Wednesday 4 June 2008

Brad Shipton is a rapist

I find it hard to write about the parole report on Brad Shipton, or the media's coverage over the last few days.

"Should Brad Shipton be in jail?" "Do I want Brad Shipton to be in jail?" "Am I glad that he's going to remain in jail?" I can't answer those questions, haven't been able to months now. I keep on meaning to explore my ambivalance here, but I don't.

On top of that, I'm deeply suspicious of Brad Shipton's attitude towards the parole board. The way he treated women shows him to be a deeply manipulative person, who cares nothing about anyone else's feelings and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Bob Schollum was denied bail, at least in part, because the parole board decided that a rapist who claimed that rape was consensual, was a danger to rape again. To see Brad Shipton's contrition in front of the parole board as anything other than a cynical ploy to try and get released, requires far more faith in Brad Shipton's integrity than is warranted on the evidence.

But I still want to talk about the parole board decision (which is available in full here and worth reading, because the Sunday Star Times article on it bore almost no relationship to the report), because it reveals quite a bit about judicial thinking about rape.

Some of it is really good. The most quoted part of the report says:
He said he was sorry for what the victim went through and later went further and said that he had ruined her life. He acknowledged he should not have put her in that position and he should not have taken his colleague Mr Schollum along with him. He acknowledged that she was possibly intimidated by them. He confirmed that he did not ask the complainant if it was okay to have sex with her or for more than one person to have sex with her, and that wearing the police uniform was despicable. He said looking back on his whole life, which he has reflected on since being in prison, has been full of disgraceful, disgusting behaviour.

In the Board’s unanimous opinion, what he described of the event was, in our view, one of rape.
I think they have laid this out very clearly; that even in his own version of events, it is clear that not only did she not consent, but that there were so many factors that made it impossible for her to give meaningful consent anyway.

While I was impressed with the parole board's analysis, I think the analysis of the psychologist was deeply problematic:
Suffice to say that that report outlines the details of the offence and Mr Shipton’s infidelities and involvement in group sex. At the time of writing the report, the psychologist was told by Mr Shipton that he denied the offence and that he had not accepted the jury decision. He thought his behaviour was immoral and unacceptable but not illegal. He told the psychologist that he had a bad jury and biased Judge and that he was very bitter and angry following the Court decision. He was able to identify risks in the future such as a situation of indulging in promiscuous behaviour and not being faithful to his partner would be risky for him.
To me, what is so worrying about this, is that the psychologist appears to have accepted Brad Shipton's rationalisation that the problem was infidelity and group sex, and not lack of consent. But Brad Shipton clearly can't identify consent, so he's as much risk to a partner, as he is if he's having sex with other people. In fact, when asked in the dock, how he knew that the woman he raped consented he replied "the same way you know with your wife." That a psychologist report doesn't just not challenge, but goes along with, a moral view that condemns group sex and unfaithfulness, rather than centreing on consent, shows the very limited understanding our justice system has about rape.*

The report also indicates that Brad Shipton wasn't eligible for intervention programmes. I don't see prison as a way of eliminating rape, but it is clear that they're not even trying.

*Lets all curl up and die of not surprisedness

4 comments:

Confusion said...

I mean, I know I'm a guy, but I'd like to say something here.

Since I can't read the psychologists report itself, what I did get to read sounded like a brief canned summary of what Shipton had admitted to, not what the psychologist thought had been the case.

In which case, it doesn't necessitate that nothing is being done to try to rehabilitate him, or that the psychologist is an incompetent, but rather that the man is a moral defective.
And given we already know the man is a moral defective, that's no surprise.

I'm just leery of reading so much into such a short summary of a psychologists report.

stargazer said...

just on a tangent, i'd be interested to know what support the sensible sentencing trust has given to brad shipton's victim? they seem to be curiously silent on this case.

Anna said...

Nice point about the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Stargazer. The are rather selective about who qualifies as a victim.

I think this is a fantastic post, Maia. Comparing sex with the rape victim to sex with his wife is an interesting one. It reminds me of Carole Pateman's writing about how recent prohibitions on marital rape are in a lot of Western democracies. Effectively, women didn't have the legal right to refuse sex with their husbands, which makes you question the whole historical idea of what consent actually is. I feel a blog of my own coming on...

Julie said...

Thanks for contributing this Maia, it cannot be easy to have to read this stuff and write about it.

William, I think you are right that Shipton is a "moral defective." The question from here is can that be fixed? The first step surely is for him to come to terms with his moral defects. If he can't see them then he'll be resistant to any support with fixing them. And if the remorse (for want of a better term) he's exhibited in this report is a put on in the interests of getting parole then he's got a long way to go.

What interests me is this finessing (is that a word?) Shipton seems to be able to do between activity that is immoral and activity that is illegal. Maybe I'm a weirdo here, but I tend to view stuff that I think is immoral as more serious, and more in need of correction, than stuff that is merely illegal. Yet Shipton seems to see it the other way around.

All in all it seems to me that the Parole Board's decision to get a second opinion on Shipton's contrition or lack thereof is a good next step.