Arizona Judge Blames Victim Of Sexual Assault

[SilverWingedSeraph]

After being convicted by a jury earlier this summer of sexual abuse for groping a woman in a bar, ex-DPS Officer Robb Gary Evans walked out of a Coconino County Superior Courtroom on Wednesday morning having been sentenced to two years of probation.

Evans received credit for the four days of jail time he served in Coconino County jail.

Prosecutors contended that he drank eight beers and then drove himself to the Green Room, where he flashed his badge in an attempt to get into a concert for free. While inside, he walked up behind the victim, who was a friend of a friend, put his hand up her skirt and then ran his fingers across her genitals.

When bouncers threw him out, Evans told them he was a cop and they would be arrested.

The 43-year-old former Arizona Department of Public Safety officer was facing between six months and 2 1/2 years in prison, but the crime was eligible for probation. He will not be required to register as a sex offender, according to the sentence.

The judge said she considered the defendant's lack of a criminal record and strong community support in her sentencing.

She also advised the victim to be more vigilant.

BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN BARS

A jury convicted Evans of sexual abuse, a class 5 felony, on July 2.

DPS fired Evans shortly after his criminal conviction and following an internal investigation, according to officials.

The judge sentencing Evans, Coconino County Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Hatch, said she hoped both the defendant and the victim would take lessons away from the case.

Bad things can happen in bars, Hatch told the victim, adding that other people might be more intoxicated than she was.

"If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you," Hatch said.

Hatch told the victim and the defendant that no one would be happy with the sentence she gave, but that finding an appropriate sentence was her duty.

"I hope you look at what you've been through and try to take something positive out of it," Hatch said to the victim in court. "You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability."

Hatch said that the victim was not to blame in the case, but that all women must be vigilant against becoming victims.

"When you blame others, you give up your power to change," Hatch said that her mother used to say.

VICTIM HOPES OTHERS STAND UP

The victim, a local Flagstaff professional, told the court that she had been harshly criticized by members of the community and even friends who accused her of ruining the defendant's life by pursuing prosecution.

"I sincerely hope this trial will prevent other women from being victimized in the future," she said. "I am more exhausted than I have ever been. I stood up for what happened to me for reasons bigger than me."

Evans also pinched another woman on the buttocks an hour before sexually abusing the victim in this case, according to a witness. The judge ruled before trial that the incident would be prejudicial if it was allowed to be admitted as evidence.

When asked for comment, Coconino County Attorney David Rozema said that the victim's character and commitment in this case were a key part of the prosecution and subsequent conviction by the jury.

He said that more victims are now reporting sex crimes and called their courage "exemplary."

"Victims need to feel safe to report and assist prosecution," Rozema said. "They bear no responsibility for the actions of those who commit sex crimes against them. Offenders alone must be held accountable."

VERDICT QUESTIONED

Before the sentencing, character witnesses for the defendant questioned the jury's guilty verdict.

Prosecutors criticized that testimony, which was given in person and by letter, as trying to cast Evans as the victim of some conspiracy by detectives, prosecutors, bouncers at the Green Room and the victim herself. Some 25 letters were submitted on Evans' behalf, many from current and former law enforcement officers.

Deputy Coconino County Attorney Jonathan Mosher said that he was not asking for any greater punishment for Evans because he was a cop, but simply that he not be granted any less of a punishment, either.

A woman who said she was a former intimate partner of Evans told the judge that the behavior was completely out of character for the defendant.

"His losses at this point go farther than anything that could be handed down here," she said.

The woman said Evans has lost his job and will likely lose his house because of it. She also said that because he's now a felon, he will have lost the ability to hunt, which numerous "hunting buddies" told the court was one of Evans' chief passions.

His defense attorney said he was also disturbed that he would no longer be able to vote.

ASKING FOR LENIENCY

"These people put their lives on the line every day," Evan's former partner said. "I hope you'll be lenient on him. To me, this is one way we can give a little back to those in law enforcement who give so much to us everyday."

