One case in Thompson, Manitoba is generating a lot of interest. It surrounds a man who was given a conditional sentence (no jail time) despite being found guilty of rape. The judge in the case said the victim was 'inviting' and that 'sex was in the air'. It should be noted the Crown was seeking three years in a federal penitentiary. The woman was dressed in a tube top, no bra, high heels, and plenty of make-up. There are experts that are saying the judge is blaming the victim. True, a woman is not 'asking to be raped' based on her choice of dress. But, a choice of dress does send a message and what was the message here?
According to Winnipeg Free Press Crime Reporter Mike McIntyre, the judge said the woman and her friend made their intentions publicly known they wanted to party. The women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake 'notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit'. The four (the assailant was with another man) left the parking lot and headed into the woods. The accused made sexual advances towards the victim and was rejected at first, but the victim did later return his kisses. Once they were alone, he forced himself on her.
I must say the man is guilty and I don't know what the appropriate penalty should be, but it should be less than if a woman was grabbed randomly off the street and raped by a man.
Here's the link to the story: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html
Another case in Winnipeg doesn't pass the smell test for me. Two police officers were acquitted of perjury when the Crown Prosecutor failed to establish the identity of the two accused. The Defense says it's Prosecution 101. So, was the Crown really that incompetent that he couldn't have asked even one witness to single out the accused in open court? Or, is this a window of opportunity left open, on purpose, for the police officers to be let off the hook. Upon further review of the case, the two officers uncovered a major drug find at a Winnipeg hotel; but they may have made the discovery illegally. It's one of those common sense things whereby I ask the question: 'Did the hotel room have drugs?' The answer was 'yes' and therefore, I'm not really all that concerned with how the police officers were able to get the information. People can talk all they want about 'rights', but I'm not worried about it. If police officers ever wanted to violate my rights to see if I have drugs at my house, then my door is wide open. Most people that complain about rights violations are ones that have something to hide. If police officers showed up once a week for the next month to see if I have drugs, then I think I would be free to prosecute a harassment case. Here's more on this one:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/respecting-the-letter-of-the-law-116801473.html
No comments:
Post a Comment