If we as a society understand that 1/3 of us have been or will be sexually assaulted in our lifetime, and that, as uncomfortable as it may make us to talk about it, we really can’t avoid having these conversations any longer, we can work to bring about a change that protects our children. This is a problem that belongs to all of us.
Many of you have been hearing or reading about Chelsea King in the news lately. What happened to her is a tragic story about a teenage girl who was attacked and murdered while out jogging near her home in California. As it turns out, the man charged with the crime in this case is a convicted sex-offender named John Albert Gardner III, who was pled out on a lesser crime for molesting and beating a 13-year-old girl back in 2000. Gardner is also the suspect in the attack and murder of another little girl by the name of Amber Dubois.
Through the use of careless words and/or direct finger-pointing, some people in the media and a few in Blogland, have effectively blamed the 13-year-old, her parents, and the prosecutors for reportedly “sparing” the child the trauma of testifying at a criminal trial by allowing Gardner to enter into a plea agreement that included five years in prison and three more on parole. Some people make it sound like the victim’s role after-the-fact is simple: testify against the attacker and everything will be fine. Make the victims understand that they have a responsibility to testify, get their parents to make them, don’t let the prosecutors plead out the case. I wish it were that simple, but I know it is not.
On one particular blog, this conversation sparked a passionate debate about placing blame on victims and whether or not victims have a responsibility to testify. Above everything else, there was one line in one comment that stuck with me, “…we all have our opinions. Opinions are not facts.” In fairness to the commenter, I don’t know what she meant by that or what is her opinion, I just know that my thoughts on this are more than opinion; for me, they are absolute facts. Although my situation was different, I was just this girl’s age when it happened to me and I’m pretty familiar with what it’s like to walk in her shoes.
Let me help you to really see that 13-year-old girl. She’s just been violently attacked and had things happen to her that she has no way of understanding. There is fear now where there wasn’t before. She’s only thirteen. Her whole world has been turned upside-down, she’s humiliated, degraded, and feeling feelings she cannot even name. She’s been robbed of her right to explore her sexuality on her own terms at her own pace. School dances and first kisses? Not the same. She feels different now; like she’s being judged by everyone and they can all see right into her soul, so she builds a wall around it. Any shot she had at having a normal adolescence is out the window. And did I mention the fear? It’s worth mentioning again. She doesn’t feel safe anymore and it’ll be a long time before she gets that back, if ever.
Can you see her? Now put yourself in her place and imagine how this conversation would go if they actually told her the truth:
Honey, we want you to get up in front of a crowd of strangers, and the man who did this to you, and tell everyone exactly what happened. Will you do it?
I won’t know what to say. Do I have to tell everything?
Yes, everything. Just the way it happened.
They’ll think it’s all my fault. They’ll think I’m bad for skipping school and going over to his house. They’ll say I should have stopped him if I didn’t like it.
Some people might think that, but not everyone will. You still need to tell them what he did.
I don’t know if I can. Will he be able to see me?
Yes, he will be in the courtroom, but so will a lot of other people so he won’t be able to hurt you. (In some jurisdictions today the answer will be): You can testify in front of a video camera in another room. You won’t have to look at him, but he will be able to see you on a television screen, and so will all of the people who have to be in the courtroom, and later anyone else who is working on this case.
So he will know that I told what happened?
Yes.
What’s going to happen to him if I tell?
Not much. We’re going to put him in jail for a little while, but he’ll be out shortly after you graduate from high school.
He’ll be mad. What if he comes back? Will he be able to find me?
I can’t promise he won’t.
And if I don’t testify?
Well, he’ll be out around the time you graduate from high school.
Do you see the problem? It isn’t whether or not she goes through with the horror of testifying; it’s the fact that the outcome is nearly the same either way. Our laws do not offer us long-term protection or a sense of safety. This is what we must fix first.
Think about it. John Albert Gardner III was sentenced to five years in prison and three more years of parole. What do you think he’d have gotten if the 13-year-old child had testified at his criminal trial? I did a little research on this and found that, on average, the sentences range from seven to eleven years; that’s just a short time longer than Gardner served without her testimony at trial. It would be naïve to think an additional couple of years behind bars would have rehabilitated him. The recidivism rates for these crimes are staggering and the more violent the crime, the higher the number. It’s been reported that sexual offenders often have as many as 200 victims during their lifetime. They do not stop.
