• Search for:

• Categories

  • Announcement
  • child sexul assault
  • Diversity
  • Guest Post
  • Human Trafficking
  • Humorless Feminist
  • Legal Servivces
  • Motivating Moments
  • News
  • Powerful Women
  • Prevention
  • Privacy
  • Public Policy
  • Resource
  • sexual assault laws
  • sexual harrassment
  • Stalking
  • Uncategorized
  • Vlog

• Recent Comments

  • M Gonzales on Law Professor Will Ask U.S. Supreme Court To Reverse Decision That A Woman Can Be Fired For Being Stalked
  • Irma Rapier on Title IX & a Silsbee Cheerleader
  • Kristin on Title IX & a Silsbee Cheerleader
  • David Ewing on Title IX & a Silsbee Cheerleader
  • Corey on Your Face on Facebook, Google

• Admin

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

• Archives

  • ▼2012 (2)
    • ▶January (2)
  • ▶2011 (36)
    • ▶November (2)
    • ▶October (3)
    • ▶September (4)
    • ▶July (4)
    • ▶June (5)
    • ▶May (4)
    • ▶April (7)
    • ▶March (2)
    • ▶February (2)
    • ▶January (3)
  • ▶2010 (35)
    • ▶December (3)
    • ▶November (4)
    • ▶October (4)
    • ▶September (7)
    • ▶August (4)
    • ▶July (1)
    • ▶May (3)
    • ▶April (4)
    • ▶March (1)
    • ▶February (1)
    • ▶January (3)
  • ▶2009 (45)
    • ▶December (2)
    • ▶November (3)
    • ▶October (3)
    • ▶September (1)
    • ▶August (1)
    • ▶July (3)
    • ▶June (5)
    • ▶May (5)
    • ▶April (10)
    • ▶March (5)
    • ▶February (6)
    • ▶January (1)
  • ▶2008 (15)
    • ▶December (2)
    • ▶November (2)
    • ▶October (4)
    • ▶September (4)
    • ▶June (1)
    • ▶March (2)
  • ▶2007 (2)
    • ▶October (1)
    • ▶September (1)

“Behave,” a special episode of Law and Order:  Special Victim’s Unit will air tonight at 8 p.m.  CST on NBC.  Written by executive producer, Neal Baer, the episode spotlights the backlog of untested evidence collection kits and how that backlog affects survivors and allows perpetrators to escape any accountability for their crimes.

In her Sept. 24 SVU Production blog Mariska Hargitay says,

One of the most rewarding aspects of working on SVU is the show’s ability to shine a light on the problem of sexual violence. This next episode is one of the most meaningful I have ever done, and it stands as a powerful example of the way we aim to raise awareness about these difficult issues.

Rape crisis hotlines may expect an increase in calls during and following the episode which includes information about the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN).

When Mariska Hargitay began her role as Detective Olivia Benson on SVU over 10 years ago, she wasn’t prepared for the kinds of “fan” letters she received from victims telling her of sexual assaults they’d suffered, some many years before.  For many of the survivors, Mariska was the first person they’d told about the assault. She was deeply touched by their stories—and motivated to use her visibility and influence to do something about what she saw as a “silenced epidemic.”

I felt a great responsibility to these brave men and women and wanted them to know that they had been heard and that they could have hope. I studied the subject, trained to become a crisis counselor, and used my visibility as an actress to become an advocate.

So, in 2004 Mariska founded the Joyful Heart Foundation, an organization dedicated to helping survivors heal and reclaim their lives.  Since that time, Mariska’s (and the foundation’s) work to bring a voice to the “silenced epidemic” of sexual violence has expanded significantly.

In May she joined survivors, activists, experts and legislators who testified on the rape kit backlog before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Testimony urged legislators to enact victim-centered reforms and prevent future backlogs.   Mariska specifically stressed that survivors must be at the center of the dialogue and reforms.

These kits represent human beings who have suffered greatly. Testing their rape kits sends victims the fundamental and crucial message that they and their cases matter. Not testing them sends the opposite message.

On Wednesday, the Joyful Heart Foundation will launch a new web project designed to serve as a comprehensive resource on the evidence collection kit backlog:  www.endthebacklog.org.

You can also find excellent resources at http://www.nsvrc.org/projects/eliminating-rape-kit-backlog.

Watch the episode with me tonight.  Then share your responses here or on TAASA’s Facebook page.

Why do I think about writing a blog mostly when something causes me to feel frustrated or sad?  Or sometimes just left me puzzled, usually with questions that aren’t even answerable…in my lifetime at least?

So, I’ve been on the lookout for something I consider positive to write about.  I found it.

“Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases.”  I know.  I know.  If that sounds positive to me, you don’t want to read about anything I’d consider negative.  But wait.  Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held a Crime and Drugs Subcommittee hearing to “draw attention to how the crime of rape is treated in our country.”

That’s how Susan Carbon, Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, described the hearing’s purpose.  Reading her testimony gave me that first inkling I’d found something positive.  She didn’t sugarcoat the failure of reporting and investigating sexual assault. Though plenty of her testimony sets off alarms, she acknowledged years of activism that “began to transform the way that sexual violence was viewed and addressed in our society.” That made me proud to be part of this work.

