What about when MOM is the abuser?

I thought it might be helpful to post the following so people can get a look at how one court dealt with an appeal from a convicted female sex offender.  One thing (though not the only thing)that jumped out at me was the attempt to bring up the victims previous sexual history in an attempt to mitigate what the offender had done.  Basically trying to blame the victim and attack the victim.


U.S. v. MILLER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CATHARINE L. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-2791.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued January 11, 2010.

Decided April 13, 2010.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and KANNE, Circuit Judge, and KENNELLY, District Judge.[ 1 ]

KENNELLY, District Judge.


Catharine Miller pled guilty to one count of traveling in interstate commerce to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a fourteen-year-old girl in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). At her sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Miller's objections to the presentence report and adopted the report's recommended Guidelines sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months. The government argued for a sentence above the Guidelines range. The court sentenced Miller to a 120-month prison term. Miller has appealed her sentence. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

I. BACKGROUND

Miller is thirty-three years old and holds an undergraduate degree in engineering, a graduate degree in engineering science, and a graduate certificate in religious studies. She was living in Cincinnati, Ohio when, in July 2008, she initiated an on-line conversation on an Internet forum with a K.H., a fourteen-year-old girl from a town in southern Illinois. Within weeks, they began communicating via telephone and e-mail. Miller and K.H. discussed sex on at least ten occasions and exchanged comments such as "I miss you" and "I love you so much." K.H. sent Miller sexually explicit photographs of herself and told Miller of her sexual encounters with other females. On October 29, 2008, K.H. informed Miller that she was fourteen years old. K.H. also told law enforcement that she knew Miller was thirty-three years old.

Eventually, K.H. informed Miller that she wanted to break up because she wanted to begin a relationship with someone who lived closer to her. Miller later told law enforcement that this prompted her to visit K.H. In November 2008, Miller drove from Ohio to Illinois. She met K.H. in a park and, shortly thereafter, proposed marriage and gave K.H. a ring. Miller had already spent three days and one night with K.H. when, on November 17, 2008, K.H.'s stepfather discovered them together in the back of Miller's vehicle at a local park.

On December 2, 2008, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging Miller with traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). On March 25, 2009, Miller pled guilty to the charge.

In the presentence report, the probation office recommended that the court impose an enhancement to the Sentencing Guidelines offense level for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). After taking into account this and other enhancements and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the probation office recommended an advisory Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months' imprisonment. The probation office also noted that it had not identified any factors that would warrant a departure from the Guidelines range.

At the sentencing hearing, Miller objected to the "undue influence" enhancement. She presented evidence that the victim had stated that she had been sexually active with both male and female partners. The district court overruled the objection and applied the enhancement. It found, consistent with the presentence report, that the advisory Guidelines range was seventy to eighty-seven months.

The government argued for a sentence above the advisory range. In support, it offered evidence that Miller had a prior relationship with another minor—a photo album that had been seized from Miller's home. Miller's counsel objected. He said that he had not previously seen the evidence and that it had not been brought to his attention by the government during the pendency of the case. He argued that the defense "should have an opportunity to see that evidence before it's put before the Court. And we've not been afforded that opportunity here." July 13, 2009 Tr. 17. The district judge asked what counsel would have done differently if he had the evidence earlier. Counsel replied, "I'd have an opportunity to confer with my client and look into what information is actually represented." Id. 18. The judge then announced, "[W]e will take a five-minute recess." Id. Following the recess, the judge asked if counsel wanted to say anything further. Counsel replied, "No. I'm just thankful for the opportunity, your Honor." Id. 19.

Counsel then presented arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. The prosecutor said that the materials in the photo album reflected that Miller had a relationship with a high school-aged minor in 2004-2005. He argued that Miller would be a danger to other young girls when she got out of prison and that the court should impose a significant prison term to incapacitate her. The prosecutor started to say that while in prison, Miller could get counseling. The judge interrupted, saying that "[t]he recidivism rate of child sexual abusers is—it's massive. . . . Nothing seems to work." Id. 23. Defense counsel argued that a seventy-month sentence was sufficient, noting that Miller had no prior encounters with the criminal justice system. Counsel also noted that the court had the authority to put Miller on supervised release for the rest of her life and that there were mechanisms that would result in her being monitored closely.

The court reviewed the factors it was considering in imposing sentence. It found the circumstances of the crime to be aggravated given the difference in age between Miller and her victim and the fact that Miller was highly educated and intelligent and had not acted out of ignorance. The court also discussed the severely injurious effect of the crime on the victim and the difficulty she likely would have in recovering. On the issue of deterrence, the court said, "[D]eterrence just doesn't seem to have the effect that we wish that it would" but that it had nonetheless taken this factor into account. Id. 27-28. The court stated that it considered the need to protect the public from Miller to be "what this case comes down to." Id. 28. It stated that "the issue here is the protection of the public" and noted that "because of her intelligence and training, [the defendant] is particularly dangerous." Id. 29. The court imposed a 120-month prison term, followed by a lifetime period of supervised release, including conditions that Miller undergo sex offender treatment and that her home and computers would be subject to searches.

II. DISCUSSION

Miller appeals her sentence on three grounds. She argues that the district court erred in imposing the undue influence enhancement; by failing to give her and her counsel an adequate opportunity to consider the photo album offered by the government at the sentencing hearing; and by imposing an unreasonably high sentence without adequate justification. We consider each argument in turn.

A. Undue influence enhancement

Miller argues that the district judge erred when he applied the enhancement for unduly influencing a minor pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). We review a district court's legal interpretation of a Guidelines enhancement de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 442 (7th Cir. 2009).

Miller agrees that a rebuttable presumption of undue influence applies under the Guideline because she was at least ten years older than the minor victim. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), app. note 3(B). She argues, however, that she rebutted the presumption and that the district court erroneously concluded that the evidence she offered was insufficient as a matter of law.

To attempt to rebut the presumption of undue influence, Miller offered evidence that K.H. had told the authorities that she had multiple sexual experiences with male and female partners and had sought out such encounters. Miller also pointed to evidence that she said showed K.H. had taken the initiative at various points during their relationship. She argues that the district court determined that this evidence did not matter, relying on the court's statement that "as a matter of law, the fact that this child was sexually active is quite beside the point. [. . .] It doesn't go to what the defendant was doing." July 13, 2009 Tr. 11. According to Miller, the district court ignored our admonition that the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) "requir[es] a court to closely consider the voluntariness of the victim's behavior." United States v. Mitchell, 353 F.3d 552, 561 (7th Cir. 2003).

We disagree. The record reflects that despite the passing comment Miller cites, the district court in fact considered "the effect [of the defendant's conduct] on the victim," as Mitchell requires. Id. at 562. The court did not simply stop after making the comment quoted earlier. Rather, it asked whether "there [was] any evidence that would rebut the presumption here?" July 13, 2009 Tr. 11. The government argued that there was a significant difference between Miller and her victim in terms of knowledge and "the ability to manipulate [and] the ability to groom." Id. 12. It pointed to a sample of fifty e-mails in which Miller had repeatedly told K.H., whom she knew to be depressed or suicidal, that she loved her. The government argued that these comments "would have a profound effect on a 14 year old . . . that somebody is saying all these things to me and validates my worth, not as a teenager but as an adult, as an equal, and that is the influence." Id. The government also noted that material seized from Miller's home indicated that she was studying to be a guidance counselor, which gave her an even greater capability to exercise undue influence.

After hearing the arguments by counsel, the district court concluded that the presumption of undue influence
hasn't been rebutted and that's all that's required under the guidelines. In other words, . . . the defendant hasn't shown whatever it would be that would have to be shown that the ten-year differential here didn't play a factor. And I think that I clearly recognized on the record that there might absolutely be such a case, but the Court couldn't envision it. That's two different things. But it certainly doesn't exist here.

