Justice?

From oregonlive.com:

Judge rules teen filed false report in rape case

Four stories - Teen never recants, and her lawyer says the verdict may stop others from reporting sex crimes
Saturday, December 03, 2005DAVID R. ANDERSON

BEAVERTON -- A municipal judge found a 19-year-old woman guilty Friday of filing a false police report after she said she was raped by three young men.

Even though the woman never said she lied or recanted her story, city prosecutors say they took the unusual step of filing charges against her because of the seriousness of her accusations.

The woman's attorney and advocates for rape victims say the prosecution sets a dangerous precedent and could discourage others from reporting sexual assaults.

"This will have a huge chilling effect on men and women across the board," said Erin Ellis, executive director of the Sexual Assault Resource Center in Washington County. "We're sliding backwards."

After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.

[snip]

The bottom line, Naemura [the assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case] said, is that people can't use the criminal justice system to further their own ends.

This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes, he said.

Ellis of the Sexual Assault Resource Center disagreed. She said this case could make others think twice about reporting sex crimes.

Ellis, who provided peer support for the woman during the trial, said she was especially disturbed by the judge's comments about the woman's believability.

"There's no typical response for a rape survivor," Ellis said.

Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General's Office, said it was rare for alleged sex crime victims to be charged much less convicted of filing a false police report.

"Our concern is always with the underreporting of sexual assaults," he said, "not with false reporting. It's a safe bet that prosecutions for false reporting are rare."

The girl was 17 at the time of the rape. And, I say "rape" because it seems that while the judge found inconsistencies in the stories of all involved, he also based his ruling on the girl not acting "traumatized" enough.

Note that I am not in any way trying to claim here that there are no instances of false claims of rape, I am saying that the prosecutors and the judge in this case far overstepped the evidence in charging and convicting the victim.

Shakespeare's Sister got this story rolling in the blogosphere with this post and by emailing many bloggers on her blog roll (including 2 Political Junkies) on Saturday and followed up with two more posts with comments from rape survivors here and here, many of whom note the ridculousness of trying to determine what what would be seen as a "normal" response vs. the proper "traumatized" response.

Kevin from The American Street apparently has known the girl "since she was a baby" and is justifiably angered at the judges verdict, but one of the best posts I've seen on this subject was in the comments section of his blog from a reader named David:

This case is shocking because the burden of proof in a criminal case is very heavy - to convict the woman, the judge had to conclude that the evidence against her was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable doubt as to guilt. So, he had to find that she was lying and the accused rapists were telling the truth. It would not be enough to think she was “probably” lying, or that she “probably” consented to sex with the men. Yet, based upon what we’ve been told here and elsewhere, the judge apparently only found that there were inconsistencies in her testimony, as there were with the accused rapists’ testiomony. Having practiced law for 18 years, it is very diffult for me to see how the judge could have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under those circumstances.

This is why this is such a troubling case. If the judge was able to conclude that she was lying - beyond a reasonable doubt - simply because of conflicts in testimony, it suggest that he may have been biased in the first instance. And this is the point Kevin and others are raising: that bias against rape victims still persists in our criminal justice system. This particular woman may or may not have been raped, but if a judge can find her guilty so easily, what will happen to truthful victims who turn to a criminal justice system that is biased against them? I thought we had progressed beyond this.

Furthermore, "The Countess" comments at The Heretik that the judge's background is in "intellectual property issues company-wide concerning trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing and sales, antitrust, product liability, warranties, joint ventures, and human resources" which hardly seems to make him an expert on how women and girls "should" act when they've been "traumatized."

"Audrey the phone sex op" over at Pandagon notes just how ugly things can become when one just can't summon tears that others believe are called for on cue:

It's not just rape, either.When I finally, after years of physical abuse at the hands of my parents, came forward to police (after running away and DEMANDING to go to juvenile rather than be returned to my parents), I was told that clearly, I hadn't been abused -- because while I was telling the counselors and such what had happened, I never cried. Clearly, any woman who suffers abuse or rape should be sobbing incoherently the whole time, or else she's a cold, calculating bitch who's doing it to get back at someone she doesn't like.When I was told why they didn't believe me, I started sobbing because I knew it would mean I'd end up returned to my parents -- the one prospect that horrified me beyond any other. The cops looked at each other and smiled. "Yep," the one said. "Seems like she can cry when she gets caught LYING!"

And, MEDIA Girl notes here:

Already, rape is the one violent crime where the victim's testimony is rarely enough to bring about a conviction. Now we have victims risking charges if they don't put on a good show for the D.A.?

Pam from Pam's House Blend adds the following:

And imagine, we recoil in horror at the worldwide atrocity of rape as weapon and instrument of control during wars, but we don't have to look beyond our own borders (or legal system) to see this is a crime that continues to barbarize and intimidate victims who choose to speak out because of ignorance, misogyny or both.

Jesus, one certainly hope that those women and girls acted the "right way." If they didn't, perhaps they can be charged with war crimes.

Maybe what's really amazing in all these posts is that in the relatively smallish number of women who have political blogs a seemingly high percentage of them have survived rape. But maybe that's not really so amazing. When you survive a very ugly act that takes away your control -- your say in what happens to your body -- maybe that politicizes you to want to have a public say. A voice to catalog and comment on the hypocrisies, injustices and general bullshit that goes on.

Well, add me to the list of women bloggers who have been raped. And, I will note that I too felt too numb to cry much at the time and "put on a good show" and probably did not show enough signs of being "traumatized." But, hell, that's sometimes what gets you through it.