After an alleged rape committed by members of the pop group The Chairmen, independent lawmaker Lin Ruey-tou (林瑞圖) tried to convince the public that the charge was a set up, because the woman had consensual sex with her alleged attackers just a few days earlier. He repeatedly claimed that the woman involved had signed a settlement agreement with the alleged attackers to settle the case out of court.
It is hard to know what is more baffling: why Lin is involved with this case or how a lawmaker could be so ignorant of the law. For the result of the changes to the rape statute which took effect on Jan. 1 have been to make rape a criminal offence subject to mandatory prosecution. The decision of whether or not to prosecute is no longer up to the victim to decide, but rather police and prosecutors. In this environment a private settlement between a victim and the perpetrator of a rape after the fact is simply irrelevant -- even if it actually took place. All that matters is that the sex was not consensual at the time it took place. Likewise it is unimportant whether a victim might have previously had consensual sex with her rapist. All that matters is that on the occasion in question the sex was coerced.
But why on earth is Lin involving himself with this case? Lin seems to want the case not to be pursued. Since this is a matter for the judicial authorities to decide is he afraid they can't do their job? Is he trying to influence them? We cannot see why or how since he is obviously so crassly ignorant of the law that applies in this case.
Alas, advanced as the law may be, primitive thinking pervades the understanding of rape among the public at large. For example, in another recent case, the alleged rapist claimed the sex was consensual, because the woman appeared normal and even had lunch with him afterwards. Once again the question of how deeply or obviously traumatized a victim might be is irrelevant. All that matters is that the sex was not consensual. It is even possible that the man concerned in this case really thought he did nothing against the woman's will. Many hold the misconception that unless the woman breaks down in tears or threatens to kill herself, she is not really refusing. When will they ever learn a simple "no" is sufficient. She does not have to resist by kicking and screaming.
Another point in this latter case was that the alleged attacker brought up the fact that his accuser was a model who posed nude. The idea here is that such a woman must be immoral or promiscuous, so she must either be lying or deserves to be mistreated. This is, alas, not untypical treatment of rape victims in our society.
Rape victims in Taiwanese culture face tremendous public scorn and mockery; the general public tends to see them as either deeply shamed or probably immoral and thereby complicit in their misfortune.
With respect to the first kind of reaction, the best solution is to re-educate the public that rape victims have done nothing to be ashamed of, that they are victims in the same way that someone who has lost an arm or leg in a car accident might be.
As for the second type of reaction, it is plainly unforgivable.
Ironically even the Ministry of Justice holds misconceptions. For example, it has spoken out against making rape an offense subject to mandatory prosecution, hoping to leave room for private settlements. The assumption is that rape can be compensated by money or apologies. This shows no understanding of victims' helplessness and humiliation. Until such misconceptions are corrected, Taiwan still has far to go.
RSS