? ? ?SUCCUMBING ?TO ?THE ?SIREN ?SONG: ?RAPE ?MYTHS ?IN ?SEXUAL ?OFFENDER ?SENTENCING ?IN ?B.C. ? ? ?by ? ? ?Elizabeth ?Ann ?Welch ? ?B.A., ?McGill ?University, ?2006 ?LL.B., ?Dalhousie ?University, ?2009 ? ? ? ?A ?THESIS ?SUBMITTED ?IN ?PARTIAL ?FULFILLMENT ?OF ?THE ?REQUIREMENTS ?FOR ?THE ?DEGREE ?OF ? ? ?MASTER ?OF ?LAWS ? ? ?in ? ? ?THE ?FACULTY ?OF ?GRADUATE ?AND ?POSTDOCTORAL ?STUDIES ? ?(Law) ? ? ? ? ?THE ?UNIVERSITY ?OF ?BRITISH ?COLUMBIA ? ?(Vancouver) ? ? ? ?February ?2014 ? ? ? ?? ?Elizabeth ?Ann ?Welch, ?2014 ? ? ii ? ?Abstract ? ? Sexual ?violence ?is ?characterized ?by ?inequality: ?it ?is ?a ?gendered ?crime ?whose ?perpetrators ?frequently ?escape ?criminal ?responsibility. ?The ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?violence ?has ?been ?masked ?and ?perpetuated ?by ?rape ?myths ?about ??real? ?sexual ?assault ?embedded ?in ?the ?law. ?Feminist ?reformers ?have ?struggled ?to ?have ?the ?law ?eliminate ?rape ?myths ?and ?recognize ?sexual ?offences ?as ?gendered ?violence; ?this ?struggle ?continues. ? ? ? In ?this ?thesis ?the ?author ?explores ?the ?judicial ?expression ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?a ?sample ?of ?recent ?B.C. ?sentencing ?decisions. ?She ?analyzes ?two ?aspects ?of ?the ?cases, ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?to ?ascertain ?whether ?judges ?reproduced ?discriminatory ?beliefs ?about ?sexual ?violence ?in ?their ?interpretations ?of ?law ?or ?their ?narratives. ? ? ? The ?thesis ?found ?that ?courts ?expressed ?rape ?myths ?in ?some ?recent ?sentencing ?cases. ?Rape ?myths ?appeared ?in ?constructions ?of ?violence ?that ?turned ?on ?penetration, ?the ?notion ?of ?the ?dangerous ?stranger, ?and ?definitions ?of ?violence ?that ?excluded ?coercion, ?manipulation, ?and ?exploitation. ?They ?also ?appeared ?when ?judges ?used ?terms ?that ?were ?more ?appropriate ?for ?narratives ?of ?sex ?or ?romance ?than ?sexual ?violence. ?Rape ?myths ?underpinned ?courts? ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence, ?findings ?that ?survivors ??consented? ?to ?offences, ?and ?failures ?to ?seriously ?consider ?harm ?to ??risky? ?survivors. ?They ?also ?propped ?up ?the ?doctrines ?that ??good? ?offenders ?and ?intoxicated ?offenders ?are ?less ?blameworthy ?or ?dangerous, ?and ?informed ?language ?that ?obscured ?offender ?agency ?and ?responsibility, ?including ?the ?frequent ?use ?of ?terms ?that ?expressed ?doubt ?about ?legal ?findings ?of ?guilt. ? ? iii ? ? The ?author ?speculates ?the ?enduring ?influence ?of ?rape ?myths ?appeared ?not ?because ?of ?judges? ?intention ?to ?discriminate ?but ?the ?neoliberal ?approach ?that ?guides ?legal ?thinking. ?Informed ?by ?notions ?of ?rationality ?and ?risk, ?courts ?ignored ?the ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?particularly ?gender ?inequality. ?With ?inequality ?and ?vulnerability ?erased ?from ?consideration, ?the ?line ?between ?consensual ?sex ?and ?violence ?blurred, ?most ?conspicuously ?in ?sexual ?offences ?against ?adolescents ?and ?women ?perceived ?as ?taking ?undue ?risks. ?Therefore, ?this ?thesis ?suggests ?that ?the ?law ?should ?be ?cognizant ?of ?the ?unequal ?and ?gendered ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence ?by ?situating ?it ?in ?its ?social ?context, ?an ?approach ?that ?will ?ultimately ?help ?to ?promote ?equality ?within ?the ?law. ? ? ? ? ? ? iv ?Preface ?This ?dissertation ?is ?original, ?unpublished, ?independent ?work ?by ?the ?author, ?Elizabeth ?Ann ?Welch. ? ? ? ? v ?Table ?of ?Contents ?Abstract ?..................................................................................................................................................................... ?ii ?Preface ?...................................................................................................................................................................... ?iv ?Table ?of ?Contents ?.................................................................................................................................................. ?v ?Acknowledgements ?......................................................................................................................................... ?viii ?I. ?Introduction ?........................................................................................................................................................ ?1 ?A. ? Sexual ?Violence ?as ?Inequality ?............................................................................................................ ?2 ?B. ? Rape ?Myths ?in ?the ?Criminal ?Justice ?System ?................................................................................ ?8 ?C. ? Description ?of ?Thesis ?......................................................................................................................... ?14 ?Research ?Objective ?and ?Approach ?................................................................................................... ?15 ?Findings ?....................................................................................................................................................... ?18 ?D. ? A ?Note ?on ?Language ?........................................................................................................................... ?22 ?II. ?Context ?.............................................................................................................................................................. ?24 ?A. ? Sexual ?Assault ?Law ?of ?the ?Past ?...................................................................................................... ?24 ?Substantive ?Law: ?Sexual ?Offences ?to ?Protect ?Male ?Interests ?............................................... ?25 ?Distrust ?and ?the ?Exceptional ?Evidentiary ?Requirements ?in ?Sexual ?Offence ?Trials ?.... ?28 ?B. ? The ?Past ?Approach ?to ?Sentencing ?Sexual ?Offenders ?............................................................ ?32 ?The ?History ?of ?Sentencing ?for ?Sexual ?Offences ?in ?Canada ?..................................................... ?32 ?Rape ?Myths ?in ?Sentencing ?in ?the ?Past ?............................................................................................ ?35 ?Sentencing ?Prior ?to ?the ?1982 ?Reforms ?.......................................................................................... ?37 ?C. ? The ?Current ?Law ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ?.............................................................................................. ?44 ?Advocacy, ?Amendments, ?and ?Resistance ?...................................................................................... ?44 ?The ?Current ?Law ?of ?Sexual ?Offences ?............................................................................................... ?50 ?The ?Undoing ?of ?Feminist ?Gains ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law ?........................................................... ?55 ?D. ? The ?Current ?Approach ?to ?Sentencing ?Sexual ?Offenders ?..................................................... ?66 ? ? vi ?The ?Law ?of ?Sentencing ?.......................................................................................................................... ?67 ?Divergent ?Feminist ?Approaches ?and ?Overarching ?Concerns ?............................................... ?74 ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Offenders: ?The ?Law ?and ?Feminist ?Research ?.................................... ?78 ?E. ? Incomplete ?Knowledge ?..................................................................................................................... ?87 ?III. ?Conceptual ?Approach ?and ?Methodology ?.......................................................................................... ?89 ?A. ? Conceptual ?Framework ?.................................................................................................................... ?89 ?A ?Feminist ?Approach ?to ?Sexual ?Violence ?...................................................................................... ?90 ?The ?Law ?as ?Discourse: ?A ?Powerful ?Voice ?...................................................................................... ?91 ?B. ? Methodology ?......................................................................................................................................... ?96 ?Doctrinal: ?An ?Expansive ?Approach ?................................................................................................. ?97 ?Non-??Doctrinal: ?Feminist ?Discourse ?Analysis ?.............................................................................. ?99 ?Limitations ?............................................................................................................................................... ?101 ?Gathering ?the ?Case ?Sample ?............................................................................................................... ?103 ?IV. ?Case ?Sample ?Characteristics: ?Gendered ?Violence ?and ?Missing ?Pieces ?............................... ?106 ?V. ?Doctrinal ?Analysis ?...................................................................................................................................... ?111 ?A. ? The ?Principles ?of ?Sentencing: ?An ?Asymmetrical ?Approach ?to ?Context ?and ?Vulnerability ?................................................................................................................................................. ?115 ?B. ? The ?Relevance ?and ?Fairness ?of ?Sexual ?History ?Evidence ?................................................. ?119 ?C. ? The ?Interpretation ?and ?Application ?of ?Aggravating ?and ?Mitigating ?Factors ?........... ?124 ?Portrayals ?of ?Violence ?......................................................................................................................... ?125 ?Relationships ?and ?Stranger ?Danger ?.............................................................................................. ?142 ?Causes ?of ?Offences ?and ?Treatment ?................................................................................................ ?144 ?Good ?Offenders ?...................................................................................................................................... ?150 ?Different ?Understandings ?of ?Harm ?to ?Survivors ?..................................................................... ?159 ?D. ? Feminist ?Considerations ?................................................................................................................ ?167 ? ? vii ?VI. ?Discourse ?Analysis ?.................................................................................................................................... ?171 ?A. ? The ?Contributions ?of ?Offenders ?to ?Narrative: ?Survivor ?Blaming ?................................. ?173 ?B. ? Narratives ?of ?Offences ?..................................................................................................................... ?174 ?Eroticization ?and ?Minimization ?of ?Sexual ?Violence ?............................................................... ?175 ?Agency: ?Invisible ?Offenders ?and ?Survivor ?Co-??Agents ?........................................................... ?182 ?Causes ?of ?Offences: ?Intoxication ?and ?Risk ?.................................................................................. ?186 ?C. ? Undermining ?Findings ?of ?Guilt ?.................................................................................................... ?191 ?VII. ?Discussion ?................................................................................................................................................... ?194 ?Themes: ?Sex ?and ?Context-??Blindness ?.................................................................................................. ?194 ?The ?Adaptation ?of ?Rape ?Myths ?............................................................................................................. ?198 ?VIII. ?Conclusion ?................................................................................................................................................. ?203 ?Rape ?Myths ?In ?Sentencing ?Today ?........................................................................................................ ?205 ?Unfinished ?Reforms ?................................................................................................................................... ?210 ?Bibliography ?...................................................................................................................................................... ?217 ? ? ? ? ? viii ?Acknowledgements ? ? Many ?other ?people ?have ?made ?this ?thesis ?possible. ?A ?large ?number ?are ?a ?part ?of ?the ?community ?at ?the ?Faculty ?of ?Law ?at ?UBC: ?I ?am ?thankful ?to ?faculty, ?staff ?and ?students ?for ?fostering ?a ?supportive ?and ?stimulating ?environment ?where ?I ?felt ?encouraged ?to ?explore ?new ?ideas ?and ?challenge ?myself. ? ? I ?extend ?my ?deep ?gratitude ?to ?my ?supervisor, ?Professor ?Janine ?Benedet. ?My ?thesis ?could ?not ?exist ?without ?her ?guidance ?and ?support: ?from ?our ?first ?meeting ?up ?until ?I ?submitted ?my ?thesis ?in ?its ?final ?form, ?she ?has ?been ?an ?incredible ?resource ?for ?her ?huge ?depth ?of ?knowledge ?about ?sexual ?assault ?law. ?Always ?generous ?with ?her ?time ?and ?often ?with ?great ?humour, ?she ?encouraged ?me ?to ?consider ?issues ?from ?different ?perspectives, ?challenged ?me ?to ?think ?more ?critically, ?and ?helped ?me ?develop ?and ?structure ?my ?ideas. ? ? ? I ?am ?also ?hugely ?indebted ?to ?Professor ?Isabel ?Grant ?for ?her ?thoughtful ?insights ?and ?comments, ?which ?greatly ?contributed ?to ?my ?thesis, ?particularly ?how ?I ?framed ?and ?presented ?my ?work. ? ? I ?wish ?to ?thank ?the ?law ?faculty ?for ?the ?financial ?support ?they ?provided ?me ?through ?the ?Law ?Faculty ?Scholarship. ?The ?faculty?s ?generous ?support ?allowed ?me ?the ?freedom ?to ?focus ?on ?my ?studies ?and ?participate ?in ?the ?graduate ?law ?community, ?including ?my ?involvement ?in ?the ?UBC ?Graduate ?Law ?Students? ?Society ?and ?annual ?UBC ?Graduate ?Law ?Conference, ?experiences ?that ?enriched ?my ?time ?at ?UBC. ? ? ? I ?also ?owe ?a ?debt ?to ?Joanne ?Chung ?for ?all ?she ?has ?done ?in ?helping ?me ?find ?my ?way ?through ?the ?program. ? ? ix ? ? Finally, ?I ?am ?grateful ?to ?my ?family ?and ?friends ?for ?always ?supporting ?and ?encouraging ?me. ?I ?do ?not ?say ?enough ?how ?thankful ?I ?am ?for ?the ?wonderful ?people ?who ?cheer ?me ?on ?everyday. ?My ?love ?and ?gratitude ?to ?my ?sister, ?my ?parents, ?and ?my ?friends. ?I ?am ?especially ?grateful ?to ?my ?school ?buddies: ?thank ?you ?to ?Sarah ?for ?providing ?encouragement ?and ?feedback ?throughout ?our ?time ?at ?UBC ?and ?to ?George ?for ?his ?always ?sage ?and ?timely ?advice. ?And ?lastly, ?I ?am ?grateful ?to ?Simon, ?my ?favourite, ?for ?his ?support ?and ?confidence ?in ?me ?as ?well ?as ?his ?eagerness ?to ?debate ?all ?points ?of ?the ?law ?at ?all ?hours ?of ?the ?night. ? ? ? 1 ?I. ?Introduction ? ? Sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?unique ?crime: ?it ?is ?prevalent, ?committed ?by ?men ?against ?women ?and ?girls, ?and ?largely ?unaddressed ?by ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system. ?All ?of ?these ?aspects ?of ?sexual ?violence ?manifest ?its ?underlying ?character ?as ?a ?crime ?of ?inequality. ?This ?inequality ?has ?been ?perpetuated ?and ?masked ?by ?rape ?myths ?that ?tell ?a ?story ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?natural, ?not ?harmful, ?and ?the ?fault ?of ?women ?and ?children ?rather ?than ?the ?men ?who ?commit ?it. ?Portrayed ?in ?social ?and ?legal ?discourse ?as ??commonsense,? ?rape ?myths ?also ?tell ?us ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?lot ?like ?sex, ?marred ?by ?misunderstanding ?or ?an ?excess ?of ?testosterone. ?Feminist ?reformers ?have ?struggled ?to ?have ?the ?law ?recognize ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?not ?sex ?but ?violence, ?and ?gendered ?violence ?at ?that; ?ultimately, ?however, ?this ?project ?is ?unfinished. ? ? ? To ?contribute ?to ?the ?existing ?knowledge ?about ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?law, ?I ?crafted ?a ?research ?project ?to ?explore ?the ?judicial ?expression ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?sentencing. ?In ?this ?thesis, ?I ?analyze ?sentencing ?decisions ?for ?two ?purposes: ?to ?ascertain ?whether ?judges ?reproduced ?or ?constructed ?discriminatory ?and ?gendered ?beliefs ?about ?sexual ?violence ?in ?their ?interpretations ?of ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?whether ?judges ?used ?discriminatory ?constructions ?of ?sexual ?violence ?in ?their ?narratives ?of ?facts. ? ? ? Drawing ?on ?the ?works ?of ?other ?feminist ?researchers, ?I ?found ?that ?judges ?used ?a ?neoliberal1 ?approach ?while ?explaining ?their ?decisions ?for ?sentencing ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1 ?By ?neoliberalism, ?I ?refer ?to ?the ?theory ?in ?which ?market ?logic ?and ?ethics, ?such ?as ?the ?principles ?of ?individual ?risk, ?responsibility, ?and ?rationality, ?are ?applied ?beyond ?the ?marketplace ?to ?non-??economic ?institutions ?and ?discourses, ?including ?legal ?ones: ?Lise ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Affirmative ?Consent ?in ? ? 2 ?offenders. ?In ?accordance ?with ?this ?paradigm, ?judges ?largely ?ignored ?the ?unequal ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?in ?particular, ?its ?gendered ?character ?and ?use ?as ?a ?tool ?of ?oppression ?of ?women ?and ?girls. ?Using ?this ?lens, ?judges ?also ?sometimes ?blurred ?the ?line ?between ?consensual ?sex ?and ?violence, ?depicting ?sexual ?violence ?as ?bad ?sex, ?just ?as ?the ?rape ?myths ?endorse. ? ? ? But ?before ?I ?explain ?the ?approach ?I ?take ?in ?this ?thesis ?as ?well ?as ?my ?findings, ?I ?wish ?to ?illustrate ?the ?problem: ?the ?gendered ?violence ?of ?sexual ?violence ?in ?Canada ?and ?the ?rape ?myths ?that ?justify ?it. ? ?A. Sexual ?Violence ?as ?Inequality ? ? Sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?crime ?of ?inequality, ?committed ?almost ?entirely ?by ?men ?against ?women ?and ?girls.2 ?Men ?commit ?sexual ?assault ?with ?frightening ?regularity, ?and ?they ?frequently ?escape ?punishment ?for ?it. ? ? ? Specifically, ?nearly ?all ?of ?those ?charged ?by ?police ?for ?sexual ?offences ?are ?men. ?Women ?account ?for ?86 ?percent ?of ?survivors.3 ?Statistics ?Canada?s ?2013 ?Violence ?Against ?Women ?Survey ?found ?that ??[w]omen ?were ?eleven ?times ?more ?likely ?than ?men ?to ?be ?a ?victim ?of ?sexual ?offences?.4 ? ? ? The ?gendered ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence ?intersects ?with ?other ?forms ?of ?inequality ?and ?vulnerability. ?For ?example, ?58 ?percent ?of ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?offences ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Canadian ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law: ?Neoliberal ?Sexual ?Subjects ?and ?Risky ?Women? ?(2008) ?41 ?Akron ?L ?Rev ?865 ?at ?874 ?[?Rethinking ?Consent?]. ?2 ?Throughout ?this ?thesis, ?when ?I ?use ?the ?term ??women,? ?I ?mean ?both ?women ?and ?girls. ?3 ?Holly ?Johnson, ??Limits ?of ?a ?Criminal ?Justice ?Response: ?Trends ?in ?Police ?and ?Court ?Processing ?of ?Sexual ?Assault? ?in ?Elizabeth ?A ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?613 ?at ?613 ?[?Limits?]; ?See ?also ?Marie ?Sinha, ?Measuring ?Violence ?Against ?Women: ?Statistical ?Trends, ?Statistics ?Canada ?85-??002-??X ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2013) ?at ?29?31; ?Holly ?Johnson, ?Measuring ?Violence ?Against ?Women: ?Statistical ?Trends ?2006, ?Statistics ?Canada ?85-??570-??XIE ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2006) ?at ?36 ?[?Statistical ?Trends?]. ?4 ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?8. ? ? 3 ?are ?under ?the ?age ?of ?18. ?Among ?children, ?gender ?inequality ?makes ?girls ?the ?most ?vulnerable; ?however, ?adult ?men ?also ?victimize ?boys, ?especially ?young ?boys, ?who ?account ?for ?30 ?percent ?of ?survivors ?under ?12 ?years ?old.5 ?As ?Catharine ?A. ?MacKinnon ?succinctly ?observed, ??