What is the value placed on Women worth in the Courtroom?
I've been following some horrible cases in; N.Y., Mass., that one may involve three states (Mass., N.H., and Maine.), and involving some kind of violence against women or girls. And the out comes do not look like justice. A young girl in Albany N.Y. was brutally murdered a few years ago and her body stabbed around twenty times left in a residential area...no witnesses of course but when I visited the place there was a drug look out...Her life had been a living hell put in special ed. Because she was being threatened by gangs and told to leave school and arrive at different times.
The other cases rape and murder victims so ceremoniously left after their killings that one has to gasp. One woman was left three days decomposed after being transferred from Mass. to Maine in a cook's shirt and stuffed in a garbage can, and some of the others where women whose corpses where left barefoot and facing east in Atlantic City, again no one seeing anything...
Now have to ask since rape in this country requires D.N.A. And some of the other victims in the case of the body in the garbage can tried to bring charges against the suspect in this serial rape and murder case and for the most part they failed.
Rapes involves a perfectly good witness who is usually female but do to the fact that the value of your testimony in court is tied to ones income and a women is valued to make less over a life time then a man so our courtroom value is lower then a mans, and thus fewer convictions if the female is the victim and in rape our word so devalued we must be swabbed for D.N.A..
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What are Women worth in Court.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15530
I was in a rush when I wrote this so it may not be easily understood basically your value in a courtroom is based on your income over a life time. And since women still only make something like seventy cents to a man’s dollar our “value” in the courtroom is diminished.
The cases I talked about involve brutal crimes: murder of a young woman where she had been isolated and denigrated to “protect” her resulting in making her an easy target, serial rape and murders happening now across N.E. where the victims who live keep loosing in court and the suspect is drawing very light or no sentences and finally the serial murders in Atlantic City where the victims are left bare foot and facing east over and over in the same ditch.
All the victims are female all are placed in residential areas or dragged away from busy locations some are even “dressed up” and posed and there are no witnesses and no justice.
And in the rape cases it’s the word of the victims against their male attacker and our value is so little that we are swabbed for D.N.A...
If the victims are dead, how are they supposed to testify? Seems DNA is very important there.
D.N.A. is important but the main point is that in a property crime one isn’t expected to spend thousands on a rape kit (And yes you may have to pay for that expensive rape kit your self.), and hours in an emergency room being invasively examined with a fine tooth comb, and rape mostly happens to women and in the court of law your testimony is largely valued based on your profile and a large part of that is your sex and income level.
It is a slap to automatically say to rape victims that your word is not good enough. And in essence this is what happens with the word of rape and of a man against women. And making things worse is the fact that a persons “courtroom value” being based largely on what one is likely to earn over a life time means women can’t for the most part win as most women earn at most three quarters of what a man does. But thank you for your point and not all the victims are dead in the cases I put forward the ones who survived in the serial rape and murder case covering: Mass. ,N.H., and Maine largely had juries acquit the suspect or find him guilty of the least of the crimes or give him light sentences.
One saint who gave D.N.A. and provided testimony was a link to a ten year old case but her own case which provided the D.N.A. for a link to the ten year old case resulted in only a finding of assault against the very same D.N.A. “donor”… the jury found this same suspect not guilty of: rape and attempted murder even with D.N.A. she saw her own case against him go away. This poor women went thru a rape exam provided D.N.A. which linked this one guy to a ten year old case gave testimony but her own rape and attempted murder case brought by Mass. against this man this man whose D.N.A. was found …on her well her case of being a victim of rape and attempted murder was found by a jury to be with out merit.
And yes he is a man and she is a woman and yes he makes more money then she does.
And any D.N.A. in the other cases has so far done nothing. The one in upstate N.Y. should have a huge amount of D.N.A. with twenty stab wounds and a possible admission of guilt but some three years later there is not even a suspect named…victim female suspect male.
And the ones in Atlantic City involving ladies of the evening well...there should be a huge amount of D.N.A. as well...
Either start drinking coffee, or switch to decaf.
So Naught you have no opinion on the subject matter it self. Perhaps you should look at Quick Hit: Military and Mental Health) a question is hypothesized about sexual assault in the military.
The subject matter in general, yes. An incoherent and poorly thought out diatribe on it full of writing that would be unacceptable in middle school, no.
Writer may not be a native English speaker.
"And in the rape cases it’s the word of the victims against their male attacker and our value is so little that we are swabbed for D.N.A..."
I don't understand you. Do you not want forensic evidence used in rape trials? Do you want a conviction or acquittal to be strictly determined by the testimony of the victim (who may not want to testify) vs. the accused (who may take the Fifth?) I think I'm missing your point, because it sounds like you're against gathering potentially conclusive evidence in very serious cases.
Against gathering evidence are you kidding? I’m against the word of women being so down played that there is no question of not having a grueling two hour sexual assault exam where every inch of the victim is gone over while she stands naked for much of it. And where if she doesn’t testify she can be thrown in jail but if she does her history will be torn apart while the perpetrator’s will likely not. Finally the defense lawyer “represents” or stands in for the accused and if the perp. can afford a good one watch out I’d say the court room value of the defendant doubles. It’s the value of the accused against the value of the accuser. And nine out of ten times the woman is the victim and makes less money then the accuser. And most rape cases do not result in a finding of guilty anyway.
I still don't understand what you want. Do you want it to be strictly a matter of competing testimony, and whoever is deemed more believable by the jury wins, without recourse to physical evidence? Or do you want the testimony of the accuser to be sufficient in all cases to win a guilty verdict? Or something else? I can't imagine how awful it must be for one's body to be the crime scene, but I'm not understanding how you want trials conducted without evidence.
In one of the above trials DNA was taken the perp. said the sex was consensual the victim testified it was rape and the attempted murder and rape charges where dismissed .And it so serious that while being on trial for these crimes the perp. was secretly indicted using DNA for a brutal murder from ten years ago where the victim was left tied to a tree.
One’s body isn’t the crime scene but the issue which seems to bother you is that it is being suggested that it’s dehumanizing to put a women through a rape exam which she may have to pay thousands of dollars for herself even when in other criminal cases there is no cost to the victim to gather evidence, then she usually is forced to testify or she can be arrested and finally it may make no difference because rape rarely ends in a conviction for that crime.
If you're addressing me, I am absolutely certain that being examined for a rapist's DNA is extremely dehumanizing. I don't dispute that at all. As for paying for the exam, as far as I know that was a fluke in the freakshow that seems to be Wasilla. I've never heard of it occurring anywhere outside that tiny town, run by Mayor Palin. If it occurs anywhere else, that's an outrage that should be stopped but not relevant to the point that convictions require evidence.
I still don't understand what you want, if you're against rape exams. Do you want it to be strictly a matter of competing testimony, and whoever is deemed more believable by the jury wins, without recourse to physical evidence? Or do you want the testimony of the accuser to be sufficient in all cases to win a guilty verdict? Or something else? I can't imagine how awful it must be for one's body to be the crime scene, but I'm not understanding how you want trials conducted without evidence.
My words have brought movie offers form reputable P.B.S. producers more then you can say I'm sure. Besides I‘d quit the personal attacks they just make you look: ignorant ,irrational and like you might have something in your past to hide.
Huh? I admit I've never been offered a movie by anyone. Now that that's out of the way, what personal attacks?
Alek I think you have another issue the point of my post is that it is de facto that the value placed on women in court is lower than the value placed on men as our court room value is devised largely by what we are projected to earn. The value placed on a human being in the court room was explained to me about twenty years ago by a Harvard trained lawyer also a male I assume like yourself. And if you can’t keep to the topic of “What are women worth in court” don’t write here. “Writer may not be a native English speaker” is a personal attack and so is you’re honing in I assume as pure harassment. And finally I have some training in this area a rape victims body is not a crime scene. If you can’t keep to topic then I will report your post.
There's nothing in the world wrong with not being a native English speaker, how in the world do you take that as a "personal attack?" Over 90% of the human race aren't native English speakers. Naught criticized the quality/clarity of your writing, and I pointed out that English might not be your primary language. If that's the source of "Besides I‘d quit the personal attacks they just make you look: ignorant ,irrational and like you might have something in your past to hide," then by all means report me.
Far from attacking you personally, I've tried to understand what you're saying and what ideas/solutions you are trying to get across.
The point I am making is that until the courtroom value of women goes up all the DNA and testimony in the world will not help in crimes against women and other areas it will take twice the effort to prevail.