If a victim knows that testifying against her attacker will keep her safe from him for the rest of her life, she may still say no. She may be unable to re-live the nightmare that she has been through, and God help us if we judge her for that decision, for it is hers and only hers to make. However, if she is considering testifying, don’t you think she’d be more likely to go through with it if we have one-strike sentencing laws for violent sexual offenders and she knows she never has to see him again?
We need to make it count when a victim tells her story. If we do, there will be far fewer stories to tell.
Who Needs Paris?
1 hour ago
Posts
23 comments:
This is a very compelling, informative and heartbreaking post. It would have been nice to see such a level-headed response on that "other blog" rather than the personal attacks toward the author that took place. An author who, it should be said, apologized for not conveying her sentiment as eloquently as she would have liked. An author whose opinion was echoed by the San Diego Union Tribune a few days later. When we fail to have calm and reasoned discussions about sensitive topics, the important lessons tend to get lost. And you certainly have something very important to teach. This would have been so good over there. What a lost opportunity.
You have an incredibly strong and real voice. Thank you for using it for the greater good here.
Speaking from experience is painful and important work to do for those who are able. When someone speaks up like you just did, it is against all odds and a remarkable gift to others.
This is not the "agenda" of a small group of people, which is how one commenter put it last week. This so-called agenda is forced upon 1/3 of all women as a result of a horror they will suffer before the age of 18, a horror that will last a lifetime.
What I hear you saying is that unless you've walked in her shoes it is pretty darn hard to understand, much less judge, how someone else handles her own devastatingly painful experience.
Some people will politely say, "she's speaking as a survivor, so of course she feels strongly about this," which allows for that knowing nod and the quick dismissal of an ugly subject. But survivors are such a significant percentage of all women, that it really is an issue that affects all of us. Look to your left, look to your right, look at yourself. One of you is or will be a survivor. And I'm not forgetting men, the numbers are only slightly lower and every bit as devastating.
So it is particularly shameful when women don't support each other better than this. But we can and must do more than support each other, we must lead the way systemically to put an end to this crisis in our society.
It hurts me to see another survivor judged, questioned, or speculated about by other women. Not because I'm a survivor. Good grief, I'm tougher because I'm a survivor. It hurts me because it hurts all women, all people.
Such a dreadful topic, but I'm glad it is out there getting talked about and debated and publicized.
Good grief. I wasn't expecting a post like this! I don't have anything helpful to add, but I see your point.
Thanks, Aaryn. I don't know you and I'm not sure of your meaning, but I don't consider this a lost opportunity at all. I had something to say and I said it when and where I felt comfortable doing so.
That "other blog" published a dangerous comparison in the first place, and had every right to do it, but that certainly wouldn't make it the kind of place where I would go to have a reasonable discussion about a sensitive topic. Especially one that has personal meaning for me.
You? Rock. And I? Love you.
You know, I have never stopped to think about it in the terms you have just described. Good on you for articulating a view that is seldom heard and rarely understood.
Bless your fuzzy blue floating head!
Blognut:
I enjoy reading your witty blog posts from time to time. You often put a smile on my face. Today, you put another smile on my face and tears on my cheeks. Tears of sadness and of joy. I am sorry that you (or any person) has had to experience such a childhood-robbing tragedy, but in this post you've shown that the strength, power, and light of the truth will always prevail over the dark places that sometimes feel so daunting. You are truly an inspirational woman.
I apologize if my response to Aaryn below takes any focus away from the powerful and important message that you have shown great courage and grace in sharing here, but defense of the opinion of the author on that "other blog" in THIS place disguised as a response to THIS message is downright mind boggling. It makes my stomach turn.
So, Aaryn:
Wow. The author you’re defending here (whom I have met) made a ludicrous comparison (in which the author aired some laundry of her own about someone who she says was a long-time friend), a harsh judgment (about an innocent child's actions in the aftermath of a tragedy), and in the author's subsequent attempts to defend herself, only managed to reinforce her original message over and over. I read every word of the post and the comments, and it didn't seem to me that the author was attacked there for personal reasons, but rather she was personally attacked because she was responsible for disseminating a sickening, harsh, and judgmental message. I've seen the likes of such judgments from her before, by the way, but this time, she targeted a defenseless and innocent little girl. I am surprised anyone would align with and defend her, especially over here after reading this heart-wrenching post.