July 13, 2009 Tr. 14-15. In short, the district court acknowledged that the presumption of undue influence was rebuttable and concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Miller had failed to rebut it. The court did not commit legal error nor, given the evidence presented, was its finding of undue influence clearly erroneous.

B. Admission of surprise evidence

Miller argues that the district court erred by considering the photo album without giving her a meaningful chance to consider and respond to the evidence. She relies on Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008), in which the Supreme Court said that


Id. at 2203. See also United States v. Betts, 576 F.3d 738, 744 (7th Cir. 2009) (courts are "generally prohibited from relying on undisclosed evidence [at sentencing] as this deprives the parties of the opportunity to rebut or respond to the evidence.").

Miller has forfeited this argument. Though one might question, in the abstract, whether a five-minute continuance was sufficient, her counsel did not suggest after that continuance that the defense needed more time. To the contrary, defense counsel thanked the court for the opportunity to confer with Miller, indicating that he was prepared to proceed.

For this reason, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Lemmons, 230 F.3d 263, 267 (7th Cir. 2000). Miller has failed to show that the district court's consideration of the photo album's contents impaired her substantial rights. She does not argue that the evidence was inaccurate, unreliable, or could have been rebutted, nor does she explain what she would have done differently if given a continuance or a longer recess. Because an "abstract need for more time to review the evidence"— which is all Miller argues—is insufficient to show actual prejudice, see United States v. Crowder, 588 F.3d 929, 937 (7th Cir. 2009) (denial of trial continuance), she is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing on this basis.

C. Reasonableness of the sentence

The district court imposed a sentence that was fifty percent above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range. Miller argues that the sentence is unreasonable and was based on the district court's unsupported (and, she argues, erroneous) assumption that recidivism for sex offenders is "massive" and that there is no way to prevent a sex offender from re-offending. We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

When a judge sentences a defendant outside the advisory Guidelines range, "he must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of variance. . . . [A] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one." Gall, 552 U.S. at 50; United States v. Presbitero, 569 F.3d 691, 707 (7th Cir. 2009). The judge must give a justification that explains and supports the magnitude of the variance. United States v. Eubanks, 593 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 2010).

There is no question that Miller committed a very serious crime under aggravating circumstances and that she caused significant harm to her victim. The record reflects, however, that the court based its above-Guidelines sentence at least partly on its belief that sex offenders have a higher-than-norm al rate of recidivism, specific deterrence does not work for them, and as a result, lengthy incapacitation is the only way to protect the public. Those factors, assuming their accuracy, would apply to all sex offenders, not just Miller. "An above-guidelines sentence is more likely to be reasonable if it is based on factors [that are] sufficiently particularized to the individual circumstances of the case rather than factors common to offenders with like crimes." United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786, 792 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Just as importantly, neither party presented evidence that supported the district court's views about recidivism and deterrence of sex offenders, nor did the court provide any support for them. As Miller has argued on appeal, the court's comments about the rate of recidivism may be contrary to studies we have previously cited. See United States v. McIlrath, 512 F.3d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing R. Karl Hanson & Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon, "The Characteristics of Persistent Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Recidivism Studies," 73 J. Counseling & Clinical Psych. 1154 (2005)). And another study by one of the same authors, which Miller also cites, suggests that the recidivism rate for female sex offenders is even lower. See Franca Cortoni & R. Karl Hanson, "A Review of the Recidivism Rates of Adult Female Sexual Offenders" (May 2005), available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/ reports/r169/r169_e.pdf (last visited Apr. 8, 2010). In addition, the United States Department of Justice has reported that sex offender treatment programs can be effective under appropriate circumstances to reduce, to some extent, the potential for recidivism. See Center for Sex Offender Management, U.S. Dept. of Justice, "Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders" (Aug. 2000), available at http://csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html (last visited Apr. 8, 2010).

