Scotland is currently pushing ahead of Australia in the feminist drive to see more men behind bars but no doubt we will catch up soon.
Their latest plan, announced in a proposed criminal justice bill in April, involves new laws to abolish jury trials in rape cases. Scottish lawmakers believe members of the public can’t be trusted to adjudicate on sexual assault cases because they don’t have the right attitudes.
As Waiton suggests, it’s worth thinking about what a trauma-informed approach to rape trials means in practice.
But enlightened, trauma-informed judges “will recognise this behaviour as evidence of trauma—evidence, that is, that a crime has taken place,” says Waiton.
As he explains, the result is obvious: “And just like that, a less-than-believable ‘victim’ can now be believed.”
It quotes an Air Force Office of Special Investigations assessment dismissing such approaches as based on “flawed science” as well as negative evaluations in journal articles and expert commentary.
Strengthening the Agenda
And the Albanese government is busily pushing it forward.Somehow, a guest speaker has been included in this breast cancer fundraiser who has nothing to do with cancer.
Trish Wyatt is a local woman who describes herself as a “rape victim.”
Yet the man she accused of violent sexual assault was found by a jury last year, after only 30 minutes of deliberation, NOT GUILTY on all charges in the Queensland District Court.
Wyatt, who has published a new book entitled “Don’t Report Rape,” claims that her alleged perpetrator was found not guilty is proof that our justice system simply doesn’t work.
“Our justice system is so flawed and so broken that it provides a legal loophole or get out of jail free card for rapists,” explains Wyatt.
Alleged Incident
Read Wyatt’s account of her ordeal, and there’s only one possible conclusion. The jury simply didn’t believe beyond reasonable doubt that it all happened.Wyatt suggests the reason is simple—they weren’t trauma-informed.
They didn’t realise the behaviour that made her appear less credible or reliable was actually proof that she was traumatised by the rape.
- Making no attempt to leave the unlocked motel room over an eight-hour period, even though the police station was only two minutes down the road.
- Having a shower in the motel room before she left the next morning and kissing her sleeping assailant goodbye before exiting the room. Wyatt claims this trauma-informed “fawn” response aims at keeping the perpetrator on the side to avoid more violence.
- The day after the alleged rape, sending a text message to another man she’d been chatting to online, saying, “Hey, Handsome xxx.”
- Continuing to go out and meet men after the alleged assault. She met her current partner 20 days after the event.
- Stating to the police four days after the event that she was “not even sure a crime had been committed.”
Charging Ahead Without Regard
Make no mistake, the push is on to change the way our justice system deals with sexual assault.The debate taking place in Scotland is based on the assumption that juries are subject to “rape myths,” which Scotland’s top prosecutor, Dorothy Bain KC, describes as “prejudicial and false beliefs about rape that affect their evaluation of the evidence presented at trial.”
Bradford shows Bain is relying on jury studies cooked up by feminist law professor Fiona Leverick based on self-selected volunteers judging pretend rape cases.
Yet definitive research studying real juries was conducted in 2018-19 by Cheryl Thomas, professor of judicial studies at University College London.
This showed hardly any real jurors believe such myths. Most jurors are not influenced by rape myths and are quite capable of proper judgements about guilt or innocence in rape cases.
But just as the Scottish government is choosing to ignore this vital fact, Australian governments are likely to also charge ahead with their goal of ousting juries from rape trials—unless the public makes it very clear this is not on.