An Australian woman has been sentenced to 9 years in prison for stabbing her rapist to death and another 18 months for hiding the body. While the left likes to tout its self-proclaimed ‘humane’ approach to crime and justice, but this is one of many cases that illustrate how the left’s intentions are diametrically opposed to the actual effects of their actions. A woman is being punished for protecting herself and her daughter against a violent rapist. She is also being punished for trying to hide the corpse, while her sentence in itself proves that calling the authorities would have been a bad idea for her – they would have simply locked her up as a killer, just like they are doing now. And, if she is to be sentenced as a killer – why could she potentially be released only halfway into her sentence?
“Roxanne Eka Peters, 35, fatally stabbed Grant Jason Cassar, 51, with a blow to his heart using a kitchen knife at her home in Capalaba in December 2015. Then she tied a rope around his body, including his neck, and dragged it behind her car for about a kilometre to a ditch where she hid it.”
The killing took place in December 2015, and with time served, Roxanne Eka Peters could be eligible for parole in June 2020.
In Justice Bodice’s statement that Peters should have called for help after the stabbing and ‘shown respect for Cassar’s human dignity’, Peters’ own human dignity as a rape victim is ignored and erased. News.com.au is making sure that we know that “Mr Cassar’s killing [has] been devastating for his family.” According to Dutch magazine Panorama, Cassar’s mother has stated in court that she ‘cannot imagine woman would do something so terrible”. Sorry, Ma’am, but if your son wouldn’t have done the terrible things he did, she wouldn’t have.
Three flaws in the ruling
First of all, this ruling suggests Ms Peters had no right to defend herself and her young daughter against a violent rapist. She is being punished for refusing to be raped. According to News.com.au, “Justice David Boddice told the court Mr Cassar’s rape and humiliation of Peters, followed by the threats to harm her child, had been a “significant provocation””, but clearly not significant enough to show the actual victim, Ms Peters, clemency.
One may think that the 18 months jail time for ‘interfering with a corpse’ are justified, and the argument is that Ms Peters should have contacted the authorities and allowed justice to be done. But Ms Peters may have feared that she would end up convicted of serious crimes if she did – and her sentence in itself proves her right. Had she not tried to hide the body, she would have still gotten 9 years for manslaughter. The ‘justice’ systems has turned a potential rape victim into a convicted killer. Can we blame her for trying to avoid that?
The third way in which this ruling is corrosive to the very core of the justice system, is that the courts apparently felt Ms Peters should be punished for taking a man’s life, regardless of the circumstances. In that case: how does releasing her less than two years after sentencing do justice to her supposed victim? Four and a half years after the incident, meaning she would have served half of her sentence. This has not been specifically designed for this case, it is standard protocol, and it is how many murderers and violent offenders end up back on the streets far too quickly after their heinous crimes.
The more the authorities refuse to protect the public, the more the public will be tempted to take matters into their own hands. They can punish victims for fighting back, but few will see the justice in that. This is a dead-end street for establishment crime policies.