Others also asked for leniency.

"I don't necessarily agree with the way this case got to be here," former Flagstaff Police Lt. Randy Weems told the judge.

Weems was recently a candidate for Flagstaff chief of police.

"This is the second time in 25 years that I feel the system didn't work," he later added.

Evans' defense attorney, Bruce Griffen, picked up on that same line of argument, referring to it as a "very disputed case."

"Sometimes, the bigger you are, the harder you fall in this line of work," he said.

Griffen did concede that his client likely should not have been in a bar that night and been so intoxicated, but he said Evans had not entered a bar since his arrest.

Judge Hatch expressed her concern with the amount of alcohol Evans drank that day and said that "Joe blow" would have been considered dangerous if he were driving.

"As a law enforcement officer you're held to a higher standard," Hatch said. "If you didn't want to be held to a higher standard you shouldn't have become a law enforcement officer."

In addition to probation, Hatch sentenced the defendant to 100 hours of community service and prohibited him from possessing or consuming alcohol during his probation.

If Evans breaks any part of his probation, he could still be sentenced to as much as 2 1/2 years in prison.

So much of this is fucked up. The Judge blaming the victim for... what? Being a female in a bar? Apparently that makes her sexual assault partially her fault, but oh no, I'm not blaming her! Why the hell should this man deserve leniency due to being a Police Officer? If anything, that should be a reason to give a harsher sentence. Surely we should hold out Police Officers to a higher standard! They're meant to be the ones protecting society. They should not get a free pass for sexual assault.

The Judge has since issued this non-apology:

Judge Jacqueline Hatch issued a statement apologizing for comments she made to a victim of sexual abuse before sentencing an officer who groped the victim at a Flagstaff bar.

“As a Coconino County Superior Court judge, it is my responsibility to ensure that all victims and defendants are treated fairly and in a respectful manner in the courtroom,” Hatch wrote in the statement. “It’s a responsibility I take very seriously. I also believe victims should not be blamed for coming forward to report crimes.”

Hatch was widely criticized for comments that many took as blaming the victim for being in the bar. The victim and others present in the courtroom Wednesday said the remarks were inappropriate and likely to discourage other victims from coming forward to report sexual crimes.

In an interview with the Daily Sun Thursday, the victim called for Hatch to apologize.

Before issuing her sentence, the judge said she hoped both the victim and the defendant learned a lesson from the case.

She said bad things can happen in bars and warned that women needed to be vigilant against becoming victims. “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened,” Hatch said.

“When you blame others, you give up your power to change,” Hatch later said her mother used to say.

The victim accepted Hatch’s apology Friday.

“I genuinely appreciate Judge Hatch’s apology,” the victim said. “I sincerely hope moving forward, on a global level, there is a deeper understanding of how it feels to be a victim and what a difficult role it is to carry out. The initial comments made to me in the courtroom were unnecessary, and I appreciate her for acknowledging that.”

The victim said she was thankful for the overwhelming public support that had surfaced for her since the sentencing.

“My heart is absolutely elated to know how many wonderful, empathetic people there are in our community,” the victim said. “Thank you all, I am absolutely honored by the love and support behind me.”

The story went viral Friday before Hatch apologized, with national news organizations reporting on the comments and bloggers harshly criticizing them. An online petition calling for the judge’s resignation was approaching 10,000 signatures Friday.

The petition, which features signatures from people all over the country, stated Hatch should “step down before overseeing another sexual assault case.”

The comments also prompted the Coconino County Attorney, local victim advocates and other officials to reiterate their support for victims who report crimes and placing the blame solely on the offender.

“I apologize to the victim for any additional anguish my comments may have caused,” the judge wrote in her statement. “It was never my intention to make a situation worse for any victim. I have learned an important lesson and will apply what I have learned to future cases, to ensure that the rights and views of all victims are heard and respected.”

