I attended a trial for rape of a minor. I am lucky to have a member of my family who works in the justice system and I was therefore able to accompany him and attend this trial.
It was an important step for me! We have a distorted representation by television which mainly shows trials taking place in the United States or elsewhere and in France it has nothing to do. I needed to forge a mental representation of the places, of the course, of those who do justice...
Here is a summary of what I learned:
First of all, the layout of the premises is different. Imagine a rectangle, a narrow room, all in length. Half of the room resembles a church with two rows of pews lined up one behind the other. This part is reserved for "spectators", the outsiders who attend the trial.
The other half, basically, is for the trial. So a square with the plaintiff on the left, aligned like the benches of people attending the trial. One thing that shocked me is that the plaintiffs are in the front row of the benches on the left and not next to the lawyers defending them who are in front of them. Then for the left side of this "square", is on a kind of platform the prosecutor. The prosecutor stands perpendicular to the benches of people attending the trial. Hidden behind are the clerk (who notes the course of the trial) and the bailiff (who ensures the smooth running of the trial, the ceremonial side...).
In front of the prosecutor, there is the accused's box. It is a fully glazed box. and right in front of that cubicle is his lawyer. The box is perpendicular to the right of the benches of people attending the trial. Then to "finish" this square at the back of the room, there is a platform where the jurors sit, with the president at their center. They are therefore facing the benches of those watching the trial.
In the middle of this "square" there is a desk and this is where the witnesses and experts come to testify.
It is so very impressive!!! All the "actors" of the trial are glued to each other. There really isn't any space. I imagined myself in the place of the victims, for my own complaint... It takes a lot of courage to face up. We see the accused. He looks at us. And when we testify, on our right there is almost glued to us the defense lawyer and the accused. It is therefore difficult to disregard this proximity... I don't know if it is possible that our lawyer is on our right to "hide" them.
Another thing that shocked me is that as plaintiffs, we don't sit with our lawyers. We are like spectators, once again, others speak for us and we must rely on them to defend us, we are not actresses, the plaintiffs remain seated, observe, listen, in the background. The plaintiffs' lawyers talk to each other and sometimes turn to the plaintiffs to talk to them, but I find the assigned place of the plaintiffs quite unfair. They are relegated to the rank of people who attend, on the same benches as the spectators, at the same level symbolically... Set back from this "square" where justice takes place... I had this image which is returned from a rape that I suffered, from this impression at the time that I had of "going out" of my body and "observing" the scene. This is somewhat the impression that I have throughout the trial of the place occupied by the plaintiffs. Be a spectator of the unfolding scene. Something serious is happening but the plaintiffs are "out" of the "body", of what is happening... A dehumanized side where the victim is relegated to the rank of a passive object who has no no longer her own voice except when she is going to testify at the bar...
Another thing that struck me is that the trial rests on the almost exclusive jurisdiction of the president and the prosecutor. The president leads all the debates, asks all the questions or almost. Everything rests almost solely on the president!!! It is therefore PRIMORDIAL to train them in psychotrauma!!!!
At the start of the trial, the story of the accused is dug up, dissected with meticulousness. This is how the trial begins. It's quite shocking I think for a victim to hear all these questions... As if a difficult childhood story explained, excused the acts of the rapist... I felt a lot of anger at that moment! Many parties were offended! Especially since the life story, the childhood of the victims is on the contrary overlooked... Or in any case is not as dissected... The accused talks a lot. In fact, he has the most speaking time. He is systematically questioned by the president. We systematically ask him if he agrees, if he has no objection... On the other hand, only the plaintiffs' lawyers are questioned, the victims are not specifically asked to say explicitly if they agree and if they have no objection. Once again, they are placed aside, in the rank of spectators...
Then the facts are stated. The rape, its unfolding with the parade of people who testified: the police officer in charge of the investigation, the witnesses, the victims... I was struck by the fact that all the people who testified mostly said I don't remember . The trial took place several years after the events but I was still shocked that the police said that they did not remember or the witnesses... Stupidly enough, I told myself that these people did not have amnesia dissociatives like me or perhaps the victims and that therefore they would not have this memory problem... So it makes me "laugh out loud" that we dare to reproach the victims for their memory lapses while simple spectators or professionals have the same problems without having been threatened with death or without having been the victim of violence!!! Perhaps it would be good to advise the witnesses of the facts after having been questioned by the police to write on a sheet everything they remember to be able to read it again when they are brought to testify several years later...?
So when we testify, we come forward to this pulpit in the center. It must be very impressive! We must give our identity, profession, age and address (the police give the address of the police station where they work, the shrinks that of their office and the victims that of their lawyer, for the witnesses, I do not know if it is their real address). Then the president asks us to swear to tell the whole truth. Then the president questions us. Initially, he asks to say what is remembered. If our testimony deviates from or contains omissions in relation to our interrogation by the police at the time of the events, the president rereads what we had said and asks if we are repeating our statements. Then the lawyer for the accused, the prosecutor and the defense lawyers can question the witness in turn. Another thing for victims to know is that if you come with witnesses to support you, they will not be able to attend the trial until they have been called to testify. So prepare to be alone if you have no one else to support you...
