Quick hit: racial bias in presidential pardons

In analysis of Presidential pardons during the George W. Bush administration, ProPublica has found that whites were four times as likely as non-whites to be granted a pardon. Pardons were granted to 12% of whites, 10% of Hispanics and Asians, and zero percent of Blacks and Native Americans. The disparity remained even when investigators controlled for type of crime.

[sociological images]

Quick hit: Racial Bias in Presidential Pardons

Quick hit: Racial Bias in Presidential Pardons

Well, would you look at this. Hands up everyone who is not surprised at all.

In analysis of Presidential pardons during the George W. Bush administration, ProPublica has found that whites were four times as likely as non-whites to be granted a pardon. Pardons were granted to 12% of whites, 10% of Hispanics and Asians, and zero percent of Blacks and Native Americans. The disparity remained even when investigators controlled for type of crime.

Read more at sociological images.

uniLad, rape culture, and overdoses in Ireland

If you haven’t read this piece already, you should now: Gang-rape woman arrested during trial, following overdose.

The linked piece concerns a woman who was gang-raped by three men and who had to stand in front of them in court and identify them. She was later arrested for not turning up to court again. Unsurprisingly, she self-harmed because she couldn’t cope with what was happening to her. The three accused men have since been acquitted. After the victim’s arrest, Mr Justice Carney said: ‘If she has to spend a long time in prison herself waiting for a re-trial that’s her fault.’ Yes, really. A spokesperson for the Rape Crises Centre (Ellen O’Malley) criticised the trial process, ‘As making the complainants “feel they are the ones on trial and not the accused”.’ O’Malley went on to say, ‘This system in our opinion is very imbalanced and needs radical reform. As a result Ireland has one of the highest attrition rates for rape and sexual assault cases in Europe.’

But it’s not on its own. The clear up rates for rape and sexual assault cases in England and Wales are equally low. The attrition to which O’Malley refers starts right after the attack takes place when women are too frightened to report it, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. If they do report it, it may not be recorded and pursued by the police as a offence that can be tried. And that’s before anything even. reaches a courthouse where the horrific tales of victim-blaming, brutal cross-examination, and even threats from the crowd and blatant intimidation, are numerous. O’Malley is right when she says that rape victims too often feel that they are the people on trial. Clear-up rates for rape cases in England and Wales hover around the 5% mark. That means that there is only a 5% chance of a rapist being convicted for his crime.

Anyone who has been on the feminist blogosphere this week has heard about uniLad. This is a site that is run by male students (“affectionately” known as “LADs”) and seems to be something of a “tip” site for getting laid. Except it’s not. Observe this little beauty:

‘If the girl you’ve taken for a drink… won’t “spread for your head”, think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds.’

It doesn’t take a brainiac to figure out that that very sentence alone trivialises, normalises, and even condones rape. If the comments from the LADs are anything to go by, they’re on board with getting a bit of rape in when the opportunity is presented. When uniLad was challenged about its attitudes, it huffed for a while, then it got defensive, then it issued a sorry excuse for an apology (“We’re sorry that you were offended, but if you weren’t so sensitive” etc.), and then it started threatening women. One particular LAD threatened to murder and rape a woman for questioning uniLad’s content. It didn’t get much better from there.  They’re still telling us that we’re being too sensitive, that we’re all stupid hairy-legged lesbian feminists, that we need a good dicking, that it’s just a joke, that we shouldn’t be in the kitchen if we can’t stand the heat (though, ironically, that’s exactly where we should be), and that it’s just boys being boys. You’ve heard it all before.

But what’s the big deal, I hear you ask. It’s just a JOKE!

A woman taking an overdose and running away so that she didn’t have to face a trial of her attackers is the big deal. We, and by that, I mean women, walk around in fear of being raped (even though I live in a “safe area”, I will not leave my house before sunrise in the mornings, just in case), we see images of sexual objectification around us all the time, we’re encouraged to measure our entire worth on how fuckable we are, we’re expected to believe, and are frequently told, that our bodies are open property for men (and that being whistled at in the street, for example, is a compliment), we have police officers telling us that we wouldn’t get raped if we didn’t dress like sluts, and we have sites like uniLad telling the chaps go get out there and take what they want whether women like it or not. That’s rape culture. In rape culture, women are not even considered to be human beings; we’re not even afforded that simple right to exist in safety and without fear of attack. Rape is not even considered an attack; it comes with the territory of being a woman, it is par for the course, and it is very likely to be our fault anyway.

Don’t tell me that rape culture doesn’t exist. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t be a woman in Ireland today scared out of her wits, washing down handfuls of pills with vodka, and dreading the day that she runs into the three men who raped her, and there wouldn’t be a website which maintains that it’s all just a great big laugh.

–

Some links to uniLad commentary from the week, but there are lots more out there: stavvers; thefword; ontoberlin; petitefeministe; and sianandcrookedrib.

