Sponsor me in the 2005 MS Walk! Why? Read here.
So I sent out an email to many of my friends this morning, listing off the statistics I published up here yesterday. I did this for a couple reasons; one, I thought that if I was surprised by the numbers we learned, they would be also, and two, I thought it would give everyone a better understanding of what I�m learning and why I think it�s so important.
My friend Heather read the email and then sent this message out to everyone who had received my original email:
�I'm not sure if you'll be covering this in training, or if anyone out there has legal experience - but I'm asking anyway...
�The stat here that shocked me the most was the 2% conviction rate. Now, rapists can't be punished if no one reports the crime...but considering how low the conviction rate it, it doesn't surprise me that only 5 - 20% of victims report rape. I mean, why bother if the rapist is just going to go free - isn't that what the system is really telling us?
�Does anyone know why the conviction rate is so low? I'm thinking some of it might have to do with evidence (meaning, not all victims report the crime right away - making physical evidence more difficult)
�...maybe because husbands/boyfriends that rape aren't reported/convicted, etc.?...maybe a thousand reasons?
�Anyone out there have data/experience on how the legal system deals with rape cases?�
This was my answer to her:
�It's a good question. I'll bring it with me tonight.
�My feeling is that it's all a vicious cycle. Most people look at sex crimes and see only the SEX part of it. They see rape as being about men wanting--and taking--sex. Which puts the onus on the victim. �Sure, she said no, but she was dressed like she wanted sex. She let him buy her drinks. She invited him up to her apartment. She was out walking around Jamaica Pond by herself at night, knowing it's a dangerous place to be. She has sex with all sorts of people. She�s not that attractive--she should be glad for what she can get.�
�The thing is, rape isn't about sex. It's about subjugation and power and control.
��What I was saying, what I am learning, about the myths surrounding rape is that most people are woefully mis- and/or under informed. We believe as a society that rapists are a certain type of man, that rape victims are a certain type of woman. We believe that what happened to Melissa, or what happened in the highly publicized Central Park jogger case in the 80's is the rule, when in fact the stranger attacking the a stranger is more the exception. People don't believe that a husband can rape a wife, or that a drunk girl at a party didn't give indication to the her attacker that she "wanted it". Because we believe as a society that these attacks are so much less common, when a woman (or a man) is attacked by someone who isn't a stranger, the shame is doubled. She keeps it to herself. The cases we hear about are the ones where a girl is kidnapped and raped by a stranger, or a woman is attacked in a dark area and raped with a weapon at her throat. This perpetuates the collective belief that women are not attacked by men they know, which does two things--one, it keeps more women from reporting the crimes committed against them, and two, it makes it harder to convict the few men who are turned in.
�And forget about the MEN--what man reports a rape? The shame involved in that--at becoming victim to another man in a sexual way? One of the statistics that surprised me the most was the fact that men are raped by an equal ratio of homosexual and heterosexual men. A heterosexual man raping another heterosexual man--if that isn't evidence that rape isn't about sex but about power and control, I don't know what is. But people don't talk about it. So it goes on like it never happens.
�That's why I feel so strongly about doing what I'm doing, and why I shared those statistics with all of you. If more people understood the facts, I believe that reporting rate would be higher than 5-20%, and the conviction rate would be MUCH higher than 2%. I feel like it's worth working for.�
I have my second training session tonight. I plan to present Heather�s question to the group. It will be interesting to hear how the answer I get from them differs from the answer I�ve already given.
So�
Anyway�
Jury duty�
I�m back at work today, having done my civic duty. Massachusetts has a �One Day/One Trial� system. This means that you will either serve for one day if you are not picked for a jury, or for the duration of one trial if you are impaneled. Yesterday was my fourth trip to the courts, but the first time I�ve actually served as a juror.
My case was a juvenile case. A 14-year-old boy charged with shoplifting and larceny. He and his brother (who is over 18 and was tried separately) were arrested for attempting to steal about two thousand dollars worth of stuff from BJ�s two days before Christmas.
I learned yesterday that a shoplifting offense becomes a crime as soon as the perpetrator takes possession of the item with intent to conceal it, while larceny does not become a crime necessarily until the perpetrator leaves the store with the item.
The assistant DA prosecuting the case was a brand new lawyer�this was his first time in front of a jury. He didn�t look much older than the defendant. The defense attorney was slow. She would start a sentence and the judge would eventually finish it, just to keep things moving.
We were impaneled and received instruction from the judge. The asst. DA called three witnesses�-the police officer called to the scene and two of the store detectives�loss prevention agents. Then we broke for lunch.
After lunch, we returned to the jury room and waited. And waited. And waited. About 45 minutes later, the judge came in and explained that the defendant had agreed to plead delinquent (in a juvenile trial, they�re delinquent, not guilty) to the shoplifting charge and the State would drop the larceny charge. Had we been given the chance to deliberate, I�m fairly certain we�d have come to the same conclusion.
The judge found for a continuance without decision. If the defendant met the judge�s conditions and stayed clean for a certain amount of time, the charges would disappear from his record.
The kid looked so scared and so young. I hope this was his one court appearance. I�d like to believe it �scared him straight.� I guess I�ll never know.
I ate with two of the other jurors. Both are stay-at-home moms with self-employed husbands. One I really liked, and would probably be friends with in a different situation. The other one I happily said goodbye to at the end of the day.
Some people just rub me the wrong way.
I�m glad I didn�t have to carry on a thoughtful and important conversation about anyone�s future with her. I�m not certain she was capable.
Mostly, I enjoyed the experience, though. Democracy in action is a pretty cool thing.
---------------------------------------------
Something to say about this entry?
Add your comments here (0 people have spoken already)
< staggering statistics | Holding Accountable >
