In my profession, carrying a five-foot-tall chart of a human vagina down the street is a rite of passage . . . Read more at my guest blog on the Huffington Post.
Archives for October 2010
Why Doesn’t She Just Leave Him?
If you read this blog, you know I’m a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., where I specialize in sex crimes and domestic violence. Last week, Simon & Schuster published my debut novel, “Law of Attraction,” about a fictional D.C. prosecutor who specializes in (surprise!) sex crimes and domestic violence.
I tried to make “Law of Attraction” a fun, past-paced read … but I’m proud that it also tackles some tough issues involved in prosecuting the most intimate crimes. Realistically – unlike some episodes of SVU!
Historically, there has been a tendency to blame the victim in rape and domestic-violence cases.
America is slowly getting over the blame-the-victim attitude in rape cases. Nowadays, you don’t hear many folks saying, “She had it coming – just look what she was wearing!” People generally understand that “date rape” is rape, and a woman who goes back to a man’s apartment does not automatically consent to have sex with him.
Many artificial barriers to bringing rape prosecutions are also now gone. Not long ago, many states had rules barring rape prosecutions if the only witness was the victim (which prevented most prosecutions – rape isn’t a crime that happens in crowded restaurants). Only a few years ago, a man couldn’t be prosecuted for raping his own wife. It took women’s advocates years of tireless work to make this happen, but there has been a seismic shift in American attitudes toward rape
But this shift hasn’t happened in domestic violence cases. In cases where a woman is repeatedly beaten by her husband or boyfriend, people still ask the question: “Why didn’t she just leave him?” This is an important question – but it tends to cast the blame on the victim.
In “Law of Attraction,” I tried to answer the question, “Why doesn’t she just leave him?” My heroine is a beautiful young prosecutor named Anna Curtis, who suffered a violent childhood herself. She takes her job personally. And she’s devastated when a DV victim lies under oath to protect her abusive lover. The man goes free, the victim turns up dead, and Anna is heartsick and determined to bring the killer to justice. Standing in Anna’s way is her own boyfriend, a public defender representing the accused. As her personal and professional lives collide, she struggles to understand why she and so many women are attracted to men who hurt them.
Although the story covers some serious themes and weaves through the grittiest streets of D.C., there’s some good old-fashioned fun: a wine-soaked summer romance, inter-office flirtations among Washington’s Ivy-League lawyers, and of course plenty of mystery and courtroom drama.
I’m thrilled when I hear that folks are enjoying the novel. But, I’m also happy to think that, while enjoying the story, readers will also learn what it’s really like to prosecute the most intimate crimes in D.C. – and why some women don’t “just leave him.”
This essay was originally posted as an interview on Jungle Red Writers, to commemorate National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, which is this October. All the views expressed here are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.
SVU Episode #6: Branded
Summary: Someone breaks into the home of two different men, drugs them, sodomizes them with smallish household items (leaving a few behind), then brands them on their chests with the words RUINER and TRAITOR. The cops catch the ninja-like assailant breaking into a third man’s house and – surprise! – it’s a woman. Turns out that fourteen years ago, the three guys were rich, privileged camp counselors at a camp for poor, underprivileged kids, and they gang-raped a 14-year-old girl camper. She decided to take her revenge by tattooing their crime onto their chests (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, anyone?). She was motivated to do this by hearing a girl laugh on the street and intuiting that the laughter was from the child she conceived from the rape but had given up for adoption.
Verdict: C-
What they got right: You get more information from witnesses when you talk to them alone. The cops walk into a apartment and find an actor from Mad Men being attended by EMTs while his concerned wife strokes his head and he clutches his shirt to his chest. The police ask, “What happened?” Mad Men claims, “I don’t know.” The cops shoo Mrs. Mad Men out of the room and ask him that question again. Now he unclutches his shirt and shows the cops where he was branded on his chest. He was too ashamed to show it in front of his wife. Good police interrogators know this. A child won’t admit that Uncle Herbert was touching him if Uncle Herbert is hovering in the doorway. A man won’t admit to having an affair if his wife is sitting in the room. Want the truth? Talk to people separately.
A major and correct theme of this episode was that men can be victims of sexual assault. Sometimes, I think, the experience can be even harder for male victims, because there’s an extra level of perceived shame attached to their experience.
What they got wrong: On the other hand, a female perp who likes to serially rape men, like the woman in this episode, is kind of like the Loch Ness monster. I can’t say for sure that these creatures don’t exist. I’m just very skeptical that anyone has ever actually seen them.
And the courtroom scenes in this episode were a laugh a minute (not a good sign for a drama). Everyone was shouting their stream-of-consciousness thoughts willy-nilly, making the proceedings look more like an episode of Jerry Springer than an American criminal trial. Even Det. Benson got in on the outburts, when she wasn’t allowed to testify to everything she wanted to say. “But your honor!” she protested, “The jury isn’t hearing the whole story!” Mistrial, anyone? Cops can’t announce that they have a bunch of additional evidence they’re holding back. That’s unfair and prejudicial, and a seasoned detective like Benson would know better.
Later, the branded victims testified that the defendant is a crazy liar. That’s called character evidence, and the prosecution isn’t allowed to bring it up unless the defendant opens the door (which she didn’t). Finally, the trial came to its dramatic conclusion with the defense calling the 14-year-old daughter of the female defendant, and having her identify her biological father. How, you might ask, can she identify the man who is her biological father, since she never met him before? Well, the girl explains, the detectives ran a DNA test last night, then showed her a picture of the guy whose numbers matched. This three-degrees-of-separation ID procedure wouldn’t work in the case of a first-grade teacher trying to find out who stole somebody’s milk money, much less in a first-degree rape trial.
And I was astonished when the female defendant got off on “two minor counts of tresspass.” Hadn’t she confessed that she broke into these guys’ homes; injected them with horse tranquilizers; sodomized them with dice, candlesticks and other tchotchkes; and then branded their chests with wire hangers? Wasn’t she caught on video breaking into the third guy’s house, about to plunge a syringe into his neck? Yes, she was a crime victim herself, but that doesn’t give you free pass to go shoving common household items into people’s nether regions.
*All the views expressed here are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice.
SVU Episode #5: Wet
Summary: This was a quirky episode about how soda is making kids fat, how soda companies are buying all the water in the world, and how your salad can be deadly. Not your usual sex-crimes issues, but interesting and fun! A beautiful woman is found dead (of course) in a fountain, with semen in the expected spots. At first, it looks like a rape, but it turns out someone slipped poisonous mushrooms into her salad at a fundraiser – she got high, had sex with a stranger in the park, and drowned while splashing in the fountain. Who slipped her the terrible toadstools? A beautiful young heiress (of course) who was pissed because her blue-blooded grandmother loved the victim more. The heiress got the ‘shrooms from her nutty professor boyfriend, who falsely confessed to the murder because he wanted the world to know that the victim’s soda company was hoarding the world’s water supply.
Verdict: B+
What they got right: It’s true that toxicology screens don’t check for everything. There are a few “usual suspect” drugs that are always checked for– like cocaine and marijuana – and some deadly poisons. No rare South American mushrooms like the ones used here. Luckily, SVU’s brilliant medical examiner tested the mushrooms in the victim’s stomach separately and discovered they were not portobello .
What they got wrong: First, the dress the new ADA was wearing. Skin-tight red leather with ruffles? I don’t think so. But she did look amazing. But then she went over the top with her lawyering tactics. When the nutty professor came in to plea bargain with his high-paid lawyer, they argued and the prof asked, “Can I fire him?” The ADA answered, “Sure!” and got the prof a new (young, inexperienced) lawyer. That would never happen in real life. The criminal justice system is adversarial, which means the prosecutor cannot advise the defendant, hook him up with a defense attorney, or even talk to him alone once he has a lawyer. If a defendant asks a prosecutor for a new lawyer, she can set up a hearing where the judge can listen to his concerns and appoint a new lawyer for him. This was as realistic as Jennifer Aniston selecting the dress for Anglina Jolie to wear to the Oscars.
In the end, they fired this ADA – but not for this. It was because she sent the new defense attorney on a vacation so she could get more time to figure out the case. You know that was silly. Not only would it break various rules . . . but what prosecutor has the cash for that? I wish we had that kind of salary! For me, ordering in Chinese food instead of cooking dinner is a splurge. I’m sure not sending any defense attorneys to Bali.
Still, it was a fun, engaging episode with some interesting new issues. I particularly liked Stabler faking a mushroom-induced high and pretending to hallucinate a pizza. He’s great. And I was bummed that they fired this ADA. I thought that actress was gorgeous! I hope her character will make it through the inevitable Bar ethics investigation and come back for another episode.
*All the views expressed here are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice.
SVU Episode #4: Merchandise
Summary: A married couple loses their family farm to foreclosure. They rent another farm and hire kids to sell produce at a NYC farmers’ market. Still low on cash, they then chain the kids in a root cellar, starve them, beat them, prostitute them, and sell the babies the girls conceive during the prostitution. When the cops close in on them, they try to kill the kids by forcing them drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
Verdict: B-
What they got wrong: I’m sure there really are American farmers who are losing their family farms to foreclosure. But most of them don’t take this route to make money. I doubt you’ll see any human trafficking victims selling cider at your local farmers market. Human trafficking is a problem. It doesn’t look like this. A lot of trafficking involves illegal immigrants, who are terrified to go to the authorities because they fear deportation. When underage prostitutes are involved, it’s often a teenage girl who believes her pimp is her “boyfriend,” and she’ll do anything for his “love.” She allows him to take her from city to city, selling her services and keeping the money she is paid for it. The girl does what her pimp tells her to because she wants his approval, not because he has her chained up. (Up until last month, these nomadic pimps would often advertise on the “adult services” section of Craigslist. That was shut down in September, but the demand is still out there, and it will be a challenge to figure out where the marketing pops up next.) The pimp might beat up the girl in order to get compliance, but often, her self-esteem is so low, that’s not even necessary. Just a few sly, manipulative words can do the trick. This is still a terrible crime, and the girl’s life is often irreparably damaged. It is essential in cases like this to get the victim the therapy and resources she needs to break free of the psychological hold that her pimp has over her. But steel chains, manacles, and root cellars are not usually involved.
What they got right: The boy victim refused to talk to the police and prosecutors at first and tried to run from them. That’s true to life. Although they are being exploited by their pimps, child victims of human trafficking often will do almost anything to try to protect them. A major challenge for law enforcement personnel is convincing the victim to trust you above the pimp that they’ve based their whole life around.
*All the views expressed here are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice.