Last week fell the verdict against the former Night & Day-the editor, Gaute Drevdal. Drevdal got 13 years and six months in prison for nine rapes and sex with a minor. He appealed, but there is reason to rejoice over the verdict. Despite Drevdals attempt to mistenkeliggjøre women, was the day of judgement message is clear: We trust the women.
Drevdal has subsequently complained that the district court set the general rettsstatsprinsipper to the page: He had to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove his guilt. The claim does, however, provide only opinion about the women's testimony was not emphasized whatsoever.
It would of course be absurd. When 13 women reviews you of sexual abuse, and to tell plausible stories about sovevoldtekter supported by the testimonies of others and psychologists, so is the evidence, the court should lay emphasis on. That more of us believe women when they tell about the abuse is the #metoos biggest win. However, there is still not a given that we trust women who tell about the abuse.Sentenced to 13 years in prison
As it says in the judgment: "unless it had received more [than two] reviews against Drevdal, the matter would probably have been dismissed." We put it on the tip, we can say that it had between 3 and 13 women to trump one man's testimony.
When we consider if we trust someone, we draw, often unconsciously, on prejudices about how likely it is that the "such" women are lying or misunderstand what has happened. Few of us take the trouble to find out about the prejudices of our reflect reality. How common is it that women find that they have been raped?
What shines most prominently through the in the judgment, is that to the extent that the women remember the error, is it in overgripers favor. They try to suppress their body as crystal tells them: that their boundaries are trampled on, that they have been raped. That women have struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder in the aftermath tells all about the attempts on the displacement and re-writing of the sequence of events is fruitless. The body knows and the body remembers. The question of credibility has parallels to the racism debate. We may think we put equal weight on everyone's testimony, but is, nevertheless, more responsive to some than others. When we systematically listen less to those who have a different skin color than us, we perpetuate racist structures. When we notice that we are not being listened to, we give up too quickly to tell our story; especially about the stories requires that we must disclose traumatic events. When we are not listening calms down we are the voices that are already in short supply.
the judicial system, our add unfortunately, up to that many who experience assault calms down itself. A factor that holds many back from to review, is that they are not believed. Since it is "word against word" henlegges review on bevisets position. Another factor is, paradoxically enough, that many who are abused do not wish that the perpetrator should have to sit many years in prison. A third factor is that the victims know that their intentions will be suspect, in court and in the newspaper.- I have obviously misjudged
It is as not surprising that many of the women who reported Drevdal used many years to do it. It was only when they realized that they were not alone, that they chose to review. Perhaps it is time to look closer at the idea of "restorative justice", which is the basis for the mediation boards.
In many abuse cases, especially in cases where the perpetrator and victim know each other, it may well be that a criminal procedure which puts the victim's desires in focus and aim to get to a recovery, will be better for all parties. There are many who have experienced abuse first and foremost want, is that what happened with them, not going to happen with several, and that the abuser will admit and say sorry for overgrepet. It is rarely the result in today's legal system.Startling reading the Comment You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!