Another thing that shocked me is that when the president speaks and sometimes even when he asks questions, very few people are watching. Whether it's the lawyers, the president... all are glued to their papers. The defense lawyer and even those of the plaintiffs write a lot on their sheets or computers. It is as if the importance were exclusively centered on the word, the orality. The bodies, the looks, the micro expressions... all of that doesn't seem to matter at the moment. The face of the accused, the looks he casts at the plaintiffs, all of this is as if absent, non-existent... This gives a very detached, inhuman, cold, factual side... The important people, to be taken into account in the trial: the plaintiffs and the accused are in the background. The plaintiffs behind their lawyers, so the president and the other justice officials can't really observe them, see their jumps, their amazement... and the accused is behind his glass box, we can't really observe him . As if the body didn't count and only the voice mattered... I find that very hard! With the voice you can lie... the body does not lie! And the body says so many things!!!! An accused may say that he does not do such and such a thing, but if we observe when he speaks to his relatives to their reactions, we can suspect that he is lying because such a person nodded yes, or started to rocking himself with his own arms at the mention of violence he says he never committed.... The calm, the control of the accused's face, the inadequacy of what he says and his bodily reactions in says a lot about him, about his dangerousness... He can make oral excuses but also physically show no sign of repentance, sadness, remorse... Words are important but so is the context. In fact, the trial is like a second investigation. The president is the main investigator, he reads his sheets, like a litany throughout the trial. His "second" is the prosecutor and the lawyers of the two parties are like external interveners who try to direct the investigation in favor or against the accused. Strangely enough it feels like a play. With actors reciting a text...
The course of the trial is very ceremonial! The lawyers, the prosecutor wear the black and white robe, the president his red and white robe. The entry of the jurors and the president is very impressive!
The usher waits in front of a door at the back of the room and when a very shrill bell rings, and he announces the arrival of the president, everyone in the room must get up. The president takes his place and then allows us to sit down. At certain times, I had the image of the ceremonial of a Christian mass which was superimposed. I laughed to myself, telling myself that I was going to have to make a sign of the cross just after the entrance of the president so much this room made me think of it... Ha ha!
The police present in the room instead of the altar boys... Well I don't know anything to do with it but we have the mental references that we can according to our experience... ;) Another shitty mental reference... The "desk" where the witnesses are questioned strongly made me think of the place of the cantor in Catholic masses 😅 with a rather funny little mental image of the witness who starts to sing and who with his right hand when he takes an oath asks the congregation to sing with him....
Afterwards, more personally, being able to attend helped me a lot. At various times, I let my little parts come to observe the scene, to be reassured about their future safety if my complaint is accepted and that a trial takes place for what I have been subjected to. I would have liked to have the room all to myself for a few minutes and be able to sit down for a moment in the place occupied by the plaintiffs and go to the desk and let my small parts soak in it and tell myself internally "it's going to be fine! We'll all be there! We'll help you! It won't kill us!" My teenage parts were also able to come in and observe, internally criticize and, I think, adapt their vision of what it will be like for us to reality. A trial is cold, detached. There is little or no emotion. There are some from the victims of course when they testify but this emotion seems more "negative" because it prevents the victims from answering the questions. Again only speech, the ability to speak seems to matter. Afterwards, I think that for the jurors and the president, the fact that a victim has an anxiety attack or bursts into tears is certainly taken into account to realize the damage suffered, but what is required is to report the facts, to speak, the ability to answer questions and to be audible... I wonder in my case how I will be able to do it... Personally, I think that my "little cages" part should come and testify. She is around 2 or 3 years old. She speaks with a small, high-pitched voice and when she speaks, she is very often in tears. I know that if she came to testify it would surely be difficult for the jurors and the president to understand her... But at the same time, inside, we believe that she has a right to this moment, that she has a right to rediscover your humanity, to finally be heard after all these years. To relegate her to the rank of spectator would seem to me unfair given what she has suffered, her courage, her strength... We owe her that! I think it will take me some time to think about it internally... In fact I imagined that the victims were more taken into account. I thought, I imagined the course of my own trial as a place where each of my parties would have the right to speak. That everyone could say what the rapists had done to us. I kind of hoped for this moment as an inner transformation into a victorious warrior. Each of my parts could have said, regain their dignity, recover their humanity by testifying in turn. I mentally imagined that each of our words would be like a tide of mud filled with blood, tears, shit that would "fly away", finally come out of us and go to pour on the rapists. But this is not the case. No one seems shocked, offended by the actions of the rapist. I didn't feel like the shame changed "sides" except at the end of the trial when the rapist was taken handcuffed to jail. And again, it was calm, almost banal... Do we have the right to exult, to cry at that moment? Do we have the right to express something?
