Sensitive questions about assault crimes

[eliza61]

First, let me say, I am in no way trying to defend anyone who has committed this crime nor blame the victims. By the grace of God I have not been a crime victim and can only imagine the horror the victim and their loved ones must go through.

I intentionally left the title very vague as so not to offend.

I've been reading about the rape charges against the head of the IMF and I was wondering, why do you think some victims wait so long to report the crimes? Is it a feeling of powerlessness?

Once again let me apologize if this brings up painful memories for anyone.

 

[Jennasis]

Fear? Fear of not being believed. Fear of repercussions. Fear of being treated like you are "damaged".

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I never reported the crimes I endured for those reasons.

 

[RayaniFoxmur]

Fear? Fear of not being believed. Fear of repercussions. Fear of being treated like you are "damaged".

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I never reported the crimes I endured for those reasons.

Fear is a big part of it I think.

Another reason is self blame for many. You grow to believe that you caused it, or you deserved it. And our victim blaming society doesn't help that at all. So you don't report it because you truly begin to believe it's your fault.

Of course this isn't everyone, but it was my experience as well as many others I have talked to.

 

[NaLisa]

It's my understanding that the woman in the Strauss-Kahn case reported the attack immediately.

Or are you talking about in general? Aside from the reasons mentioned above--immigrants fear deportation and thus often do not report crimes; teenagers may fear the wrath of their parents if they were somewhere or with someone they were not supposed to be; or if it's a friend or family member who committed the crime, the victim may fear the heartache and pain that the revelation could inflict on their loved ones.

 

[Jeniferdwn]

Embarrassment that it happened to you.

Fear of being labeled a troublemaker for getting another coworker in trouble.

Not wanting to go through everything you know will have to go on after you tell. like telling what happened over and over and over again.

 

[sparklynails23]

You convince yourself it's over, it's no big deal, it won't do any good to pursue it/keep thinking about it.

Initially, when I heard about the one case, I wondered if it wasn't a set up, like Julian Assange, but this guy seems to have more of a history of this stuff.

 

[eliza61]

It's my understanding that the woman in the Strauss-Kahn case reported the attack immediately.

Or are you talking about in general? Aside from the reasons mentioned above--immigrants fear deportation and thus often do not report crimes; teenagers may fear the wrath of their parents if they were somewhere or with someone they were not supposed to be; or if it's a friend or family member who committed the crime, the victim may fear the heartache and pain that the revelation could inflict on their loved ones.

A bit of both. Another victim of the IMF case (don't know what last names belong to the man) has come forward from 2002 and I was wondering why she waited 9 years.

 

[horseshowmom]

It's my understanding that the woman in the Strauss-Kahn case reported the attack immediately.

Or are you talking about in general? Aside from the reasons mentioned above--immigrants fear deportation and thus often do not report crimes; teenagers may fear the wrath of their parents if they were somewhere or with someone they were not supposed to be; or if it's a friend or family member who committed the crime, the victim may fear the heartache and pain that the revelation could inflict on their loved ones.

There has been at least one more that has come forward that didn't.

I agree with the others. As someone who was victimized, there are many reasons that people don't say anything (many already mentioned here). I think sometimes we naively believe that they're only going to victimize us - not anybody else. Sadly, that's generally not the case.

In my case, it was years before I ever said anything. I think the pressure kept building over the years until it had to come out. I did think I was the only one. I have since found out that was not the case.

 

[cglaura]

Fear. It took me 25 years to tell anyone, and that was only b/c I found out the guy had died.

I was only 10 at the time though, so different scenario.

I now live with the guilt that he may have done it to others, and had I told he might not of. But I have to forgive my 10 year old self for that.

 

[ols386]

It's my understanding that the woman in the Strauss-Kahn case reported the attack immediately.
Or are you talking about in general? Aside from the reasons mentioned above--immigrants fear deportation and thus often do not report crimes; teenagers may fear the wrath of their parents if they were somewhere or with someone they were not supposed to be; or if it's a friend or family member who committed the crime, the victim may fear the heartache and pain that the revelation could inflict on their loved ones.

