Wednesday, March 01, 2006

outrage of the day.

at 7:30 this morning, i opened up the trib's homepage and came across this delightful headline:

Alleged Rape Victim Threatened With Jail

*rubs sleep out of eyes, hits self over head with sledgehammer, reads headline again*

yup, that's what it says. i know the trib is restricted, so here's the gist:

A Naperville woman who on Tuesday refused a judge's order to view a videotape of her alleged rape could be jailed on a contempt of court charge if she does not change her mind Wednesday, and the judge is considering a request to drop sexual assault charges against the Burr Ridge man on trial.

"I am ordering you to answer these questions," Judge Kerry Kennedy told the woman after an hourlong recess to discuss her refusal. "The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"

"Yes," she responded.

"I will give you overnight to think about this," Kennedy said. "Tomorrow, I will ask you again."

The woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party in the Burr Ridge home of Adrian Missbrenner, 20. He was one of four men charged in connection with the incident, and his trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography began Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court in Bridgeview.

obviously, i don't even know where to begin. go check out Scott Lemieux for a qualified legality take. though i don't know the ins and outs of whether this is legal, it is certainly beyond-the-pale despicable. there is question as to whether the sex was "consensual" (isn't there always?), but the accuser says she had been drinking heavily and has no recollection of the incident at all. given that "prosecutors say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen," i feel like the debate about the "consensual" nature of the incident is pretty moot.

and really, what answers could this girl give after viewing a videotape of her own rape that she couldn't give otherwise? what is on the tape that couldn't be described to her? what, for the love of god, is the point?

oh right. brazen intimidation and rank misogyny. we've come a long way, baby.

(thanks to Broadsheet for the Lemieux link)

No comments: