Cyber-sexual harassment – a shocking story

This post is actually somewhat personal, but it actually happened to a friend of mine in Singapore.  It is a shocking story about how a man hijacked a woman’s identity, abused it, and how the Singaporean legal system appears to be utterly impotent in protecting its own citizen.

“Cyber Harassment and Women’s Rights”

[Excerpt]

My life has not quite been the same since 2nd Nov 2010. A person whom I helped in real life decided to destroy my life by posting my personal details bearing my name, age, ethnic group, work and mobile phone numbers, workplace and home address in an online ad as a teacher in Singapore advertising for sexual services.

This person (for the sake of convenience, I shall call him the impersonator) also stole pictures of me from a friend’s Facebook photo album and posted it along with my personal particulars these online ads which were placed in local classified online ad websites as well as on international pornographic sites. He also created a fake Facebook profile on me bearing my name.

He impersonated me online and chatted with men and had them to call and visit my school where I teach and my residence to “indulge in rape fantasies in my school toilets.” He also incited men “catch me by surprise at my home and school.”

What has been rather shocking is the attitude of the Singaporean law enforcement authorities to her complaints.

From my experience with cyber harassment, it is very frustrating when ever I articulated my fears to the authorities about me (or my female pupils) being sexually attacked as these fears were dismissed as “just talk by cowards hiding behind the cloak of the internet” , or when they dismissed the perpetrator as “ a juvenile delinquent or mischief-maker”. I was made to feel that I was making a mountain out of a molehill despite receiving numerous rape threats bordering on the hundreds and visitation by men at my home for “sexual services’ who wanted to “catch me by surprise” by either “hid[ing] in my school toilet to rape me and my female students as instructed by [me]” or “wait[ing] at my flat’s void deck to rape me.”

So the cavalier attitude adopted by the law enforcement agencies in regards to my case of cyber harassment only demonstrated to me this: Cyber harassment is gender discrimination as women in my country need to tolerate these cyber “pranks”. Despite the identity of the perpetrator known to the authorities and the fact that he admitted to creating the ad and impersonating me, he is still out there and free to send even more men to my home and workplace to “indulge in [my] rape fantasies.”

I get the impression that the authorities will only take action when I do eventually get raped by one of these men sent by the perpetrator or when one of my female pupils gets raped. Even then, the perpetrator might walk free as the rape might be committed by the “minions of sexually frustrated men or perverts” whom he incited to visit me.

The law enforcement officer in charge of cybercrime have also advised her that “law in Singapore has not evolved to deal with cases like this.”  This turns out to be a rather strange statement, because as my friend found out, there are actually quite a few laws in Singapore that appear to deal with cyber-sexual harassment, such as the Indian Penal Code and the Computer Misuse Act.  Infringement of the latter legislation in Singapore carries a maximum of two years imprisonment.

Perhaps it is closer to the truth to suggest that law enforcement authorities in Singapore have not quite caught up with the law.  Not an unusual situation in many developing countries, but one would have expected better from Singapore.  If this has happened in Australia, the media would have pounced on it, and the relevant minster would front out to the camera and face some tough questions.  I am not familiar with the role of the Singaporean media in Singaporean society, but this is where a robust media can play a vital role in a civil society.

Neuroscience, neurolaw?

This is from a popular Canadian talk show, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, screen on TVO (TV Ontario).  Normally I would focus on media reports from Australia and the US, but the topic of this discussion is very relevant to the whole question of mens rea and the use of ‘insanity’ as a defence against criminal charge, especially in the light of advances in neuroscience.

I will comment further about this, because this might not be easy to comprehend for senior Legal Studies students.  I will also post a paragraph illustrating how to integrate this kind of media report discussion into a crime essay.

Where is the burden of proof? (‘Calls for law reform after girl sold for sex’)

This is not a pleasant case, but it raises important legal issues worthy of critical reflection.  Read the media report and then ask yourself whether there are certain circumstances where the onus of proof should be on the defendant rather than the prosecutor.

‘Calls for law reform after girl sold for sex’ (ABC News, 29 September 2010)

The case involved the girl whose mother and a man named Gary Devine advertised her in the local paper as being an 18-year-old prostitute.

They have been jailed for 10 years for their crimes.

More than 100 people raped the girl in Hobart last year but the Director of Public Prosecutions has told police he does not have enough admissible evidence to take all of the men to court.

Convicting the two adult guardians is straight forward.  But there are also more than 100 people who could be convicted of statutory rape of this under-aged girl.  Convicting them has proven to be a lot harder.  This is because many of them proclaimed ignorance of the girl’s actual age and the prosecution has found it hard to prove otherwise.  This has lead to calls for legal reform whereby in statutory rape case, the onus would be on the defendants to show that they are ignorant of the victim’s actual age.  Professor Caroline Taylor from Edith Cowan University is one of those who call for reform.

Professor Taylor says in underage sex cases the onus of proof must be identified by the Crown.  This means that in rape cases in which age is an issue, perpetrators can claim ignorance…

“What it means is we have unworkable laws that fail to protect children. We have a legal system that acknowledges that it traumatises children and therefore the loser in every case is children.”

Professor Taylor says the law should be reformed so the onus is on the defendant to prove he or she believed the child was older.

SuperMax inmates ‘uses’ facebook and the government is exploring ways to stop it

Some of our most notorious prisoners, such as Ivan Milat and Bassem Hamzy, have apparently set up Facebook profiles.  Obviously they don’t really have access to computers inside prisons, but they are probably set up by relatives and friends.  There are security-related concerns and the NSW Minister for Corrective Services, Phil Costa is exploring ways to stop it.

Costa looks at new law to stop inmates having Facebook profiles (Sydney Morning Herald, 23 September 2010)

The state government has refused to rule out introducing legislation that would ban Facebook profiles being created on behalf of NSW prisoners.  The Corrective Services Minister, Phil Costa, said he would seek to have prisoners’ profiles removed from Facebook after revelations in the Herald that inmates of SuperMax, where the worst criminals are kept, have a presence on the social media website.

Family and friends are believed to manage the profiles, helping inmates to stay in touch with the outside world.

However, this is perhaps where legal means of addressing legal issues arising from cyberspace might falter.  A more effective approach might be non-legal, involving establishing a cooperative relationship between facebook and governmental authorities.

David Vaile, the executive director of the cyberspace law and policy centre at the University of NSW, said the government should establish a working relationship with online services such as Facebook.

Such relationships would be more effective than a new law in removing offensive or inappropriate material. ”The way you put pressure on companies that you don’t have direct legal power over is by having a good relationship … and by being seen as measured and reasonable and only asking them to deal with the most extreme matters,” he said.

Population will drive gun crime (ABC News, 18 August 2010)

There seems to be a consensus that Howard’s gun buy-back scheme was tremendously successful in reducing gun related deaths in Australia.  This view has been backed by previous research by law reform agencies as well as academic research from US (see previous post).  However, as this media report suggests, other social factors will have a negative impact on the effectiveness of our gun-control legal mechanisms.

Population will drive gun crime (ABC News, 18 August 2010)

The Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland says he expects a rise in gun crime and shootings as Melbourne’s population continues to increase.

Mr Overland says he believes the state’s gun control measures are adequate.  But he says a swelling population is largely to blame for events such as those seen in recent days.

“Obviously we don’t want these things to occur, but we live in a very big city nowadays,” he said.

“Unfortunately as population increases, we know that these sorts of issues will increase, as we have bigger and bigger populations living here in Melbourne.”

So, despite our best effort, increase in gun related deaths, particularly gun crimes, will probably increase due to pressure from population growth in urban areas.

‘Law plan would remove juries from more trials’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2010)

This might have profound implication for the nature of criminal justice system in the state of New South Wales.

‘Law plan would remove juries from more trials‘ (Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2010)

The media report centres on a parliamentary inquiry ordered by the NSW Attorney-General, John Hazistegoras, to investigate the possibility of removing juries from many types of criminal trials.  Since this is still in the realm of parliamentary inquiry, we are really swimming in the realm of speculation.  What is clear from this media report is that the current jury system needs reform.

Jury system has been an integral part of the our adversarial criminal justice system for centuries.  It is based on the long established notion that crimes are offences against the community and therefore defendants in a criminal trial should tried by a jury panel who represents the community.  Trial by jury has been regarded as a legal right that protects defendants.

However, it is becoming apparent that the current system is not working too well.

Critics say juries are overwhelmed by complex cases where there is extensive technical or scientific evidence. There are also concerns that jurors may let emotion cloud their judgment or be intimidated or bullied into a decision.

Several-high-profile trials have been aborted because jurors fell ill, looked up the case on the internet or went on their own illicit fact-finding missions.

“In some circumstances, particularly if a case centres on an issue that requires the application of objective community standards, it may be more appropriate to have the trial before a jury rather than a judge alone,” Mr Hatzistergos said.

“But it may be less essential where cases are particularly long and complex and place a heavy burden on the jury.’‘

Jurors after all, are humans.  In fact they are mere mortals who often have no legal training apart from this provided by the court.  I am inclined to agree with some of these criticisms levelled at the current jury system in NSW.