Thank you for telling this side of the story. People are so quick to lay blame and talk about how it should be and what should be done without much (if any) understanding of what they're really saying.
@blognut: I think you misconstrued my comment (as did others here). I was not at all sitting in judgment of your post. To the contrary, I think it is vitally important to the discussion about protecting victims of molestation. I was simply saying that I think the vitriol you and others expressed in response to the piece on the "other blog" (notice I'm not mentioning the name out of respect for your site, since it's clear you do not wish to drive traffic there), as well as the personal attacks against the author (which had no place) wasn't helpful to forwarding the dialogue.
By the way, I came over here after reading a comment you left on Blog This Mom's site, a site I've read for a very long time. In your comment there, you stated you were the anonymous commenter named "Really?" on that other site. When I saw that, I was curious to see if you'd written further on the topic. And I think what you wrote here is far more persuasive than the lashing out you gave on the "other blog."
Really, this is an important conversation. It's too bad it can't be had with cooler heads prevailing.
Aaryn, not one word of the comment I left lashed out. I stood up for a child because I can now and I couldn't when that child was me. I did not attack the author or anyone else, I merely stated that I found the whole thing to be judgmental and I think I explained why.
I agree with you that this topic is important.
I invite you to click that "x" in the upper-right corner of your screen now. Thank you.
I can see her.
I can see her as if she were my own daughter. I can her here in my living room. I can see her when I tell her that it might matter or it may not matter at all. I can see her when I tell her that it might matter to her, that she might feel violated again, she might feel as frightened as she did before, that she may have to sit in the same room with him, sharing the same air with him when he's twenty feet away or on the other side of a wall. I can see the weight on her when I tell her it might matter because he might not be able to hurt someone else. And that even if she does all of that, it may still not matter.
And I can see her when I tell that the only thing that matters is her healing, and that I will never, ever blame her for what he did to her. Or what he might do to anyone else. I can see her when I don't tell her that whether she testifies or not she'll have this to bear this every day for the rest of her life. When people blame her for what happened, what didn't happen, what might've happened if and what happened next.
I love you for saying so. For saying exactly what is. I'm not even a little bit surprised to see Aaryn here. Not even a little bit. It's clear she was spoiling for a fight, waiting for the opportunity to make someone feel small or less than.
I find it sad, and frankly, stupid, that Aaryn is here belittling what you wrote, what Cheri wrote, and what others wrote (including me) at the Women's Colony as "lashing out" and "attacks". They were neither. They were calling a spade a spade. Or in this case calling someone out on writing something that was altogether ridiculous, mean-spirited and short-sighted.
Aaryns laments that there wasn't level-headed discourse at the Women's Colony in the comments on Jenn's post. Jenn's post was not level-headed. Jenn's post was not calm or reasoned. Neither is Aaryn's defense of Jenn. Aaryn seems to have been laying in wait.
I love this post.
I can see her. Because you made it so.
I simply am shocked to hear that the difference in time served if there is a testimony is so little. While I have not walked in those shoes, I can only imagine how it would feel if my own child were asked to testify in a situation like yours... I cannot say that I would pressure her to do so in such a court environment. This is a sensitive topic, but you are absolutely right, it needs to be discussed. Bravo for hosting such a discussion.
Katy, thank you so much for seeing her and for getting it. That's all I wanted - for people to get it.
I admire your courage for so many reasons. Reasons which I have not yet been courageous enough to face in my own life.
I see her. I see her face in the eyes of my students, my daughter, my girlfriends, and in the reflection in the mirror.
Thank you for your brave voice, your tender heart, and your fierce strength.
I read the original post. It was a faulty analogy, and people called Jenn on it. She then backed down and apologized. I don't think the people who called Jenn on her mistake were simply indulging in personal attacks (although it did get personal at times); and I do believe that Jenn's apology was sincere (although you could see that she was still feeling a bit misunderstood and attacked, due to the anger/distress evident in the comments). Many bloggers would have simply counter-attacked the commenters; but Jenn did try to lower her defenses and figure out what set people off.
