Unacceptable inference
What made me write this letter was a barrage of negative comments directed at defence lawyers after what happened in a court case some time ago where a female victim was forced into a van and sexually assaulted on the way home.
Despite the fact that the victim sounded traumatised as she repeated her side of events, the defence not only continuously asked her why she did not escape from the van, even though she repeatedly said that she froze and that one would need to be in the situation to know what was going through her head, but the (male) defence lawyer even more odiously asked her what she was wearing and queried whether her leggings were tight.
Many infer women’s intent and attitude based on their clothes. Photo: Shutterstock.comToo often, the police, lawyers for defendants and judges question the victim of rape about what she was wearing and use the length of her dress as an indicator of consent.
The belief that clothing can indicate consent to sexual assault or can invite sexual harassment stems from the empirically proven fact that most people infer the intent and attitude of others based on their clothes. Because those inferences are often inaccurate, clothing can hardly be probative or relevant evidence of the intent or attitude of the wearer.
Furthermore, the widespread misinterpretation of clothing strongly suggests that introducing it to show intent or attitude will likely be prejudicial.
For these reasons, I think clothing should be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution if offered to show the complainant’s attitude or intent.
Because general societal attitudes are reflected in our judicial system, judges and magistrates are likely to believe and act on the belief that a woman can contribute to her victimisation by the way she dresses. Because such inferences have been shown to be inaccurate and because judicial officers are likely to make them, the law needs to prevent that evidence from reaching the jury. By barring such evidence, the law will assure that no one will make the inaccurate inferences and assumptions about a victim’s manner of dress that people are likely to make.
Victims in these types of trials often describe it as like another rape or sexual assault because of the kind of questions they are asked and the sort of details they are required to answer about their appearance, their behaviour and their past experiences.
Today, I have come to understand and believe that rape is never the victim’s fault. The only one responsible is the rapist.
Mark Said – Msida
A cable car or a monorail
My Maltese-born and bred husband and I are discussing the traffic problem in Malta.
With Malta being such a small island, built on rock and as most of the major ‘get to’ places are on the coast, I wondered why a coastline, suspended cable car system or a monorail system could not be installed... like they have in theme parks, etc.
I can actually picture it in my mind. It would be a beautiful scenic ride and a very profitable tourist attraction, also, hopefully, taking locals out of their cars and buses to commute to and from work or to shop.
My husband says there must be a valid reason why this is not an option, but cannot explain why? Is there somebody who can?
I am only a Scottish housewife who has visited Malta many, many times and there may be a very obvious answer to why this would not be viable but I really cannot understand why. Can someone please explain?