[m]en ?do ?this ?to ?women ?and ?to ?girls, ?boys, ?and ?other ?men, ?in ?that ?order. ?Women ?hardly ?ever ?do ?this ?to ?men.?6 ? ? Aboriginal ?women ?are ?also ?vulnerable ?to ?violent ?crime, ?including ?sexual ?violence, ?and ?are ?more ?often ?injured ?by ?crime ?than ?non-??Aboriginal ?women. ?The ?high ?numbers ?of ?missing ?and ?murdered ?Aboriginal ?women ?bear ?out ?this ?tragic ?fact.7 ?Women ?in ?prostitution, ?who ?are ?disproportionately ?Aboriginal, ?also ?face ?extremely ?high ?rates ?of ?violence.8 ? ? Although ?its ?prevalence ?is ?not ?actually ?known ?due ?to ?underreporting, ?we ?do ?know ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?commonplace. ?Canadian ?studies ?have ?variously ?found ?that ?one ?quarter ?of ?female ?university ?students ?will ?experience ?rape ?or ?attempted ?rape ?while ?at ?school,9 ?nearly ?40 ?percent ?of ?women ?have ?been ?sexually ?assaulted ?since ?they ?turned ?16, ?and ?three ?percent ?of ?adult ?women ?are ?sexually ?assaulted ?every ?year.10 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5 ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?36?37. ?6 ?Catharine ?A ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections ?on ?Sex ?Equality ?Under ?Law? ?(1990) ?100 ?Yale ?LJ ?1281 ?at ?1302 ?[?Reflections?]; ?Women ?do ?sometimes ?aggress ?sexually, ?although ?the ?numbers ?are ?small ?as ?a ?percentage ?of ?total ?assaults: ?Shannon ?Brennan ?& ?Andrea ?Taylor-??Butts, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?2004 ?and ?2007, ?Canadian ?Centre ?for ?Justice ?Statistics ?Profile ?Series ?85F0033M ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2008) ?at ?13. ?7 ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?19; ?See ?also ?Sherene ?H ?Razack, ??Gendered ?Racial ?Violence ?and ?Spatialized ?Justice: ?The ?Murder ?of ?Pamela ?George? ?(2000) ?15 ?CJLS ?91. ?8 ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?39; ?See ?also ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7. ?9 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?615. ?10 ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?24. ? ? 4 ? ? Sexual ?assault ?is ?part ?of ?the ?larger ?problem ?of ?violence ?against ?women, ?a ?larger ?category ?of ?crime ?that ?is ??the ?everyday ?menu ?of ?our ?criminal ?courts.?11 ?Despite ?their ?commonality, ?the ?bulk ?of ?sexual ?offences ?do ?not ?make ?it ?before ?the ?courts; ?fewer ?still ?result ?in ?criminal ?liability. ? ? ? Reporting ?rates ?for ?sexual ?violence ?are ?very ?low. ?Victimization ?surveys, ?which ?likely ?underestimate ?the ?incidence ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?reveal ?that ?fewer ?than ?one ?out ?of ?every ?ten ?sexual ?assaults ?comes ?to ?the ?attention ?of ?police.12 ?Survivors ?do ?not ?report ?for ?many ?personal ?reasons; ?however, ?contributing ?to ?these ?reasons ?are ?myths ?that ?blame ?and ?shame ?women ?for ?sexual ?violence ?as ?well ?as ?the ?prevalence ?of ?violence ?against ?them, ?so ?that ?women ?fear ?they ?will ?not ?be ?believed ?or ?taken ?seriously ?by ?police, ?their ?families, ?and ?their ?communities, ?and ?fear ?that ?offenders ?or ?others ?will ?retaliate ?against ?them.13 ? ? Compounding ?the ?problem ?of ?low ?reporting ?is ?the ?high ?rates ?at ?which ?police ?unfound ?or ?dismiss ?complaints ?of ?sexual ?offences ?and ?the ?low ?rates ?at ?which ?courts ?convict. ?In ?1977, ?Lorenne ?Clark ?and ?Debra ?Lewis ?discovered ?a ??highly ?selective ?process ?of ?elimination? ?in ?their ?watershed ?study, ?finding ?that ??[o]nly ?a ?fraction ?of ?all ?rapes ?are ?reported; ?only ?a ?fraction ?of ?reported ?rapes ?are ?classified ?as ?founded; ?only ?a ?fraction ?of ?founded ?cases ?lead ?to ?an ?arrest; ?and ?only ?a ?fraction ?of ?suspects ?arrested ?are ?convicted.?14 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?11 ?The ?Honourable ?Claire ?L?Heureux-??Dub?, ??Still ?Punished ?for ?Being ?Female? ?in ?Elizabeth ?A ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?1 ?at ?3. ?12 ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?26; ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?617. ?13 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?623?624, ?626?627; ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?57?58; ?See ?also ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?94?99. ?14 ?Lorenne ?M ?G ?Clark ?& ?Debra ?J ?Lewis, ?Rape: ?The ?Price ?of ?Coercive ?Sexuality ?(Toronto: ?The ?Women?s ?Press, ?1977) ?at ?57. ? ? 5 ? ? These ?problems ?continue ?today. ?Holly ?Johnson ?has ?recently ?confirmed ?that ?high ?rates ?of ?attrition ?for ?sexual ?offences ?exist ?in ?every ?phase ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system.15 ?As ?she ?details, ?for ?a ?sexual ?assault ?to ?result ?in ?conviction, ?a ?long ?chain ?of ?events ?must ?transpire. ?First, ?a ?report ?must ?be ?made ?to ?police, ?a ?very ?rare ?occurrence. ?For ?the ?complaint ?to ?go ?forward, ?police ?must ?make ?a ?record, ?investigate, ?and ?determine ?the ?complaint ?is ?legitimate, ?or ??founded?: ?police ?records ?and ?statistics ?show ?this ?occurs ?less ?often ?for ?sexual ?assault ?than ?for ?most ?other ?crimes, ?perhaps ?85 ?percent ?of ?the ?time.16 ?To ?pursue ?a ?founded ?complaint, ?police ?must ?lay ?a ?charge, ?which ?they ?do ?in ?less ?than ?fifty ?percent ?of ?founded ?sexual ?assault ?complaints. ?After ?that, ?Crown ?counsel ?must ?prosecute; ?they ?do ?this ?in ?half ?of ?sexual ?assault ?complaints ?where ?charges ?are ?laid. ?Once ?prosecuted, ?half ?of ?accused ?are ?convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?Given ?the ?huge ?number ?of ?unreported ?sexual ?assaults ?and ?the ?attrition ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system, ?nearly ?all ?occurrences ?are ?filtered ?out: ?according ?to ?Johnson, ?99.7 ?percent ?do ?not ?lead ?to ?criminal ?conviction.17 ? ? ? In ?nearly ?every ?case, ?offenders ?escape ?criminal ?responsibility; ?or, ?in ?the ?words ?of ?MacKinnon, ??[t]he ?atrocity ?is ?de ?jure ?illegal ?but ?de ?facto ?permitted.?18 ?Although ?much ?of ?the ?low ?rates ?arise ?from ?non-??reporting, ?the ?current ?situation ?nonetheless ??amounts ?to ?impunity ?for ?sexually ?violent ?men ?in ?Canada.?19 ?The ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?15 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3. ?16 ?Johnson ?chose ?this ??conservative ?estimate? ?based ?on ?varying ?data ?which ?overall ?suggested ?sexual ?assaults ?are ???unfounded? ?to ?a ?far ?greater ?extent ?than ?any ?other ?crime?, ?including ?other ?assaults: ?Ibid ?at ?627?632; ?For ?another ?source ?of ?information ?on ?clearance ?and ?charging ?rates, ?see: ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?100?103. ?17 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?627?632. ?18 ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections?, ?supra ?note ?6 ?at ?1303. ?19 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?633. ? ? 6 ??justice ?gap?, ?more ?aptly ?described ?as ?a ??chasm?,20 ?between ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?criminal ?recognition ?and ?responsibility ?is ?not ?just ?bad ?luck;21 ?it ?is ?a ?reflection ?of ?the ?systemic ?inequality ?and ?oppression ?of ?women, ?including ?the ?silencing ?of ?their ?complaints ?and ?fears. ? ? Sexual ?violence ?is ?an ?act ?of ?gender ?inequality ?that ?is ?made ?possible ?by ?wider, ?societal ?inequality: ? ?Rape ?is ?an ?act ?of ?dominance ?over ?women ?that ?works ?systemically ?to ?maintain ?a ?gender-??stratified ?society ?in ?which ?women ?occupy ?a ?disadvantaged ?status ?as ?the ?appropriate ?victims ?and ?targets ?of ?sexual ?aggression.22 ? ?Gender ?inequality ?enables ?both ?the ?prevalence ?of ?men?s ?sexual ?violence ?against ?women ?and ?the ?failure ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?to ?hold ?offenders ?accountable: ?inequality ?makes ?women ?victims ?of ?violent ?men ?and ?of ?injustice. ?Sexual ?violence ?must ?therefore ?be ?recognized ?as ?not ?merely ?the ?isolated ?actions ?of ?individual ?offenders, ?but ?the ?systemic ?actions ?of ?a ?patriarchal ?society. ?Sexually ?violent ?men ?are ?supported ?by ?ideologies ?and ?institutions ?that ?empower ?them ?and ?marginalize ?women, ?and ?this ?is ?why ?they ?can ??attack ?women ?and ?get ?away ?with ?it.?23 ? ? ? Sexual ?assault ?operates ?as ??a ?mechanism ?of ?terror ?to ?control ?women?.24 ?To ?be ?terrorized, ?all ?women ?do ?not ?need ?to ?be ?sexually ?assaulted; ?to ?know ?that ?to ?be ?raped ?is ?a ?part ?of ?feminine ?identity ?is ?enough. ?Through ?language ?and ?narratives ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?women ?are ?socialized ?from ?an ?early ?age ?into ?their ?gender ?role ?as ?victims: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?20 ?Jennifer ?Temkin ?& ?Barbara ?Krah?, ?Sexual ?Assault ?and ?the ?Justice ?Gap: ?A ?Question ?of ?Attitude ?(Oxford ?and ?Portland, ?Oregon: ?Hart ?Publishing, ?2008) ?at ?10. ?21 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?613. ?22 ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections?, ?supra ?note ?6 ?at ?1302 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ?23 ?Sheila ?McIntyre, ??Tracking ?and ?Resisting ?Backlash ?Against ?Equality ?Gains ?in ?Sexual ?Offence ?Law? ?(2000) ?20:3 ?Canadian ?Woman ?Studies ?72 ?at ?78. ?24 ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections?, ?supra ?note ?6 ?at ?1302. ? ? 7 ?Women ?are ?trained ?to ?be ?rape ?victims. ?To ?simply ?learn ?the ?word ??rape? ?is ?to ?take ?instruction ?in ?the ?power ?relationship ?between ?males ?and ?females. ?To ?talk ?about ?rape, ?even ?with ?nervous ?laughter, ?is ?to ?acknowledge ?a ?woman?s ?special ?victim ?status. ?We ?hear ?the ?whispers ?when ?we ?are ?children: ?girls ?get ?raped. ?Not ?boys. ?The ?message ?becomes ?clear. ?Rape ?has ?something ?to ?do ?with ?our ?sex. ?Rape ?is ?something ?awful ?that ?happens ?to ?females: ?it ?is ?the ?dark ?at ?the ?top ?of ?the ?stairs, ?the ?undefinable ?abyss ?that ?is ?just ?around ?the ?corner, ?and ?unless ?we ?watch ?our ?step ?it ?might ?become ?our ?destiny.25 ? ?As ?a ?part ?of ?their ?gendered ?identity, ?women ?learn ?to ?see ?themselves ?as ?victims ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?to ?fear ?sexual ?violence ?in ?their ?daily ?lives, ?to ?attempt ?to ?avoid ?it, ?and ?to ?take ?the ?blame ?for ?it, ?based ?on ?social ?norms ?about ?appropriate ?feminine ?chaste ?and ?risk-??averse ?behaviour.26 ?In ?all ?these ?lessons, ?women ?most ?fundamentally ?learn ?of ?their ?inequality: ?sexual ?violence ??remind[s] ?women ?who ?has ?power ?over ?them ?and ?keep[s] ?them ?solidly ?in ?their ?places.?27 ? ? ? As ?I ?explore, ?sexual ?violence ?and ?the ?law?s ?failure ?to ?address ?it ?have ?been ?accomplished ?in ?part ?through ?our ??deeply ?engrained ?societal ?attitudes ?that ?hold ?women ?responsible ?for ?sexual ?assault ?and ?absolve ?men ?of ?wrongdoing?.28 ?These ?attitudes ?are ?based ?on ?gender ?roles, ?or ?appropriate ?behaviour ?for ?men ?and ?women ?in ?heterosexual ?interactions ?that ?largely ?dictate ?dominance ?and ?aggression ?in ?men ?and ?passivity ?and ?subordination ?in ?women.29 ?In ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?they ?are ?known ?as ?rape ?myths. ?These ??commonsense? ?beliefs ?and ?perceptions ?continue ?to ?be ?widely ?held ?among ?the ?public ?and ?influence ?the ?willingness ?of ?men ?to ?be ?sexually ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?25 ?Susan ?Brownmiller, ?Against ?Our ?Will: ?Men, ?Women ?and ?Rape ?(New ?York: ?Fawcett ?Books, ?1975) ?at ?309. ?26 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer; ?R. ?v. ?Gayme, ?[1991] ?2 ?SCR ?577, ?1991 ?CarswellOnt ?109 ?at ?paras ?160-??162, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting ?[cited ?to ?CarswellOnt] ?[R. ?v. ?Seaboyer]; ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections?, ?supra ?note ?6 ?at ?1302?1303; ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?23. ?27 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?28. ?28 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?622. ?29 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?33?34; ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?309?313; ?Susan ?Ehrlich, ?Representing ?Rape: ?Language ?and ?Sexual ?Consent ?(New ?York: ?Routledge, ?2001) ?at ?28?30; ?Carol ?Smart, ?Feminism ?and ?the ?Power ?of ?Law, ?Sociology ?of ?Law ?and ?Crime ?(London: ?Routledge, ?2002) ?at ?28?32 ?[Feminism]. ? ? 8 ?violent, ?of ?women ?to ?engage ?the ?justice ?system ?for ?help, ?and ?of ?individuals ?to ?believe ?complaints ?of ?sexual ?violence.30 ?Rape ?myths ?have ?been ?adopted ?and ?reproduced ?by ?legislators, ?judges, ?and ?lawyers ?within ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse; ?as ?a ?result, ?the ?law ?has ?rationalized ?and ?legitimated ?sexual ?violence ?and ?shielded ?offenders ?from ?sanction, ?one ?social ?institution ?among ?many ?enabling ?sexual ?violence. ?The ?expression ?of ?rape ?myths ?has ?been ?both ?tempered ?by ?reforms31 ?and ?modified ?in ?tone ?by ?the ?emerging ?neoliberal ?paradigm. ?The ?expression ?of ?rape ?myths ?has ?decreased ?and ?has ?become ?subtler ?and ?less ?centred ?on ?feminine ?virtue. ?However, ?as ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?shown, ?the ?myths ?and ?their ?rationales ?continue ?in ?the ?law, ?indicating ?the ?need ?for ?further ?reforms. ?B. Rape ?Myths ?in ?the ?Criminal ?Justice ?System ? ? Rape ?myths ?are ?made ?up ?of ?a ?cluster ?of ??commonsense? ?beliefs ?about ?sexual ?assault ?that ?ignore ?coercion ?and ?forced ?submission, ?minimize ?offender ?responsibility, ?and ?promote ?blame ?and ?distrust ?of ?survivors. ?Ultimately, ?rape ?myths ?dismiss ?sexual ?violence ?as ?simply ?a ?form ?of ?sex. ?As ?I ?discuss ?in ?more ?detail ?in ?what ?follows, ?they ?draw ?on ?ideas ?about ?gender, ?race, ?class, ?disability, ?and ?other ?dominant ?notions ?of ?who ?has ?worth ?and ?who ?does ?not. ?Rape ?myths ?perpetuate ?and ?justify ?a ?crime ?of ?inequality ?based ?on ?prejudice. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?30 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?622?624; ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?33?38, ?41; ?Similarly, ?international ?studies ?have ?demonstrate ?that ?lower ?status ?of ?women ?is ?correlated ?with ?higher ?rates ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?They ?also ?demonstrate ?the ?impact ?that ?sexual ?violence ?has ?on ?making ?women ?more ?fearful ?in ?their ?daily ?lives. ?See ?Carrie ?L ?Yodanis, ??Gender ?Inequality, ?Violence ?Against ?Women, ?and ?Fear ?A ?Cross-??National ?Test ?of ?the ?Feminist ?Theory ?of ?Violence ?Against ?Women? ?(2004) ?19:6 ?J ?Interpers ?Violence ?655. ?31 ?I ?refer ?to ?the ?legal ?reforms ?from ?the ?1970s ?to ?1990s, ?the ?most ?important ?being ?the ?reforms ?of ?the ?early ?1980s. ?See ?Chapter ?II, ?Section ?C ?for ?a ?discussion ?of ?the ?reforms. ? ? 9 ? ? At ?their ?most ?basic, ?rape ?myths ?tell ?us ?what ?counts ?as ?a ??real? ?sexual ?assault: ?when ?a ?stranger ?uses ?violence ?or ?threats ?to ?rape ?a ?woman ?who ?physically ?resists, ?and ?as ?a ?result ?of ?the ?attack ?suffers ?physical ?harm. ?According ?to ?rape ?myths, ?if ?something ?falls ?short ?of ?this ?ideal, ?it ?is ?not ?a ?crime.32 ?This ?larger ?myth ?is ?made ?up ?of ?multiple ?beliefs ?that ?deny ?the ?violence ?of ?most ?sexual ?offences. ?In ?what ?follows, ?I ?discuss ?ten ?specific ?aspects ?of ?rape ?myths ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J. ?identified ?at ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada33 ?and ?which ?other ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?also ?explored. ? ? ? Two ?beliefs ?relate ?to ?the ?perpetrator. ?First, ?he ?is ?a ?stranger ?to ?the ?survivor, ??who ?leaps ?out ?of ?the ?bushes ?to ?attack ?his ?victim ?and ?later ?leaves ?her?,34 ?on ?the ?basis ?that ?men ?cannot ?and ?do ?not ?rape ?friends, ?family ?members, ?or ?acquaintances.35 ?Secondly, ?the ?perpetrator ?is ?either ?mentally ?ill ?or ?evil,36 ??consumed ?with ?lust, ?and ?totally ?unable ?to ?control ?his ?animal ?passions.?37 ?Typically, ?he ?is ?also ?racialized ?or ?Aboriginal, ?unemployed ?or ?poor, ?and ?unmarried; ?he ?is ?not ?a ?white ?middle-??class ?professional ?with ?a ?wife ?and ?kids.38 ? ? ? At ?the ?core ?of ?rape ?myths ?is ?disbelief ?of ?the ?survivor. ?As ?a ?part ?of ?this, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J. ?identified ?the ?long-??standing ?dichotomy ?between ?the ?Madonna ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?32 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?31?32. ?33 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?34 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?151. ?35 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?149. ?36 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?151. ?37 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?134. ?38 ?See ?e.g. ?Ibid ?at ?143?144; ?Constance ?Backhouse, ?Petticoats ?and ?Prejudice: ?Women ?and ?Law ?in ?Nineteenth ?Century ?Canada ?(Toronto: ?Published ?for ?Osgoode ?Society ?by ?Women?s ?Press, ?1991) ?at ?98 ?[Petticoats ?and ?Prejudice]; ?Patricia ?Marshall, ??Sexual ?Assault, ?the ?Charter ?and ?Sentencing ?Reform? ?(1988) ?63 ?CR-??ART ?216 ?at ?220?222; ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?47; ?Constance ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes: ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law ?in ?Canada, ?1900-??1975 ?(Toronto: ?Published ?for ?the ?Osgoode ?Society ?for ?Canadian ?Legal ?History ?by ?Irwin ?Law, ?2008) ?at ?90, ?246?247 ?[Carnal ?Crimes]; ?Josephine ?L ?Savarese, ??Doing ?No ?Violence ?to ?the ?Sentence ?Imposed: ?Racialized ?Sex ?Worker ?Complainants, ?Racialized ?Offenders, ?and ?the ?Feminization ?of ?the ?Homo ?Sacer ?in ?Two ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases? ?(2010) ?22 ?CJWL ?365 ?at ?381?384. ? ? 10 ?and ?the ?whore. ?To ?fit ?into ?the ?archetypal ?and ?therefore ?believable ?complainant, ??the ?Madonna?, ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?assault ?must ?be ?respectable ?in ?every ?sense.39 ?They ?must ?conform ?to ?notions ?of ?proper ?feminine ?behaviour, ?particularly ?the ?requirements ?for ?chaste, ?sober, ?and ?risk-??adverse ?conduct. ?Ideally, ?they ?should ?also ?be ?white ?and ?middle-??class.40 ?No ?woman ?can ?meet ?the ?impossible ?standards ?held ?up ?as ?the ?ideal, ?which ?is ?the ?point ?of ?a ?norm ?meant ?to ?police ?women?s ?behaviour ?and ?blame ?them ?for ?men?s ?violence. ?By ?failing ?to ?meet ?an ?impossible ?ideal, ?all ?women ?can ?be ?relegated ?to ?the ?status ?of ?whores. ?As ?explained ?by ?Susan ?Brownmiller, ?survivors ?can ?then ?be ?blamed ?because ?they ??ask ?for? ?sexual ?violence ?by ?seductive ?or ?careless ?behaviour.41 ? ? ? According ?to ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?rape ?myths ?also ?tell ?us ?that ?women ?will ?violently ?resist ?sexual ?assault, ?and ?when ?they ?do, ?they ?can ?prevent ?it. ?Therefore, ?when ?there ?is ?no ?evidence ?of ?resistance, ?claims ?of ?rape ?are ?likely ?to ?be ?false. ?Women ?make ?false ?claims ?because ?they ?are ??fickle ?and ?full ?of ?spite?: ?they ?allege ?rape ?against ?men ?they ?have ?had ?consensual ?sex ?with ?to ?be ?spiteful ?or ?to ?avoid ?punishment; ?and ?they ?allege ?it ?against ?men ?they ?have ?not ?had ?sex ?with ?because ?they ?fantasize ?about ?rape.42 ?At ?their ?most ?basic, ?these ?beliefs ?are ?premised ?on ??the ?cherished ?male ?assumption ?that ?female ?persons ?tend ?to ?lie.?43 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?39 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?paras ?150-??151, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?40 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?111, ?117?124; ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?45?47; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?151, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?See ?generally ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38; ?Rakhi ?Ruparelia, ??All ?That ?Glitters ?is ?Not ?Gold: ?The ?False ?Promise ?of ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements? ?in ?Elizabeth ?A ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?665. ?41 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?311?313. ?42 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?paras ?147, ?151, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?43 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?369. ? ? 