Dear everyone, thank you for your comments. I think that there are two issues getting mixed up in some of the comments, and I am sorry that I probably did not do enough to distinguish them in my original article. The first issue concerns the function and limits of character evidence in trials. I have been thinking a lot about this issue, sparked in part by my being asked recently to write a character reference for a friend who had traffic infractions and was in danger of losing her license. I discussed this issue with my friend, a lawyer herself, and the problem of why and to what extent it should make a difference that she had a good character when she had broken the law. We didn't come to any great conclusions, but I found it raised some very complex and interesting questions. But in her case, there was no question that she had done the acts of which she was accused, and the only question was the weight to be given to her otherwise good character (as evidenced in her references) in judging the penalty.

However, the issue to which Ms Cunneen spoke in the process at issue in this other case was different, at least as it was reported. Ms Cunneen seemed to suggest that a person could not be guilty of this crime given what she adjudged to be the good character of the accused, as evidenced by some rather superficial indices of character. That is a very different claim, and one that I find much less complex and much less interesting than the first case.

I think the comments on the role of character evidence were very interesting, and I would like to think more about this issue, so thank you!

Helen

I had to break this comment to meet word limits.

The second issue raised in the comments concerns my view about the crime of sexual assault. Contrary to the claims expressed by various commenters, I do not think that all men are evil, I do not think that all men are rapists -- and I do not hate men. In fact the last claim in particular has led to much amusement among the men in my life, who know it to be false. Frankly, it is risible.

The claim that I think all men are evil rapists is exactly the opposite of what I think and of what I have written here. My view is that sexual assault is not done by men because they are "evil", and indeed to think that is, in my assessment, to hold on to another of the oldest rape myths around. In most convictions for sexual assault, the perpetrators did not set out with evil in their hearts in order to rape someone. They simply set out to have sex – and were, for example, indifferent or careless as to the mutuality of the sexual act. That indifference or carelessness is not particularly uncommon, and indeed is often culturally rewarded – and this is what I meant by referring to "destructive norms of male sexual behaviour that discount the importance of mutuality" (I have written more on this elsewhere).

It is my view that such destructive norms are destructive not only to women, but also to men, or at least to many men. This is in part what JamesH is referring to – or what I understand him to be referring to, in noting the high rates of male to male violence, and of violence to self especially among young men. I am not careless of such considerations, and indeed such considerations are of great personal importance to me in relation to the men in my life for whom I care deeply.

As for Vanna's claim that I have never written a positive word about men, puhlease.

Helen

Destructive norm, now is that destructive behaviour that is seen as being normal, or is it normal behaviour that is seen as being destructive.

More importantly who gets to decide what sort of behaviour is destructive and what is normal.

If you want to write about character references then perhaps it would have been better to write about your dilemma about providing one for your friend, rather than this case.

It sounds like your friend was partaking in the destructive norms of breaking the road rules, running red lights and speeding etc. This sort of (normal, illegal) behaviour is intentional and premeditated. Basically your friend did not want to take responsibility for her own destructive normal behaviour.

The subject of sexual assault is a mine field, and highly emotive where logical clinical analysis is almost impossible.

<They simply set out to have sex – and were, for example, indifferent or careless as to the mutuality of the sexual act.>

Whilst this is maybe true in some cases, I fully suspect that there is something else at play here in the dynamics of human sexual interaction and I think it is the dynamics or perhaps more correctly how we view the dynamics that are to blame.

My own personal experience is that I was once accused of not taking "No" for an answer and I hadn't even tried to kiss her or touch her.

That experience only served to make me much more cautious.

On relection, it was rather dishonest of you to use the Brett Stewart case to explore your own dilemma about you giving your friend a character reference.

Lets suppose you gave your friend a character reference and that resulted in her getting a lessor penality and she then retained her license to drive.

She breaks another road rule and causes a serious accident resulting in the death or serious injury to another person.

Sometimes those who cause a serious accident do not get involved in the carnage and are at times oblivious to the carnage left behind them.

I'll describe a situation. I entered the on ramp of a major freeway and there was a car right at the end, I thought that by the time I got there the car would have already blended with the freeway traffic, so I got up to speed to blend with the traffic, looking for a gap in the traffic, and the idiot had stopped right at the end of the on ramp.

I had a number of choices and not much time to make them in, I could have run into the idiot who had stopped in the middle of the road, run up the embankment, or take my chances with the traffic.

Fortunately for me I avoided what could have potentially been a very serious accident and the driver of that vechile more than likely had no idea of how they very nearly caused a potentially serious accident.

Another point, that perhaps you are not aware of but your article, and then your admission about your friend and character references, demonstrates. This indicates that things are not always what they seem or appear to be. Sometimes there are hidden motives or agendas.

isabelberners,
It has been put to several people on OLO to find an academic from an Australian university who has written an article that says one good thing about the male gender.

One person did find something, hidden away in a PDF file, and it came from a small university. All else written about the male gender was negative or portrayed the male gender as being evil or a danger to women.

Asking you to show the article where you have actually written something positive about the male gender is not likely to get any response, but it is interesting that you choose the Stewart case to base your article, and did not choose the McInnes case. .

In the McInnes case, a woman is seeking $37 million in punitive damages for sexual harassment in the workplace. This so called “sexual harassment” included being given a hug and a kiss at a Christmas party (and I have seen countless women giving each other a hug and a kiss) and being asked to have a drink at a public restaurant.

This now constituents sexual harassment and is worth $37 million.

The continuous negative portrayal of men, that is so often lead by academics, now means that nearly everything a male does can be regarded as sexual harassment or oppression of women.

vanna
No I don't think the author is an extremist. Read Helen Pringle's comments above. Re your usual protestations, academics are not paid their salaries to write about why men are good/bad or why women are good/bad. Get off your high horse for a moment and come back to earth.

Helen
Thanks for your clarification. I think the issue came down to the relevance of character and how important this aspect in judicial matters.

Character is important, it is all we have to recommend us - that does not infer perfection or that mistakes cannot be made even if they are one-off aberrations. There has to be a presumption of innocence and that is not the same as a presumption of guilt on the accuser.

In cases like this, character might be all that is available for lack of direct witness testimony or other corroborating evidence.