Devangshu Datta: Injustice to crime

VIEWPOINT

On a balmy day, back in the last century, I was part of a multicultural, all-male gang relaxing in a ship's lounge. The ship was a tramp owned by a Sri Lankan with a Welsh master, a Korean chief engineer and an officer component drawn from six nations. We were all plastered on a combination of duty-free Red Label and Moroccan Red; all relaxed, and watching a movie. During one scene, when the characters on screen cheered, several people in the audience joined in.

The movie was The Accused. In the scene I mentioned, a screaming woman is being stripped naked in a bar, held down across a pinball machine and gang-raped by three men while several guys chant and cheer the rapists on.

It was based on a case that happened in the DC suburbs. The three rapists initially got light sentences. The victim was provocatively dressed and drunk. She had been flirting with one of the rapists earlier on. She had a history of drug abuse and possession. She ended up being treated like the accused, rather than the victim.

She had the courage and obstinacy to continue to demand justice despite being treated with contempt. A woman district attorney reviewed the case, and pushed for condign punishment. Eventually, the attorney nailed not just the rapists for full sentences but several spectators for soliciting and encouraging criminal acts.

Given an outstanding performance by Jodie Foster, the movie was disturbing for many reasons. Most of my mates thought "provocatively dressed" and "flirting" were extenuating circumstances. They were frankly incredulous that the spectators could be liable for jail sentences.

The laws are simple. Rape is a crime taken seriously everywhere. It is a crime to encourage somebody to commit a crime. Nowhere in the statutes of any nation does it say that is less of a crime to rape somebody who dresses and/or behaves like trash. Nor does it say that egging somebody on to commit rape is less a crime under such circumstances.

Yes, the victim displayed cleavage and made a come-on at one guy. That really did not give three people the right to assault her. Nor does her behaviour absolve that of spectators, who, far from doing anything to stop a crime, egged on the criminals. Yet, several normal people I knew, uxorious husbands and doting fathers among them, cheered spontaneously when they saw this. No one cheered when the rapists went down.

For me, it was what in cyber-speak is described as a "WTF moment". I realised versions of what we had watched could occur anywhere, given a critical mass of horny, drunk men. And, some version of the "she was showing cleavage" argument of extenuation would then be trotted out.

In some cultures, "we could actually see her uncovered head", or "she was reading Hentai" might be considered extenuation. In India, one of the commonest rape stories is that of a woman assaulted while going to the toilet at night in a jhuggri-jhopri colony. Presumably, "she was about to relieve herself" is extenuating.

When the Scarlet Keeling case happened, I had another WTF moment. It was so close to the story line of The Accused. Except of course, the poor kid was underage and she died. That means an additional crime "" murder -- compounded the rape.

Of course, the extenuation arguments are being presented. Scarlet was provocatively dressed, she was drunk and doped. Nobody would ask for birth certificates in the circumstances. Her mother is ditzy, and irresponsible. Ergo, she has no business to demand justice. Etc.

Reality check: Somebody raped and murdered a child. Shouldn't the media concentrate on those two crimes, rather than holding idiotic debates about the morals of Scarlet's mum? Who are the accused here -- the rapist(s)-cum-murderer(s) of a school-kid or a ditzy flower-child, whose daughter has been violated to death? There may, quite likely, have been witnesses in that Anjuna bar who watched as the kid got stoned. If there had been spectators, would they have cheered?