Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Mother Defends Actions That Led To Alleged Victim Needing Surgery

From WLKY:

The affidavit said a witness at the bar "saw three subjects he knows leaving the bar with the victim," and later he identified the three men as the suspects.

NewsChannel 32 spoke to the mother of Hendricks and Price. She said her sons are innocent and the acts were consensual.

But according to the affidavit, the victim "...was compelled by the imminent threat of deadly force" which resulted in serious bodily injuries -- injuries that required her to have surgery at Floyd Memorial Hospital.

This mother's defense confirms that the prosecutors have the right 3 men. Otherwise her defense of her sons would not be: "It was consensual."

The flaw in this defense is that even if the interaction between these 3 men and this woman began as consensual once the level of physical contact rose to physical harm those causing the harm had the legal duty to stop. It doesn't matter if the person being harmed doesn't say "stop" for whatever reason. Fear and compliance are normal when those who seemed trustworthy turn brutal.

If injury requiring surgery is what happened when this woman complied, I don't want to imagine what could have been done to her if she risked facing these men's anger by asking them to stop.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to be against sexual violence are not truly against sexual violence. Instead they want to regulate who you can rape and when. Here's a quote from a Washington Post article on Britain's low conviction rate for rape cases:

Kerim Fuad, a barrister who has defended more than 100 men accused of rape, including the defendant in the Davies case, said most of the time the defendant and the accuser know each other and the jury must decide whom to believe.

A woman always has a right to say no, he said, but when she goes into a man's bedroom late at night after they have both been drinking, juries may have a hard time voting to send a man to prison.

The problem with the type of jurors who would use a judgment of a woman's behavior to excuse rape is that they are supporting the alleged violence of these 3 men whose actions led to a woman needing surgery.

Once they are alone with a woman, she's fair game and no additional consent is required no matter what they want to do to her. The enforcement of the law -- in Britain and in the US -- told them so.

Men's violence and their decision to rape should never become irrelevant because of snap judgments about women's legal and non-violent behavior. Yet a violent man who chooses to break the law often gets viewed more sympathetically than a non-violent woman who was raped.



This warped thinking needs to be called out for what it is. Support for rape if the rapist can appear trustworthy to his victim or successfully bully his victim into a position where many people won't care if she is raped --a victim who is less gullible than those who support the rapist.

The jury after all has more information than the rape victim had prior to rape since they know what he did once the girl or woman agreed to be alone with him or found herself alone with him.

Technorati tags:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 8:21 AM   1 comments links to this post


At June 06, 2008 11:53 PM, Blogger isabella mori said...

if we used the same rationale, then anyone walking the streets of (insert your favourite US city here) "asked for it" when they get mugged. serves them right, huh? let's just let the mugger go. it was one of those, you know, "consensual muggings".


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home