I’d read CNN’s Feds undercounting rape victims, advocates warn highlighting the glut of problems with using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data.

Advocates question the rape statistics because, they note, the federal government is using a 1929 definition of the crime that excludes male victims, statutory rapes and those committed without force.

Using such an antiquated, narrow definition is a harmful disservice to countless victims, according to Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women’s Law Project.

Not much here to ring positive bells. Oh, except when Senator Arlen Spector says, “I think we can get the FBI to change its definition.”  So let’s get that done!

Breaking the “let’s look for what’s wrong” habit is difficult for me.  Though I agree totally with Carol Tracy’s statement that using UCR stats “is a harmful disservice to countless victims,” I’m thinking, “Yes, and it’s a don’t-even-think-about-going-to-jail card for more perpetrators than I care to imagine.  Why doesn’t somebody testify about that?  Why doesn’t somebody put the spotlight on perpetrators?”

Then I read Scott Berkowitz’ testimony.  Yes, he puts the spotlight on perpetrators.

The Justice Department estimates that 60% of victims never report their rape to police. And since many reports don’t lead to an arrest, and many arrests don’t lead to a conviction or prison time, the bottom line is that only one out of every 16 rapists will ever spend even a single day in jail. One.

Let me put that another way: 15 out of every 16 rapists in America will walk free. Even after all the progress we’ve made — and we have made significant strides in getting more victims to report and improving policing and prosecution — even after years of effort, 15 out of 16 rapists face no consequences for their actions. Not only do they escape any punishment for the crime they’ve just committed, they’re emboldened to commit another rape, and many more after that.

And then with a “well, duh” he adds, “Not surprisingly, rapists have figured this out.”

Knowing that the truth is spoken aloud–by fierce advocates to people who have the power to make needed changes should they have the guts to do it–qualifies as positive, and hopeful, to me.

What do you think?  What positives do you see in the anti-sexual assault movement? What makes you proud to be part of this work?

Where do our interests lie?

The November election season is in full effect.  As candidates attempt to set the tone and position themselves in the minds of voters, campaign ads are sure to hit a record high in spending and maybe a record low with mudslinging.  My concern lies with the Supreme Court decision – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010 and its potential to change the landscape of political fodder.  The decision ruled in favor of Citizens United overturning decades of law and precedence intended to limit corporate and special interest spending in upcoming campaigns.

What’s the big deal? What does this have to do with sexual assault or family violence?  The answer is everything.  The power of money plus the power of the media equals INFLUENCE.  The ruling consequently allows “big money” to anonymously spend freely in future elections.

This creates two concerns.  First the dubious dynamic/relationship between elected officials and the financial source that backed them is established, and secondly, unlimited anonymous campaign donations are sure to cloud the airwaves with information from both sides as well as attack ads to shift the focus away from real issues.

The relationship between money and elected officials is nothing new; however, the authority of unlimited and anonymous corporate campaign spending is NEW.  The question remains…Where do the interests of victims lie?  Will the lack of disposable dollars to contribute to candidates leave victims’ issues out of the equation?

As a result, it is important to actively pursue the truth and hold all candidates accountable.  Do you know the positions of the candidates in your area?  What are their voting records in regards to victims’ issues? We owe it to all survivors to make an informed decision.

“…received eight life sentences for his inappropriateness with a 13-year old girl.”

Inappropriateness?  What on earth does someone do that’s “inappropriate” to end up in jail, much less prison for eight life sentences?

Reading or hearing something like this makes me want to scream!  I want to yell, inappropriately for sure, “Why can’t we call sexual assault, sexual abuse and rape what they are?”  I think it’s important that reporters correctly identify and name these crimes instead of resorting to euphemisms and vague language.  I want to be fair to the writers of this newspaper article .   Most of the report details the trial in which a local resident was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and continuous sexual abuse of a young child.  They clearly named those crimes.

They didn’t use terms that minimize victimization or totally obscure the crime.

Until the article’s end, that is.  There we learn this was the second sex offender to be sentenced in four months.    It was the first who “received eight life sentences for his inappropriateness with a 13-year old girl.”

So what do I do beyond feeling angry and frustrated that still it seems so hard to call sexual assault what it is?   I’d like to talk to the two writers, who are both new in the community.  I want to thank them for writing about a child sexual abuse trial and highlighting how important it is for the community to work together to combat sexual abuse.  And then I want to talk about the “inappropriateness with a-13 year old” phrase.

Perhaps now that I’ve cooled down a bit, I can do that.  Any suggestions for what I should say?

It was a big family dinner. One of my cousins, an attorney, and I were discussing the various standards of the human trafficking law. Just about everyone had left us to other conversations because “we were at it again, talking abuse.”

Except for another cousin, Miguel, a DJ at one of the popular dance clubs in town. He listened intently.  Ten minutes later Miguel told me that the cleaning crew in the club never looked up, were always supervised, and he had the impression were not allowed to speak to anyone, even when other club employees acknowledged them.  After listening to the earlier conversation, he now wondered whether  they could be victims of human trafficking, even if it had nothing to do with the sex industry.  I told him it could very well be trafficking and encouraged him to report to the local trafficking unit in his city.