‘Legal issues over Hey Dad! media frenzy’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 28 March 2010)

Those who read Australian newspapers will not be able to ignore the recent case surrounding the allegation of sexual abuse by the retired actor, Robert Hughes, in the long running television comedy series, Hey Dad!.  The media all seems to be giving the impression that Robert Hughes is quite possibly guilty of sexual abuse of several female cast members.  What is interesting is whether the media attention to this case would jeopardise the subsequent court hearing.

ACTOR Robert Hughes could have a potential criminal case against him thrown out of court because of the media frenzy surrounding the Hey Dad! sex scandal, a legal expert has warned.

Greg Barns, a director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, said it was possible a judge might find Hughes unable to receive a fair trial…

Mr Barns said that the people calling for Hughes to be charged could be hindering the legal process.

”The difficulty I had with what A Current Affair has done is it has effectively carried out a trial without the safety of a trial,” he said. ”It’s aired very serious allegations on an individual … it has created a feeding frenzy around Mr Hughes.”

He said the attention could make it ”harder” for Hughes to get a fair trial if charges were laid.

”Particularly with someone high profile like that, it can taint a jury pool,” he said.

This raises an interesting question.  What should be the responsibility of the media in dealing with legally sensitive cases, especially those involving public figures?

‘Blinded by science: how DNA evidence can confuse jurors’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 2010)

This article highlights one of the challenges that face a jury system made up of ordinary citizens: how to make sure they have enough knowledge and understanding to deal with the facts and evidence.  It also, once again, highlights the importance of research institution in the law reform system.

‘Blinded by science: how DNA evidence can confuse jurors‘ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 2010)

THE less jurors know about DNA science, the more likely they are to be swayed by it and find an accused person guilty, research has shown.

Known as the ”white-coat syndrome”, this tendency to be overwhelmed by experts could mean there is a danger jurors place undue weight on scientific evidence.

But a 20-minute presentation to jurors significantly increases their understanding of DNA and its use in criminal trials, and will make them more sceptical and reduce the likelihood they will convict. These are the findings of a study to be released by the Australian Institute of Criminology today.

This should come as no surprise to most of us.  Many of us who lack knowledge and understanding of the nature of scientific evidence tend to see qualified scientists as unquestionable experts in their fields of expertise.  We feel unable to question their interpretations and conclusions, without understanding how they reached their conclusions.  However, scientific evidence like DNA are not error proof, as explained in this article.

People failed to appreciate the potential for laboratory error or contamination and for DNA to be accidentally transferred, she (Jane Goodman-Delahunty) said.

Also, the concept of ”random match probabilities” – the likelihood of a coincidental match between the crime scene sample and a person – was poorly understood, and people forgot to consider that in some places the matches were based on only eight points of comparison, while in the US up to 13 points were matched, increasing the reliability.

Educating potential jurors about the nature of scientific evidence in a legal context is critically important if justice is to be achieved.

What is also interesting again, is the important role played by research institution.  In this case it is the Australian Institute of Criminology.  According to its website, it is a Commonwealth statutory authority founded in 1973 with the purpose of promoting  justice and reducing crime by

undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice.

Statutory research authority is an important feature of the rule of law in Australia.  It is an independent research body that is funded by governments to provide non-partisan advice to the government and public.  In the case of the Australian Institute of Criminology, it is governed by the Criminology Research Act 1971 (Cwth).  Legal Studies students who are writing about the law reform process should emphasis the importance of statutory research authority in reforming our criminal justice system.

‘Jail fails to change ways of arsonists, say experts’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February 2010)

It has been awhile since I last blog.  Good to be back 🙂

The following article highlights one of the challenges facing the Australian criminal justice system in dealing with arsonists.  It also highlights one of the law reform mechanisms that is not often commented upon.

‘Jail fails to change ways of arsonists, say experts‘ (Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February 2010)

CRIMINOLOGISTS and psychologists say the Australian legal system is lagging behind the world in dealing with bushfire arsonists. The issue will be canvassed at a National Judicial College forum on sentencing in Canberra today.

Damon Muller, a post-doctoral fellow at the Australian Research Council’s Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security, said there was a community expectation that arsonists should be severely punished.

But Dr Muller said a child who lit a fire might not have intended the damage or understood the implications of what he was doing.

First point that can be drawn from this extract thus far is the critical role universities can play in our law reform process.  It is not just the NSW Law Reform Commission! In Australia, universities often create specialised research institutes that focus on particular area of studies.  In this case, the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security is closely associated with Griffith University, Charles Sturt University, ANU and the University of Queensland.

What the academics found at ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security with regards to how our criminal justice system deal with arsonists is troubling.

