Monthly Archives: July 2011

If you’ve ever wondered just how conniving, manipulative, and controlling abusers can be, look no further than the following story. Women often face difficult consequences for reporting the abuse committed against them but it’s safe to say no one has ever experienced anything like Seemoa Sumasar did. After accusing her ex-boyfriend of rape, he staged an elaborate CSI-like plot that left her in jail for over seven months.

According to the New York Times, Seemoa Sumasar began dating Jerry Ramrattan in 2006, after he posed as a police detective and private investigator in order to impress her. He moved into her home in 2008 but instead of going to work, he stayed at home and watched shows like CSI and Law and Order on repeat. Their relationship began to crumble about a year later and took a violent turn when he attacked her, taped her mouth shut, and raped her. Sumasar went to the police and refused to drop the charges even when Ramrattan sent friends to threaten her.

What happens next is “A revenge plot so intricate, the prosecutors were pawns”.

One night, Sumasar was pulled over by the police, handcuffed, and told by an officer “You know you did it…. Just admit it”. She was taken to the police station and charged with performing a series of armed robberies. The police claimed they had a wealth of evidence connecting her to the crimes, which included credible witness statements and proof that her car was used as the getaway vehicle. As a result, Sumasar lost her business and her home, was separated from her young daughter and had to come to terms with the fact that while she was sitting in a jail cell for a crime she did not commit, her rapist was free on bail and roaming the streets.

While his scheme was no doubt meticulous, it would not have succeeded if law enforcement hadn’t assumed from the very beginning that Sumasar was guilty or refused to investigate her claims that she was being framed. Had officials decided to take her statements seriously, they would have found that the three  “witnesses” were being paid to participate in the set-up. The New York Times reports that Ramrattan coached the supposed victims to say that a woman identical to Sumasar robbed them and were even shown photographs in order to be able to pick her out of a line-up. Another “witness” came forward, claiming that he saw all of the digits from Sumasar’s car as it drove away from the scene and that he overheard the robbers use nicknames associated to Sumasar and a former boyfriend.

Shortly before Sumasar was scheduled to go to trial, the case fell apart when a witness confessed to police that their story was false.  Ramrattan is currently awaiting trial and is making the claim that all of this is part of Sumasar’s scheme to set him up. Sumasar is planning on suing the police department for presuming that a woman without prior criminal convictions was guilty, despite evidence that proves otherwise, and for refusing to investigate her claims against a man who was accused of a violent sexual crime.

Over and over again, we see the burden of proof placed upon victims of sexual violence. In this case, the proof was on the victim’s side and yet it was completely ignored. If not for the witness coming forward, Sumasar never would have stood a chance. Scary how our justice system works sometimes, isn’t it?

British couple Clare Wood and George Appleton met through Facebook in 2007. Throughout their relationship, she was the victim of severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Clare eventually ended the relationship but Appleton continued to harass her and ultimately took her life in 2009.  It appears that Clare was not the first and only woman abused at the hands of Appleton and his history of violence against women was documented and acknowledged by the British police.  As a result of Clare’s death at the hands of a man with a proven record of violence, a new bill has been proposed in her name that would inform women about the violent pasts of their partners. That way, women like Clare would be able to make informed choices about whether or not to continue in their relationship.

While those advocating for this bill may have the best intentions, it will not in any way hamper the ability of a perpetrator to exercise violence and may actually do more harm than good.

For example, imagine this. You meet a really cute guy who brings you flowers, holds open the car, picks up the dinner check, and even lets you choose what movie to watch at the theatre. As weeks go by, someone convinces you to check his background with the police… you know, “just in case”. They tell you that he does actually have a record on file for a violent crime committed against a woman. By this time, it’s probably too late. Your feelings are strong and its gotten way more serious than you had thought. Besides, it’s probably not what you think, right? Now that you think about it, he did mention once that he had an evil ex who didn’t ever let him see the kids. She was probably the one who started the fight and he was just defending himself. Or at least, that’s what he would want you to think.

Perpetrators of domestic violence are manipulative and controlling, and Clare’s Law completely underestimates the hold they have over their victims. Making past history available isn’t necessary going to stop new abuse from forming. By the time victims realize that they should have listened to the police, leaving the relationship isn’t as clean cut as one would hope.

This leads me to the second problem I have with Clare’s Law. We live in a society where victim blaming is the name of the game, and this law will only exacerbate that problem. If a woman is warned about her partner, but she is convinced that he’s changed or things will be different this time, imagine how much more intense the victim blaming will be when she finally reports the assault. “She knew about him all along!” “What did she expect? History was bound to repeat itself!” The list goes on and on. This shift of responsibility from perpetrator to potential victim is the very thing we are trying to end and unfortunately, this law makes it harder for us to do so.

Lastly, I can’t help but think this law is going to lure women into some type of false sense of security. Rather than learning to listen and trust their own intuition, women will instead rely on the police to help them make decisions regarding their perspective suitors. What about the individuals who, for some reason or another, were not eligible to be included on this list despite previous violent incidences? And what about those who have yet to become violent or whose crimes have gone unreported? This reliance on official agencies and systems is simply far too dangerous and cannot be an effective strategy to end domestic violence in the long run.

What are your thoughts about Clare’s Law? Does it impeded upon civil liberties or is it a necessary step to protect the lives of women? Should the United States propose a similar law?

The Strauss-Kahn Effect (n.)- The phenomenon in which rape victims all around the world have become more fearful of reporting their experiences as a result of the treatment of the victim in the case against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Prosecutors in the case against Strauss-Kahn believe they have discovered inconsistencies in the victim’s story which may force the case to be thrown out and the charges dropped. As it turns out, Strauss-Kahn decided to hire his own private investigators who found out that the woman made a phone call to a man in prison for drug violations and discussed with him possible financial gains to be made from her case against the Frenchman. The woman has also come under scrutiny for questions regarding the circumstances that have brought her to seek asylum in the United States but was she really left any choice? The woman hails from one of the poorest countries on earth was found to have lied in order to get on with her life. And that is cause for the case to get dropped why…?

As more details about the woman who accused Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault have began to leak, her credibility has been attacked and her name tarnished in media outlets across the globe. Women’s groups warn, and rightfully so, that such campaigns against the New York hotel worker may make other sexual assault victims more hesitant to come forward out of fear that they will receive the same treatment.

The idea that only women with a perfect past and a tidy lifestyle will be able to bypass the scrutiny that comes alongside the reporting of a sexual crime causes a chilling effect that will not only prevent justice from being served, but will keep women from receiving the help and support they so greatly need and deserve.

The fact of the matter is that rape can happen to everyone and the “type” of individual it happens to does not make it any less of a crime. Sexual crimes are committed against prostitutes, illegal immigrants, gang members, as well as to you and to me. The belief that one’s tarnished past makes the crimes committed against them any less real or any more deserved sends the message that unless you are flawless, be prepared for the fight to get ugly and your reputation tarnished in the process.

How can we ensure that the accused is the one on trial and not the victim? Is there a way to make victims feel more comfortable coming forward? Please let me know what you think in the comment section below.