That's what I thought, as well.


I would think that maybe embarrassment might be one of the reasons for not reporting it right away. I've never been in a situation like that, but just thinking about it myself, I would probably feel embarrassed, even though I hadn't done anything to cause it.

Problem with waiting for a period of time before reporting, it would be harder to have evidence to convict the person who did it.

 

[NaLisa]

A bit of both. Another victim of the IMF case (don't know what last names belong to the man) has come forward from 2002 and I was wondering why she waited 9 years.

Oh, I haven't heard about that. I can think of lots of reasons why a past victim would only come forward after her attacker was behind bars and once she knew that she wasn't alone in being victimized.

This was pretty frequent in the priest sex-abuse scandals. Once the first person came forward--even if it was many, many years later--the other victims finally felt like they could/had to speak out against the person who abused them. I'm sure many more never said anything.

 

[NotUrsula]

In the Strauss-Kahn case, we know exactly why: her mother told her not to.

The 2002 victim was a young political journalist in her first job, and her mother was (and is) a seasoned French politician. The mother has been quoted as saying that she advised her daughter not to report it because she thought it would stunt her career as a journalist. (What politician would agree to speak to an unknown young reporter in confidence if that reporter had a track record of accusing a politician of assault in similar circumstances? And especially if that reporter's mother happened to be a member of the opposition party?) Now, 9 years later, the reporter is well-respected enough that her career and reputation can withstand the backlash.

And backlash there DEFINITELY is. If you read French newspapers they are appalled that "perp-walk" photographs of a heretofore respected public official are being shown uncensored. (In France such news photos are now permitted only AFTER the person has been tried and convicted.) European press sources today all have long articles explaining how the US justice system handles rape accusations: in light of his position they are shocked at how little deference Strauss-Kahn is being shown. The general consensus seems to be that this is payback over the French government's refusal to extradite Roman Polanski.

 

[NaLisa]

In the Strauss-Kahn case, we know exactly why: her mother told her not to.

The 2002 victim was a young political journalist in her first job, and her mother was (and is) a seasoned French politician. The mother has been quoted as saying that she advised her daughter not to report it because she thought it would stunt her career as a journalist. (What politician would agree to speak to an unknown young reporter in confidence if that reporter had a track record of accusing a politician of assault in similar circumstances? And especially if that reporter's mother happened to be a member of the opposition party?) Now, 9 years later, the reporter is well-respected enough that her career and reputation can withstand the backlash.

And backlash there DEFINITELY is. If you read French newspapers they are appalled that "perp-walk" photographs of a heretofore respected public official are being shown uncensored. (In France such news photos are now permitted only AFTER the person has been tried and convicted.) European press sources today all have long articles explaining how the US justice system handles rape accusations: in light of his position they are shocked at how little deference Strauss-Kahn is being shown. The general consensus seems to be that this is payback over the French government's refusal to extradite Roman Polanski.

Wow, thanks for all that great info. My initial thoughts are:

1. What kind of mother tells her daughter not to report a sexual assault in favor of career?

2. I understand the reasoning behind not showing the accused in handcuffs, as it is prejudicial. We allow criminal defendants to wear non-prison clothing during trial so as not to influence the jury based on appearance.

3. It's almost laughable that the French view this as retribution for not extraditing Polanski, except unfortunately they obviously truly believe that.

 

[cabanafrau]

Many victims do not report because they want to "put the incident away". It's a self-defense mechanism.

 

[Acklander]

Not even a month ago, there was a thread on the disboards about the Canadian cop who made the comment about how a woman dresses leaves her vulnerable to attact. Several dissers understood that line of thinking. That's a dangerous message to send to women.
I"m sure there's many different reasons why a vicitm doesn't feel comfortable reporting an attack right away - shame is a big reason, and the feeling that she/he somehow brought the attack upon him/herself. As a matter of fact many abusers will take advantage of a victim's guilt in making that person feel as if it was his/her fault.