11 ? ? Underlying ?the ?related ?notions ?that ?women ?both ?want ?to ?be ?raped ?and ?cannot ?be ?raped ?against ?their ?will ?is ?the ?cultural ?construction ?of ?normal ?heterosexual ?activity ?consisting ?of ?men ?aggressively ?seducing ?or ?overpowering ?women ?who ?passively ?accept ?and ?privately ?want ?to ?be ??taken.? ?When ?women ?want ?sexual ?assault ?and ?men ?are ?supposed ?to ?act ?on ?sexual ?aggression, ?forced ?sexual ?touching ?is ?not ?harmful ?but ?enjoyable; ?certainly ?it ?is ?not ?violence.44 ? ? ? L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J. ?also ?identified ?two ?ideas ?about ?reporting. ?First, ?women ?are ?seen ?as ??emotional?; ?therefore, ?when ?reporting, ?women ?who ?are ?not ?lying ?will ?be ?hysterical. ?Secondly, ?rape ?myths ?dictate ?two ?mutually ?exclusive ?requirements ?of ?women: ?to ?be ?too ?ashamed ?to ?report, ?or ?to ?be ?too ?hysterical ?to ?not ?report.45 ?However, ?generally, ?to ?be ?believed, ?rape ?myths ?expect ?women ??to ?report ?the ?assault ?to ?the ?police ?immediately ?and ?to ?be ?visibly ?upset ?and ?emotional ?about ?the ?experience.?46 ? ? ? Our ?society ?claims ?to ?see ?rape ?as ?a ?horrific ?crime ?requiring ?swift ?and ?severe ?justice ?but ?this ?condemnation ?only ?follows ?when ?sexual ?violence ?meets ?the ?stereotypical ?dictates ?of ??real? ?rape. ?Therefore, ?although ?we ?as ?a ?society ?claim ?to ?despise ?and ?abjure ?sexual ?violence, ?in ?reality, ?we ?seldom ?do.47 ?More ?frequently, ?we ?see ?sexual ?assault ?as ?a ?clumsy ?and ?failed ?attempt ?at ?normal ?heterosexual ?seduction ?that ?women ?invite, ?and ?which ?women ?misrepresent ?as ?rape ??in ?postcoital ?spite.?48 ?These ?sexual ?assaults ?are ??dismissed ?with ?a ?knowing ?wink ?as ?a ?natural ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?44 ?Ibid ?at ?311?313. ?45 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?151, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?46 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?32. ?47 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?23?24. ?48 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?313. ? ? 12 ?consequences ?of ?the ?sexual ?game ?in ?which ?man ?pursues ?and ?woman ?is ?pursued.?49 ?In ?essence, ?we ?blur ?the ?lines ?between ?sex ?and ?sexual ?violence, ?often ?seeing ?them ?as ?one ?and ?the ?same. ? ? ? Rape ?myths ?are ?not ?only ?based ?on ?misogynist ?ideas ?of ?women ?and ?heteronormativity, ?they ?are ?also ?wrong, ?given ?what ?is ?known ?about ?sexual ?violence. ?Rather ?than ?stranger ?attacks ?being ?the ?norm, ?in ?most ?cases, ?sexual ?violence ?occurs ?between ?acquaintances, ?friends, ?and ?family.50 ?As ?well, ?survivors ?often ?do ?not ?physically ?resist. ?Perpetrators, ?nearly ?always ?men, ?usually ?have ?a ?size ?advantage ?over ?women ?and ?children; ?offenders ?may ?overpower ?survivors ?such ?that ?they ?cannot ?actively ?resist, ?and ?furthermore ?survivors ?often ?have ?realistic ?fears ?that ?resistance ?will ?result ?in ?greater ?harm. ?As ?well, ?perpetrators ?often ?have ?the ?advantage ?of ?experience ?and ?socialization: ?women ?have ?been ?socialized ?to ?be ?passive ?and ?gentle ?rather ?than ?aggressive ?but ?men ?have ?not.51 ?The ?patriarchy ?has ?specifically ?endowed ?men ?with ?power ?and ?authority ?over ?women ?and ?children ?and ?has ?socialized ?them ?to ?use ?it; ?their ?power ?and ?authority ?can ?be ?used ?to ?force ?sexual ?contact ?without ?violence ?or ?apparent ?resistance.52 ? ? Consequently, ?survivors ?are ?often ?not ?physically ?injured.53 ?Police ?reports ?show ?that ?most ?sexual ?offences ?are ?forced ?sexual ?touching, ?and ?offences ?that ?cause ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?49 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?24. ?50 ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?30. ?51 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?360?361; ?See ?also ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?290; ?Paula ?E ?Pasquali, ?No ?Rhyme ?or ?Reason: ?The ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ?(Ottawa: ?Canadian ?Research ?Institute ?for ?the ?Advancement ?of ?Women, ?1995) ?at ?27; ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?31?32. ?52 ?Catharine ?A ?MacKinnon, ??A ?Sex ?Equality ?Approach ?to ?Sexual ?Assault? ?(2003) ?989:1 ?Annals ?of ?the ?New ?York ?Academy ?of ?Sciences ?265 ?at ?268?269 ?[?Equality ?Approach?]. ?53 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?31?32. ? ? 13 ?survivors ?serious ?bodily ?harm ?or ?involve ?weapons ?are ?less ?frequent.54 ?Even ?so, ?one ?must ?consider ?this ?data ?with ?some ?skepticism, ?due ?to ?significant ?concerns ?with ?both ?reporting ?and ?police ?under-??classifying ?sexual ?offences ?based ?on ?harm.55 ? ? ? It ?is ?possible ?that ?sexual ?assault ?is ?more ?violent ?that ?we ?appreciate. ?As ?the ?personal ?accounts ?of ?acquaintance ?rape ?in ?Jody ?Raphael?s ?book ?Rape ?is ?Rape56 ?make ?clear, ?although ?acquaintance ?rape ?is ?often ?portrayed ?as ?arising ?from ?misunderstandings ?about ?consent ?rather ?than ?violence, ?sexual ?assaults ?by ?acquaintances ?are ?often ?very ?violent ?and ?cause ?physical ?injury. ?Perhaps, ?by ?using ?masculinist ?definitions ?of ?consent, ?violence ?and ?harm, ?or ?understanding ?sexual ?violence ?from ?the ?perspective ?of ?offenders, ?we ?dismiss ?this.57 ?There ?is ?no ?doubt ?that ?all ?sexual ?offences ?are ?indeed ?violent ?and ?harmful; ?however, ?the ?degree ?of ?violence ?and ?physical ?harm ?on ?average ?may ?be ?less ?clear. ? ? ? Also ?contrary ?to ?the ?myths, ?there ?is ?no ?one ?typical ?response ?to ?sexual ?violence: ?survivors ?may ?be ?distraught ?or ?calm ?and ?numb.58 ?Some ?survivors ?also ?do ?not ?report ?immediately, ?and, ?as ?we ?have ?seen, ?the ?majority ?of ?survivors ?do ?not ?report ?at ?all, ?accounting ?for ?a ?large ?amount ?of ?the ?justice ?gap.59 ? ? ? ? Yet ?rape ?myths ?persist. ?As ?identified ?by ?Jennifer ?Temkin ?and ?Barbara ?Krah?, ?rape ?myths ?construct ?a ?fictional ??real? ?rape ?that ?is ??not ?only ?descriptive, ?specifying ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?54 ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?29, ?31; ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?26; ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?618?619. ?55 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?619; ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?26; ?See ?generally ?Janice ?Du ?Mont, ??Charging ?and ?Sentencing ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases: ?An ?Exploratory ?Examination? ?(2003) ?15 ?CJWL ?305. ?56 ?Jody ?Raphael, ?Rape ?Is ?Rape: ?How ?Denial, ?Distortion, ?and ?Victim ?Blaming ?Are ?Fueling ?a ?Hidden ?Acquaintance ?Rape ?Crisis ?(Chicago: ?Chicago ?Review ?Press, ?2013). ?57 ?See ?e.g. ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?121?148. ?58 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?32?33. ?59 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?90?91; ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?94?97; ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?57?58; ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?626?627. ? ? 14 ?the ?characteristics ?of ?a ?typical ?rape, ?but ?prescriptive ?in ?that ?all ?too ?often ?it ?lays ?down ?the ?criteria ?a ?case ?must ?meet ?in ?order ?to ?be ?judged ?to ?qualify ?as ?rape.?60 ?When ?a ?sexual ?assault ?diverges ?from ?the ?common ?understanding ?of ?a ??real? ?rape, ?people ?are ?less ?inclined ?to ?believe ?it ?occurred ?or ?that ?it ?amounts ?to ?a ?crime.61 ? ? ? The ?criminal ?justice ?system ?is ?not ?immune ?from ?this ?thinking: ?rape ?myths ?have ?influenced ?police ?and ?legal ?decision-??making, ?and ?specifically ?as ?I ?examine, ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ?The ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?and ?sentencing ?has, ?in ?the ?past, ?reproduced ?and ?constructed ?rape ?myths ?in ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?classifying ?sexual ?violence ?as ?harmless, ?normal ?sex. ?My ?question ?is ?whether ?that ?continues ?today ?in ?sentencing. ?C. Description ?of ?Thesis ? ? ? Sexual ?violence ?against ?women ?continues ?to ?be ?prevalent ?and ?largely ?outside ?the ?auspices ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system. ?As ?I ?explain ?below, ?other ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?demonstrated ?that ?rape ?myths ?historically ?guided ?the ?development ?of ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences. ?My ?project ?is ?to ?determine ?if ?they ?continue ?to ?influence ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders ?in ?B.C., ?considered ?in ?light ?of ?the ?past ?use ?of ?myths ?in ?the ?law ?and ?the ?previous ?work ?of ?feminist ?scholars. ? ? ? This ?thesis ?is ?divided ?into ?eight ?parts. ?In ?Chapter ?I, ?I ?introduce ?the ?problem ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?its ?gendered ?character, ?and ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system. ?I ?also ?outline ?my ?research ?objective ?and ?findings. ?Next, ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?I ?explain ?the ?history ?and ?evolution ?of ?sexual ?offence ?law ?and ?sentencing ?law ?in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?60 ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?32 ?[emphasis ?in ?original]. ?61 ?Ibid. ? ? 15 ?Canada, ?specifically ?how ?rape ?myths ?have ?been ?embedded ?in ?the ?law ?and ?how ?feminist ?advocates ?have ?sought ?to ?eliminate ?their ?use. ?I ?focus ?on ?sentencing ?prior ?to ?the ?major ?legal ?reforms ?to ?provide ?a ?point ?of ?comparison ?for ?recent ?cases; ?I ?also ?highlight ?relevant ?feminist ?literature ?on ?rape ?myths ?to ?identify ?current ?concerns. ?Chapter ?III ?contains ?an ?explanation ?of ?my ?conceptual ?framework, ?based ?on ?a ?feminist ?approach ?and ?the ?theory ?of ?law ?as ?discourse, ?as ?well ?as ?my ?methodology. ?My ?analyses ?of ?the ?case ?sample ?are ?found ?in ?Chapters ?IV ?to ?VI. ?Finally, ?in ?Chapter ?VII, ?I ?discuss ?overarching ?themes ?and ?how ?rape ?myths ?have ?adapted ?since ?the ?1970s, ?and ?I ?outline ?my ?concluding ?thoughts ?in ?Chapter ?VIII. ? ? ?Research ?Objective ?and ?Approach ? ? As ?a ?woman ?and ?a ?feminist, ?I ?am ?concerned ?about ?inequality ?within ?sexual ?assault ?law. ?I ?am ?particularly ?interested ?in ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?sentencing, ?a ?site ?that, ?as ?noted ?by ?Christine ?Boyle, ?can ??reveal ?the ?most ?about ?the ?reality ?of ?the ?law ?on ?sexual ?assault.?62 ? ? ? My ?project ?is ?to ?determine ?whether ?courts ?currently ?use ?myths ?about ?sexual ?violence ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders. ?As ?I ?discuss ?in ?more ?detail ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?demonstrated ?that, ?despite ?legislative ?reforms ?and ?judicial ?re-??conceptualizations ?of ?consent, ?rape ?myths ?continue ?to ?influence ?sexual ?assault ?trials, ?sometimes ?in ?a ?modified ?form ?that ?reflects ?neoliberal ?expectations ?of ?feminine ?risk-??avoidance ?and ?individual ?rationality ?and ?responsibility.63 ?Whether ?rape ?myths ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?62 ?Christine ?Boyle, ?Sexual ?Assault ?(Toronto: ?Carswell, ?1984) ?at ?171 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ?63 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?875?882; ?Elizabeth ?Comack ?& ?Tracey ?Peter, ??How ?the ?Criminal ?Justice ?System ?Responds ?to ?Sexual ?Assault ?Survivors: ?The ?Slippage ?between ?Responsibilization ?and ?Blaming ?the ?Victim? ?(2005) ?17 ?CJWL ?283 ?at ?298. ? ? 16 ?inform ?current ?sentencing ?decisions, ?particularly ?in ?B.C., ?is ?unclear ?because ?this ?aspect ?of ?judicial ?decision-??making ?has ?attracted ?less ?attention ?from ?feminist ?scholars. ? ? To ?understand ?whether ?B.C. ?courts ?currently ?use ?myths ?about ?sexual ?violence ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders, ?I ?analyze ?both ?doctrine ?and ?discourse. ?This ?distinction ?is ?somewhat ?artificial: ?as ?I ?explore ?in ?Chapter ?III, ?the ?law, ?made ?up ?of ?institutional ?language, ?is ?discourse.64 ?However, ?this ?distinction ?clarifies ?my ?two ?purposes ?for ?analyzing ?the ?cases: ?how ?judges ?apply ?the ?law ?in ?terms ?of ?relevance ?and ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors, ?and ?what ?stories ?judges ?tell ?about ?sexual ?violence ?based ?on ?their ?language. ? ? As ?I ?explore ?in ?this ?thesis, ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse ?are ?not ?objective, ?neutral ?or ?universal; ?they ?are ?partial ?and ?situated ?in ?the ?experiences ?and ?perspectives ?of ?lawmakers. ?Through ?their ?voices ?and ?pens ?they ?have ?ingrained ?the ?structural ?vulnerability ?of ?women ?to ?sexual ?violence ?and ?the ?prejudice ?of ?dominant ?cultural ?norms ?and ?social ?institutions ?into ?the ?law.65 ?Because ?judges ?are ?situated ?within ?our ?broader ?culture ?and ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system, ?their ?intention ?to ?discriminate ?is ?not ?necessary ?for ?them ?to ?express ?rape ?myths ?in ?doctrine ?or ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?64 ?Linda ?Coates, ?Janet ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?James ?Gibson, ??Anomalous ?Language ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments? ?(1994) ?5:2 ?Discourse ?& ?Society ?189 ?at ?189; ?Penelope ?Pether, ??Critical ?Discourse ?Analysis, ?Rape ?Law ?and ?the ?Jury ?Instruction ?Simplification ?Project? ?(1999) ?24 ?S ?Ill ?U ?LJ ?53 ?at ?62. ? ?65 ?See ?generally ?Constance ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century ?Canadian ?Rape ?Law ?1800-??1892? ?in ?David ?H ?Flaherty, ?ed, ?Essays ?in ?the ?History ?of ?Canadian ?Law ?(Toronto: ?Published ?for ?the ?Osgoode ?Society ?by ?University ?of ?Toronto ?Press, ?1983) ?200 ?[?Nineteenth-??Century?]; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62; ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25; ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?dissenting. ? ? 17 ?discourse. ?Rape ?myths ?in ?sentencing ?judgments ?signify ?their ?power ?and ?prevalence ?rather ?than ?the ?intention ?of ?judges ?to ?repeat ?them.66 ? ? ? I ?have ?not ?studied ?the ?entirety ?of ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences; ?of ?necessity, ?I ?have ?studied ?a ?small ?piece: ?recent ?B.C. ?sentencing ?cases. ?I ?analyze ?a ?two-??year ?sample, ?cases ?from ?2011 ?and ?2012, ?to ?add ?to ?the ?existing ?feminist ?scholarship ?on ?the ?continued ?presence ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?law. ?I ?analyze ?these ?cases ?in ?the ?context ?of ?the ?history ?of ?sexual ?offence ?and ?sentencing ?law, ?with ?a ?focus ?on ?sentencing ?prior ?to ?the ?1980s ?Criminal ?Code67 ?reforms, ?to ?consider ?overarching ?themes ?and ?continuing ?concerns. ? ? ? I ?do ?not ?seek ?to ?determine ?the ?proportion ?of ?cases ?that ?reflect ?rape ?myths; ?rather, ?I ?focus ?on ?identifying ?themes ?and ?even ?exceptional ?examples. ?I ?contend ?that ?inequality ?perpetuated ?by ?courts ?is ?problematic ?if ?it ?occurs ?at ?all, ?so ?it ?is ?unnecessary ?to ?establish ?any ?specific ?percentage ?as ?a ?required ?minimum. ? ? I ?also ?did ?not ?set ?out ?to ?study ?sentencing ?outcomes. ?As ?I ?explain ?in ?more ?detail ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?my ?decision ?is ?based ?on ?feminist ?concerns ?about ?the ?harm ?and ?discrimination ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?perpetrates, ?particularly ?through ?incarceration. ?Like ?other ?feminist ?researchers, ?I ?am ?concerned ?about ?the ?discrimination ?against ?Aboriginal, ?racialized, ?and ?poor ?offenders ?in ?sentencing ?generally68 ?as ?well ?as ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system?s ?failure ?to ?show ?it ?can ?rehabilitate ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?66 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189, ?197?198; ?Linda ?Coates ?& ?Allan ?Wade, ??Telling ?it ?like ?it ?isn?t: ?obscuring ?perpetrator ?responsibility ?for ?violent ?crime? ?(2004) ?15:5 ?Discourse ?& ?Society ?3 ?at ?26. ?67 ?Criminal ?Code, ?RSC ?1985, ?c ?C-??46. ?68 ?Laureen ?Snider, ??Feminism, ?Punishment ?and ?the ?Potential ?of ?Empowerment? ?(1994) ?9 ?CJLS ?75 ?at ?86?87; ?Dianne ?L ?Martin, ??Retribution ?Revisited: ?A ?Reconsideration ?of ?Feminist ?Criminal ?Law ?Reform ?Strategies? ?(1998) ?36 ?Osgoode ?Hall ?L ?J ?151 ?at ?152?153, ?162?164, ?171. ? ? 18 ?offenders.69 ?I ?have ?also ?been ?persuaded ?that ?harsher ?penalties ?operate ?as ?a ?barrier ?to ?conviction,70 ?and ?conviction ?is ?something ?I ?consider ?important ?to ?promote ?offender ?responsibility ?and ?justice ?for ?survivors. ?In ?this ?thesis, ?I ?do ?not ?suggest ?offenders ?should ?be ?given ?longer ?sentences; ?rather ?I ?suggest ?sentencing ?decisions ?should ?be ?free ?of ?rape ?myths ?and ?should ?appreciate ?the ?context ?of ?inequality ?that ?fosters ?sexual ?violence. ?In ?short, ?sentencing ?should ?be ?fair ?to ?both ?offenders ?and ?survivors. ?Findings ? ? In ?the ?past ?and ?now, ?there ?is ?a ?tendency ?among ?judges ?to ?view ?some ?sexual ?offences ?as ?sex. ?This ?tendency ?is ?revealed ?in ?courts? ?reluctance ?to ?convict ?sexual ?offenders ?and ?the ?way ?they ?sentence ?convicted ?offenders, ?my ?topic. ?Like ?others ?studying ?sentencing, ?my ?analysis ?of ?B.C. ?cases ?from ?the ?1970s ?and ?2011 ?and ?2012 ?shows ?that ?courts ?treat ?and ?portray ?some ?crimes ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?not ?that ?serious, ?the ?offender ?not ?that ?blameworthy, ?or ?the ?survivor ?not ?that ?harmed, ?based ?on ?rape ?myths. ?Still ?infecting ?our ?notion ?of ??commonsense? ?and ?our ?legal ?understanding ?of ?harm ?and ?blame, ?the ?myths ?have ?proven ?tenacious ?and ?difficult ?to ?ferret ?out ?and ?eliminate. ? ? ? ? Feminist ?reformers ?have ?fought ?to ?eliminate ?prejudicial ?tropes ?from ?the ?law ?and ?to ?have ?the ?law ?recognize ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violence, ?not ?sex; ?however, ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?69 ?Constance ?Backhouse, ??A ?Feminist ?Remedy ?for ?Sexual ?Assault: ?A ?Quest ?for ?Answers? ?in ?Elizabeth ?A ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?725 ?at ?737 ?[?Feminist ?Remedy?]; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?164; ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?77, ?82. ?70 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?12, ?14; ?Janet ?Lynn ?Drysdale, ?Rape ?and ?the ?Law ?in ?Ontario, ?1892-??1930 ?(LL.M., ?York ?University, ?1988) ?[unpublished] ?at ?5?12; ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?45; ?See ?also ?Clayton ?C ?Ruby, ?Gerald ?J ?Chan ?& ?Nader ?R ?Hasan, ?Sentencing, ?8th ?ed ?(Markham, ?Ont: ?LexisNexis ?Canada, ?2012), ?sec ?1.28, ?1.31 ?[high ?conviction ?rates ?not ?harsh ?sentences ?deter ?crime]. ? ? 19 ?influence ?of ?the ?myths ?and ?the ?notion ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?a ?form ?of ?(bad) ?sex ?remain. ?They ?peep ?out ?from ?behind ?the ?language ?of ?non-??violence, ?risk, ?intoxication, ?and ??good? ?offenders. ?But ?as ?feminist ?advocates ?have ?long ?argued, ?sexual ?violence ?is ?not ?just ?bad ?sex, ?not ?for ?survivors ?and ?not ?for ?women ?in ?general. ? ? I ?speculate ?that ?rape ?myths ?are ?difficult ?to ?eliminate ?in ?part ?because ?the ?paradigm ?of ?the ?law ?is ?largely ?a ?liberal ?one. ?That ?is, ?sexual ?crimes ?are ?treated ?as ?individual ?acts ?isolated ?from ?larger ?social ?structures, ?including ?those ?that ?create ?or ?maintain ?inequalities ?and ?vulnerabilities. ?This ?approach ?does ?not ?right ?inequalities. ?It ?also ?does ?not ?eliminate ?gender ?norms ?that ?men ?are ?aggressive, ?sex-??seeking, ?barely ?under ?control ?Casanovas ?and ?women ?are ?passive ?and ?coy ?sexualized ?objects ?who ?cannot ?be ?trusted ?to ?communicate ?their ?wants ?and ?desires. ? ? ? In ?the ?case ?sample, ?I ?found ?rape ?myths. ?They ?were ?most ?conspicuous ?in ?sexual ?offences ?by ?men ?against ?adolescents ?who ?were ?strangers ?to ?them ?or ?bare ?acquaintances. ?In ?these ?cases, ?I ?saw ?judges ?portray ?sex ?offences ?as ?technically ?illegal ?but ?not ?truly ?harmful ?because ?survivors ??agreed? ?or ??consented? ?and ?offenders ?did ?not ?use ??violence? ?or ??force.? ?In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?accepted ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?adolescents ?that ?makes ?consent ?impossible ?as ?a ?matter ?of ?law ?but ?not ?of ?fact; ?they ?therefore ?glossed ?over ?offenders? ?exploitation ?and ?portrayed ?survivors ?as ?less ?harmed ?by ?offences ?they ?had ??asked ?for.? ?In ?these ?cases, ?they ?left ?the ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?its ?violent ?character ?largely ?unstated ?and ?therefore, ?unexamined. ?With ?supposed ?agreement ?and ?no ?overt ?physical ?violence, ?the ?law ?considered ?this ?a ?grey ?area ?between ?sex ?and ?harmful ?sexual ?violence. ? ? 20 ? ? The ?court?s ?different ?approach ?to ?considering ?harm ?to ?survivors ?was ?also ?discernible ?in ?some ?cases ?of ?particularly ?vulnerable ?women ?taking ??risks.? ?Specifically, ?it ?is ?noteworthy ?that ?in ?three ?cases ?of ?sexual ?assaults ?against ?women ?in ?prostitution, ?courts ?determined ?survivors ?were ?not ?seriously ?harmed, ?had ?recovered ?well ?from ?their ?trauma, ?or ?had ?improved ?their ?lives ?since ?the ?assault, ?findings ?not ?typically ?made ?for ?other ?survivors. ?In ?another ?case ?about ??risk,? ?a ?judge ?scolded ?a ?single ?mother ?subjected ?to ?a ?sexualized ?workplace ?for ?not ?avoiding ?sexual ?assault ?by ?her ?boss, ?which ?apparently ?she ?should ?have ?seen ?coming. ?Like ?adolescents ?who ?associated ?with ?predatory ?men, ?perhaps ?courts ?saw ?these ?women ?as ?willfully ?running ?the ?risk ?of ?sexual ?violence. ? ? ? The ?myths ?were ?also ?visible ?in ?portrayals ?of ?offenders ?as ?fundamentally ??good.? ?Based ?on ?stereotypes, ?courts ?mitigated ?sentences ?of ?men ?with ?families, ?jobs, ?and ?churches. ?Ultimately, ?this ?thinking ?reinforced ?myths ?about ?what ?rapists ?look ?like ?and ?whether ?the ?conduct ?of ?otherwise ?good ?men ?amounts ?to ?sexual ?violence, ?not ?sex. ?It ?also ?reinforced ?the ?social ?privilege ?of ?certain ?men. ? ? In ?some ?cases ?in ?the ?sample, ?courts ?used ?sexual ?history ?and ?other ?evidence ?that ?sexualized ?survivors ?and ?painted ?offenders ?as ?good ?men ?not ?prone ?to ?sexual ?violence. ?As ?well, ?in ?mitigation ?or ?to ?situate ?offences ?in ?relation ?to ?other ?cases, ?courts ?characterized ?offences ?as ?non-??violent, ?mistakes, ?or ?not ?predatory ?based ?on ?myths. ?They ?joined ?offenders ?(and ?psychologists) ?in ?blaming ?violence ?on ?intoxication ?rather ?than ?offender ?agency, ?seeing ?sexual ?violence ?as ?something ?that ?happens ?when ?men ?lose ?control, ?not ?when ?they ?are ?controlling ?and ?dominating ? ? 21 ?someone ?else. ?Courts ?placed ?less ?emphasis ?on ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor ?than ?on ?the ?offender?s ?circumstances, ?and ?sometimes ?omitted ?harm ?from ?the ?discussion ?entirely. ? ? I ?do ?not ?debate ?the ?doctrine ?that ?offenders ?guilty ?of ?the ?same ?crime ?can ?have ?different ?levels ?of ?blameworthiness; ?however, ?it ?is ?a ?problem ?if ?blameworthiness ?turns ?on ?prejudicial ?and ?sexist ?assumptions. ? ? The ?myths ?that ?were ?evident ?in ?doctrine ?were ?reinforced ?by ?discourse, ?which ?followed ?similar ?themes. ?In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?described ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?using ?language ?that ?expressed ?consent, ?mutuality, ?and ?eroticism. ?They ?also ?used ?language ?for ?sexual ?violence ?that ?was ?neutral ?and ?vague, ?using ?broad ?and ?commonplace ?terms ?for ?touching ?without ?positive ?or ?negative ?connotations. ?These ?terms ?hid ?the ?forceful, ?violent, ?and ?unilateral ?nature ?of ?sexual ?offences. ?In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?obscured ?the ?agency ?of ?offenders ?with ?grammar ?that ?removed ?offenders ?from ?crimes ?or ?made ?the ?actor ?unclear, ?sometimes ?making ?sexually ?assaultive ?acts ?appear ?to ?occur ?spontaneously. ?In ?some ?judicial ?language, ?causes ?were ?discursively ?portrayed ?as ?outside ?of ?offenders, ?blaming ?violence ?on ?intoxication. ?Courts ?also ?regularly ?used ?terms ?that ?undermined ?findings ?of ?guilt, ?casting ?doubt ?and ?suspicion ?on ?survivors. ?Ultimately, ?legal ?discourse ?suggested ?the ?question: ?was ?it ?really ?just ?bad ?sex? ? ? ? Cases ?that ?looked ?the ?least ?like ?the ?stereotypical ??real? ?sexual ?assault ?were ?where ?myths ?tended ?to ?crop ?up. ?In ?the ?most ?undeniably ?violent ?and ?horrific ?cases, ?judges ?readily ?recognized ?violence ?and ?harm. ?It ?was ?in ?the ?less ?obviously ?violent ?cases ?that ?courts ?used ?rape ?myths. ?It ?appears, ?then, ?in ?sentencing ?cases, ?feminist ?reforms ?have ?failed ?to ?ensure ?courts ?recognize ?the ?gender ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?all ? ? 22 ?sexual ?offences ?as ?harmful ?and ?blameworthy ?violence, ?and ?most ?clearly ?have ?failed ?to ?protect ?especially ?vulnerable ?women ?from ?rape ?myths. ? ? ? I ?do ?not ?suggest ?courts ?intentionally ?relied ?on ?rape ?myths: ?they ?are ?pervasive ?in ?our ?culture ?and ?the ?law ?and, ?raised ?to ?the ?level ?of ?commonsense, ?often ?go ?unnoticed. ?Judges ?do ?not ?construct ?and ?narrate ?offences ?as ?a ?solitary ?venture. ?However, ?I ?suggest ?that ?judicial ?inattention ?to ?gender ?inequality, ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?played ?a ?role ?in ?enabling ?myths ?to ?continue ?and ?enabling ?courts ?to ?portray ?some ?sexual ?violence ?as ?like ?consensual ?sex. ?D. A ?Note ?on ?Language ? ? My ?thesis ?is ?focused ?on ?both ?doctrine ?and ?discourse; ?as ?a ?result, ?language ?is ?important. ?I ?tried ?to ?be ?thoughtful ?about ?the ?language ?I ?use. ?I ?wish ?to ?explain ?certain ?word ?choices, ?specifically ?my ?use ?of ??rape? ?and ??survivor.? ? ? The ?term ?rape ?no ?longer ?has ?a ?specific ?meaning ?in ?the ?law: ?with ?the ?reforms ?of ?the ?1980s, ?the ?offence ?of ?rape ?was ?abolished ?in ?favour ?of ?sexual ?assault, ?which ?criminalizes ?all ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?touching. ?However, ?the ?meaning ?of ??rape? ?in ?common ?parlance ?remains ?the ?same: ?it ?still ?usefully ?expresses ?a ?particular ?type ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?As ?well, ?the ?word ?rape ?is ?powerful. ?Its ?use ?can ?be ?a ?political ?choice ?for ?feminists ?scholars71 ?to ?capture ??an ?important ?shared ?social ?understanding ?of ?the ?meaning ?and ?impact ?of ?rape ?for ?women?, ?a ?meaning ?which ?may ?have ?been ?lost ?in ?the ?gender-??neutral ?term ??sexual ?assault.?72 ?Moreover, ?it ?more ?accurately ?describes ?the ?force ?and ?violence ?of ?nonconsensual ?vaginal ?and ?anal ?penetration ?than ??intercourse? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?71 ?Elizabeth ?Sheehy, ??Editorial? ?(2011) ?23:1 ?CJWL ?iii ?at ?iv. ?72 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?621. ? ? 23 ?or ??penetration?, ?an ?issue ?I ?discuss ?in ?my ?analysis. ?Therefore, ?I ?have ?chosen ?to ?use ?it ?in ?this ?thesis. ? ? I ?have ?also ?chosen ?to ?call ?individuals ?who ?have ?experienced ?sexual ?violence ??survivors.? ?I ?use ?this ?word ?instead ?of ?the ?more ?common ?term ??victim,? ?which ?is ?the ?correct ?term ?pursuant ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code.73 ?I ?have ?followed ?others ?in ?questioning ?the ?label ??victim? ?because ?it ?can ?be ?disempowering, ?rendering ?individuals ?as ?passive ?(and ?stereotypically ?feminized) ?objects ?worthy ?of ?pity ?and ?even ?scorn. ?In ?contrast, ?the ?term ??survivor? ?has ?been ?embraced ?for ?its ?connotations ?of ?resilience ?and ?resistance.74 ?I ?also ?question ?the ?term ?victim ?because ?of ?its ?appropriation ?by ?the ?victims? ?rights ?movement, ?which ?I ?discuss ?in ?more ?detail ?in ?Chapter ?II. ?Within ?this ?movement, ??victim? ?has ?come ?to ?convey ?the ?understanding ?of ?crime ?as ?atomistic ?and ?isolated ?occurrences, ?rather ?than ?the ?feminist ?conception ?of ?crime ?as ?contextual ?and ?based ?on ?socially ?constructed ?vulnerability ?and ?marginalization.75 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?73 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?722(4). ?74 ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?670?671. ?75 ?Ibid ?at ?668?670; ?See ?also ?Lise ?Gotell, ??The ?Discursive ?Disappearance ?of ?Sexualized ?Violence: ?Feminist ?Law ?Reform, ?Judicial ?Resistance, ?and ?Neo-??Liberal ?Sexual ?Citizenship? ?in ?Dorothy ?E ?Chunn, ?Susan ?B ?Boyd ?& ?Hester ?Lessard, ?eds, ?Reaction ?and ?Resistance: ?Feminism, ?Law, ?and ?Social ?Change ?(UBC ?Press, ?2007) ?127 ?at ?132 ?[?Disappearance?]; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?158?159. ? ? 24 ?II. ?Context ? ? In ?this ?chapter, ?I ?consider ?the ?law ?both ?past ?and ?present ?to ?explore ?the ?expression ?of ?rape ?myths ?and ?ongoing ?concerns ?about ?their ?use ?in ?the ?law. ? ? ? As ?I ?explain ?below, ?the ?law ?has ?throughout ?history ?told ?a ?particular ?story ?about ?sexual ?violence. ?This ?story ?is ?premised ?on ?the ?gender ?inequality ?that ?underlies ?sexual ?violence, ?which ?denies ?the ?female ?experience ?in ?favour ?of ?a ?masculine ?point ?of ?view: ?it ?sees ?survivors, ?the ?harm ?they ?suffer, ?and ?perpetrators? ?culpability ?from ?the ?privileged ?perspective ?of ?those ?who ?benefitted ?from ?gender ?inequality. ?From ?this ?vantage ?point, ?sexual ?violence ?was ?harmful ?if ?it ?harmed ?male ?interests. ?Lawmakers ?protected ?their ?male ?interests ?by ?encoding ?a ?narrow ?understanding ?of ??real? ?sexual ?violence ?into ?the ?law. ? ? With ?the ?women?s ?movement, ?rape ?myths ?and ?the ?injustice ?perpetrated ?by ?the ?law ?against ?survivors ?came ?to ?be ?recognized. ?Feminist ?advocates ?pushed ?for ?legal ?reforms, ?and ?were ?in ?part ?successful. ?Due ?to ?their ?efforts, ?the ?law ?has ?lost ?its ?blatant ?discrimination; ?however, ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?argued ?that ?the ?continuing ?unequal ?position ?of ?women ?and ?currency ?of ?rape ?myths ?have ?limited ?how ?judges ?interpret ?the ?reforms, ?influencing ?the ?law ?in ?both ?doctrine ?and ?discourse. ? ?A. Sexual ?Assault ?Law ?of ?the ?Past ? ? The ?gender ?inequality ?that ?characterizes ?sexual ?violence ?has ?also ?characterized ?the ?law. ?As ?I ?explore, ?a ?survivor ?who ?reported ?sexual ?violence ?had ?her ??victimization ?measured ?against ?the ?current ?rape ?mythologies? ?by ?police, ?lawyers, ? ? 25 ?and ?judges.76 ?Myths ?were ?formalized ?in ?the ?substantive ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?as ?well ?as ?the ?particular ?evidentiary ?rules ?that ?governed ?sexual ?offence ?trials. ?These ?laws ??made ?it ?extremely ?difficult ?for ?the ?complainant ?to ?establish ?her ?credibility ?and ?fend ?off ?inquiry ?and ?speculation ?regarding ?her ??morality? ?or ??character.?"77 ?Myths ?shaped ?how ?professionals ?in ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?expected ?a ??real? ?rape, ?a ??real? ?complainant, ?and ?a ??real? ?perpetrator ?to ?look; ?as ?a ?result, ?with ?any ?deviation ?from ?the ?script, ?survivors ?were ?less ?likely ?to ?be ?believed ?and ?have ?their ?assaults ?recognized ?by ?the ?law.78 ? ? As ?Boyle ?pointed ?out, ?until ?recently, ?the ?law ?was ?drafted ?and ?interpreted ?almost ?entirely ?by ?men; ?therefore, ?it ?was ?inevitable ?that ?the ?law ?reflected ?their ?perspectives ?and ?experiences.79 ?As ?men, ?lawmakers ?could ?readily ?identify ?with ?male ?family ?members ?of ?survivors ?and ?even ?accused ?men, ?but ?not ?female ?survivors. ?As ?a ?result, ?the ?law ?evolved ?to ?protect ?the ?interests ?of ?survivors? ?family ?members, ?men ?with ?rights ?over ?women?s ?sexuality ?and ?reproduction, ?and ?the ?interests ?of ?men ?accused ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?seen ?as ?easy ?victims ?of ?false ?charges ?of ?sexual ?assault ?but ?not ?of ?other ?crimes. ?The ?law ?did ?not ?develop ?to ?protect ?women ?and ?children ?from ?sexual ?violence.80 ?Substantive ?Law: ?Sexual ?Offences ?to ?Protect ?Male ?Interests ? ? The ?substantive ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?was ?premised ?largely ?on ?the ?status ?of ?female ?sexuality ?and ?reproduction ?as ?the ?property ?of ?men. ?The ?law?s ?primary ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?76 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer; ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?146, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?dissenting. ?77 ?Ibid, ?para ?175. ?78 ?Ibid, ?paras ?146-??173. ?79 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?4. ?80 ?Ibid ?at ?5?6; ?See ?also ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?17?30; ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?111?120. ? ? 26 ?concern ?with ?male ?interests ?is ?evident ?in ?the ?past ?substantive ?offences ?whose ?focal ?points ?were ?penetration ?and ?chastity; ?when ?these ?were ?perceived ?to ?be ?absent, ?actions ?were ?not ?criminal ?or ?were ?considered ?less ?serious ?offences. ? ? ? In ?1800, ?Upper ?Canada ?adopted ?English ?criminal ?law ?in ?its ?entirety.81 ?This ?included ?the ?offence ?of ?rape, ?which ?was ?left ?undefined ?until ?1892. ?When ?it ?was ?defined, ?it ?was ?limited ?to ?a ?male ?having ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?intercourse ?with ?a ?woman ?not ?his ?wife; ?this ?definition ?remained ?in ?the ?law ?until ?the ?1980s.82 ?The ?Criminal ?Code ?also ?criminalized ?attempts ?to ?commit ?rape, ?an ?offence ?that ?was ?often ?relied ?on ?when ?it ?was ?difficult ?to ?prove ?the ?necessary ?elements ?of ?rape ?or ?when ?juries ?or ?judges ?were ?simply ?unwilling ?to ?convict ?for ?rape.83 ? ? ? ? Since ?its ?adoption ?of ?the ?criminal ?law ?from ?England, ?Canada ?has ?also ?criminalized ?the ?offence ?commonly ?known ?as ?statutory ?rape, ?initially ?called ??carnal ?knowledge? ?of ?an ?underage ?girl.84 ?The ?age ?of ?consent ?was ?raised ?over ?time: ?from ?10 ?years ?old, ?to ?12, ?then ?to ?14,85 ?and ?then, ?in ?some ?circumstances, ?to ?16 ?or ?even ?18. ?However, ?as ?discussed ?by ?Boyle, ?protection ?of ?girls ?over ?14 ?was ?only ?historically ?provided ?to ?those ?who ?were ??chaste.?86 ?The ?Criminal ?Code ?also ?ostensibly ?outlawed ?sexual ?intercourse ?with ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities, ?as ?well ?as ??seduction? ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?81 ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?201; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?11; ?See ?generally ?Bruce ?A ?MacFarlane, ?QC, ??Historical ?Development ?of ?the ?Offence ?of ?Rape? ?in ?Josiah ?Wood ?& ?Richard ?C ?C ?Peck, ?eds, ?100 ?Years ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?in ?Canada: ?Essays ?Commemorating ?the ?Centenary ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?in ?Canada ?(Ottawa: ?Canadian ?Bar ?Association, ?1993), ?online: ?<http://canadiancriminallaw.com/articles/abstracts/Hist_rape.htm> ?[cited ?to ?online]. ?82 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?11?13; ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?234. ?See ?e.g. ?Criminal ?Code, ?RSC ?1970 ?c ?C-??34 ?[Criminal ?Code ?1970]. ?83 ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?206, ?208; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?10?11, ?151?152. ?84 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?18; ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?201?202. ?85 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?18?19; ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?204, ?206?207, ?209?211. ?86 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?18?20 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1920, ?c ?43, ?ss ?8, ?17. ? ? 27 ?young ?women ?and ?girls ?in ?certain ?relationships ?of ?subordinance ?with ?the ?offender ?or ?on ?the ?promise ?of ?marriage.87 ?The ?offence ??indecent ?assault ?of ?a ?female? ?was ?applied ?to ?sexual ?violence ?when ?there ?was ?no ?proof ?of ?penetration ?and ?the ?offence ?of ?buggery ?and ??indecent ?assault ?of ?a ?male? ?when ?a ?male ?was ?victimized.88 ? ? ? Although ?specific ?offences ?were ?delineated, ?what ?offence ?police, ?judges, ?and ?juries ?would ?charge ?and ?convict ?a ?perpetrator ?of, ?a ?rare ?occurrence,89 ?varied ?based ?on ?discriminatory ?evidentiary ?rules ?and ?judgments ?about ?offenders? ?and ?survivors? ?characters ?and ?conduct: ?as ?found ?by ?Janet ?Lynn ?Drysdale, ?crimes ?that ?were ?factually ??indistinguishable ?ended ?in ?different ?verdicts, ?for ?rape, ?attempted ?rape, ?indecent ?assault ?and ?even ?common ?assault.?90 ? ? ? ? Fundamentally, ?the ?notion ?of ?the ?harm ?of ?sexual ?violence ?rested ?on ?male ?property ?interests. ?Most ?offences ?centred ?on ?sexual ?intercourse, ?or ?vaginal ?penetration ?by ?a ?penis. ?The ?law ?therefore ?criminalized ?unsanctioned ?access ?to ?female ?reproductive ?capacity ?rather ?than ?violence ?as ?experienced ?by ?survivors.91 ?Seduction ?offences ?and ?certain ?exploitation ?of ?youth ?offences ?often ?explicitly ?applied ?to ??chaste? ?complainants ?only, ?and ?therefore, ?complainants ?with ?future ?marital ?value:92 ?other ?women ?were ?seen ?as ??fair ?game? ?for ?men, ?with ?no ?real ?harm ?arising ?from ?their ?assault.93 ?As ?well, ?no ?offence ?prohibited ?sexual ?violence ?between ?spouses: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?87 ?Ibid ?at ?20?24. ?88 ?Ibid ?at ?16?17. ?89 ?Ibid ?at ?14; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?7; ?See ?generally ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14. ?90 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?151?152. ?91 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?11?12, ?27; ?Nancy ?Goldsberry, ?Rape ?in ?British ?Columbia: ?A ?Report ?to ?the ?Ministry ?of ?the ?Attorney-??General ?(Victoria, ?BC: ?Ministry ?of ?the ?Attorney-??General, ?1979) ?at ?111?112; ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?25?26. ?92 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?18?20, ?24?25; ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?115?120. ?93 ?Janine ?Benedet, ??The ?Age ?of ?Innocence: ?A ?Cautious ?Defense ?of ?Raising ?the ?Age ?of ?Consent ?in ?Canadian ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law? ?(2010) ?13:4 ?New ?Criminal ?Law ?Review: ?An ?International ?and ? ? 28 ?the ?law ?did ?not ?recognize ?assaults ?by ?husbands ?against ?their ?wives ?because ?male ?interests ?were ?not ?harmed.94 ? ?Distrust ?and ?the ?Exceptional ?Evidentiary ?Requirements ?in ?Sexual ?Offence ?Trials ? ? Evidentiary ?laws ?further ?limited ?the ?sort ?of ?women ?and ?children ?the ?law ?was ?prepared ?to ?believe ?and ?protect, ?based ?on ?male ?lawmakers? ?fears ?of ?convicting ?innocent ?men ?of ?false ?rape ?claims. ?According ?to ?lawmakers, ?complainants ?of ?sexual ?violence ?were ?to ?be ?distrusted.95 ?Their ?suspicion ?was ?reflected ?in ?the ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?against ?complainants, ?as ?well ?as ?the ?explicit ?requirements ?for ?evidence ?of ?corroboration ?and ?immediate ?complaint ?and ?the ?implicit ?requirement ?for ?evidence ?of ?physical ?resistance. ? ? Distrust ?is ?obvious ?in ?the ?statements ?of ?some ?judges ?and ?jurists. ?For ?example, ?according ?to ?English ?judge ?Baron ?Huddleston, ?most ?rape ?complaints ?were ?fabrications ?women ?concocted ??for ?the ?purpose ?of ?shielding ?their ?own ?shame?, ??extorting ?money? ?or ??getting ?their ?expenses ?paid ?and ?a ?trip ?to ?the ?assize ?town?, ?or ?simply ?for ??no ?conceivable ?motive ?whatever.?96 ?Similarly, ?J.A. ?Wigmore ?attributed ?women?s ?predilection ?to ?falsely ?allege ?rape ?to ?their ??inherent ?defects? ?and ??diseased ?derangements ?or ?abnormal ?instincts?, ?among ?other ?psychological ?infirmities.97 ?Children ?were ?equally ?untrustworthy, ?with ?jurists ?opining ?that ?it ?was ?commonsense ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Interdisciplinary ?Journal ?665 ?at ?673 ?[?Age ?of ?Innocence?]; ?See ?also ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?120?124. ?94 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?8; ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?120?121. ?95 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?175, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?96 ?James ?Crankshaw, ?The ?Criminal ?Code ?of ?Canada ?and ?the ?Canada ?Evidence ?Act, ?1893: ?with ?an ?extra ?appendix ?containing ?the ?Extradition ?Act, ?the ?Extradition ?convention ?with ?the ?United ?States, ?the ?Fugitive ?Offenders? ?Act ?and ?the ?House ?of ?Commons ?debates ?on ?the ?code ?and ?an ?analytical ?index ?(Montreal: ?Whiteford ?& ?Th?oret, ?1894) ?at ?189. ?97 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?6 ?citing ?J.A. ?Wigmore, ?Evidence ?in ?Trials ?at ?Common ?Law, ?rev ?ed ?(1970), ?s ?924, ?736-??737. ? ? 29 ?that ?children ?were ?prone ?to ??glibness, ?mistakenness, ?suggestibility, ?[and] ?proclivity ?to ?grasp ?for ?reward ?and ?to ?seek ?notoriety?.98 ? ? ? Based ?on ?distrust ?of ?women ?and ?child ?complainants, ?legislatures ?and ?judges ?concocted ?unique ?procedural ?rules ?for ?sexual ?offence ?trials, ?all ?aimed ?at ?dismissing ?complaints ?and ?acquitting ?men. ?As ?a ?result, ?the ?laws ?against ?sexual ?offences ?were ?rarely ?enforced.99 ? ? ? ? Among ?the ?most ?powerful ?of ?these ?tactics ?was ?defence ?counsel?s ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?to ?discredit ?survivors. ?Sexual ?history ?was ?considered ?relevant ?to ?consent ?and ?to ?the ?survivor?s ?credibility. ?As ?stated ?by ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ??women ?who ?had ?consensual ?sex ?outside ?of ?marriage ?were ?thought, ?in ?essence, ?to ?have ?a ?dual ?propensity ?to ?consent ?to ?sexual ?relations ?at ?large ?and ?to ?lie.?100 ?Although ?judges ?had ?some ?discretion ?to ?limit ??degrading? ?questioning ?to ?undermine ?a ?complainant?s ?credibility,101 ?their ?hands ?were ?tied ?on ?the ?issue ?of ?consent, ?a ?material ?issue.102 ?The ?questions ?of ?defence ?counsel ?were ?often ?degrading:103 ?some ?defence ?counsel ?developed ?tactics ?to ?generally ??hurl ?as ?much ?dirt ?as ?possible? ?at ?complainants104 ?to ?intimidate ?them ?against ?pursing ?claims ?or ?to ?make ?them ?appear ?unbelievable.105 ? ? ? These ?tactics ?were ?often ?successful, ?as ?evidenced ?in ?the ?1917 ?gang ?rape ?case ?chronicled ?by ?Constance ?Backhouse ?in ?her ?history ?of ?Canadian ?sexual ?assault ?law. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?98 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?173; ?See ?also ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?161. ?99 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?14; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?12?13; ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?213?227; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38; ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14. ?100 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?176, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?101 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?15. ?102 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?176, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?103 ?For ?example, ?asking ?complainants ?is ?they ?were ?prostitutes: ?Ibid ?at ?para ?231. ?104 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?241, ?citing ?House ?of ?Commons ?Debates, ?1st ?Sess, ?30th ?Parl, ?Vol. ?9 ?(19 ?November ?1975) ?at ?9252 ?(Bill ?Jarvis). ?105 ?Comack ?& ?Peter, ?supra ?note ?63 ?at ?297?298; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?80?81. ? ? 30 ?Based ?on ?the ?(likely ?false) ?evidence ?that ?the ?14-??year-??old ?survivor ?had ?previously ?engaged ?in ?mutual ?masturbation ?with ?her ?boyfriend, ?the ?judge ?dismissed ?the ?charge ?and ?characterized ?the ?complainant ?as ?too ?disreputable ?to ?deserve ?the ?law?s ?protection: ? ? ?She ?has ?shown ?a ?lewd ?and ?lascivious ?disposition ?by ?offering ?herself ?to ?prostitution ?and ?showing ?by ?her ?manners ?that ?she ?could ?not ?be ?put ?on ?the ?same ?footing ?with ?pure ?women ?for ?the ?protection ?of ?whom ?the ?law ?has ?been ?framed.106 ?With ?the ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?and ?the ?expectations ?for ?chasteness, ?women ?and ?even ?girls ?with ?any ?sexual ?experience ?(consensual ?or ?not) ?were ?essentially ?unrapeable.107 ?Even ?sexually ?inexperienced ?women ?were ?not ?immune ?because ?the ?notion ?of ?chastity ?included ?general ?ideas ?of ?respectability ?beyond ?sex. ?As ?Backhouse ?found, ?questions ?or ?allegations ?intended ?to ?paint ?the ?survivor ?as ?disreputable ?could ?include ?that ?she ?consumed ?alcohol ?or ?lived ?in ?a ?poor ?neighbourhood, ?for ?example.108 ? ? ? ? The ?general ?distrust ?of ?complainants ?was ?also ?apparent ?in ?two ?evidentiary ?rules ?unique ?to ?sexual ?offences: ?recent ?complaint ?and ?corroboration. ?Contrary ?to ?the ?general ?evidentiary ?rule ?against ?prior ?consistent ?statements, ?in ?sexual ?offence ?trials ?Crown ?counsel ?were ?required ?to ?submit ?evidence ?that ?the ?survivor ?immediately ?reported ?the ?offence ?in ?order ?to ?rebut ?the ?presumption ?she ?was ?lying. ?Based ?on ?the ?myth ??real? ?survivors ?would ?complain ?at ??the ?first ?reasonable ?opportunity?, ?if ?they ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?106 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?77 ?citing ?Rex ?v. ?Fiola ?(1918), ?29 ?CCC ?125, ?41 ?D.L.R. ?73 ?at ?128, ?130 ?(Q ?Ct ?SP) ?[cite ?to ?CCC]. ?107 ?Ibid. ?108 ?Ibid ?at ?27?28, ?68?70. ? ? 31 ?delayed, ?evidence ?of ?complaint ?was ?inadmissible ?and ?judges ?and ?juries ?had ?to ?make ?an ?adverse ?inference ?about ?the ?survivor?s ?credibility.109 ? ? Similarly, ?the ?law ?required ?corroboration ?of ?complaints. ?Again ?contrary ?to ?the ?general ?common ?law ?rule, ?uncorroborated ?testimony ?was ?insufficient ?for ?conviction ?of ??sexual ?intercourse ?with ?the ?feeble-??minded?, ?seduction, ?incest, ?and ?other ?offences. ?For ?sexual ?offences ?for ?which ?it ?was ?not ?required, ?its ?absence ?gave ?rise ?to ?a ?judicial ?duty ?to ?warn ?juries ?about ?the ?dangers ?of ?relying ?on ?such ?testimony.110 ? ? Although ?often ?an ?unstated ?requirement, ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?offences ?typically ?had ?to ?demonstrate ?they ?resisted ?violent ?attacks ?by ?evidence ?of ?their ?physical ?injuries. ?This ?standard, ?a ?gloss ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?was ?often ?set ?high, ?with ?bruises, ?cuts, ?and ?even ?fractured ?bones ?seen ?as ?part ?and ?parcel ?of ?consensual ?intercourse ?because ?men ?were ?entitled ?to ?use ?force ?to ?get ?women ?to ?submit ?and ?women ?would ?resist ?to ?feign ?chastity.111 ?Resistance ?requirements ?could ?operate ?particularly ?stringently ?in ?cases ?of ?working ?class ?or ?impoverished ?women, ?with ?forensic ?medical ?specialists ?asserting, ??[w]omen ?of ?the ?lower ?classes ?are ?accustomed ?to ?rough ?play?.112 ? ? The ?law ?developed ?informed ?by ?masculinist ?and ?discriminatory ?notions ?of ?women?s ?and ?children?s ?value ?and ?credibility, ?and, ?according ?to ?men, ?what ?constituted ?force, ?violence, ?and ?consent ?in ?sexual ?activity. ?Judges ?protected ?men ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?109 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?14, ?152?153; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?179, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?110 ?Ibid ?at ?15?16, ?49, ?155?158; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?180, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?111 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?147, ?290?291. ?112 ?Ibid ?at ?40 ?citing ?J. ?Dixon ?Mann, ?Forensic ?Medicine ?and ?Toxicology, ?2d ?ed ?(London: ?Charles ?Griffing, ?1898) ?at ?102. ? ? 32 ?from ?legal ?responsibility ?for ?their ?violence ?and ?tried ?survivors, ?not ?offenders, ?for ?their ?purported ?misdeeds.113 ? ?B. The ?Past ?Approach ?to ?Sentencing ?Sexual ?Offenders ? ? Historically, ?Canada ?legislated ?draconian ?penalties ?for ?sexual ?offenders. ?However, ?judges ?and ?juries ?infrequently ?meted ?them ?out: ?courts ?convicted ?rarely ?and ?when ?they ?did ?they ?shielded ?offenders ?from ?the ?harshest ?punishments. ?As ?in ?the ?determination ?of ?guilt ?or ?innocence, ?rape ?myths ?and ?other ?forms ?of ?prejudice ?influenced ?judges ?and ?juries ?when ?they ?sentenced ?offenders, ?which ?I ?explore ?below. ?The ?History ?of ?Sentencing ?for ?Sexual ?Offences ?in ?Canada ? ? Canada?s ?past ?sanctions ?for ?sexual ?offenders, ?in ?keeping ?with ?the ?English ?law ?before ?it, ?were ?brutal. ?However, ?few ?sexual ?offenders ?were ?subjected ?to ?these ?penalties, ?whose ?harshness ?arguably ?contributed ?to ?low ?conviction ?rates. ? ? The ?death ?penalty ?was ?the ?punishment ?for ?rape ?for ?nearly ?all ?of ?English ?history.114 ?It ?was ?adopted ?by ?Upper ?Canada ?in ?1800 ?as ?the ?sole ?punishment ?for ?rape ?and ?carnal ?knowledge ?of ?a ?girl ?under ?ten ?years ?old.115 ?In ?1873, ?the ?law ?was ?amended ?to ?add ?imprisonment, ?from ?anywhere ?from ?seven ?years ?to ?life, ?as ?an ?alternative ?to ?the ?death ?penalty ?for ?these ?offences, ?and ?in ?1877, ?carnal ?knowledge ?of ?a ?girl ?became ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?113 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?24; ?See ?also ?MacFarlane, ?Q.C., ?supra ?note ?81 ?at ?49. ?114 ?MacFarlane, ?Q.C., ?supra ?note ?81 ?at ?13. ?115 ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?201?204, ?207; ?See ?also ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?11?12. ? ? 33 ?a ?non-??capital ?offence.116 ?Rape, ?however, ?remained ?a ?capital ?offence ?until ?1954, ?when ?life ?imprisonment ?and ?whipping ?became ?the ?maximum ?penalties.117 ? ? Although ?the ?death ?penalty ?was ?prescribed ?for ?rapists ?for ?a ?long ?time, ??few ?if ?any ?rapists ?have ?ever ?been ?hanged?118 ?in ?Canada ?because ?the ?executive ?branch ?of ?government, ?which ?had ?to ?approve ?executions, ?nearly ?always ?commuted ?sentences. ?No ?offenders ?convicted ?of ?rape ?have ?been ?executed ?in ?the ?Canadas ?since ?the ?middle ?of ?the ?nineteenth ?century,119 ?possibly ?since ?the ?union ?of ?Upper ?and ?Lower ?Canada ?in ?1841.120 ?Once ?the ?law ?gave ?judges ?the ?option ?of ?sentencing ?offenders ?to ?imprisonment ?in ?1873, ?convicts ?were ?spared ?from ?having ?to ?apply ?for ?clemency; ?immediately ?after ?imprisonment ?became ?an ?option, ?courts ?rarely ?if ?ever ?sentenced ?rapists ?to ?death.121 ?Nor ?did ?they ?sentence ?many ?to ?life: ?on ?average, ?courts ?imposed ?sentences ?of ?between ?seven ?and ?ten ?years.122 ? ? ? Beginning ?in ?1892, ?whipping ?was ?an ?available ?penalty ?for ?incest, ?indecent ?assault, ?and ?carnal ?knowledge ?of ?girls ?under ?certain ?ages. ?It ?was ?added ?as ?punishment ?for ?attempted ?rape ?in ?1920 ?and ?rape ?in ?1921.123 ?Initially, ?whipping ?was ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?116 ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?207?211; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?11?13. ?117 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?731; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?13; ?See ?also ?Carolyn ?Strange, ?The ?Politics ?of ?Punishment: ?The ?Death ?Penalty ?in ?Canada, ?1867-??1976, ?Canadian ?Legal ?History ?Project ?Working ?Paper ?Series ?92-??10 ?(Winnipeg: ?Faculty ?of ?Law, ?University ?of ?Manitoba, ?1992) ?at ?4?5. ?118 ?C ?W ?Topping, ??The ?Death ?Penalty ?in ?Canada? ?(1952) ?284 ?Annals ?of ?the ?American ?Academy ?of ?Political ?and ?Social ?Science ?147 ?at ?148; ?See ?also ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?211. ?119 ?Backhouse, ?Petticoats ?and ?Prejudice, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?98; ?Strange, ?supra ?note ?117 ?at ?4?5; ?The ?idea ?that ?no ?rapists ?have ?ever ?been ?hanged ?in ?Canada ?post-??Dominion ?is ?supported ?by ?the ?statement ?that ?Louis ?Riel ?was ?the ?only ?offender ?convicted ?of ?anything ?other ?than ?murder, ?in ?his ?case, ?treason, ?to ?be ?executed ?in ?Canada: ?Kenneth ?B ?Leyton-??Brown, ?The ?Practice ?of ?Execution ?in ?Canada ?(Vancouver: ?UBC ?Press, ?2010) ?at ?12, ?157. ?120 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?728. ?121 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?50. ?122 ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?225?226; ?See ?also ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?152?162. ?123 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?729?730; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?51?53; ?See ?also ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?13. ? ? 34 ?frequently ?ordered ?and ?carried ?out, ?with ?judges ?imposing ?five ?to ?30 ?lashes. ?It ?became ?less ?popular ?over ?time,124 ?until ?it ?was ?abolished ?in ?1972.125 ? ? In ?1948, ?Parliament ?introduced ?indeterminate ?sentences ?for ?individuals ?convicted ?of ?certain ?sexual ?offences ?who ?could, ?according ?to ?psychiatric ?evidence, ?be ?labeled ?as ??criminal ?sexual ?psychopaths.? ?The ?year ?before, ?it ?introduced ?the ?designation ?of ??habitual ?offender? ?for ?other, ?nonsexual, ?offences. ?The ?two ?categories ?were ?later ?collapsed ?into ?the ??dangerous ?offender? ?classification.126 ? ? As ?I ?discussed ?earlier ?in ?this ?chapter, ?the ?laws ?did ?not ?apply ?as ?evenly ?as ?the ?legislation ?would ?suggest, ?with ?many ?men ?escaping ?conviction ?based ?on ?discriminatory ?rape ?myths;127 ?thus, ?although ?punishments ?were ?draconian, ?they ?were ?rarely ?(and ?unevenly) ?imposed. ?Canadian ?judges ?followed ?the ?example ?of ?their ?English ?peers, ?convicting ?offenders ?of ?lesser ?offences ?or ?acquitting ?them ?altogether ?to ?temper ?the ?harshness ?of ?penalties, ?and ?in ?particular, ?the ?death ?penalty.128 ?Consequently, ?the ?harsh ?approach ?of ?the ?legislature ?in ?the ?sentences ?it ?prescribed ?could ?be ?interpreted ?not ?as ?a ?deterrent ?to ?crime, ?but ??as ?a ?deterrent ?to ?convictions.?129 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?124 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?730; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281, ?428?429. ?125 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?13 ?citing ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act, ?SC ?1972, ?c ?13, ?s ?70 ?[Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act ?1972]. ?126 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?730?731 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1948, ?c ?39, ?s ?43, ?amending ?s ?1054A, ?SC ?1976-??77, ?c ?53, ?s ?14; ?Michael ?Jackson, ??The ?Sentencing ?of ?Dangerous ?and ?Habitual ?Offenders ?in ?Canada? ?(1997) ?9:5 ?Federal ?Sentencing ?Reporter ?256 ?at ?256?257. ?127 ?See ?generally ?MacFarlane, ?Q.C., ?supra ?note ?81 ?at ?13?65; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38. ?128 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?11?13, ?41; ?MacFarlane, ?Q.C., ?supra ?note ?81 ?at ?13 ?(footnote ?38); ?Backhouse, ??Nineteenth-??Century?, ?supra ?note ?65 ?at ?211. ?129 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?12; ?See ?also ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?45. ? ? 35 ?Rape ?Myths ?in ?Sentencing ?in ?the ?Past ? ? The ?myths ?that ?prevented ?convictions ?also ?shaped ?what ?judges ?and ?juries ?perceived ?as ?appropriate ?punishment. ?Although ?punishments ?were ?often ?severe, ?they ?were ?not ?imposed ?uniformly; ?like ?criminal ?liability, ?punishment ?depended ?on ?assessments ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?value ?and ?credibility ?as ?well ?as ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?the ?offender ?and ?the ?seriousness ?of ?the ?offence. ?Offenders ?who ?were ?convicted ?may ?have ?suffered ?from ?falling ?on ?the ?wrong ?side ?of ?myths, ?sacrifices ?to ?the ?law?s ?illusion ?of ?treating ?sexual ?violence ?seriously; ?others ?benefitted ?from ?myths ?that ?portrayed ?them ?as ?normal ?or ?good ?men, ?survivors ?as ?unchaste, ?and ?their ?offences ?as ?closer ?to ?acceptable ?seduction. ? ? Although ?rape ?myths ?impacted ?sentencing, ?sentences ?for ?convicted ?offenders ?were ?often ?lengthy. ?Drysdale ?found ?that ?in ?the ?late ?nineteenth ?and ?early ?twentieth ?century ?prison ?sentences ?for ?rape ?were ?frequently ?long ?or ?coupled ?with ?whipping; ?sentences ?were ?shorter ?for ?attempted ?rape ?and ?indecent ?assault.130 ?Backhouse, ?studying ?twentieth ?century ?cases, ?similarly ?found ?a ?wide ?range ?of ?sentences, ?with ?an ?average ?of ?between ?five ?and ?ten ?years ?for ?rape. ?For ?other ?sexual ?offences, ?courts ?often ?ordered ?shorter ?terms ?of ?incarceration, ?suspended ?sentences, ?or ?fines.131 ? ? ? Much ?like ?today, ?judges ?weighed ?factors ?about ?the ?offence ?and ?offender ?to ?fashion ?a ?fit ?sentence. ?In ?doing ?so, ?they ?often ?expressed ?myths ?about ?sexual ?violence ?based ?on ?notions ?of ?gender, ?sexuality, ?class, ?and ?race. ?Drysdale ?found ?that ?judges ?in ?Ontario ?in ?1892 ?to ?1930 ?took ?a ?hard ?line ?towards ?men ?who ?had ?offended ?against ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?130 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?152?153, ?161?162. ?131 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281; ?See ?also ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?729. ? ? 36 ?young ?girls, ?particularly ?in ?cases ?of ?incest. ?She ?found ?that ?courts ?treated ?crimes ?against ?less ??innocent? ?survivors ?less ?seriously: ?judges ?sometimes ?used ?evidence ?of ?survivors? ??inculpatory? ?conduct ?to ?mitigate ?sentence ?length.132 ?In ?this ?vein, ?Backhouse ?cited ?a ?1928 ?B.C. ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?case ?in ?which ?the ?court ?reduced ?the ?life ?sentences ?of ?two ?teenagers ?convicted ?of ?rape ?to ?three ?years ??due ?to ?the ??thoroughly ?immoral? ?background ?of ?the ?seventeen-??year-??old ?complainant.?133 ? ? ? Judges ?also ?considered ?offenders? ?characters ?and ?social ?standing, ?demonstrating ?narrow ?ideas ?about ??real? ?rapists. ?Drysdale ?found ?judges ?reduced ?sentences ?on ?the ?basis ?of ?good ?character ?evidence, ?for ?example, ?evidence ?that ?the ?offender ?was ?a ?good ?husband ?or ?was ?respected ?in ?the ?community.134 ?Backhouse ?also ?found ?that ?judges ?were ?lenient ?with ?employed, ?middle-??class ?offenders ?from ??respectable? ?families, ?more ?frequently ?giving ?them ?suspended ?sentences ?and ?fines.135 ?Conversely, ?poor ?and ?indigent ?offenders ?did ?not ?fare ?well ?in ?sentencing, ?and ?nor ?did ?Black ?and ?Aboriginal ?offenders. ?For ?example, ?Drysdale ?found ?a ?case ?where ?a ?Black ?offender ?was ?sentenced ?to ?death ?at ?a ?time ?when ?the ?penalty ?was ?rarely ?ordered.136 ?As ?noted ?by ?Backhouse, ?racism ?was ?the ?whole ?motivation ?behind ?Canada?s ?retention ?of ?the ?death ?penalty: ?it ?was ?thought ?to ?be ?necessary ?to ?deter ?assaults ?of ?white ?women ?by ?Black ?men.137 ? ? ? Sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders ?has ?historically ?been ?severe. ?This ?seems ?inconsistent ?with ?low ?rates ?of ?conviction; ?however, ?harsh ?penalties ?made ?judges ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?132 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?162?163. ?133 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?426 ?(endnote ?41) ?citing ?Rex ?v. ?Stonehouse ?and ?Pasquale, ?[1928] ?1 ?WWR ?161, ?39 ?BCR ?279 ?(BCCA). ?134 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?165?166. ?135 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281. ?136 ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?163?164. ?137 ?Backhouse, ?Petticoats ?and ?Prejudice, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?98. ? ? 37 ?juries ?resistant ?to ?convict.138 ?Offenders ?who ?were ?convicted ?may ?have ?been ?scapegoats ?for ?the ?broader ?problem ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?with ?courts ?treating ?those ?who ?fit ?the ?prototype ?of ?the ?ideal ?rapist ?or ?whose ?survivor ?fit ?the ?notion ?of ?the ?ideal ?victim ?more ?harshly, ?often ?along ?racist ?lines. ?Arguably, ?these ?problems ?have ?continued.139 ?To ?consider ?the ?extent ?to ?which ?rape ?myths ?persisted, ?I ?examine ?sentencing ?in ?the ?1970s ?in ?more ?detail, ?before ?considering ?the ?major ?legal ?reforms ?and ?ongoing ?feminist ?concerns. ?Sentencing ?Prior ?to ?the ?1982 ?Reforms ? ? Sentencing ?in ?the ?1970s ?remained ?the ?same ?as ?it ?had ?been ?in ?the ?decades ?prior: ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?prescribed ?the ?same ?penalties ?and ?judges ?ordered ?similar ?sentences ?and ?considered ?similar ?factors ?as ?they ?had ?before. ?As ?I ?explore ?in ?what ?follows, ?judges ?in ?some ?sentencing ?cases ?considered ?factors ?whose ?relevance ?and ?importance ?were ?grounded ?in ?rape ?myths, ?viewing ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?in ?light ?of ?their ?compliance ?with ?heterosexual ?gender ?norms ?such ?as ?the ?chastity ?and ?worth ?of ?survivors ?and ?the ?goodness ?of ?offenders. ? ? The ?sexual ?offence ?laws ?in ?Canada ?did ?not ?change ?greatly ?between ?the ?beginning ?of ?the ?nineteenth ?century ?and ?the ?1970s. ?In ?particular, ?the ?offence ?of ?rape ?was ?substantially ?the ?same ?as ?it ?had ?been ?in ?Canada?s ?first ?Criminal ?Code ?in ?1892.140 ?Although ?the ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act ?abolished ?corporal ?punishment ?in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?138 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?12, ?14; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?5?12; ?See ?also ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?45. ?139 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?160, ?163?164; ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?684?686; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?152. ?140 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?13 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1892, ?c ?29, ?s ?266(1). ? ? 38 ?1972,141 ?by ?then ?it ?was ?rarely ?ordered.142 ?Sentences ?looked ?much ?the ?same ?as ?they ?had ?before.143 ? ? In ?the ?1970s, ?the ?most ?serious ?penalty, ?life ?imprisonment, ?was ?only ?available ?for ?rape ?and ?sexual ?intercourse ?with ?a ?woman ?under ?the ?age ?of ?14, ?with ?14 ?operating ?as ?the ?age ?of ?consent. ?Most ?other ?sexual ?offences ?attracted ?maximum ?sentences ?of ?two ?or ?five ?years.144 ?Parliament ?had ?not ?prescribed ?minimum ?sentences ?for ?sexual ?offences ?but ?had ?given ?judges ?discretion ?to ?impose ?sentences ?as ?they ?saw ?fit.145 ?Indeed, ?fines, ?discharges, ?probation, ?suspended ?sentences ?and ?even ?restitution ?orders ?were ?available,146 ?although ?restitution ?orders ?were ?rare.147 ? ? ? According ?to ?Nancy ?Goldsberry, ?the ?sentences ?B.C. ?judges ?imposed ?in ?the ?1970s ?ran ?the ?gamut ?of ?possibilities. ?She ?found ?that, ?in ?B.C. ?in ?1973, ?slightly ?less ?than ?half ?of ?all ?offenders ?convicted ?of ?sexual ?offences ?were ?given ?fines ?or ?suspended ?sentences, ?usually ?with ?probation; ?38 ?percent ?were ?sentenced ?to ?provincial ?terms ?of ?imprisonment, ?or ?less ?than ?two ?years; ?and ?18 ?percent ?were ?given ?federal ?sentences ?between ?two ?and ?14 ?years ?in ?a ?penitentiary.148 ? ? ? ?The ?type ?of ?sentence ?courts ?ordered ?might ?well ?have ?followed ?from ?prejudice ?and ?myths, ?which ?influenced ?the ?construction ?of ?the ?seriousness ?of ?offences ?and ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?in ?law ?and ?legal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?141 ?Ibid ?citing ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act ?1972, ?supra ?note ?125, ?s ?70. ?142 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281, ?428?429; ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?730. ?143 ?Exceptions ?were ?the ?introduction ?of ?indefinite ?sentences: ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?730?731; ?and ?increases ?in ?some ?maximum ?penalties: ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?430?431. ?144 ?Criminal ?Code ?1970, ?supra ?note ?82, ?ss ?144, ?145, ?146(1), ?146(2), ?148, ?149, ?150(2), ?151, ?152, ?153, ?156, ?157. ?145 ?Ibid, ?s ?645(1)&(2). ?146 ?Ibid, ?ss ?646(1)&(2), ?662.1(1), ?& ?663(1)&(2). ?147 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281?282. ?148 ?Goldsberry, ?supra ?note ?91 ?at ?109. ? ? 39 ?discourse. ?The ?use ?of ?myths ?in ?sentencing ?was ?apparent ?in ?Boyle?s ?study ?in ?the ?early ?1980s ?as ?well ?as ?my ?own ?research ?on ?sentencing ?cases ?from ?B.C. ?courts ?in ?the ?1970s. ? ? ? Boyle ?conducted ?a ?significant ?study ?of ?sexism ?within ?sexual ?assault ?law. ?As ?a ?part ?of ?her ?research, ?she ?examined ?sentencing ?decisions ?prior ?to ?the ?1982 ?legislative ?reforms,149 ?focusing ?on ?judicial ?identification ?and ?weighing ?of ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors. ?Contrary ?to ?other ?studies, ?she ?found ?that ?judges ?regularly ?considered ?harm ?to ?survivors ?in ?general ?or ?harm ?to ?the ?specific ?survivor. ?However, ?she ?also ?found ?that ?judges ?sometimes ?considered ?the ?survivor?s ?character ?in ?sentencing, ?meaning ?that ?they ?considered ?offences ?against ?women ?who ?were ?sexually ?experienced ?or ?who ?socialized ?and ?consumed ?alcohol ?with ?men ?less ?blameworthy. ?She ?also ?confirmed ?that ?courts ?found ?sexual ?offences ?against ?acquaintances ?less ?blameworthy ?than ?offences ?against ?strangers.150 ? ? In ?my ?own ?study ?of ?sentencing ?decisions ?from ?B.C. ?courts ?in ?the ?1970s,151 ?I ?too ?found ?that ?courts ?sometimes ?relied ?on ?rape ?myths ?in ?sentencing ?and ?reviewing ?sentences ?for ?sexual ?offenders. ?In ?many ?cases, ?courts ?decried ?sexual ?offences ?as ?reprehensible ?and ?expressed ?empathy ?for ?survivors; ?however, ?the ?level ?of ?opprobrium ?in ?some ?cases ?appeared ?to ?be ?based ?on ?rape ?myths. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?149 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?v, ?172 ?citing ?Bill ?C-??127, ?An ?Act ?to ?amend ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?in ?relation ?to ?sexual ?offences ?and ?other ?offences ?against ?the ?person ?and ?to ?amend ?certain ?other ?Acts ?in ?relation ?thereto ?or ?in ?consequence ?thereof, ?1st ?Sess, ?32nd ?Parl, ?1982, ?SC ?1980-??81-??82-??83, ?c ?125. ?150 ?Ibid ?at ?175?177. ?151 ?I ?analyzed ?50 ?sentencing ?cases, ?which ?were ?largely ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?cases, ?from ?Quicklaw ?and ?Westlaw. ?I ?searched ?for ?cases ?with ?the ?terms ??rape?, ??sexual ?intercourse?, ??carnal ?knowledge?, ??indecent ?assault?, ??gross ?indecency?, ?and ??incest?, ?including ?variations ?of ?those ?words, ?e.g., ??indecently ?assault?, ?within ?the ?same ?paragraph ?as ??sentence?. ?I ?compared ?my ?results ?against ?the ?list ?of ?cases ?from ?B.C. ?in ?the ?1970s ?provided ?by ?Constance ?Backhouse ?on ?her ?website, ?http://www.constancebackhouse.ca/fileadmin/final_cases/final_cases.html. ? ? 40 ? ? Unlike ?Boyle ?in ?her ?study, ?I ?found ?that ?courts ?sometimes ?failed ?to ?note ?the ?impact ?of ?offences ?on ?survivors.152 ?For ?example, ?the ?court ?failed ?to ?mention ?the ?harm ?the ?young ?survivor ?in ?R. ?v. ?E.J.B. ?suffered, ?even ?though ?this ?was ?the ?second ?time ?her ?stepfather ?had ?been ?before ?the ?courts ?for ?sexually ?abusing ?her.153 ?In ?only ?a ?few ?cases ?did ?courts ?note ?that ?survivors ?suffered ?psychological ?trauma, ?a ?type ?of ?harm ?they ?generally ?only ?considered ?in ?cases ?where ?survivors ?were ?young ?and ??chaste.?154 ?Courts ?also ?failed ?to ?consider ?physical ?harm, ?in ?some ?cases ?even ?when ?survivors ?appeared ?to ?have ?suffered ?significant ?physical ?injury.155 ?This ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?R. ?v. ?Commodore: ?the ?offender ?attempted ?to ?rape ?the ?survivor ?after ?he ?and ?a ?group ?of ?men ?beat ?her ?to ?the ?ground ?and ?left ?her ?nearly ?unconscious;156 ?although ?the ?court ?noted ?the ?offender ?badly ?beat ?her, ?it ?did ?not ?consider ?whether ?she ?suffered ?physical ?or ?psychological ?harm ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor ?or ?a ?factor ?that ?indicated ?the ?need ?for ?a ?more ?serious ?sentence. ? ? ? In ?some ?cases ?in ?the ?1970 ?case ?sample, ?judgments ?suggested ?that ?survivors ?contributed ?to ?offences ?or ?were ?less ?harmed ?by ?them, ?subtly ?shaming ?or ?blaming ?survivors. ?This ?occurred ?most ?flagrantly ?in ?the ?case ?of ?a ?16-??year-??old ?male ?survivor ?of ?indecent ?assault: ?the ?trial ?judge ?determined ?that ?he ?was ?a ??practicing ?homosexual?, ?and ?therefore ?implied ?that, ?as ?a ?result, ?he ?was ?less ?harmed ?than ?the ?other ?survivors ?of ?the ?offender?s ?assaults.157 ?Since ?the ?court ?perceived ?that ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?152 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Capot-??Blanc, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?272 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Hill, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?980 ?(QL) ?(SC). ?153 ?R. ?v. ?E.J.B., ?[1978] ?BCJ ?672 ?at ?paras ?3-??4 ?(QL)(CA). ?154 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Crockett, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?742 ?at ?para ?4 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Bruce, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?743 ?at ?paras ?3, ?6 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Moulton, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?186 ?at ?paras ?2, ?3, ?5 ?(QL)(CA). ?155 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?871 ?at ?para ?1 ?(QL)(CA). ?156 ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?664 ?at ?paras ?2-??5, ?7-??8 ?(QL)(CA). ?157 ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?No ?758 ?at ?para ?7 ?(QL) ?(CA). ? ? ? 41 ?survivor ?failed ?to ?adhere ?to ?norms ?of ?male ?sexuality, ?it ?apparently ?did ?not ?consider ?it ?to ?be ?a ?particularly ?harmful ?crime ?against ?him. ? ? ? In ?other ?cases, ?courts ?appear ?to ?have ?used ?survivors? ?transgressions ?against ?the ?norms ?of ?female ?sexuality ?to ?undermine ?survivors? ?experiences ?of ?harm. ?For ?example, ?in ?one ?case, ?the ?court ?described ?the ?13-??year-??old ?survivor ?as ?not ?a ?virgin ?and ?as ?participating ?with ??enthusiasm? ?in ?the ?sexual ?offence ?she ?was ?unable ?to ?consent ?to.158 ?In ?another ?case, ?the ?court ?emphasized ?that ?the ?survivor ?was ??intimate? ?with ?the ?offender?s ?roommate, ?and, ?like ?the ?offender, ?socialized ?at ?the ?Yale ?Hotel, ?a ??rough ?place?, ?with ?members ?of ?a ?motorcycle ?gang.159 ?Although ?I ?did ?not ?find, ?as ?other ?researchers ?have, ?cases ?in ?which ?judges ?explicitly ?mitigated ?sentences ?due ?to ?the ?survivors? ?behaviour,160 ?I ?did ?find ?that ?judges ?sometimes ?sexualized ?survivors ?to ?suggest ?they ?were ?not ?harmed ?by ?sexual ?violence ?or ?they ?precipitated ?sexual ?attacks. ? ? ? Although ?courts ?often ?recognized ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violent, ?they ?failed ?to ?consistently ?do ?so ?in ?cases ?against ?girls ?below ?the ?age ?of ?consent. ?Judge ?sometimes ?characterized ?these ?offences ?as ?non-??violent ?or ?failed ?to ?identify ?offenders? ?abuses ?of ?authority ?and ?dependence.161 ? ? ? Judges ?also ?expressed ?notions ?about ?offenders ?that ?revealed ?rape ?myths. ?Courts ?portrayed ?respectable ?middle-??class ?offenders ?as ?non-??violent ?or ?good ?candidates ?for ?rehabilitation, ?often ?using ?evidence ?of ?a ?good ?family ?background, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?158 ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?[1979] ?1 ?WWR ?197, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?No ?1048 ?at ?paras ?1, ?3, ?22 ?(QL) ?(SC). ?159 ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?supra ?note ?155 ?at ?para ?1. ?See ?also ?R. ?v. ?Miner, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?533 ?at ?para ?4 ?(QL)(CA) ?[the ?court ?noted ?the ?survivor, ?attacked ?on ?a ?date, ?was ?a ?divorced ?women ?with ?four ?children] ?and ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?supra ?note ?156 ?at ?para ?2 ?[the ?survivor ?was ?a ?woman ?in ?a ?parked ?car ?with ?a ?young ?man]. ?160 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?176?177; ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?222?223, ?230?233; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?162?163. ?161 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?LeBlanc, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?580 ?at ?para ?3 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?para ?22. ? ? 42 ?marriage, ?and ?fatherhood ?as ?mitigating ?factors ?or ?suggestive ?of ?the ?need ?for ?lenience.162 ?In ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S. ?the ?court ?used ?the ?offender?s ?improved ?manners ?in ?prison, ?namely ?his ??work ?habits, ?personal ?hygiene ?and ?attitude ?towards ?staff?, ?as ?indicative ?of ?his ?potential ?for ?rehabilitation, ?and ?on ?this ?basis, ?reduced ?his ?sentence ?for ?repeatedly ?raping ?and ?beating ?a ?woman ?as ?a ?party ?with ?another ?man ?by ?three ?years.163 ?This ?rationale ?demonstrates ?a ?belief ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?vice ?of ?lower ?class ?men; ?when ?committed ?by ?professional ?or ?middle-??class ?men, ?or ?even ?men ?with ?good ?hygiene ?and ?manners, ?sexual ?violence ?is ?an ?aberration ?that ?will ?not ?re-??occur.164 ?While ?a ?commitment ?to ?public ?service ?and ?charity ?may ?very ?well ?speak ?to ?good ?character ?and ?likelihood ?of ?rehabilitation, ?it ?is ?unclear ?how ??work-??habits?, ??hygiene?, ?or ?stable ?employment ?reflects ?an ?offender?s ?future ?risk. ? ? Similarly, ?in ?other ?cases, ?judges ?attributed ?sexual ?violence ?to ?offenders? ?marital ?problems ?or ?difficulties ?relating ?to ?women, ?finding ?that ?such ?offenders ?posed ?no ?or ?low ?future ?risk. ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?B.F.D., ?the ?pre-??sentence ?report ?explained ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?offences ?against ?two ?girls, ?aged ?eight ?and ?ten, ?on ?the ?bases ?that ?the ?offender ?was ?sexually ??unsophisticated? ?and ?sexually ?frustrated ?as ?a ?consequence ?of ?his ?wife?s ?poor ?health. ?The ?reviewing ?court ?varied ?the ?sentence ?on ?fresh ?evidence ?from ?the ?doctor ?counselling ?the ?offender ?and ?his ?wife ?that ?he ??had ?improved ?particularly ?in ?the ?sexual ?sphere? ?(as ?well ?as ?on ?evidence ?that ?his ?sentence ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?162 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?para ?15; ?R. ?v. ?Giesbrecht, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?No ?1158 ?at ?para ?3 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?supra ?note ?157 ?at ?paras ?3-??4; ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?84 ?at ?para ?2 ?(QL)(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?supra ?note ?156 ?at ?para ?5. ?163 ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?supra ?note ?155 ?at ?para ?3. ?164 ?See ?Chapter ?I, ?Section ?B. ? ? 43 ?jeopardized ?his ?career ?in ?the ?armed ?forces),165 ?relying ?on ?the ?myths ?that ?women ?are ?responsible ?for ?men?s ?sexual ?assaults ?for ?denying ?them ?something ?that ?men ??need? ?and ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?simply ?a ?failure ?to ?control ?sexual ?urges,166 ?even ?in ?the ?case ?of ?sexual ?offences ?against ?children. ? ? On ?the ?other ?hand, ?judges ?characterized ?some ?offenders ?as ??abnormal,? ?and ?therefore ?dangerous, ?including ?a ?man ?with ?an ?untreatable ?mental ?illness167 ?and ?homosexual ?men.168 ?This ?thinking ?is ?the ?other ?side ?of ?the ?same ?coin ?that ?does ?not ?recognize ?the ?sexually ?violent ?tendencies ?of ?professional ?and ?middle-??class ?men. ?... ? ? In ?the ?past, ?Canadian ?laws ?provided ?harsh ?penalties ?for ?sexual ?offenders, ?including ?the ?ultimate ?penalty, ?death. ?However, ?due ?to ?low ?conviction ?rates, ?few ?offenders ?were ?punished, ?and ?when ?they ?were ?they ?frequently ?escaped ?the ?harshest ?punishments. ?Offenders ?did ?not ?get ?this ?benefit ?equally: ?rape ?myths ?influenced ?sentencing, ?historically ?and ?into ?the ?1980s. ?Courts ?showed ?lenience ?to ?offenders ?who ?met ?masculine ?ideals ?and ?treated ?racialized ?or ?marginalized ?offenders ?more ?harshly, ?as ?scapegoats ?for ?other ?men?s ?crimes. ?Courts ?pushed ?survivors ?and ?their ?harms ?to ?the ?margins ?of ?decisions, ?considering ?them ?inconsistently ?and ?making ?them ?relatively ?unimportant ?compared ?to ?offenders. ?The ?discrimination ?of ?the ?law ?was ?not ?invisible, ?however, ?and ?soon ?became ?the ?subject ?of ?considerable ?feminist ?advocacy. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?165 ?R. ?v. ?B.F.D., ?[1976] ?BCJ ?78 ?at ?paras ?2-??3, ?11-??15 ?(QL) ?(SC); ?See ?also ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?2. ?166 ?See ?generally ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?30?31. ?167 ?R. ?v. ?Bodde, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?278 ?at ?paras ?3-??5 ?(QL)(CA). ?168 ?R. ?v. ?Gallagher, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?No ?448 ?at ?paras ?3, ?8 ?(QL) ?(CA); ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?supra ?note ?157 ?at ?para ?5. ? ? 44 ?C. The ?Current ?Law ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ? ? Starting ?in ?the ?1970s, ?feminist ?advocates ?fought ?for ?legal ?change. ?Although ?divisions ?in ?feminist ?advocacy ?efforts ?arose, ?most ?efforts ?were ?directed ?at ?amending ?the ?law ?to ?eliminate ?reliance ?on ?prejudicial ?rape ?myths ?and ?recognize ?sexual ?offences ?as ?a ?form ?of ?gendered ?violence. ?As ?I ?explain ?in ?the ?following ?section, ?the ?reforms ?that ?ensued ?have, ?over ?time, ?been ?re-??interpreted ?according ?to ?a ?neoliberal ?ethos. ?The ?result ?has ?been ?a ?sexual ?assault ?law ?that ?recognizes ?bodily ?integrity ?but ?obscures ?the ?gender ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?Feminist ?scholars, ?researching ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?reforms, ?have ?argued ?that ?myths ?continue ?to ?influence ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?and ?the ?relevance ?of ?evidence ?of ?sexual ?history, ?corroboration, ?and ?recent ?complaint, ?ultimately ?reproducing ?inequality ?and ?prejudice. ? ? ?Advocacy, ?Amendments, ?and ?Resistance ? ? Feminist ?advocates ?identified ?rape ?myths ?within ?the ?law ?and ?advocated ?for ?reform, ?and ?had ?a ?significant ?influence ?on ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault ?beginning ?in ?the ?1970s. ?However, ?the ?feminist ?attempt ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?violence ?against ?women ?and ?children ?was ?not ?entirely ?successful. ?Although ?Parliament ?cited ?the ?right ?to ?equality ?in ?its ?amendments ?to ?remodel ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?consent, ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?argued ?that ?judicial ?interpretation ?and ?application ?of ?the ?reformed ?law ?has ?constrained ?the ?reach ?of ?the ?amendments, ?such ?that ?many ?of ?the ?myths ?continue ?in ?the ?law. ? ? ? Despite ?the ?different ?branches ?of ?feminism ?that ?see ?the ?world ?and ?the ?nature ?of ?women?s ?subjugation ?in ?different ?terms, ?feminist ?advocacy ?against ?sexual ?violence ? ? 45 ?was ?largely ?unified.169 ?Women?s ?anti-??violence ?advocates ?understood ?rape ?as ?a ?form ?of ?gender ?inequality ?and ?recognized ?the ?law?s ?important ?role ?in ?maintaining ?this ?inequality. ?Feminist ?writers ?and ?scholars, ?including ?Brownmiller170 ?and ?MacKinnon,171 ?expressed ?these ?ideas ?persuasively. ?Clark ?and ?Lewis ?uncovered ?the ?discriminatory ?effects ?the ?myths ?had ?in ?Canadian ?policing ?and ?prosecutions ?in ?their ?seminal ?book ?Rape: ?The ?Price ?of ?Coercive ?Sexuality.172 ?At ?the ?same ?time, ?rape ?crisis ?centres ?and ?transition ?houses ?were ?providing ?women ?with ?safe ?havens ?while ?also ?creating ?a ?means ?to ?collect ?the ?stories ?of ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?With ?their ?personal ?experiences, ?survivors ?revealed ?the ?myths ?used ?against ?them ?by ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?to ?justify ?violence.173 ? ? ? Starting ?in ?the ?1970s, ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?was ?reformed ?in ?response ?to ?feminist ?advocacy.174 ?Parliament ?attempted ?to ?restrict ?the ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?in ?1976 ?by ?requiring ?in ?camera ?hearings ?to ?determine ?its ?admissibility. ?This ?attempt ?to ?protect ?complainants ?failed ?because ?of ?judicial ?interpretation: ?the ?judiciary ?responded ?by ?making ?complainants ?compellable ?at ?in ?camera ?hearings ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?169 ?Divisions ?in ?theory ?and ?practice ?did ?arise ?and ?were ?more ?prominent ?in ?other ?areas, ?including ?pornography ?and ?prostitution. ?See ?e.g. ?Kathryn ?Abrams, ??Sex ?Wars ?Redux: ?Agency ?and ?Coercion ?in ?Feminist ?Legal ?Theory? ?(1995) ?95 ?Colum ?L ?Rev ?304; ?Catharine ?A ?MacKinnon, ??Trafficking, ?Prostitution, ?and ?Inequality? ?(2011) ?46:2 ?Harv ?CR-??CLL ?Rev ?271; ?Also ?important ?was ?the ?criticisms ?of ?women ?of ?colour ?that ?mainstream ?feminism ?ignored ?their ?interests ?and ?perspectives ?and ?essentialized ?woman ?as ?a ?white ?privileged ?woman. ?These ?scholars ?highlight ?the ?need ?for ?an ?intersectional ?approach ?and ?a ?re-??orientation ?of ?feminist ?analysis ?centred ?on ?women ?of ?colour ?and ?other ?marginalized ?women. ?See ?e.g. ?Trina ?Grillo, ??Anti-??Essentialism ?and ?Intersectionality: ?Tools ?to ?Dismantle ?the ?Master?s ?House? ?(1995) ?10 ?Berkeley ?Women?s ?LJ ?16; ?Angela ?P ?Harris, ??Race ?and ?Essentialism ?in ?Feminist ?Legal ?Theory? ?(1989) ?42 ?Stan ?L ?Rev ?581. ?170 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25. ?171 ?See ?e.g. ?Catharine ?A ?MacKinnon, ??Difference ?and ?Dominance: ?On ?Sex ?Discrimination? ?in ?Feminism ?Unmodified: ?Discourses ?on ?Life ?and ?Law ?(Cambridge, ?Mass: ?Harvard ?University ?Press, ?1987) ?32 ?[?Dominance?]; ?MacKinnon, ??Reflections?, ?supra ?note ?6. ?172 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14. ?173 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?72. ?174 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?5. ? ? 46 ?their ?testimony ?on ?their ?sexual ?history ?a ?material ?issue, ?allowing ?defendants ?to ?bring ?evidence ?to ?contradict ?them. ?At ?the ?same ?time, ?judges ?sometimes ?also ?interpreted ?Parliament?s ?repeal ?of ?the ?provision ?mandating ?a ?warning ?about ?uncorroborated ?testimony ?in ?a ?limited ?way, ?finding ?that ?the ?common ?law ?requirement ?for ?corroboration ?in ?sexual ?offences ?still ?applied.175 ? ? Under ?pressure ?from ?feminist ?advocates, ?now ?bolstered ?by ?the ?constitutional ?right ?to ?equality ?guaranteed ?by ?the ?Canadian ?Charter ?of ?Rights ?and ?Freedoms176 ?and ?the ?need ?to ?amend ?existing ?laws ?before ?the ?equality ?provision ?came ?into ?effect,177 ?Parliament ?returned ?to ?the ?drafting ?table. ?In ?1983, ?it ?made ?significant ?amendments ?to ?the ?laws ?of ?sexual ?violence ?in ?Bill ?C-??127.178 ?It ?coalesced ?the ?offences ?of ?rape, ?attempted ?rape, ?indecent ?assault, ?and ?sexual ?intercourse ?with ?mentally ?disabled ?women ?into ?the ?three-??tiered ?offence ?of ?sexual ?assault.179 ?This ?reform ?substantially ?transformed ?the ?law. ?Sexual ?offences ?were ?no ?longer ?gendered ?and ?penetration ?was ?dethroned ?as ?the ?central ?issue ?in ?favour ?of ?a ?focus ?on ?additional ?violence. ?The ?law ?now ?categorized ?sexual ?assault ?into ?three ?increasing ?levels ?of ?seriousness, ?with ?more ?violence ?representing ?a ?more ?serious ?offence. ?Significantly, ?the ?reforms ?also ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?175 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?133?136, ?155?156; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?paras ?183-??192, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting, ?citing ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act, ?SC ?1974-??75-??76, ?c ?93. ?176 ?Canadian ?Charter ?of ?Rights ?and ?Freedoms, ?Part ?I ?of ?the ?Constitution ?Act, ?1982, ?being ?Schedule ?B ?to ?the ?Canada ?Act ?1982 ?(UK), ?1982, ?c ?11, ?s ?15 ?[Charter]. ?177 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?667?668. ?178 ?Bill ?C-??127, ?supra ?note ?149. ?179 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?45?46; ?Gillian ?Balfour ?& ?Janice ?Du ?Mont, ??Confronting ?Restorative ?Justice ?in ?Neo-??Liberal ?Times: ?Legal ?and ?Rape ?Narratives ?in ?Conditional ?Sentencing? ?in ?Elizabeth ?A ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?701 ?at ?705; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?299 ?(endnote ?2). ? ? 47 ?eliminated ?a ?husband?s ?immunity ?from ?prosecution ?for ?the ?sexual ?assault ?of ?his ?wife.180 ? ? ? In ?Bill ?C-??127 ?Parliament ?eliminated ?the ?corroboration ?requirement ?and ?the ?rule ?of ?recent ?complaint ?and ?barred ?the ?use ?of ?sexual ?reputation ?evidence ?and ?evidence ?about ?the ?complainant?s ?past ?sexual ?history ?with ?anyone ?other ?than ?the ?accused, ?except ?in ?specific ?circumstances.181 ? ? ? Once ?again, ?the ?reforms ?to ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?were ?unsuccessful, ?this ?time ?because ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?ruled ?them ?unconstitutional ?under ?the ?Charter.182 ?In ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?the ?majority ?of ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?upheld ?the ?bar ?on ?sexual ?reputation ?evidence ?but ?determined ?that ?the ?limits ?on ?evidence ?of ?prior ?sexual ?activity ?was ?contrary ?to ?accused?s ?Charter ?rights ?to ?adduce ?evidence ?relevant ?to ?full ?answer ?and ?defence.183 ?However, ?feminist ?reformers ?had ?an ?ally ?in ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?who ?would ?have ?upheld ?the ?amendment: ?in ?her ?dissenting ?judgment ?she ?identified ?the ?purported ?relevance ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?as ?based ?on ?rape ?myths ?and, ?therefore, ?prejudicial ?and ?nearly ?always ?irrelevant.184 ? ? The ?majority?s ?ruling ?was ?a ?blow ?to ?those ?who ?advocated ?for ?equality ?in ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?Recognizing ?the ?failure ?of ?the ?amendments ?to ?generate ?real ?change ?in ?an ?area ?that ?was ?so ?key ?to ?women?s ?disillusionment ?with ?the ?justice ?system, ?feminist ?lobbying ?increased.185 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?180 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?45?47. ?181 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?705; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?49, ?51, ?136, ?148; ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?paras ?197-??199, ?202, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting. ?182 ?Charter, ?supra ?note ?176, ?ss ?7, ?11(d). ?183 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26, ?McLachlin ?J., ?majority. ?184 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?210-??238, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?dissenting. ?185 ?Lucinda ?Vandervort, ??Affirmative ?Sexual ?Consent ?in ?Canadian ?Law, ?Jurisprudence, ?and ?Legal ?Theory? ?(2012) ?23 ?Colum ?J ?Gender ?& ?L ?395 ?at ?410?412. ? ? 48 ? ? In ?1992 ?in ?Bill ?C-??49, ?Parliament ?codified ?the ?limitations ?on ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?provided ?by ?the ?majority ?of ?the ?Supreme ?Court, ?limitations ?that ?were ?determined ?not ?to ?entrench ?on ?an ?accused?s ?rights. ?In ?the ?same ?bill, ?and ?with ?the ?help ?of ?feminist ?advocates, ?Parliament ?defined ?consent ?as ?the ?voluntary ?agreement ?to ?engage ?in ?the ?sexual ?activity ?in ?question, ?and ?introduced ?the ?requirement ?that ?an ?accused ?seeking ?to ?rely ?on ?a ?belief ?in ?consent ?have ?taken ??reasonable ?steps? ?to ?ascertain ?consent.186 ?The ?feminist ?approach ?was ?to ?eliminate ?discrimination ?in ?judicial ?application ?of ?the ?law: ? ?The ?feminist ?strategy ?underlying ?the ?Bill ?was ?to ?amend ?the ?substantive ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault ?to ?define ?consent ?and ?non-??consent ?so ?as ?to ?narrow ?the ?range ?of ?"evidence" ?legally ?capable ?of ?being ?"relevant" ?to ?the ?determination ?of ?innocence ?or ?guilt, ?and ?then ?to ?require ?judges ?to ?subject ?that ?narrowed ?residual ?pool ?of ?relevancy ?determinations ?to ?a ?broader ?range ?of ?constitutional ?considerations ?than ?had ?been ?applied ?by ?the ?Seaboyer ?majority.187 ?Legislators ?and ?feminist ?reformers ?therefore ?tried ?to ?promote ?change ?in ?the ?procedural ?law ?with ?substantive ?law ?amendments. ?As ?well, ?they ?made ?women?s ?equality ?rights ?explicit ?in ?the ?preambles ?to ?the ?amendments ?to ?encourage ?judges ?to ?interpret ?the ?laws ?in ?the ?spirit ?they ?were ?passed.188 ? ? Criminal ?defence ?lawyers ?circumvented ?the ?new ?restrictions ?on ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?by ?demanding ?disclosure ?of ?complainants? ?confidential ?documents ?from ?third ?parties ?? ?schools, ?child ?protection ?agencies, ?counsellors, ?psychologists, ?crisis ?centres, ?and ?any ?other ?person ?or ?entity ?holding ?records ?about ?complainants, ?including ?their ?personal ?diaries ?? ?to ?achieve ?the ?same ?ends. ?In ?1995, ?the ?Supreme ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?186 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?705 ?citing ?Bill ?C-??49, ?An ?Act ?to ?Amend ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?(sexual ?assault), ?3rd ?Sess, ?34th ?Parl, ?1992, ?SC ?1992, ?c ?38; ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?411?412. ?187 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?76. ?188 ?Ibid; ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?130?131; ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?412 ?(footnote ?22) ?citing ?Bill ?C-??49, ?supra ?note ?186, ?pmbl. ? ? 49 ?Court ?of ?Canada ?allowed ?but ?limited ?this ?practice ?through ?a ?two-??step ?screening ?process.189 ?In ?response, ?Parliament ?legislated ?a ?more ?rigorous ?process ?to ?further ?limit ?the ?disclosure ?of ?third-??party ?documents ?in ?1997.190 ?The ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?upheld ?Parliament?s ?regime ?as ?consistent ?with ?sections ?7 ?and ?11(d) ?of ?the ?Charter;191 ?however, ?as ?I ?discuss ?later, ?feminist ?scholars ?argue ?that ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?has ?weakened ?this ?regime ?by ?its ?interpretation ?of ?what ?the ?statute ?permits. ? ? ? ?Within ?the ?amendments, ?Parliament ?included ?equality ?as ?one ?of ?the ?stated ?goals ?of ?the ?reforms: ?with ?feminist ?prodding, ?Parliament ?attempted ?to ?redress ?some ?of ?the ?inequality ?that ?the ?law ?had ?perpetrated ?against ?survivors ?in ?the ?past ?and ?also ?acknowledge ?the ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?offences ?themselves, ?in ?the ?prevalence ?of ?violence ?against ?women ?and ?children.192 ?The ?judiciary ?has ?also ?recognized ?that ?discrimination ?was ?part ?and ?parcel ?of ?the ?law ?historically:193 ?the ?cases ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer,194 ?R. ?v. ?Osolin195 ?and ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk196 ?are ?milestones ?in ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada?s ?evolving ?recognition ?of ?the ?legal ?system?s ?reliance ?on ?rape ?myths. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?189 ?R. ?v. ?O?Connor, ?[1995] ?4 ?SCR ?411, ?130 ?DLR ?(4th) ?235 ?cited ?in ?Lise ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions ?on ?Access ?to ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complainants? ?Confidential ?Records: ?The ?Continued ?Permeability ?of ?Subsections ?278.1?278.9 ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code? ?(2008) ?20 ?CJWL ?111 ?at ?116 ?[?Tracking ?Decisions?]; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?705. ?190 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?705 ?citing ?Bill ?C-??46, ?An ?Act ?to ?amend ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?(production ?of ?records ?in ?sexual ?offence ?proceedings), ?2nd ?Sess, ?35th ?Parl, ?1996-??97, ?SC ?1997, ?c ?30, ?cl ?1 ?[amending ?ss ?278.1-??278.9]. ?See ?also ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189 ?at ?116; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?81. ?191 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?705?706 ?citing ?R. ?v. ?Mills, ?[1999] ?3 ?SCR ?330, ?169 ?DLR ?(4th) ?193. ?192 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?paras ?193-??195, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?dissenting; ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?877; ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?412 ?citing ?Bill ?C-??49, ?supra ?note ?186, ?pmbl. ?193 ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?414?436. ?194 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26. ?195 ?R. ?v. ?Osolin, ?[1993] ?4 ?SCR ?598, ?109 ?DLR ?(4th) ?478. ?196 ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?[1999] ?1 ?SCR ?330, ?169 ?DLR ?(4th) ?193. ? ? 50 ?In ?particular, ?in ?these ?cases ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J. ?compellingly ?described ?and ?denounced ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?within ?the ?law. ? ? ? However, ?equality ?has ?been ?elusive. ?Resistors ?to ?the ?reforms ?have ?relied ?on ?widespread ?cultural ?norms ?and ?discourses ?that ?belittle ?sexual ?violence ?against ?women ?to ?frame ?the ?reforms ?as ?attacks ?by ?feminists ?on ?men ?and ?the ??commonsense? ?rules ?of ?heterosexual ?interaction.197 ?Parliament ?and ?the ?courts ?have ?gone ?back ?and ?forth ?on ?what ?the ?right ?to ?equality ?and ?the ?rights ?of ?the ?accused ?require ?in ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?On ?this ?foundation ?the ?current ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?was ?interpreted ?and ?built.198 ? ?The ?Current ?Law ?of ?Sexual ?Offences ? ? The ?current ?law ?is ?largely ?based ?on ?a ?consent ?framework; ?sexual ?assault ?and ?other ?offences, ?including ?those ?against ?children ?and ?adolescents, ?are ?premised ?on ?the ?notion ?that ?subjective ?agreement ?to ?sexual ?touching ?is ?required ?for ?it ?to ?be ?legal. ?Free ?and ?voluntary ?consent ?can ?be ?undermined ?by ?force ?and ?duress ?and ?individuals ?can ?be ?incapable ?of ?consent ?due ?to ?relative ?powerlessness. ?As ?well, ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?restricts ?the ?use ?of ?evidence ?whose ?relevance ?has ?traditionally ?been ?based ?on ?prejudicial ?reasoning. ? ? ? As ?it ?now ?stands, ?most ?types ?of ?sexual ?violence ?are ?prohibited ?under ?the ?rubric ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?Sexual ?assault ?is ?constituted ?by ?a ??sexual ?touching ?without ?consent?,199 ?which ?falls ?into ?three ?levels ?of ?seriousness ?depending ?on ?the ?level ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?197 ?See ?e.g. ?Joanne ?Wright, ??Consent ?and ?Sexual ?Violence ?in ?Canadian ?Public ?Discourse: ?Reflections ?on ?Ewanchuk? ?(2001) ?16 ?CJLS ?173; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23. ?198 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?75?78, ?81; ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?133?139. ?199 ?R. ?v. ?J.A., ?2011 ?SCC ?28, ?[2011] ?SCR ?440 ?at ?para ?65. ? ? 51 ?violence ?used ?or ?the ?level ?of ?harm ?the ?offender ?caused ?the ?survivor.200 ?The ?first ?level ?is ?sexual ?assault ?I, ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?touching ?without ?significant ?physical ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor.201 ?Sexual ?assault ?II ?is ?established ?when ?the ?offender ?uses ?a ?weapon ?or ?threatens ?a ?third ?party, ?or ?is ?party ?to ?the ?offence ?with ?another ?person, ?or ?causes ?the ?survivor ?bodily ?harm,202 ?generally ?defined ?as ?harm ?that ?is ?not ??transient ?or ?trifling ?in ?nature.?203 ?Sexual ?assault ?III, ?known ?as ?aggravated ?sexual ?assault, ?is ?committed ?when ?the ?offender ??wounds, ?maims, ?disfigures ?or ?endangers ?the ?life ?of ?the? ?survivor.204 ? ? ? Sexual ?assault ?is ?not ?the ?only ?sexual ?offence. ?Incest ?continues ?to ?criminalize ?sexual ?intercourse ?between ?certain ?blood ?relatives.205 ?Sexual ?activity ?with ?children ?and ?adolescents ?under ?the ?age ?of ?consent ?is ?also ?criminal: ?sexual ?interference ?and ?invitation ?to ?sexual ?touching ?make ?it ?a ?crime ?to ?touch ?someone ?under ?the ?age ?of ?16 ?with ?a ?sexual ?purpose ?or ?to ?invite ?or ?counsel ?a ?person ?under ?16 ?to ?sexual ?touch ?someone; ?206 ?sexual ?interference ?criminalizes ?anyone ?in ?a ?position ?of ?trust, ?authority ?or ?dependence ?who ?engages ?in ?sexual ?touching ?or ?invites ?sexual ?touching ?of ?a ?person ?under ?18 ?but ?older ?than ?16 ?years ?old.207 ?As ?well, ?sexual ?exploitation ?of ?a ?person ?with ?a ?disability ?by ?someone ?in ?a ?position ?of ?trust, ?authority, ?or ?dependence ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?200 ?For ?a ?discussion ?of ?the ?violence ?or ?injury ?required ?to ?establish ?the ?actus ?reus ?of ?the ?different ?levels ?of ?sexual ?assault, ?see ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?93?100; ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?55 ?at ?318?319 ?(footnotes ?83?88). ?201 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?271. ?Sexual ?assault ?is ?understood ?with ?reference ?to ?assault, ?s ?265. ?202 ?Ibid, ?s ?272(1). ?203 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?95; ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?55 ?at ?318?319 ?(footnote ?85). ?204 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?273(1). ?205 ?Ibid, ?s ?155(1). ?206 ?Ibid, ?ss ?151 ?[sexual ?interference], ?152 ?[invitation ?to ?sexual ?touching]. ?207 ?Ibid, ?ss ?153(1) ?[sexual ?exploitation], ?153(2) ?[definition ?of ??young ?person?]. ? ? 52 ?is ?an ?offence.208 ?Of ?course, ?offences ?against ?children ?and ?individuals ?with ?disabilities ?may ?also ?constitute ?sexual ?assault ?if ?the ?survivors ?do ?not ?have ?the ?capacity ?to ?consent.209 ?With ?regard ?to ?children ?and ?adolescents, ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?specifically ?provides ?that ?consent ?is ?no ?defence ?to ?a ?charge ?of ?sexual ?assault, ?sexual ?interference, ?and ?invitation ?to ?sexual ?touching ?if ?the ?complainant ?is ?less ?than ?16 ?years ?old.210 ?Capacity ?to ?consent ?for ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities ?is ?a ?much ?more ?complicated ?and ?problematic ?assessment ?in ?the ?law.211 ? ? ? Fundamentally, ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault ?in ?Canada ?is ?a ?regime ?of ?nonconsent. ?Defined ?in ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?as ??voluntary ?agreement?,212 ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?has ?expanded ?on ?its ?earlier ?interpretations ?of ?consent ?at ?common ?law ?to ?determine ?what ?consent ?means ?pursuant ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code. ?The ?result ?is ?the ?doctrine ?of ??affirmative ?consent?.213 ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?held ?that ?nonconsent ?is ??determined ?by ?reference ?to ?the ?complainant?s ?subjective ?internal ?state ?of ?mind ?towards ?the ?touching, ?at ?the ?time ?it ?occurred?.214 ?A ?complainant?s ?claim ?of ?nonconsent ?will ?be ?judged ?as ?part ?of ?the ?assessment ?of ?her ?credibility, ?and ?the ?accused ?can ?raise ?a ?reasonable ?doubt ?about ?whether ?the ?complainant ?consented ?in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?208 ?Ibid, ?s ?153.1(1). ?209 ?Ibid, ?s ?273.1(2)(b). ?210 ?Ibid, ?s ?150.1(1). ?211 ?See ?generally ?Janine ?Benedet ?& ?Isabel ?Grant, ??Hearing ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complaints ?of ?Women ?with ?Mental ?Disabilities: ?Consent, ?Capacity, ?and ?Mistaken ?Belief? ?(2007) ?52 ?McGill ?LJ ?243 ?[?Consent?]; ?Janine ?Benedet ?& ?Isabel ?Grant, ??A ?Situational ?Approach ?to ?Incapacity ?and ?Mental ?Disability ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law? ?(2011) ?43 ?Ottawa ?L ?Rev ?1 ?[?Situational?]. ?212 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s. ?273.1(1). ?213 ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?414?438 ?citing ?R. ?v. ?M.(M.L.), ?[1994] ?2 ?SCR ?3, ?89 ?CCC ?(3d) ?96, ?R. ?v. ?Park, ?[1995] ?2 ?SCR ?836, ?99 ?CCC ?(3d) ?1, ?R. ?v. ?Esau, ?[1997] ?2 ?SCR ?777, ?148 ?DLR ?(4th) ?662, ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196, ?R. ?v. ?Sazant, ?2004 ?SCC ?77, ?[2004] ?3 ?SCR ?635. ?See ?more ?recently ?R. ?v. ?J.A., ?supra ?note ?199. ?214 ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196 ?at ?para ?26. ? ? 53 ?her ?mind ?based ?on ?her ?words ?and ?conduct. ?However, ?if ?the ?judge ?accepts ?her ?evidence ?that ?she ?did ?not ?consent, ?the ?accused ?cannot ?argue ?implied ?consent.215 ?To ?prove ?the ?accused ?mistakenly ?but ?honestly ?believed ?she ?consented, ?he ?must ?prove ?that ?he ?believed ?that ?the ?complainant, ?by ?words ?or ?actions, ?affirmatively ?communicated ?consent. ?He ?cannot ?speculate ?about ?what ?she ?was ?thinking ?but ?failed ?to ?express.216 ?According ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?he ?must ?also ?demonstrate ?that ?he ?took ?reasonable ?steps ?to ?determine ?if ?the ?complainant ?was ?consenting.217 ? ? ? According ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?consent ?must ?be ?voluntary. ?It ?cannot ?be ?obtained ?or ?is ?vitiated ?in ?certain ?situations: ?these ?include ?when ??the ?accused ?induces ?the ?complainant ?to ?engage ?in ?the ?activity ?by ?abusing ?a ?position ?of ?trust, ?power ?or ?authority?,218 ?and ?when ?consent ?is ?given ?under ?duress, ?fear ?of ?force, ?threats, ?fraud, ?or ?the ?exercise ?of ?authority.219 ? ? ? The ?scope ?of ?the ?voluntariness ?requirement ?has ?remained ?unclear; ?in ?some ?cases, ?it ?has ?been ?limited. ?Major ?J.?s ?majority ?judgment ?in ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk ?gave ?it ?a ?restricted ?scope, ?liming ?it ?to ?situations ?when ?the ?complainant ??believed ?herself ?to ?have ?only ?two ?choices: ?to ?comply ?or ?to ?be ?harmed.?220 ?More ?recently, ?however, ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?upheld221 ?the ?Ontario ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?decision ?in ?R. ?v. ?Stender ?that ?duress ?was ?sufficient ?to ?make ?consent ?involuntary, ?in ?that ?case ?because ?the ?offender ?threatened ?to ?disseminate ?sexually ?explicit ?photographs ?of ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?215 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?29-??31. ? ?216 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?45-??47. ? ?217 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?273.2(b). ?218 ?Ibid, ?s. ?273.1(2)(c). ? ?219 ?Ibid, ?s. ?265(3); ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196 ?at ?para ?36. ?220 ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196 ?at ?para ?39. ?221 ?R. ?v. ?Stender, ?2005 ?SCC ?36, ?[2005] ?1 ?SCR ?914. ? ? 