We do not intend by citing these studies to endorse their accuracy. And there may be reasons why, even if accurate, they do not apply to Miller's case. Our point is that the district court's comments about the likelihood of recidivism and the inefficacy of sex offender treatment, though perhaps consistent with commonly held views, are subject to debate. Given the absence of support in the record for the court's views, and for the other reasons we have cited, we conclude that the court failed to provide sufficient support for a sentence that was fifty percent above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range. "[A] sentencing judge should support an above-guidelines sentence with compelling justifications." United States v. Gooden, 564 F.3d 887, 890-91 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As a result, we conclude the sentence was unreasonable.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate Miller's sentence and remand her case to the district court for resentencing. We express no view on what a proper sentence would be.

This story below talks about a woman who has been sentenced for killing her 4 year old son and trying to kill her 7 year old daughter by throwing them off a bridge.  According to the article this is why she did it:

She told police she did it as an act of revenge against her estranged husband, who had obtained custody of the children a month earlier and who she presumed had a new girlfriend.

I have seen this same thing said by some offenders when they are torturing and/or sexually assaulting children.  Again this kind of thing highlights the fact that violence is not restricted to any one gender. 


Tears filled Stott-Smith's eyes -- her first public display of emotion -- as she sat at the defense table, waiting to be sentenced for intentionally killing her son, Eldon Jay Rebhan Smith, and trying to kill her 7-year-old daughter, Trinity Smith, by throwing them off the Sellwood Bridge last May 23. She told police she did it as an act of revenge against her estranged husband, who had obtained custody of the children a month earlier and who she presumed had a new girlfriend.

Stott-Smith, 32, pleaded guilty last week to aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and will face life with the possibility of parole after 35 years in prison, meaning she could be released at age 67. With the plea deal, she avoided a potential death penalty or true life in prison. She also agreed never to have contact with her surviving daughter, Trinity, now 8, or her children's family without their prior written consent and to refrain from alcohol or drug use during her lifelong post-prison supervision.

Stott-Smith, dressed in a black sweater, white blouse and black slacks, apologized for the first time.

"I just want to say that to all those that I have hurt, especially my children, I am deeply sorry," Stott-Smith said, standing before Circuit Judge Julie E. Frantz. "I hope that someday you can all forgive me."  - Read the entire article here

Stott-Smith added, "Thank you for taking care of Trinity."

I wanted to talk about the Stephanie Ragusa case a little.  With her recently taking a plea deal and pleading guilty I thought it might be of interest to some people to look at how much was overlooked or ignored in her past leading up to these events.

Ragusa was arrested in March 2008 and charged with five counts of lewd and lascivious battery for acts against 14-year-old male student.  But there were red flags prior to this happening.  Ragusa's previous history included that she failed to disclose previous arrests on her job application and when the school district found out they hired her anyway.  She has a DUI and an Aggravated Battery charge that were both dropped but she was required to list them anyway. 

She was in the classroom for two years yet there were problems.  Her first year in the classroom, her principal reported her to the Child Abuse Hotline. Her second year, at her third school, that principal accused her of using profanity and telling students about her personal life.  And it gets worse from there.

According to the Tampa Tribune "In addition to the DUI and the battery arrests, on May 1, 2001, Ragusa was charged with first-degree petty theft, a misdemeanor. After she completed a pretrial intervention program in 2003 with the Salvation Army, prosecutors dismissed the charge. Failing to disclose information is not a reason to bypass a candidate, Linda Kipley, the district's general manager for professional standards, said. 

A school board member now suggests that any hiring procedure allowing a second chance should be reviewed. Ragusa's personnel file contains two letters of reprimand."

And it does not end here.  It just keeps going and going. 

She was arrested again in April on counts of sex with a minor and lewd and lascivious battery for another student when she taught at Davidson Middle School.  There was also some allegations that she lied on her resume as well.

Now after all that you would think it was over but no.  She was arrested again near the end of April.  She was apparently caught leaving the house of one of her victims.  According to police Ragusa had gone to the boy’s house to talk about her impending trial but the discussion ended up with the pair in bed. When Ragusa left the house the officers nabbed the 29-year-old and placed her back in jail.

And there was even more that went on during her time in jail.  Now she has taken a plea bargain and faces up to 10 years.  Her attorney had this to say:

At Ragusa's June sentencing, her attorney will argue for much less prison time. Herce says the two years Ragusa has already spent in jail is enough, especially when compared to similar cases. After having sex with a student, local teacher Debra Lafave avoided prison and was sentenced to house arrest and probation.

"I think comparatively speaking, she's (Ragusa) served a lot more time than most," said Herce. (source)

It is up to each person to decide for themselves if they think her two years in the county jail is enough time or not.  If it is fair or not.  Personally I think that Lafave should have gotten a much harsher sentence and I do not think two years is enough in this case.  Looking at the patterns of behavior prior to her plea deal says something.  And I am not in favor of just plain punishment.  I am in favor of trying to make sure that this person does not harm anyone again.

This was originally posted last year and I thought it appropriate to repost this year.  When people think of school shootings, like many other crimes, they often do not think of females being capable of doing them: 

With the Columbine anniversary being today I thought this would be a good time to make a post about school shootings and females. When most people think of school shootings they do not think of girls doing it. But one of the first school shootings to occur in this country was committed by a 16-year-old girl.

In January 1979 Brenda Spencer opened fire on children who were arriving at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego that was across from her home. She began shooting at the students with a .22 rifle. The school principal and a custodian were both killed by her while they were attempting to save the children. Spencer also wounded a police officer and 8 elementary school children before she was stopped.

As bad as that is, her comments at the time of the crime and later at parole hearings give some insight into a female psychopathic mind. At the time of her arrest she reportedly told them that she'd started shooting for the fun of it, because she didn't like Mondays. "Mondays always get me down." She had done it to cheer herself up. (this later became the basis for a song titled "I don't like Monday's") She also allegedly said "It was like shooting ducks in a pond"; "the children looked like a herd of cows standing around, it was really easy pickings."

She was sent to prison for 25 to life and has been up for parole a few times now. Allegedly at her first parole hearing she expressed doubt that any of her victims were shot by her and that they may have been shot by police instead. She also allegedly stated that she was under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time of the shooting and that the police and prosecutors created fake evidence showing there had been no drugs in her system.

By her third parole hearing she had begun to voice guilt and remorse for her actions and made a claim that she had been sexually abused by her father in the past. I predict she will continue to adapt her story as time goes on in an effort to gain her freedom.

This article has a title that irks me.  It uses the term sexual misconduct rather than sexual assault or rape.  Add to that the fact that the writer and the defense attorney use the term "relationship".  Whether this is intentional or not it helps to minimize the fact that she sexually abused/assaulted the victim:


Nearly eight months after being arrested on 10 felony counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, Genise Schu was back in Santa Barbara County Superior Court on Monday to receive her sentencing.

Schu, who pleaded no contest on all charges stemming from a sexual relationship spanning seven years with the victim — a former Santa Barbara High School student who was 20 years old at the time of her arrest — was sentenced to six years in state prison.

“As his mother, the sense of betrayal I feel towards this woman is beyond anything I could have imagined,” she said tearfully. “Our children were best friends — both our son and our daughter — with her children. How could she do this not only to our children, but also to her own children? Although we support this plea today, in my mind, there is no sentence severe enough for what she did to our son and our family.”

According to the victim’s statements to law enforcement officials, and Schu’s corroboration, the victim was friends with Schu’s children and regularly slept over at the Schu residence. When the victim was 13 years old, Schu had sexual intercourse with the boy, an act that reoccurred many times over the next several years. - Read the entire article here

In 2005 the article titled "Female Perpetration of Child Sexual Abuse:  An Overview of the Problem" by Lisa Lipshires was written.  Here are some excerpts from that article:


Betsy K. and Marcia Turner are part of a small, growing number of people confronting the issue of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse. Many feel they are fighting an uphill battle against societal denial and cultural stereotypes of women and men.

In her 1993 doctoral dissertation, "Female Sex Offenders: Societal Avoidance of Comprehending the Phenomenon of Women Who Sexually Abuse Children" (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI), Boston psychologist Laurie Goldman analyzed the ways society minimizes the scope and impact of sexual abuse by women.

Goldman initially planned to conduct in-depth research of female perpetrators. To that end, she distributed 315 letters to therapists and clinics, took out an advertisement in a major newspaper, and contacted several clinicians who treated sex offenders. She also placed 10 poster advertisements in highly visible locations. Her eight-month search yielded only one woman who was willing to discuss what she had done. Goldman knew from reliable sources that female offenders were being treated, but clinic administrators insisted that no such women were under their care.

In addition, within 48 hours of having been hung, all of her posters had been removed. Unable to obtain subjects for her study, Goldman decided to focus on the societal denial that makes female perpetrators such an elusive population.

These next pieces speak to just how much denial is at work still in society about this issue:

Goldman discovered that denial of female perpetration is woven into the very systems meant to protect children. She learned that one of her new female clients had previously disclosed that she had sexually abused a nephew, but the Massachusetts child protection agency had not referred the case to the Attorney General's office. In fact, Goldman's client subsequently admitted that she had abused two other children since her first disclosure.

This treatment of the problem by the State of Massachusetts is not unique. In the State of Washington, for example, one human services professional reported that when an accused female offender was brought before a judge, the judge declared, "women don't do things like this," and dismissed the case. In another case, a New England prison warden told Goldman that she had only one woman in her system who had been convicted of child sexual abuse because "public sentiment did not allow for such charges to be brought to trial in her conservative state."

Iowa State University sociologist Craig Allen, who conducted a study Of 75 men and 65 women who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child, refers to this process as a form of societal "gate keeping." By the time female offenders could be referred to a therapist for treatment, he writes in Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis (Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press, 1991), "only those women would be left whose behaviors were so deviant" that their abusiveness could not be denied "at any of the preceding 'gates' in the system." Allen's gate keeping hypothesis could account for why female perpetrators appear so rarely in therapists' case studies and why, when they do, they are generally described as psychotic or otherwise severely disturbed.

Ruth Matthews, a St. Paul psychologist who has worked with 50 adolescent and 70 adult female sex offenders, says another major reason why adult female perpetrators are rarely seen in treatment is that many are mothers. In such cases, she says, dependent children are generally reluctant to turn in their mothers.
 
If children -- whose disclosures still provide the primary means of reporting offenders -- are being abused by mothers who are single parents or who carry out the abuse with male partners, disclosure would cause them to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care. By contrast, when there is an offending father and a non-offending mother, a child's disclosure would not mean "as much of a loss," says Matthews. "They still will have their home, they still will have a parent, and their family will stay intact."

There is much more in the article.  Even though the article is starting to be a bit old it is still a good read about the subject. 

As much as the issue of female offenders is often not thought about or discussed there is another aspect that is even thought of less.  That would be woman to woman rape and abuse.  There is not a lot of information or help out there for those that have suffered sexual assault and violence at the hands of a woman.  Even less when it comes to the lesbians, bisexual or heterosexual women abused by another woman.  Lori B. Girshick, Ph.D. has written on this issue numerous times over the years.  Here are a few excerpts from a paper she wrote titled NO MORE DENYING:  FACING WOMAN TO WOMAN SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

Woman-to-woman sexual violence is an invisible form of sexual violation because of our denial that women are sexual perpetrators and because violence among lesbians and bisexual women is hidden. But once we face that it exists--as sexual abuse and rape in battering relationships, as date and acquaintance rapes, as sexual abuse by professionals we trust, and as sexual harassment by co-workers--we must admit that our denial has sacrificed the well-being of survivors for the perpetuation of a myth.


I agree.  Violence and abuse of any kind is wrong and every person deserves help.  People should be treated as people.  We are all human beings and that is what matters. 

Studies over the past two decades on lesbian sexual violence show a range from a low of five percent to a high of 57 percent of respondents claiming they had experienced attempted or completed sexual assault or rape by another woman, with most studies finding rates of over 30 percent.
 
These studies confirm that there is a need for resources to help both the victims and perpetrators.  A need I know is not being met in many areas. 
 
The denial and legal wording issues that she discusses also still occur today.  For example one state has the following language for definitions for a crime reporting system and the data:
 
FORCIBLE RAPE = The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force are included here; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are not included.
 
The problem?  "Carnal knowledge" wording is the problem.  This means that a woman forcibly raping another woman would not be covered under this category and is a form of denial.  There is another site that talks about this issue and it is HERE.  In the excerpts below from that page they say:

Although the majority of rapes are committed by men, women can and do rape.1 As with sexual assaults committed by men, the perpetrator may be a partner, an acquaintance, or a stranger, and it can happen to any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation.

The experiences of women who are sexually assaulted by other women are not widely enough known or discussed. This silence makes it harder for those of us who are sexually assaulted by women to get appropriate health care and support. Service providers, media, educators, and assault survivors can help end this silence by talking more openly about this abuse.

Legally, definitions of rape and sexual assault differ from state to state. Some states define rape as an act perpetrated by a man against a woman. Others use an inclusive definition of sexual assault that does not state the sex of the victim or perpetrator and that lists a range of behaviors such as penetration by object, fingers, or penis.

Because of the widespread ignorance and denial surrounding sexual assault of women by women, those of us who are abused by other women may experience a different sort of shock than women who are raped by men. We also may feel that no one will believe us, and therefore be reluctant to seek help.

Because society does not widely recognize female-perpetrated sexual assault, women who experience it are less likely to call crisis lines or go to therapists immediately after the assault.


All good points.  This is an area that needs a lot more resources, trainings, awareness and professionals. 

The story below is one that makes me wonder what should be done in cases like this.  It also makes me wonder if gender played a role in allowing this to occur:

A BABYSITTER who bashed and sexually abused toddlers - and then warned she would kill a baby - is free to live unsupervised in the community despite a judge's fears she will reoffend.

The Herald Sun yesterday went to court to reveal the name and picture of the woman to alert parents not to leave their children with her.

The woman, then 19, used a pillow to smother a two-year-old eight times until he turned blue while minding the toddler and his twin for a friend in 2002.

She inflicted sadistic sexual abuse on the boy, threw him out of his cot and punched his twin - because they were crying.

A psychologist has previously warned the woman is a danger to children and should not be allowed near them.

During treatment she said she would kill a baby and several experts rated her as at a high risk of reoffending.

But a County Court judge did not place her on an extended supervision order that would allow authorities to stop her contacting children.
 
Chief Judge Michael Rozenes said he was "reasonably satisfied" she would commit another crime and was a danger without supervision. - Read the entire article here

I would hope that if they believed she was a danger to other people that they would take some steps. 
 
A psychologist's report from her sentencing in 2004 said the woman wanted to inflict pain on the children to punish their mother.
 
The woman confessed her crimes to a social worker and co-operated with police, but has not shown any remorse.
 
"(She) represents a danger to children and restrictions should be placed on her ability to be involved with them," the psychologist said. "There are no reliable predictors of when she may be of risk to children."

If she has not shown any remorse and the psychologist thinks she is a danger to children why would they not take steps?  The article makes a comment that she had not shown any signs of wanting to commit sexual offences while she was in custody.  That is in no way a reliable predictor. If she has still shown no remorse that would concern me more.  Hopefully the court did the right thing.

Another sad story and it makes me wonder why someone got only probation for sexually molesting a 7 year old child for years.



SOUTH BEND — A 36-year-old woman pleaded guilty Thursday to repeatedly molesting a child relative.

Holly Rhodes admitted in court to Class C felony child molestation for inappropriately touching a young boy starting from the time he was about 7 years old.

As part of a plea agreement, the state dismissed two counts of Class A felony child molestation against Rhodes.

The agreement includes a binding sentence of six years in prison, all suspended and served on probation. - Read the entire article here