Manitoba Justice Robert Dewar is under attack for his sentencing of Kenneth Rhodes, 40, for sexual assault. Dewar gave Rhodes just a two-year conditional sentence to be served at home for raping a 26-year-old woman. Dewar appeared to blame the victim in part for the attack.
Dewar noted that “sex [was]in the air” and made note of her dress as part of the context leading to the rape. Dewar noted “[t]his is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation. This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.”
However, victim rights advocates noted that Rhodes made repeated passes at the victim who was intoxicated and that she was so traumatized by the assault that she fled virtually naked into the woods.
The judge is now the subject of judicial complaints over the sentencing.
Source: Winnipeg found on Reddit.
Jonathan Turley
Does the good judge have a welcome mat at his front door? Would that then be an invitation to burglary? Are jewelery stores responsible when they are robbed because the display diamonds in the window?
If only she had worn a burka none of this would ever happen.
Well said Frank.
The ruling has caused a protest attended by about a hundred people that stormed the courthouse demanding Judge Dewar resign. He should IMO, his concept of Justice is outmoded.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/02/25/mb-rally-law-courts-sex-assault-sentence-winnipeg.html
Forceable crimes such as these regardless of where they happen affect more than just the immediate. I suspect and I am looking for the reasoning behind this, but suspect that there is more going on here than was published…..
This is one of those matters that we were not there…. we have no first hand knowledge of what occurred in the courtroom… I am trying to give the Judge the benefit of doubt…first blush this angered me…but, has the victim played victim before…. how was she dressed at sentencing…Not that that should matter to a Judge at sentencing…..but it sure would have an affect on the Jury if it had gone to trial….In cases like these unless it is clear cut it boils down to he said she said…. THESE ARE HARD AREAS OF THE LAW TO BE INVOLVED IN AND GENERALLY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S HAVE THERE OWN AGENDA AND DEMONS THAT THEY WRESTLE WITH….
I thought No still meant NO in Manitoba! If the details are accurate, this judge should not resign, he should be removed.
rafflaw,
I am not disputing the fact that NO means NO…. The cases that I have represented in alleged rapes were mostly plead out…2 I took to trial and guess what, One of the victims never showed and the other one had a change of heart…she was mad at her dad because she could not move with her boyfriend, so she hollered rape…… These were 2 gutsy fellows, I explained the risks to them…but they held there ground…. the only others I handled were in my opinion miscarriages of justice…. one fellow was 17 and the girl was 15…. not the age of consent… The second one was a girl invited this guy from a bar…. her boyfriend went home with someone else and she decided to get even and used my client….then all hell broke out and she cried rape rape after.. The only other one, I wanted to convict him myself….and I withdrew….
Not all of the cases are the same and to make a blanket call without knowledge of all is a miscarriage..
Anonymously Yours 1, February 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm
rafflaw,”…she cried rape rape… ”
————————
as opposed to just plain rape?…so I guess she was REALLY just looking for attention….
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding
W/C,
I am not condoning this type of behavior…. This is one of those areas that better people tread in than I…. Even the attorney’s that I know practice this area now get back lash for just representation of the defendant…..
There doesn’t seem to be enough info t go on in the story…
Cut & Paste
Rhodes pleaded not guilty at his trial on the basis he thought the woman had consented. Dewar rejected that defence in convicting him, but said he could consider some of that argument during sentencing.
So the guy THINKS she consented, and the judge threw that argument out….BUT considered it during sentencing??!??!?
Sorry, but there seems to be something missing here…this whole thing smells like 3 day old fish….