She said her comments in court were “poorly communicated.”

I guess if the victim has accepted the apology, that should be good enough, but I don't think it is. Her comments were not "poorly communicated", they were victim-blaming bullshit.

[Feil]

I don't see what your rage is about here. The judge said something generally true but with untrue and hurtful implications. When you imply something you don't mean by something you say that you do mean, that is the definition of poor communication. The judge apologized for the implications and resolved to be more careful in the future. Problem solved.

[Serafina]

No, problem not solved. This is an instrinsic part of the rape culture we live in.

Suppose a terrorist blows up a building and you get injured, and during the trial the judge says "well, its your fault that you were there". Or you get mugged and the judge says to you "well you should not have walked down that street" Or...well you get the idea.

The fact that the judge made that statement is a pretty good indicator that he does not get the nature of sex crimes - who are still widely seen as partially the victims responsibility even when it is violent "stranger on the street" rape. And cases where the victim is partially responsible are judged more leniently - for a good reason, except that victims of sex crimes are not responsible in any way.
So yes, this is a problem, and yes, the judge is to blame for that comment regardless of whether he apologized or not.

[Crazedwraith]

Serafina, read again. The Judge was a woman. Not that it changes your point, of course.

[Simon_Jester]

I think I'd like to make a devil's advocacy point here:

If we didn't need to think about whether our actions put us in danger, it would be a better and safer world.

Is it wise to advise people, and to speak to people, as if we live in that better world?

[Sharp-kun]

Or you get mugged and the judge says to you "well you should not have walked down that street" Or...well you get the idea.

If I walked through Govan (Glasgow area) at 01:00 flashing my smartphone and got mugged, anyone would be perfectly within their rights to call me an idiot.

You can have an impact on how likely you are to suffer a crime, though it doesn't change the responsibility of the criminal.


In this case though I can't see anything the victim could have done.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I think I'd like to make a devil's advocacy point here:

If we didn't need to think about whether our actions put us in danger, it would be a better and safer world.

Is it wise to advise people, and to speak to people, as if we live in that better world?

The issue in this case is that with the exception of a small movement deliberately crafted to counter the trend, all of the dialogue made on this topic is on what the victims can do to avoid victimisation. It creates an atmosphere where it becomes entirely the potential victim's responsibility, which quickly leads to the idea that the attack is the victim's fault. This can help make the world the opposite of better and safer by encouraging those who would harm the victims, either directly through feeling that it's not as big of a deal if they do it, or indirectly such as in this example where the assaulters are able to get off easy.

People should be careful in potentially dangerous situations, yes. But we also must be careful of the implications of what we say and do.

[eion]

professional courtesy, what a great job perk. I'm surprised he was even arrested.

[Simon_Jester]

The issue in this case is that with the exception of a small movement deliberately crafted to counter the trend, all of the dialogue made on this topic is on what the victims can do to avoid victimisation. It creates an atmosphere where it becomes entirely the potential victim's responsibility, which quickly leads to the idea that the attack is the victim's fault. This can help make the world the opposite of better and safer by encouraging those who would harm the victims, either directly through feeling that it's not as big of a deal if they do it, or indirectly such as in this example where the assaulters are able to get off easy.

People should be careful in potentially dangerous situations, yes. But we also must be careful of the implications of what we say and do.

So, is there any way to even talk about the issue of avoiding criminals, without blaming the victim?

From a dispassionate point of view I'd like to think this was possible.

[Serafina]

Of course you can talk about it without blaming the victims. It's an issue of degree.
In the case of sex crimes, the degree swings significantly towards victim-blaming. Because people talk about it ALL THE TIME. They advise women on how to commnicate a "no" clearer (instead of advising men on how to understand consent), they advise women on places where they should be careful (except that most sex crimes don't happen in dark streets commited by strangers), they argue against revealing clothing (which has little to no causal link to sex crimes) and so on.
So playing devils advocate is entirely unnecessary, since it happens all the time anyway - the devil already has thousands of advocates.

