.
On the one hand, a lack of name suppression would have a disastrous affect on the career of this "entertainer" (or anyone else for that matter) which would be unfair if they were in fact innocent. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that a girl under 12 would make up a rape allegation for shits and giggles and, as mentioned before, if the "entertainer" has a good enough lawyer he'll get away scot free and the NZ pubic will continue to support his career unaware that he is a filthy animal who should be desexed if not put down.
On the one hand, it would be unfair to release the name of the accused without also releasing the accusers name, which is a terrible idea anyway, and an especially terrible one given the age of the victim. On the other hand, I think the attitude of the police and the justice system with regards to victims of rape is absolutely disgusting and we need to take away the blame and shame of victims coming forward. (When a friend of mine was raped by two men, the police advised her not to press charges as she would have to relive the experience in about a year once the case made it to trial, and that the defence lawyer would be expected to call into question her sexual history, integrity and actions - to "rip the shit" out of her so as to make her testimony less credible.)
On the one hand, while we all deplore the state of affairs in many other countries, where women are punished for being raped, there is a (granted, insignificant in comparison) echo of such sentiments in the way victims are treated here in Aotearoa, and it makes me sick. On the other hand, I'd be a fool if I didn't conceed that not all rape allegations are honest, and wrongful accusations, especially public ones, can wreak havoc with the lives of the accused and their family.
I like to think that if I was ever raped, I'd have the courage and strength to go through the whole process and see my attacker/s behind bars. I also like to think I'd have the stones to name them publicly and speak out about the attack, to encourage others to come forward and ensure there is no secrecy surrounding the true nature of my attacker/s. Unfortunately we have a terrible attitude in New Zealand to rape allegations and, should I (please god no) find myself in that situation, I don't know if I'd be able to put up with the inevitable attacks I'd recieve from the public.
Point being, I'm arguing with myself because I just don't know how I feel. To put it simply, the part of me which wants all sex offenders to be brutally punished (including their career and reputation) and the part of me that wants to retain a justice system where accused are innocent until proven guilty are at war with eachother.
No comments:
Post a Comment