Café Society, the new
Woody Allen movie, has come out. It is
apparently “an
amusing little picture”. I’ve not
seen many of his movies, but I really enjoyed Match Point.
These days when I see
some publicity for an Allen movie I am always reminded not of his undeniable
skills as a movie maker, but the fact that according
to his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow he sexually assaulted her when she was a
child. These allegations surfaced
two years ago, were hardly mentioned in the media on this side of the Atlantic
and subsequently disappeared from the public gaze completely. But even at the time they were making the
rounds in the media I was struck by how many Hollywood movie stars came out to
defend him. As if they knew whether the
allegations were accurate or not. To get
past this problem time and again attention
was drawn to the fact that Mr Allen has never been convicted of anything. Which to my mind was and continues to be
irrelevant. And if I may be forgiven a
smidgen of professional superiority, it shows to me that people who use it do not
understand how the criminal justice system works.
There is a difference
between the standard of proof that is required in civil and criminal
cases. A civil matter needs to be proven
“on the balance of probabilities”. If an
event on the evidence is more likely to have happened than not, then the court
will find it to have happened. In
criminal matters the standard is MUCH higher: it must be proven “beyond
reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty.
In other words, even if the court were to think, hypothetically, that it
is more likely than not that a certain Mr Allen sexually assaulted a
certain Ms Farrow, it would still render a verdict of not guilty, unless
it was almost certain that this had occurred.*
Sexual offences pose
particular problems within the criminal justice system. Most rapes occur between two parties that
know each other, and the victims rarely put up a significant physical fight
(see for example here
and here
for some more details). This leads to
the difficult scenario that the only evidence available is the testimony of the
victim and the rapist. In most cases
this means that the rapist simply has to be acquitted, even if the court finds
the victim’s testimony more credible than the denial of the rapist. This is unfortunately the way it has to be,
because of the grave consequences that attach to a criminal conviction.
This does not mean
that the victim is lying and the rape did not occur. It is for each of us to determine who and what
we believe in any given scenario. Given
the obstacles faced by victims in reporting rape, and how little they have to
gain by doing so, (see here
for an example of police attitude to rape victims coming forward,) I am always
inclined to believe a person who says she (or he) has been raped. I would encourage you to question your
reasons if you do not do the same.
As a practical matter,
rape victims are unlikely to be interested in my belief in their word, unless
they happen to be personal friends, in which case I understand that it matters
a great deal. But this has consequences
for the society: there should be an absolute division between the criminal
justice system and the assistance and support that is available for victims of sexual
assault. Victims should ALWAYS be
believed when they say they have been raped and they should be cared for and
assisted accordingly entirely irrespective of whether anyone has been convicted
or even accused of the rape.
This simple principle
explains why I am so royally upset by the recent case in Germany where
Gina-Lisa Lohfink was convicted
of falsely accusing two men of drugging and raping her in circumstances that
are unclear. I understand and accept
that the accused gentlemen could not have been convicted as the evidence was
not sufficient. But to convict her (and
remember here the very high standard that is required for a criminal
conviction) is – to use a technical term – FUCKED UP. It sends a frightening message, does untold
damage to future victims of rape and sexual assault in Germany and makes me
very, very sad.
* This is also the
simple explanation for the different results in the OJ Simpson civil and
criminal trials. It was more likely than
not that he committed the murders, which is why he lost the civil case, but it
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is why he was acquitted of the
criminal charge.