Look at workplace sexual harrassment. As long as people focussed on telling the women how to avoid it, nothing changed. Only when people started teaching everyone (thus also the men) how to behave it worked.


Another reason why you should not play devils advocate in this case - the woman wasn't even in any particulary dangerous situation. She wasn't walking down some dark alley, or sitting alone at a bus station or let a stranger into her apartment. She was at a public concert - what is she supposed to do, stay out of public life altogether?

Yes, if she is walking down a a dark street, alone and intoxicated - you would have a point and can say that her behaviour was dangerous (though she would still not be to blame). Not if you are a judge though - because as a judge you are supposed to recognize that she would still not be in any way to blame anymore than someone who does not invest into five security locks is to blame for being robbed.

[Terralthra]

The issue in this case is that with the exception of a small movement deliberately crafted to counter the trend, all of the dialogue made on this topic is on what the victims can do to avoid victimisation. It creates an atmosphere where it becomes entirely the potential victim's responsibility, which quickly leads to the idea that the attack is the victim's fault. This can help make the world the opposite of better and safer by encouraging those who would harm the victims, either directly through feeling that it's not as big of a deal if they do it, or indirectly such as in this example where the assaulters are able to get off easy.

People should be careful in potentially dangerous situations, yes. But we also must be careful of the implications of what we say and do.

So, is there any way to even talk about the issue of avoiding criminals, without blaming the victim?

From a dispassionate point of view I'd like to think this was possible.

Sure, but in the case of sex crimes, this becomes "how to avoid men." That is largely the point, and the problem. "Bad things happen in bars", is the judge's message here. Also, "bad things happen on the train", and "bad things happen walking down the street", and "bad things happen when your landlord hires an A/C repairman". Maybe instead of focusing on what women can do to avoid being raped, which from all appearances is nothing, we should try teaching men that women's bodies don't belong to them.

[Stark]

If I walked through Govan (Glasgow area) at 01:00 flashing my smartphone and got mugged, anyone would be perfectly within their rights to call me an idiot.

You can have an impact on how likely you are to suffer a crime, though it doesn't change the responsibility of the criminal.


In this case though I can't see anything the victim could have done.

This is a great example. The judge is equating being a woman at a bar with exactly this kind of risk-taking or ostentatious behaviour. Its worse when you consider she was at a bar minding her own business when a man who knew her sexually assaulted her - in this case blaming 'being at a bar' seems pretty strange.

The judge's statements arguably boil down to 'get used to it', which might be an accurate reflection of a nation's culture, but doesn't really have any place on the bench.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If I walked through Govan (Glasgow area) at 01:00 flashing my smartphone and got mugged, anyone would be perfectly within their rights to call me an idiot.

You can have an impact on how likely you are to suffer a crime, though it doesn't change the responsibility of the criminal.


In this case though I can't see anything the victim could have done.

This is a great example. The judge is equating being a woman at a bar with exactly this kind of risk-taking or ostentatious behaviour. Its worse when you consider she was at a bar minding her own business when a man who knew her sexually assaulted her - in this case blaming 'being at a bar' seems pretty strange.

The judge's statements arguably boil down to 'get used to it', which might be an accurate reflection of a nation's culture, but doesn't really have any place on the bench.

It is not that strange in AZ, which might as well be an enclave of mormon controlled Utah. Unlike other religious and political groups, simply being mormon is enough to get you on the bench or into public office, because the mormons vote for one of their own as an almost completely unified block. As a result, they are disproportionately represented in nearly every class of public office including the elected judiciary.

Blaming women for seducing men, or being out in public, or being in a bar is... well... pretty much par for the course there. Whether this judge is mormon is another story, I dont know, but such things are not uncommon in the state.

The rest has been pretty well covered. I too am shocked he got arrested.