I have handled at least seven rape cases in the past when I was still working in the Public Attorney’s Office. I remember only one conviction in those cases; the others were settled out of court and in two cases, the accused were acquitted.
When I resigned from the PAO in 2005, I promised that I would not take rape cases except if I would be appearing as a private prosecutor. I know how difficult it is to prosecute a rape case. Well, defending persons accused of rape is difficult and is especially very difficult when the victim is a minor.
I do not blame Nicole for entering into an amicable settlement with her abuser. (Anyway, I do not advise my clients, even when I was still in the Public Attorney’s Office, to compromise their cases. To me, you cannot and should not compromise a criminal case. However, as I always say, you cannot dictate to him or her not to accept or enter into a compromise.)
Also, I do not blame her if she executed an affidavit of recantation although the contents of her affidavit are very disappointing. However, I feared that her affidavit, thanks to the publicity that media has extended to her case, would have grave implications to her case and to other rape cases. But of course, a rape victim, or anyone for that matter, has no obligation to the rest of the world—it’s her life and her decision.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is another thing. I detest the manner that the decision was written. Given that there was no evidence to affirm Smith’s conviction, the decision could have been written simply as to limit its implication only to that case.
Just as Nicole’s case was used as propaganda by some people, the decision could also be used to repackage the image of an accused and to shift the blame to the victim. The decision institutionalized “victim-blaming”.
“Romantic episode”—what a phrase! Soon this phrase will find its place in fiscal’s records and court's transcripts and decisions as veritable defense in rape cases. There is no doubt about it—it will be a de facto precedent. Too bad, the Court of Appeals had unintentionally coined an ingenious defense for rapists and would be rapists!
When I resigned from the PAO in 2005, I promised that I would not take rape cases except if I would be appearing as a private prosecutor. I know how difficult it is to prosecute a rape case. Well, defending persons accused of rape is difficult and is especially very difficult when the victim is a minor.
I do not blame Nicole for entering into an amicable settlement with her abuser. (Anyway, I do not advise my clients, even when I was still in the Public Attorney’s Office, to compromise their cases. To me, you cannot and should not compromise a criminal case. However, as I always say, you cannot dictate to him or her not to accept or enter into a compromise.)
Also, I do not blame her if she executed an affidavit of recantation although the contents of her affidavit are very disappointing. However, I feared that her affidavit, thanks to the publicity that media has extended to her case, would have grave implications to her case and to other rape cases. But of course, a rape victim, or anyone for that matter, has no obligation to the rest of the world—it’s her life and her decision.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is another thing. I detest the manner that the decision was written. Given that there was no evidence to affirm Smith’s conviction, the decision could have been written simply as to limit its implication only to that case.
Just as Nicole’s case was used as propaganda by some people, the decision could also be used to repackage the image of an accused and to shift the blame to the victim. The decision institutionalized “victim-blaming”.
“Romantic episode”—what a phrase! Soon this phrase will find its place in fiscal’s records and court's transcripts and decisions as veritable defense in rape cases. There is no doubt about it—it will be a de facto precedent. Too bad, the Court of Appeals had unintentionally coined an ingenious defense for rapists and would be rapists!
No comments:
Post a Comment