”If kids are lighting fires to meet some psychological need, then throwing them into jail is unlikely to change that,” he said. ‘‘One of the things we don’t have is a treatment program for arsonists who have been sentenced.’‘

The problem with habitual arsonists, according to Dr Muller, is that sentencing them to jail is not going to change their behaviours.  Once release back into society, they would potentially cause harm to the community again.  What Dr Muller believes is required to fix this problem is rehabilitation program for arson offenders in prisons.  However, this is currently not available in Australia.

This opinion is further reinforced by Rebekah Doley, a psychologist from Bond University specialising in the study of arson offenders.

”The work I have done with serial arsonists [shows] that a core group don’t burn out and they are least likely to stop. Most arsonists don’t demonstrate remorse and they say they were in control at the time they lit the fire. Bushfire arsonists generally fit this profile.”’

At the end of the day, prison cannot simply punish offenders.  If we are to release offenders from prisons after their sentences, measures must be taken to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them back into society.

‘College Ivy Sprouts at a Connecticut Prison’ (New York Times, 16 November 2009)

This is a hopeful media report about the criminal justice system.  Even though it is from America, it holds interesting lessons for Australians, in particular our HSC Legal Studies students studying the core topic on ‘Crime’.

Syllabus link: Crime – Effectiveness of our prison system, rights of victims versus rights of offenders

College Ivy Sprouts at a Connecticut Prison (New York Times, 16 November 2009)

One of the critical issue facing our prison system is the rate of recidivism.  Recidivism rate is the rate of reoffending among offenders.  According to figures from NSW Parliamentary research in 2006, “approximately 60% of those in custody in Australia have previously served a period of imprisonment“.  (‘Talina Drabsch, ‘Reducing the Risk of Recidivism‘, NSW Parliament Briefing Paper No. 15/2006)  This means over half of our prison population are trapped in a cycle of prison and crime.  Addressing recidivism rate is clearly an important issue.

This is what makes this article from New Y0rk Times particularly interesting. Wesleyan University, one of the top universities in the United States, has been running a program which enables prison inmates from Connecticut’s high-security prisons to gain a Wesleyan University undergraduate degree.

… each of the students — all men — had numbers like 271013 or 298331 on their khaki shirts. They were, in fact, inmates at the state prison here and all part of a daring, privately financed experiment in higher education that takes murderers and drug dealers and other inmates with histories of serious crime and gives them an opportunity to get an elite college education inside their high-security prison, the Cheshire Correctional Institution.

Entry into this prison academic program is based primarily on academic criterion.  Criminal record is not taken into consideration.  It is academically vigorously, but what it does offer to prison inmates a path back into social integration.  Even for inmates who would probably be spending their lifetime in prison, this university program offers them a genuine chance to gain the self-respect that they had craved.

… many of them speak with pure clarity about the reasons they were drawn to school again: idle curiosity, intellectual interest, a longing to be part of the big conversations of the day, and a desire for self-respect.

If one is to assess the effectiveness of this program in the context of the prison system, one would be inclined to judge this program quite favourably, especially since this is happening in a high-security prison, where inmates have a hard-core reputation.  However, this program’s effectiveness is limited by the fact it is, by its very own nature, only accessible to inmates with strong academic abilities.  Keep in mind though that this program does complement other vocational rehabilitation programs that exist in Connecticut high-security prisons.  Besides, if these inmates in the university program can set themselves as role models, that could improve the culture within the prison system. 

Clyde Meikle, 38, of Hartford is serving a 50-year sentence for fatally shooting a man with whom he tussled over a parking spot. Ten years ago, he earned his high school diploma in prison. He likes to set a positive example for what he calls “the younger cats.”

“For me, it was a self-esteem thing,” he said.

However, the program does come under criticism from victim support groups who question whether this is money justifiably spent.

Crime victims and their advocates question whether the investment will be worthwhile. “I appreciate the need to educate offenders, but I’m saddened we don’t spend that kind of money or take that kind of time to rebuild the lives of crime victims,” said Michelle S. Cruz, Connecticut’s independent victim advocate.

Sam Rieger, a Waterbury man whose 19-year-old daughter was murdered by a man now incarcerated at the Cheshire prison, agreed. “This does not make sense to me,” he said of the Wesleyan program. “What is the point?” He said the money should be spent on victims or on trying to help young people make better choices.

Sam Riegar’s complaint is quite understandable, especially considering the grief of the victims and their desire for revenge, which our criminal justice system recognises.  Besides, unlike Australia where undergraduate education at elite universities is quite cheap through government loans, most elite universities are private and are usually not within easy reach of the lower-middle classes.  Victim support groups would understandably be perplexed and angered by how convicted criminals are being offered an education that they cannot easily afford. 

At the end of the day, the tension between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims is not one easily resolved.  Nonetheless, a sensible path should surely be one that offers a long term solution for the whole community.