Quick hit: stalking – the terrifying crime the law may at last be taking seriously

This woman was forced into exile because the legal system in the country she was living in, like almost every legal system in the world, was utterly uninterested in recognising or responding to the daily terror that she was being exposed to. The police told her they could only act once she was physically attacked. She could have sought an expensive civil injunction, but to do so she would have had to turn up in court, in full view of the man she was desperately trying to avoid, and give him the tremendous satisfaction of hearing just how effectively he had frightened her and damaged her life.

“That’s everything he wants,” she said. “To force me to see him, to hear how scared I am and how powerful he is – that’s just what he’s trying to achieve.” She decided not to when her solicitor told her that the police rarely arrested any man who broke such an injunction. It was a waste of time.

Just don’t read the “poor menz, what about us” comments.

[guardian]

16% think it’s OK for a man to hit his wife? (Trigger warning)

[Trigger warning for violence.]

This piece from alternet.org really doesn’t require much additional comment. A report  (link to PDF) from a group called UN Women has revealed some frightening views on violence towards women,  and includes data on, for example, the massive gender pay gap (particularly between white men and women of colour) and sexual violence against women of colour.

On violence against women:

One of the most shocking statistics in the report? The public perception of gender violence as sometimes acceptable, within the context of marriage. This is from the report’s language: “In the USA, 16 percent of women and men agree that it is sometimes justifiable for a man to beat his wife.”

Sure, 16 percent is a fairly standard number for representing the lunatic fringe of American culture, but the fact that these respondents willingly admit they think it’s okay certainly sheds a disturbing light on why violence against women remains widespread: “Prevalence surveys in the USA show that 22 percent of women have experienced physical violence, and 8 percent have been targeted for sexual violence in their lifetimes.”

On the justice system and the justice system and rape cases:

One of the hindrances to women seeking a fair application of the legal system is a lack of women’s representation in that system’s hierarchy. While three female Supreme Court justices are certainly a step in the right direction, even that huge stride gives women disproportionately small representation. Women are under-represented as prosecutors, judges and police officers throughout North America. Statistics cited by UN Women indicate that “data from 40 countries where women are present in the police, reporting of sexual assault increases.”

…

“Evidence shows that jurors in the USA are especially likely to question the credibility of African American and Latina female witnesses in rape cases.”

On sexual violence towards Native American women:

One other element to these statistics that may be lesser-known is the issue of rape against Native American women, which is astoundingly high. Native American women are more than twice as likely as other women to be raped. One of the things compounding the problem was a confusion over judicial jurisdiction: “Crimes committed by non-Native Americans on reservations often went unpunished, due to uncertainty over which jurisdiction applied. This is thought to have contributed to the high levels of rape of Native American women, Progress shows.“ In other words, a culture of impunity existed.

On the gender pay gap:

We passed Lily Ledbetter, right? So why is this still an issue? Well, the gender pay gap remains at 23 percent in the USA, according to the new fact sheet from UN Women. If that number isn’t dismaying enough, for African American and Latina women, that gap swells to huge proportions: “On average 39 and 48 percent less than white men, respectively.”

It’s well worth reading the full report if you have time (it’s not long), not least because it includes a variety of other striking statistics (e.g., 127 countries do not explicitly criminalize rape within marriage, 61 countries severely restrict women’s rights to abortion), and it should be commended for including some very positive content on recent improvements in women’s rights worldwide.

I’m still reeling from the 16% statistic, mind you.

In brief: Iranian sentenced to blinding for acid attack pardoned

An Iranian man who was ordered to be blinded for carrying out an acid attack on a woman has been pardoned by his victim, state television has said.

Ameneh Bahrami had demanded qisas, a rarely used retributive justice under Sharia law, but the report said she had forgone that right at the last minute.

(via BBC News)

I blogged about this case some time ago. I’m still conflicted about how I feel about the initial decision that allowed Bahrami retributive justice for her victimization. One thing is for certain: I have endless respect for Bahrami. She said of her decision:

“I struggled for seven years with this verdict to prove to people that the person who hurls acid should be punished through ‘qisas’, but today I pardoned him because it was my right.

“I did it for my country, since all other countries were looking to see what we would do.”

SlutWalk: reactions, responses and comments

I have yet to go through and read most of these but, for your information, here is a list of several reactions to and comments upon the recent “SlutWalks”, which have taken place in various locations (originally in Toronto). For those of you who don’t know, SlutWalk came about as a response to a police officer in Toronto saying that women who don’t want to be raped should not dress like “sluts”. I know! One wonders how anything is ever going to change in the face of such victim-blaming.

Anyway, here is a list of pieces (some for, some against) about SlutWalk, diligently compiled by feministfrequency (thank you!).