I think Aaryn (who has been - regrettably - personally attacked at that site) may be misreading this particular situation, due to her own experience with vitriolic commenters. And I think that survivors (because this is such a sensitive issue) find it hard, unfortunately, to forgive Jenn, even though she did apologize and retract.
Can't we call pax on it, people? Jenn isn't the only one who learned a lot from this experience; her analogy barely registered with me until the controversy arose. But I understand now (because of the articulate comments on that site and the posts on Blog This Mom and right here) how devastating it is for a survivor to read what Jenn wrote; and I'm grateful to the people who bothered to set me (and Jenn) straight. Last I checked, ignorance isn't a crime; and some of us ignoramuses seem to be willing to learn.
Good post, Blognut. I especially appreciated the hard facts on the comparative length of the sentences that would be served. It is an eye opener; I had no idea. I appreciate you and other survivors bothering to revisit this painful subject in order to educate others. I tend to stick my head in the sand a lot (it took me a week to go over and read BlogThisMom's post); so I'm glad I have blog friends who insist on educating me against my will.
I am so sorry you have personal experience with this. The statistics are compelling. I sure wouldn't want anyone to judge my child's decision without knowing what they've been through. Especially when the outcome changes so little.
@Suburban Correspondent: Blessed are the peacemakers. :-) I always appreciate that you speak up and out and with an eye for solutions and a heart for understanding.
We do disagree on at least one point, the one that I think goes to heart of the matter, so, with Blognut's permission, I'm addressing it here. Jenn did not apologize and retract her original statement. Jenn expressed regret for not saying what she meant to say, but she's gone on to repeat the same message with slightly adjusted wording. She disseminated that message again when she published a U-T editorial on her blog, saying that the conclusion drawn in that article was what she meant to say, pointing out that a paid writer said it, as though because it was in a newspaper the message is more credible or better. Of course, that editorial is no more than another person's opinion, and in this case it is the opinion of someone whose job, bottom-line, is to sell newspapers. The conclusion drawn in that article was that parents must be educated about how important it is for their child to testify, so that no perpetrator escapes conviction to become some other parent’s worst nightmare. While the overall editorial had an important message, I discussed the problem with the conclusion on my blog last Thursday, and it is discussed in this post quite brilliantly.
I was, at first, loathe to respond here in Blognut's comments because the focus here should be on that little girl, but, then again, wasn't the point of this post to educate people to be sensitive to that little girl? We all have to be on guard for the subtle (and not-so-subtle) violations that come in the aftermath of abuse. Jenn and the U-T and everyone in the media who repeats the message that the 13-year-old girl was "spared" from testifying violate her. And anyone who seeks to put primary responsibility for putting away perpetrators on a victim's shoulders violates him or her.
I think it is also important to know that even as survivors may have been more sensitive to the messages on blogs and in the media, the survivors who are speaking up about it are hoping to raise awareness so that we all are more sensitive. This is crucial because sexual abuse is an epidemic of far greater proportion in our society than epidemics that get discussed much more. This issue affects 1/3 of women and 1/7 of men before they reach the age of 18. That's a significant number of people among us. And that before-they-reach-the-age-of-18 part? Means that we are talking about our children, society's most precious and vulnerable members.
So, I've said this before, Blognut said it here, and it bears repeating. We need laws that have the teeth to keep violent sex offenders off the streets permanently. It would never be easy under any circumstances for a child victim to testify in court or in front of a camera (or for a loving parent to make him or her), but a greater degree of certainty that the result would get these guys off the streets so that no one else would be hurt would make the process of providing testimony that much more tolerable to victims and their families. If violent sex offenders are put away after the first offense, a lot less testimony will be needed.
Thanks you for sharing this, Blognut. I know it can't have been easy.
I appreciate your honesty and loving heart. I am glad to know you and all those who speak up and out. And those who don't, too.
This is such an important, vital issue. My heart hurts for you and other victims, but my hands applaud you.
XO.
If you have ever been the victim of a crime, you know that the fear that they will come back to hurt you is always present.
I have learned in my old age to never judge until I have walked in another person's shoes. Never
I agree that there should only be one strike against these predators as I have yet to hear of any of them "recovering". It just sickens me that these animals get so little jail time.
It makes so angry to know that this animal was released to hurt more people.
thank you.
Brave Bloggus. Big hugs from your sister over the Pond... xxx
Post a Comment