Human trafficking is about unscrupulous people making money from the forced blood, sweat and tears of another unwilling human being, who is generally scared to death to speak up and speak out. Victims are forced to work not just in the sex industry, but also as migrant workers, in factories or sweat shops, as nannies, as maids, or any other industry that can make the trafficker quick money. As in the case of a maid or nanny, it is not always about groups of people. Nor is it about the distance the victim has to travel. If the victim “moves” even a short distance due to fraud, force or coercions of fear and for the profit of another person, this is the essence of trafficking.   

Miguel later told me that he always had a “funny feeling” that “something was not right,” but he did not know how to voice his concerns. He had no words for what he was seeing.

 This raises some questions–when you notice a situation that feels “funny” to you, do you know:

• how to express it,
• where to go in your community to ask questions and get answers, and
•  the process  for making a report to law enforcement? 

Do you talk with your family, friends, and neighbors about what you see in your community that gives you a “funny feeling” that “something is not right”?  Should these questions be part of the larger conversation about community safety? Because human trafficking victims, both international and national, do exist.  We see them every day.

Isn’t it funny how sometimes it is the little statements or questions, the seemingly insignificant customs and practices that are a part of our day-to-day life that can speak such volumes about the intricacies of the way our world works and our society’s values and beliefs? Let me give you an example. I’m running around all over the world (or San Marcos, whatever) doing errands with my daughters last week when I decide to go to the drive-through lane at my bank. When we’re still almost a block away, my oldest daughter’s spidey-senses start tingling. “Can we get a sticker?” comes the desperate plea from this clairvoyant child in the back seat. “Of course you can,” says super dad — that’s me for those of you who don’t already know this about me (wink, wink).

So, we pull up to the magic tube shoot and they take my money and ask if there is anything else. “Yes,” I say, “can we have two stickers?” “Sure,” comes the response. “Would you like boy stickers or girl stickers?” And there it is — that seemingly insignificant phrase that runs over my soul like an 18-wheeler that has lost its brakes. And if that isn’t enough, from the backseat I hear the reply that I know is coming, like that 18-wheeler stopping and backing back up over my soul to finish the job, “Daddy, we need girl stickers because we’re girls.”

All this 18-wheeler and soul-crushing business may seem a little over the top, but this choice of sticker is the tip of the gender conformist, sexist and homophobic iceberg. All the pressure to do this but not that, like this but not that (or him but not her – at least not “that way”), dress like this but not like that are all wrapped up in this simple question – do you want a boy sticker or a girl sticker? As if those stickers hold all that is masculine or feminine, and that there are only two choices with no opportunity to live out characteristics that “belong” only to one or the other once your sticker is chosen. It’s like the stickers are name tags for life, permanently confining who my daughters can or should be – boy or girl.

So all this goes through my head. I’m sure the bank teller is thinking, “This isn’t that hard of a question.” After what feels like forever, I answer “It doesn’t matter,” and prepare myself to explain to my 4 and 5 year-old daughters how they don’t have to pick one or the other, that life and reality are much more fluid than that. Then, the magic tube comes back with two pink stickers – I guess the teller decided for them.

How do you deal with these little moments? Please share your difficult moments, or how you successfully challenged these day to day efforts to enforce what is “normal.”

This epidemic is hidden, literally behind bars.  Just Detention International (JDI) called rape and sexual abuse in detention an epidemic after the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released results of the 2008-09 nationwide survey of inmates in federal and state prisons as well as county jails.

Statistic after statistic shows us a glimpse of rape and abuse in these facilities, but it’s the letters JDI receives every week from survivors of sexual abuse held in detention that make the epidemic personal.

“I would misbehave to get locked up [in solitary confinement] so I didn’t have to deal with it.” — Abused by an officer in Texas

“What do I do? Risk an attempt on my life and initiate an investigation, or keep quiet and endure?” — Silence and fear in Nevada

“I’ve come to accept that I am a victim and a survivor of abuse by corrections officers.  I totally accept the retaliation I will receive from government employees for speaking to you.” — Courage from undisclosed location

So what’s being done to stem the increasing victimization of women, men and youth who have no escape from their victimizers?

Or more to the point, what’s not being done?   JDI’s press release emphasizes the need for action now on standards detailed in the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA):

For the past 14 months, the Justice Department has been reviewing proposed national standards aimed at eliminating sexual violence in detention, which were also mandated by PREA. These standards include limitations on cross-gender supervision. They also call for staff training and inmate education, the provision of medical and mental health treatment to sexual abuse victims, and regular independent, external audits to hold agencies accountable for failures to keep inmates safe from abuse. By law, Attorney General Eric Holder had until June 23, 2010 to ratify binding standards, but he missed this deadline and no new date has been set. Once the Attorney General issues final standards, they will be immediately binding on federal facilities. States and localities will have one year to get into compliance or risk losing five percent of their corrections-related federal funding.

So what’s the holdup?  Every day the epidemic increases—person by person by person, not statistic by statistic. I think it’s way past time to put these minimum safeguards into effect.  What about you?