If you’ve been following the feminist blog-o-sphere there has been a lot of talk about “SlutWalk”. SlutWalk has become a mini-movement that was originally conceived in Toronto in response to a police officer who claimed that women should stop dressing like “sluts” to avoid assault. The folks in Toronto were rightfully upset, as the police officer’s comment is an unfortunate example of the victim blaming that assault survivors are subjected to on a regular basis. Out of the controversy, Heather Jarvis and Sonya JF Barnett co-founded SlutWalk, a Toronto based march to end “slut-shaming” and victim blaming. This has spawned numerous follow-up marches that are happening globally in cities such as Vancouver, Boston, London, San Francisco, Melbourne and Los Angeles etc.

Because of the controversial nature of the name, SlutWalk has gotten quite a lot of press, there have been many debates, interviews, articles etc.  While the conversations have ranged from useful dialogue to outright horrible much of the framing of the conversation has been shaped by the supporters of SlutWalk (such asHeather Jarvis and Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & a World Without Rape). It seems that Gail Dines (author of Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality) has been one of the only feminists repeatedly invited on TV and radio shows to serve as the counterpoint.

I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk, for the name and for the unstrategic organizing which sadly, seems to ignores the systemic and institutional issues of rape culture, victim blaming and well, radical feminism.  It is easy to be swept up in the excitement and momentum of SlutWalk and not take a critical look at what the message really is that’s coming out of these marches.  After listening to a series of interviews and reading a handful of articles, I began feeling alienated within feminism because as Meghan Murphy points out, “… embracing the word slut sounds, to me, a lot like we’ve all drank the systematic kool-aid.”  Luckily, through Facebook and Twitter I found several feminists and allies who do not support SlutWalk for a variety of reasons.  I want to highlight some of the counterpoints and some of the voices that are not being amplified.

More, after the jump.

Acid in YOUR face

I didn’t hear about this case until this morning (trigger warning for image).

In a literal application of the sharia law of an eye for an eye, Iran is ready for the first time to blind a man with acid, after he was found guilty of doing the same to a woman who refused to marry him.

Majid Movahedi, 30, is scheduled to be rendered unconscious in Tehran’s judiciary hospital at noon on Saturday while Ameneh Bahrami, his victim, drops acid in both his eyes, her lawyer said.

The first part of the story I heard was about the proposed punishment. I felt sickened upon hearing it – the barbarism of such a punishment (particularly as we know that it’s habitually used to punish Muslim women for their lack of “compliance”) could never be justified. When I heard about the rationale for the punishment a few seconds later, however, I felt conflicted. Movahedi is due to receive this punishment from his female victim, whom he blinded with acid. This decision is taking eye-for-an-eye to a whole new level.

But that’s the rub. I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty, which is arguably the most extreme eye-for-an-eye punishment that exists. Research tells us that the death penalty has neither a general nor a specific deterrent effect, and it offers little cathartic or healing effect to victims’ families. (Its system costs a fortune to run in the US but that issue is unimportant, in the scheme of things.) However, I can’t help but think that the punishment Movahedi is due to receive is warranted and deserved. Because this time, it’s personal. Women in too many places are living in fear of acid attacks for doing something as minor as being seen in public without a male chaperone. Movahedi’s victim, Ameneh Bahrami, suffered such an attack for refusing to marry him; for making a decision about her life and her future that women the world over make every day, without fear of repercussion. But not Ameneh Bahrami; she had to be punished for not doing as she was told.

I defy anyone to tell me that they’ve not had desire for retribution when they’ve been wronged – it’s as human an emotion as joy and sadness. This is retribution for a horrible, vicious, life-changing wrong, and I don’t think I’m going to bother apologising for feeling that it’s deserved. Are there lots of “what ifs”? Certainly. Will it achieve any deterrent effect? Unlikely. But will it help Ameneh Bahrami? Very probably.

That women in Iran might now be given a stronger voice, and that female victims there might be allowed a real say in the judicial process, is a whole other debate (heck, we still don’t know what we’re doing with victims in our “civilised” justice system in the west), but that’s something that won’t be clear for a while. For now, if one woman gets to throw acid in some patriarchal, violent fucker’s face, and in doing so achieves one tiny little bit of liberation for her sisters, then she can have at it as far as I’m concerned.

Paris Hilton thinks she’s above the law

I’m just going to quote FordPrefect because he said it so well here:

Paris Hilton is a stupid selfish whore. Oh, be as rude about her as you like! She’s famous for having sex on video, taking drugs on video and being racist on video so she can’t accuse other people of lowering the tone.

Paris Hilton is going to jail. Probably. Her counsel went with the I-forgot-I-was-banned-from-driving-when-I-drove defence because it’s vacuous enough to be true, but she got 45 days of glorious incarceration anyway. Try showing a paparazzo your coochie from in there. You can’t, can you? Where’s your rat-dog now?

But Paris Hilton thinks she deserves special treatment and has petitioned Gov. Schwarzenegger to intervene. People who think celebrities (and I use the term loosely, like I called her a “woman”) should not be above the law are counter-petitioning. Please, Lord, give us this one thing.

She really is a vile and despicable human being. I’m a-signing…