Categories: uncategorized
Date: 27 March 2007 16:17:42
A woman was raped.
From the news accounts it seems that she was sexually assaulted, repeatedly raped and threatened with violence and blackmail. Usually victims of such crimes are granted anonymity, but in this case the woman's name, age, job, town and even photo were made public. Why? What had she done that made it necessary to release so much information about her?
She was a teacher. That was her crime.
The rapist was a 15-year old pupil at her school and so he remains completely anonymous while she completely lost her privacy, even to the extent of having a video of her being sexually assaulted shown in public. Because of the age of her attacker she was actually in the dock, not him, for "abuse of trust" and having "sexual activity with a child". Well, okay, it is right that the courts considered that possibility. But in considering a possibility you must consider the alternatives. As it is, the jury decided that the sexual activity was not consensual. In which case it was rape, so for public safety I would hope that we will soon see her attacker in the dock himself for a multiple rape charge. In fact, the case need not go to court, of course, because it already has been considered in court and it has been decided by a jury that he is guilty. But things don't work like that, so this poor woman will probably have to go through the whole ordeal again, with that video being shown again, and all the other unpleasantness. Maybe she will be granted anonymity in that second case - what a farce that would be.
I have written before of my faith in our justice system, and how I've been impressed with its workings when viewed close up. And first-hand experience is a much better guide than what is written in the media which is my source for this rant. But even so I am struggling to understand why the judge would not grant her anonymity in what was de facto a rape case.