 

[Handbag Lady]

Many victims do not report because they want to "put the incident away". It's a self-defense mechanism.

It is this but before this cames shame. And then, embarrassment. The final nail is that no one believes you the first time you tell someone.

 

[NatashaDisneyCM]

she reported right away, but, it is something very hard to do. First feeling is one of shame, or guilt, and then the fear of revenge if you do report it.
There is also harassment from the defendant, death threats, which it does happen, believe me!

Being afraid that no one will believe you, and that your whole life is and will be under a microscope.

I did finally file a report. It took me a week. But with that said, it has since been dropped due to his family making death threats that I just could not prove, and he works within the local police department. So it all depends on the situation.
It sucks and it is not right someone has the power to get away with things like this.

It is something I have to live with day in and day out...sometimes I wish I did not report it due to the backlash I get from his family.
so it just is not that easy.
2007 and I still have extreme flashbacks. So yes, trying to pretend like it did not happen is something that is done, but it never works.

 

[nathalee81]

Thank goodness this is something I have never experienced (although I have had some close friends that have gone through this).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine that most women don't really like the thought of being victimized all over again by our legal system.

First you are sexually assaulted, then you have an invasive exam and then you have to go to court and face your attacker while their lawyer tries to slander your character.

It is my understanding that a victim's sexual history can be brought up in court? Or am I wrong about this?

I don't believe this is allowed in European courts, but I could be mistaken.

Once again, I have never been through this, so I can only surmise that this is one of the reasons why sexual assault is under reported.

 

[NotUrsula]

1. What kind of mother tells her daughter not to report a sexual assault in favor of career?

A practical French mother who knows her way around the French courts and the French media. It was nearly 10 years ago, and at that time in France she knew that the accusation would most likely not be believed, let alone prosecuted. What's the point of putting your career on the line if you know there isn't a snowball's chance that the accused will be convicted? Here, just accusing a politician of something like that is usually enough to ruin him, but in France in 2002? Not at all the same. SHE would have been the one on trial, and her mother knew it. (The account I read quoted the journalist as saying that he agreed to interview her at a location of his choosing, that turned out to be an apartment that contained only a couple of chairs, a bed and a video camera on a tripod. She voluntarily stayed and tried to do the interview anyway. A French court would probably have considered that to be implied consent.)

3. It's almost laughable that the French view this as retribution for not extraditing Polanski, except unfortunately they obviously truly believe that.

The French are not the only ones. American journalists are saying it, too. This man is a LOT more important and powerful than Roman Polanski. Most believe that the judge considered the Polanski situation when he chose to deny bail. The man is too famous to easily hide; it isn't that they think that they wouldn't be able to find him if he ran.

 

[NaLisa]

A practical French mother who knows her way around the French courts and the French media. It was nearly 10 years ago, and at that time in France she knew that the accusation would most likely not be believed, let alone prosecuted. What's the point of putting your career on the line if you know there isn't a snowball's chance that the accused will be convicted? Here, just accusing a politician of something like that is usually enough to ruin him, but in France in 2002? Not at all the same. SHE would have been the one on trial, and her mother knew it. (The account I read quoted the journalist as saying that he agreed to interview her at a location of his choosing, that turned out to be an apartment that contained only a couple of chairs, a bed and a video camera on a tripod. She voluntarily stayed and tried to do the interview anyway. A French court would probably have considered that to be implied consent.)



The French are not the only ones. American journalists are saying it, too. This man is a LOT more important and powerful than Roman Polanski. Most believe that the judge considered the Polanski situation when he chose to deny bail. The man is too famous to easily hide; it isn't that they think that they wouldn't be able to find him if he ran.

I guess it just goes to show how different our criminal justice systems are, and how little each country understands the other's.