Whose injustice?
Although it's a "dissent of the day", and therefore not necessarily something he endorses, I still can't imagine why Andrew Sullivan published the second of these two e-mails.
The case of Genarlow Wilson is an obvious miscarriage of justice; he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, as a 17-year-old, for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old. Wilson was found guilty of aggravated child molestation under Georgia state law (apparently the law already contained an exception for teenagers having vaginal intercourse, but not oral sex). The Georgia state legislature has since closed this loophole, and now the machinery of justice is slowly turning to undo some of the damage. A judge ruled that his sentence be reduced to an amount less than the time already served (3 years) but the state AG has bizarrely appealed the ruling. Hopefully the appeal will not be heard and the judge's decision will be upheld.
Context thus established, let me turn to the e-mail I mentioned. Sullivan's e-mailer claims that this is part of a "much, much bigger problem" that we refuse to see because of social and political pressures. That alleged problem is "The abuse of the sexual assault laws for the purpose of inappropriate retribution". According to the e-mailer, there is an epidemic of women who have their sexual partners unjustly prosecuted for rape after consensual sex, and that this problem necessitates multiple remedies, including
(1) a change in the legal definition of sexual assault,
(2) the ability of defense attorneys to call accusers in rape trials "sluts" in front of the jury ("the admission o[f] relevant information about the participation of the alleged victim" is the e-mailer's euphemism for this),
(3) reduction of sentences for rapists,
(4) and the prosecution of women who fail to prove their allegations (I guess this is what must be meant by "would-be victims who are actually lying are prosecuted," since perjury is already a prosecutable offense).
I won't get into the awfulness of these suggested remedies. I want only to point out that the "problem" is wholly mythical, for all the e-mailer has said. The Wilson case clearly doesn't fit the pattern at all. Wilson was acquitted on the charge of rape (of a different girl, but at the same party). No one denies that he received the oral sex in question; apparently the party was videotaped. Under the previous law, the ages of the participants made it a felony. Obviously it is the law that was in the wrong, and not the girl. It is the state that prosecuted him, and the state that is appealing the reduction in his sentence. Where is the so-called "inappropriate retribution" on the part of the girl?
The e-mailer also appeals to the infamous Duke lacrosse team incident. But I can't see how that supports his case either. It is true that the charges against the lacrosse players did not stick. It may even be (we certainly don't know, however) that this case was an inappropriate attempt at retribution. However, the system worked. No one was punished for anything they did not do. The e-mailer seems to be upset that the accuser is not being prosecuted for perjury, though as far as I know there would be no grounds for that to begin with. Did she ever even testify under oath? The charges were dropped; the case never went to trial.
Is there any evidence at all that there is a big problem with men being wrongfully convicted of rape or sexual assault? Certainly the two cases mentioned by Sullivan's e-mailer do not provide any evidence that there is.
The case of Genarlow Wilson is an obvious miscarriage of justice; he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, as a 17-year-old, for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old. Wilson was found guilty of aggravated child molestation under Georgia state law (apparently the law already contained an exception for teenagers having vaginal intercourse, but not oral sex). The Georgia state legislature has since closed this loophole, and now the machinery of justice is slowly turning to undo some of the damage. A judge ruled that his sentence be reduced to an amount less than the time already served (3 years) but the state AG has bizarrely appealed the ruling. Hopefully the appeal will not be heard and the judge's decision will be upheld.
Context thus established, let me turn to the e-mail I mentioned. Sullivan's e-mailer claims that this is part of a "much, much bigger problem" that we refuse to see because of social and political pressures. That alleged problem is "The abuse of the sexual assault laws for the purpose of inappropriate retribution". According to the e-mailer, there is an epidemic of women who have their sexual partners unjustly prosecuted for rape after consensual sex, and that this problem necessitates multiple remedies, including
(1) a change in the legal definition of sexual assault,
(2) the ability of defense attorneys to call accusers in rape trials "sluts" in front of the jury ("the admission o[f] relevant information about the participation of the alleged victim" is the e-mailer's euphemism for this),
(3) reduction of sentences for rapists,
(4) and the prosecution of women who fail to prove their allegations (I guess this is what must be meant by "would-be victims who are actually lying are prosecuted," since perjury is already a prosecutable offense).
I won't get into the awfulness of these suggested remedies. I want only to point out that the "problem" is wholly mythical, for all the e-mailer has said. The Wilson case clearly doesn't fit the pattern at all. Wilson was acquitted on the charge of rape (of a different girl, but at the same party). No one denies that he received the oral sex in question; apparently the party was videotaped. Under the previous law, the ages of the participants made it a felony. Obviously it is the law that was in the wrong, and not the girl. It is the state that prosecuted him, and the state that is appealing the reduction in his sentence. Where is the so-called "inappropriate retribution" on the part of the girl?
The e-mailer also appeals to the infamous Duke lacrosse team incident. But I can't see how that supports his case either. It is true that the charges against the lacrosse players did not stick. It may even be (we certainly don't know, however) that this case was an inappropriate attempt at retribution. However, the system worked. No one was punished for anything they did not do. The e-mailer seems to be upset that the accuser is not being prosecuted for perjury, though as far as I know there would be no grounds for that to begin with. Did she ever even testify under oath? The charges were dropped; the case never went to trial.
Is there any evidence at all that there is a big problem with men being wrongfully convicted of rape or sexual assault? Certainly the two cases mentioned by Sullivan's e-mailer do not provide any evidence that there is.
posted by gregates at 1:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home