The only human moment I felt was when the prosecutor made his plea. He was amazing!!! He said words that every rape victim would love to hear. He knew the amazement, the effects of trauma... He repeated the shocking figures of complaints for rape which lead to a trial, he repeated the number of victims in France, the number of child victims... He is the only one to have really put the facts in the place. There are people who repair, this prosecutor is one of those people! Of incredible humanity, of great gentleness and understanding, empathy towards the victims and of great firmness and objectivity towards the accused. But what happens when the prosecutor knows nothing about the psychotrauma? Who says the words that mend? Who puts the facts straight? Here again it is essential that the professionals who occupy this position are trained in the consequences of trauma!!!!
Personally, I left the room twice. When the shrinks who had done the psychiatric expertise testified. A little too much psychoanalytic shit and vomit for my taste... and yes... again and again... Too unbearable for me! Then when at the end of the trial, the defendant's lawyer made his plea. I didn't want us to hear his justifications!
Attending the trial helped me to adjust my hopes and expectations regarding my own complaint, to know what to expect, to also have time to prepare for it...
But it was also extremely trying!!! The story of what the victims had suffered greatly reactivated my own traumas. I was repeatedly overwhelmed by flashbacks and struggled to "become the adult again." I had the impression throughout the trial that my body no longer belonged to me, as if at the mention of these facts, everything I had experienced started again... I wanted to vomit, I I had the impression that my sexual organs were liquefying, opening up... The impression of being two gaping holes... I was afraid of getting hit on the bench. And this feeling lasted 1 day later and then disappeared.
What bothered me the most was the involuntary sexual arousal I felt. As if my body, hearing the story of the rape was preparing without my consent, without any control of my head to undergo one in my turn...
The evocations of the rapes were unbearable and several of my parts wanted to find a way to disconnect us. For a few minutes I felt the urge to run away, to go to a bar to drink alcohol to disconnect. I went out and went to buy cigarettes. I smoked like a sapper... Then these parts ended up calming down. Following this, some parties became concerned. What will I do if I testify myself? Would I be able to speak? What if my part "the beast", the one who had to play the dog and had to do very degrading and humiliating things comes to testify? People will think I'm crazy... What if I start emptying myself in front of everyone? piss on me in fear or vomit? Some parts inside were very angry that we reacted like this, felt this involuntary reactivation... They refuse to show up like this, they feel a lot of anger towards the parts that reactivate these physical reactions. They are afraid to show this to our rapists on the day of the trial. We don't want to show him that, we're not weak, we want them to see us strong, fighting, untouchable!!!
The verdict itself is quite disappointing. But then again, I think it helped me move forward internally! A rather derisory sentence... The only satisfaction for the victims, I think, is that their rapist has been found guilty. A form of recognition... Finally!!! But it is far, very far from being up to the acts committed and the damage suffered!!! And unfortunately it is very far from being really dissuasive... There again justice should move forward and change to send a clear and limpid message: WE DO NOT TOUCH A CHILD!!!!! And if you do, you will pay dearly! And that's not the case...
A final point that struck me is the absolutely ridiculous sum that is requested in compensation for the victims. There again, we have this vision of American justice which gives millions to the victims. Here, this is not the case. Justice is as if cut off from the realities of life... The sum given to the victims does not even allow us to pay for good psychiatric follow-up for the victims... there again there is work!!!
Finally, I think everyone should attend a rape trial, to see what really happens there. It would greatly help the society to evolve in its mentality, to change its beliefs about women or children who lie on their accusations. Go see a trial!!! You'll see that it's years and years of waiting, many interrogations where you have to repeat again and again... Revealing all your intimacy... to finally watch powerless a play with actors without expressions , without emotions that tell the story of what we have experienced, that decide on a derisory sentence absolutely not up to the suffering, the difficulties, the troubles and wounds that this has created in the victims. Who certainly fortunately admitted the guilt of the accused but in the end, it will be just a mini parenthesis in his life. While the victims will be affected for life and the amount requested will not even allow them to build a new life, nor to be able, for example, to stop working for a while to take care of them, nor to pay for quality psychiatric care to help them recover...
I reread this text before publishing it and I find myself very harsh, negative!!!
Right after the trial I was very "euphoric" and in admiration of the prosecutor. The words he spoke, the conviction of the rapist... as if somehow this victory was mine... As if those words the prosecutor spoke were for me...
I wanted to write a text since the end of the trial. But I couldn't do it, the memory I had of it (just after the trial) was very hazy with the impression of not having anything left in my memory... And this morning, that's unblocked, but it's It's mostly justice parties and quite disillusioned and angry at injustice who have written...
What predominates today is the anger and the shock of the very cold and detached side of the course of the trial...
I think that in a few days the vision I have of it will surely be more positive and nuanced... It's often like this... I need time to temper, assimilate, understand and accept seeing the positive, the hope...
In any case, it's one more step for me that makes progress!!! One more step...
A little anecdote: I believed throughout the trial that the people coming to testify swore to tell the truth about the penal code because each time, the bailiff came and took a penal code from under the desk and placed it on it.. .. In fact, from where I was I couldn't see it but it was just to stall the microphone....😂😂😂😂 So we swear to tell the truth but on nothing, neither the penal code nor the bible... Another myth that is collapsing
Comments