You've Come a Long Way, Baby! Not.
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.
On what basis did the city prosecutors determine she had filed a false charge? And on what basis did the judge convict?
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.
Oh well, there were "many inconsistencies in the stories of the four..." Which clearly was sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the case of the three men who were accused of rape. Okay, fine. But somehow not enough to create reasonable doubt in the case of the girl? WTF?
Oh wait. "...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." Well, there you go. If a woman doesn't behave in some predetermined manner after saying she was raped, that can be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she hasn't been raped. Of course, to the person capable of understanding that people don't all behave in similar manners after having had a crime committed against them, that is no such evidence. Sadly though, to far too many people, women must react in a certain way to rape in order to be believed. Reading about things like this just makes me spitting mad.
BTW, here's some information you don't get from the news story. Kevin Hayden of The American Street was at the trial and has known the girl since she was a baby. Here's what the papers don't bother to tell you about the evidence the judge relied on in determining the victim didn't act in the proper manner.
The young woman’s friends were a classmate at high school and her mother. The mother a) has always been seen with an alcoholic beverage or high on prescription pills by all who know her, b) provided the 17-year old with the alcohol she’d had that evening, which she stole from the store she cashiers at and c) was awaiting her boyfriend’s return to her home within two months of the rape. That boyfriend was in prison for molesting his own daughter. That’s hardly a credible witness with any sympathy for victims of sexual assault. But none of this could be introduced into evidence. Only the 17 year old’s sexual history could be exposed.
Additionally, the two ‘friends’ were the ones who convinced the 17 year old that she should report it to the police. So if the young woman is guilty, the instigating accessories to her ‘crime’ are considered credible experts about how a rape victim should act.
So, the two people who testified that she didn't act traumatized were the two people who convinced her to report this to the police. Yet the judge considered their assessment of how traumatized she was to be sufficient evidence to convict the girl of lying to the police? Huh?
And what of the prosecutor? Well, you'll be heartened to know that he believes that "This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes." Riiiggghhht. Because a "legitimate" victim who read about this case wouldn't think "Gee, maybe I didn't act sufficiently traumatized afterwards, so not only won't I be believed, but I might even be charged with filing a false police report." Yeah, that's not a deterrent. Bastard. I really hope that both he and the judge are voted out of office (assuming these are elected positions, not appointed ones). If anyone lives in Oregon and can tell me when the next election will be held and who their opponents will be, I will personally donate money to their opponents' campaigns. In fact, I might just take up a collection on the blog. If they are appointed positions, and the person who appointed them does not remove them from office, I will instead donate money to the campaign of that individual's next opponent.
Via Feministe.