54 ?survivor.222 ?This ?decision ?suggests ?a ?greater ?recognition ?that ?coercion ?undermines ?voluntary ?consent. ? ? As ?well, ?on ?their ?face, ?procedural ?reforms ?have ?attempted ?to ?make ?the ?trial ?process ?fairer ?and ?less ?traumatic ?for ?survivors ?by ?restricting ?the ?admission ?of ?evidence ?whose ?relevance ?is ?based ?on ?rape ?myths. ?Sections ?274 ?and ?275 ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?dictate ?that ?corroboration ?is ?no ?longer ?required ?and ?the ?rule ?of ?recent ?complaint ?has ?been ??abrogated?. ?Section ?277 ?bars ?the ?admission ?of ?sexual ?reputation ?evidence ?for ?attacks ?on ?credibility ?and ?276 ?restricts ?the ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?used ?for ?the ?twin ?myths, ?that ?the ?complainant ?is ?more ?likely ?to ?have ?consented ?or ?is ?less ?worthy ?of ?belief, ?stating ?that ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?can ?only ?be ?adduced ?about ?a ?specific ?and ?relevant ?incident ?that ?has ?substantially ?greater ?probative ?value ?than ?prejudicial ?effect. ?To ?determine ?this, ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?directs ?judges ?to ?consider ?the ?interests ?of ?justice, ?the ?need ?to ?eliminate ?discrimination ?and ?encourage ?reporting ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?and ?complainants? ?privacy ?rights ?and ?personal ?dignity, ?among ?other ?factors. ?Similarly, ?sections ?278.1 ?to ?278.8 ?outline ?the ?two-??step ?process ?for ?disclosure ?of ?complainants? ?private ?records ?to ?the ?judge ?and ?for ?production ?to ?the ?accused. ? ? ? However, ?the ?law ?of ?affirmative ?consent ?does ?not ?reach ?its ?potential ?in ?its ?application. ?As ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?argued, ?conviction ?for ?sexual ?offences ?continues ?to ?be ?difficult: ?courts ?do ?not ?always ?take ?an ?expansive ?approach ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?222 ?R. ?v. ?D.G.S. ?(2004), ?72 ?OR ?(3d) ?223, ?2004 ?CanLII7198 ?(Ont ?CA). ?Note ?that ?it ?is ?not ?entirely ?clear ?on ?the ?facts ?that ?the ?survivor ?communicated ?agreement, ?voluntary ?or ?not, ?in ?any ?event; ?however, ?the ?court ?appeared ?to ?find ?that ?she ?did. ? ? ? 55 ?voluntary ?consent ?nor ?apply ?the ?requirements ?in ?the ?Criminal ?Code,223 ?for ?example, ?the ?requirement ?for ?reasonable ?steps, ?which ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?failed ?to ?apply ?in ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk.224 ? ? As ?well, ?as ?argued ?by ?Lise ?Gotell, ?the ?strength ?of ?procedural ?limitations ?have ?been ?restricted ?by ?the ?interpretations ?of ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada. ?The ?Court ?has ?asserted ?the ?importance ?of ?judicial ?discretion, ?weakening ?the ?application ?of ?the ?sections? ?requirements ?that ?judges ?consider ?the ?structural ?context ?of ??equality ?rights ?and ?the ?dignity ?of ?complaints; ?the ?sway ?of ?discriminatory ?myths; ?and ?the ?impact ?on ?reporting ?rates?, ?contrary ?to ?the ?intention ?of ?the ?reforms.225 ?These ?interpretations ?have ?been ?fueled ?by ?anti-??feminist ?backlash ?from ?the ?criminal ?defence ?bar ?and ?other ?groups.226 ?I ?explore ?these ?issues ?in ?more ?detail ?below. ?The ?Undoing ?of ?Feminist ?Gains ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law ? ? ? The ?feminist ?project ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?offences ?within ?systemic ?inequality ?has ?been ?transformed ?by ?neoliberalism ?into ?an ?atomistic ?and ?decontextualized ?approach. ?This ?approach ?may ?ignore ?structural ?inequality, ?but ?it ?does ?not ?eradicate ?it; ?nor ?does ?it ?eliminate ?the ?myths ?that ?perpetuate ?inequality. ?Analyzing ?how ?judges ?apply ?the ?law ?of ?consent ?and ?the ?law ?of ?evidence ?in ?sexual ?offence ?trials, ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?found ?that ?modified ?versions ?of ?rape ?myths ?filtered ?through ?neoliberalism ?continue ?to ?surface ?in ?determinations ?of ?guilt ?or ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?223 ?See ?generally ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185; ?Elaine ?Craig, ??Ten ?Years ?After ?Ewanchuk ?The ?Art ?of ?Seduction ?is ?Alive ?And ?Well: ?An ?Examination ?of ?The ?Mistaken ?Belief ?in ?Consent ?Defence? ?(2009) ?13:3 ?Can ?Crim ?L ?Rev ?247 ?[?After ?Ewanchuk?]; ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1. ?224 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?145?146; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?77. ?225 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?136?137 ?citing ?R. ?v. ?Mills, ?supra ?note ?191, ?R. ?v. ?Darrach, ?2000 ?SCC ?46, ?[2000] ?2 ?SCR ?443. ?226 ?Ibid ?at ?131; ?See ?generally ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23; ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197. ? ? 56 ?innocence ?and ?procedural ?applications. ?Feminist ?scholars ?argue ?that ?the ?current ?law ?does ?entirely ?or ?adequately ?protect ?women ?and ?children ?from ?coercive ?or ?unwanted ?sexual ?touching ?or ?from ?prejudice ?in ?courtrooms. ? ? ? ? Important ?feminist ?reforms ?in ?law ?and ?policy ?were ?undermined ?by ?a ?shifting ?political ?ethos. ?While ?feminist ?battles ?were ?being ?won, ?the ?philosophy ?of ?governance ?moved ?away ?from ?a ?social ?welfare ?paradigm, ?which ?recognizes ?structural ?inequalities ?and ?group ?belonging, ?to ?neoliberalism, ?which ?focuses ?on ?individual ?responsibility ?and ?rationality.227 ?The ?rise ?of ?the ?law ?and ?order ?agenda ?followed, ?a ?common ?occurrence ?when ??governments ?seek ?to ?respond ?to ?anxieties ?produced ?in ?a ?context ?of ?rapid ?socio-??economic ?transformation ?and ?declining ?social ?supports.?228 ?Because ?of ?this ?shifting ?ethos, ?feminist ?advocates? ?attempts ?to ?make ?changes ?beyond ?the ?law, ?such ?as ?improvements ?to ?social ?welfare ?programs, ?were ?less ?successful ?than ?their ?calls ?for ?legal ?reform ?that ?could ?be ?seen ?as ?overlapping ?with ?the ?law ?and ?order ?movement.229 ? ? ? ? Together, ?the ?neoliberal ?approach ?and ?law ?and ?order ?agenda ?undermined ?the ?work ?of ?feminist ?reformers ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?violence ?as ?an ?aspect ?of ?structural ?gender ?inequality. ?They ?reoriented ?sexual ?violence ?from ?a ?social ?issue ?into ?a ?matter ?for ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?alone. ?Women?s ?advocacy ?groups ?were ?relegated ?to ?the ?fringe ?and ?defunded, ?and ??victims? ?rights,? ?understood ?in ?a ?contextual ?vacuum, ?replaced ?feminist ?concerns ?in ?political ?consciousness.230 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?227 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?128?130; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?72?73, ?81; ?Comack ?& ?Peter, ?supra ?note ?63 ?at ?284?285. ?228 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?129. ?229 ?Ibid ?at ?128?130; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?72?73, ?81. ?230 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?128?133, ?144; ?See ?also ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?81. ? ? 57 ? ? These ?political ?and ?policy ?changes ?have ?influenced ?the ?legal ?doctrine ?of ?consent. ?Although ?feminist ?advocates ?managed ?to ?reform ?legislation ?so ?that ?it ?was ?more ?appreciative ?of ?the ?gendered ?context ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?this ?insight ?was ?made ?to ?fit ?a ??criminal ?legal ?framework ?defined ?by ?individual ?responsibility ?and ?punishment.?231 ?Because ?the ?reforms ?altered ?the ?statement ?of ?the ?law ?but ?not ?the ?structural ?inequalities ?underlying ?it, ?their ?influence ?has ?been ?circumscribed.232 ? ? ? As ?well, ?legal ?reforms ?were ?interpreted ?by ?a ?largely ?elite ?judiciary ?made ?up ?of ?people ?who, ?like ?us ?all, ?understand ?language ?through ?their ?own ?experiences ?and ?perspectives. ?Together ?with ?the ?doctrine ?of ?precedent, ?which ?virtually ?guarantees ?judicial ?obstruction ?of ?transformational ?legal ?reforms, ?reforms ?have ?not ?been ?entirely ?successful.233 ?Judges ?do ?not ?typically ?characterize ?sexual ?violence ?as ?a ?gendered ?crime; ?nor ?do ?they ?rely ?on ?feminist ?understandings ?to ?apply ?the ?law.234 ?Instead, ?the ?judiciary ?has ?interpreted ?the ?purpose ?of ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?to ?protect ?individual ?physical ?integrity, ?autonomy ?and ?dignity, ?rights ?that ?can ?be ?understood ?outside ?of ?structural ?inequality.235 ? ? ? The ?law ?interpreted ?through ?neoliberalism ?frames ?violence ?in ?transactional ?terms ?of ?individual ?rationality ?and ?responsibility. ?Within ?this ?ideology, ?individual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?231 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?133. ?232 ?Ibid ?at ?144; ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?74?75, ?78?79, ?81. ?233 ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?94?95. ?234 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?877. ?235 ?See ?generally ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75; ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1; ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197; ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196 ?at ?para ?28. ? ? 58 ?women ?are ?expected ?to ?avoid ?risk, ?with ?expectations ?shifted ?from ?notions ?of ?morality ?to ?caution.236 ? ? ? However, ?cultural ?norms ?continue ?to ?promulgate ?distinct ?gender ?roles ?for ?men ?and ?women. ?Gender ?norms ?blend ?with ?neoliberal ?understandings ?of ?sexual ?assault ?in ?the ?law, ?forming ?modified ?gender ?expectations: ?men ?are ?now ?predominantly ?expected ?to ?manage ?sexual ?risk ?and ?women ?to ?avoid ?it.237 ?These ?expectations ?may ?work ?in ?concert ?with ?the ?older ?norms ?of ?masculine ?aggression ?and ?feminine ?passivity ?in ?heterosexual ?interaction, ?and ?therefore ?legitimize ?consent ?that ?arises ?from ?coercion, ?based ?on ?the ?cultural ?understanding ?of ??seduction.?238 ? ? ? Based ?on ?neoliberal ?ideas ?of ?autonomy ?and ?rationality, ?courts ?may ?perceive ?survivors ?as ?failing ??to ?practice ?the ?appropriate ?self-??restraint? ?to ?avoid ?risk ?of ?harm.239 ?Yet ?structural ?inequality ?persists, ?and ?for ?women, ?avoiding ?risk ?is ?not ?easy. ?As ?noted ?by ?Gotell, ?because ?of ?the ?prevalence ?and ?pervasiveness ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?activities ?that ?put ?women ?at ?risk ?of ?sexual ?violence ?are ?innumerable ?and ?often ?unavoidable ?in ?daily ?life. ?Under ?a ?decontextualized, ?gender-??neutral ?interpretation ?of ?the ?law, ?how ?gender, ?poverty, ?race ?and ?other ?sources ?of ?oppression ?limit ?women?s ?ability ?to ?avoid ?harm ?are ?irrelevant; ?lacking ?the ?tools ?to ?understand ?social ?forces ?that ?constrain ?women?s ?actions,240 ?judges ?may ??responsibilize? ?survivors ?for ??flirting ?with ?risk.?241 ? ?They ?may ?also ?disbelieve ?complainants ?who ?do ?not ?live ?up ?to ?exacting ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?236 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?872?882, ?897?898; ?Comack ?& ?Peter, ?supra ?note ?63 ?at ?285?298; ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?144, ?149?153; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?707. ?237 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?879. ?238 ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197 ?at ?200. ?239 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?716. ?240 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?879?881, ?898. ?241 ?Ibid ?at ?880. ? ? 59 ?standards ?of ?the ?rational, ?risk-??adverse, ?and ?consistent ?but ?also ?ordinary ?complainant.242 ? ? Attributing ?responsibility ?to ?survivors ?can ?be ?most ?egregious ?in ?the ?cases ?of ?vulnerable ?women ?who, ?due ?to ?structural ?constraints ?and ?inequalities, ?are ?habitually ?unable ?to ?avoid ?significant ?risk. ?Aboriginal ?women ?and ?women ?involved ?in ?prostitution ?are ?among ?those ?deemed ??high ?risk.?243 ?Sherene ?H. ?Razack ?identified ?this ?phenomenon ?in ?the ?trial ?for ?Pamela ?George?s ?murder. ?For ?Pamela ?George, ?prostitution ?and ?Aboriginality ?worked ?together ?to ?create ?a ??permanent ?personal ?characteristic?244 ?of ?risk ?that ?was ?used ?to ?blame ?her ?for ?her ?death.245 ?The ??choice? ?to ?take ?risks ?may ?be ?equated ?with ?consent ?to ?sexual ?activity ?or ?used ?to ?suggest ?that ?women ?are ?agents ?in ?the ?violence ?committed ?against ?them.246 ? ? ? ? Because ?of ?its ?atomistic ?focus, ?the ?law ?transforms ?sexual ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?into ?de-??gendered ?and ?de-??contextualized ?equals, ?and ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?into ?isolated ?crimes ?rather ?than ?systemic ?acts ?of ?inequality. ?This ?ignores ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?242 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?148?153; ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?872?882; ?Comack ?& ?Peter, ?supra ?note ?63 ?at ?298?304. ?243 ?Police ?regularly ?label ?women ?and ?adolescents ??high ?risk,? ?particularly ?those ?involved ?in ?prostitution ?or ?substance ?abuse. ?See ?e.g. ?Stephanie ?Ip, ??Man ?charged ?with ?confinement, ?sexual ?assault; ?Investigation ?continues?, ?The ?Province ?(25 ?July ?2013) ?A15; ??Two ?Alberta ?men ?charged ?with ?child ?prostitution?, ?Kamloops ?Daily ?News ?(23 ?February ?2013) ?A7; ?Tim ?Petruk, ??Highway ?of ?Tears ?probe: ?Did ?this ?man ?kill ?again ?and ?again ?in ?Kamloops??, ?Kamloops ?This ?Week ?(26 ?September ?2012) ?1; ?Katie ?Derosa, ??Dead ?woman ?reportedly ?had ?vanished; ?She ?was ?in ?her ?early ?20s ?and ?lived ?a ??high-??risk? ?lifestyle, ?police ?say?, ?Times-??Colonist ?(15 ?June ?2011) ?A3; ??Man ?charged ?with ?assaulting ?woman?, ?Edmonton ?Journal ?(22 ?January ?2009) ?B4; ?Andrew ?Seymour ?& ?Neco ?Cockburn, ??Police ?set ?for ??long ?haul? ?to ?solve ?homicide; ?Investigators ?can?t ?rule ?out ?random ?attack ?in ?death ?of ?woman ?who ?led ??high-??risk? ?lifestyle?, ?The ?Ottawa ?Citizen ?(6 ?June ?2008) ?F1; ??Warning ?issued ?over ?sex ?offender?, ?Calgary ?Herald ?(12 ?June ?2007) ?B7. ?244 ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7 ?at ?127. ?245 ?Ibid ?at ?124. ?246 ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189 ?at ?880?893; ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7 ?at ?124?129; ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?148?153. ? ? 60 ?rather ?than ?combats ?sexual ?inequality ?within ?the ?law ?because, ?as ?stated ?by ?MacKinnon, ??[a]utonomy ?in ?sex ?cannot ?exist ?without ?sex ?equality.?247 ?Consent: ?Myths ?in ?Legal ?Application ?and ?Judicial ?Narrative ? ? ? The ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada?s ?interpretation ?of ?consent ?appears ?to ?provide ?a ?robust ?definition; ?however, ?the ?application ?of ?the ?legal ?definition ?of ?nonconsent ?in ?individual ?cases ?has ?been ?more ?ambivalent. ?Feminist ?scholars ?have ?argued ?that ?rape ?myths ?continue ?to ?influence ?the ?interpretation ?of ?consent ?by ?trial ?judges ?and ?appeal ?courts. ? ? In ?her ?study, ?Gotell ?found ?that ?judges ?have ?developed ?a ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?that ?often ?challenges ?traditional ?notions ?of ?male ?sexual ?aggression ?and ?entitlement ?but ?they ?less ?often ?apply ?this ?increasingly ?high ?standard ?when ?complainants ?fail ?to ?avoid ?sexual ?risks ?or ?are ?unable ?to ?present ?as ?rational ?and ?consistent ?in ?their ?behaviour ?and ?testimony.248 ?As ?demonstrated ?in ?this ?and ?other ?studies, ?the ?consent ?framework ?has ?had ?the ?least ?benefit ?for ?vulnerable ?women, ?those ?seen ?as ??unchaste? ?or ??risky.? ? ? ? For ?example, ?Janine ?Benedet ?and ?Isabel ?Grant ?in ??Hearing ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complaints ?of ?Women ?with ?Mental ?Disabilities: ?Consent, ?Capacity ?and ?Mistaken ?Belief? ?found ?myths ?about ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities, ?that ?they ?are ?both ??hypersexual? ?and ??asexual?,249 ?have ?influenced ?legal ?determinations ?of ?consent ?and ?capacity ?to ?consent ?in ?cases ?of ?sexual ?assault ?against ?them. ?Relying ?on ?evidence ?of ?complainants? ?past ?sexual ?activity ?or ?flirtatious ?behaviour, ?courts ?found ?reasonable ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?247 ?MacKinnon, ??Equality ?Approach?, ?supra ?note ?52 ?at ?270. ?248 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?144?153. ?249 ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?251?253. ? ? 61 ?doubt ?about ?nonconsent ?when ?women ?did ?not ?verbalize ?nonconsent ?or ?actively ?resist, ?acts ?that ?may ?be ?particularly ?difficult ?for ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities.250 ? ? ? Elaine ?Craig ?discovered ?that ?despite ?the ?Supreme ?Court?s ?statement ?in ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?implied ?consent ?continues ?to ?undermine ?the ?evolving ?doctrine ?of ?consent, ?and ?is ?often ?successfully ?used ?in ?lower ?court ?cases ?of ?sexual ?violence ?against ?spouses ?and ?intimate ?partners. ?She ?found ?cases ?where ?complainants ?had ?not ?consented ?but ?courts ?allowed ?the ?defence ?of ?mistaken ?belief ?in ?consent ?because ?of ?evidence ?of ?past ??rough ?sex? ?play ?or ?allegations ?that ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?touching ?was ?a ?part ?of ?the ?accused?s ?emotionally-??driven ?attempts ?to ?win ?over ?a ?partner ?who ?had ?left ?or ?cheated.251 ? ? Benedet ?also ?examined ?the ?frailties ?of ?judicial ?interpretation ?and ?application ?of ?consent ?in ??The ?Age ?of ?Innocence? ?in ?the ?cases ?of ?underage ?complainants. ?She ?determined ?that ?the ?focus ?on ?age ?of ?consent ?distracted ?from ?a ?proper ?analysis ?of ?nonconsent. ?In ?the ?cases ?she ?studied, ?age ?of ?consent ?failed ?to ?protect ?particularly ?vulnerable ?girls ?and ?young ?women; ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?also ?failed ?them, ?as ?courts ?ignored ?the ?violent ?or ?coercive ?sexual ?behaviour ?of ?older ?men ?and ?power ?imbalances ?between ?accused ?men ?and ?survivors ?that ?foreclosed ?consent, ?apparently ?forgetting ?the ?meaning ?of ?consent ?once ?the ?complainant?s ?age ?was ?no ?longer ?a ?statutory ?bar ?to ?sexual ?activity.252 ? ? ? Capacity ?to ?consent, ?a ?necessary ?condition ?for ?consent, ?has ?caused ?problems ?for ?vulnerable ?women ?by ?its ?uneven ?application ?due ?to ?rape ?myths. ?In ??The ?Sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?250 ?Ibid ?at ?262?269. ?251 ?Craig, ??After ?Ewanchuk?, ?supra ?note ?223 ?at ?259, ?262?268. ?252 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?679?687. ? ? 62 ?Assault ?of ?Intoxicated ?Women?, ?Benedet?s ?study ?revealed ?that ?judges ?are ?disinclined ?to ?find ?that ?women ?lack ?capacity ?to ?consent ?if ?they ?became ?intoxicated ?willingly, ?unless ?they ?were ?sleeping ?or ?unconscious, ?reserving ?incapacity ?for ?women ?who ?did ?not ?knowingly ?or ?voluntary ?become ?intoxicated. ?The ?courts ?therefore ?conflated ?a ?decision ?to ?drink ?alcohol ?or ?use ?drugs ?with ?consent ?to ?sexual ?activity. ?253 ?Benedet ?and ?Grant ?also ?found ?the ?legal ?application ?of ?capacity ?to ?consent ?wanting ?in ?the ?cases ?of ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities, ?specifically ?that ?it ?was ?rarely ?considered ?and ?when ?it ?was, ?it ?was ?a ?blanket ?determination ?of ?incapacity ?for ?the ?survivor ?rather ?than ?specific ?to ?the ?context ?of ?the ?assault ?at ?bar.254 ?Developing ?this ?position, ?they ?argue ?that ?capacity ?to ?consent ?should ?only ?be ?considered ?when ?there ?is ?no ?evidence ?of ?nonconsent, ?and ?when ?it ?is, ?a ?situational ?approach ?to ?capacity ?to ?consent ?to ?the ?individual ?person ?at ?the ?time ?in ?that ?context ?should ?be ?used ?to ?protect ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities ?from ?exploitation ?and ?sexual ?abuse ?while ?also ?promoting ?their ?sexual ?autonomy.255 ? ? ? Scholars ?have ?also ?assessed ?sexual ?assault ?trial ?decisions ?for ?the ?language ?judges ?use ?to ?describe ?sexual ?violence. ?Linda ?Coates ?and ?her ?colleagues ?discovered ?that ?legal ?reforms ?have ?had ?a ?limited ?effect ?on ?the ?language ?judges ?use ?to ?express ?and ?construct ?sexual ?violence ?in ?the ?law. ?They ?found ?that ?judges ?obscured ?and ?normalized ?sexual ?coercion ?through ?language. ?Judges ?used ?language ?that ?characterized ?sexual ?violence ?as ?non-??violent ?and ?described ?it ?with ?little ?detail.256 ?In ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?253 ?Janine ?Benedet, ??The ?Sexual ?Assault ?of ?Intoxicated ?Women? ?(2010) ?22:2 ?CJWL ?435 ?at ?442?449 ?[?Intoxicated ?Women?]. ?254 ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?269?274. ?255 ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Situational?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?18?27. ?256 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?194, ?196?197, ?201. ? ? 63 ?some ?cases, ?courts ?used ?positive ?sexual ?terms ?suggesting ?mutual ?participation ?or ?affection ?to ?describe ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?such ?as ??sexual ?intercourse? ?and ??fondle,?257 ?even ?in ?cases ?of ?sexual ?abuse ?of ?children ?by ?family ?members.258 ?Courts? ?grammar ?choices, ?euphemisms, ?and ?lack ?of ?detail ?often ?made ?sexual ?assaults ?appear ?to ?have ?no ?agents, ?removing ?focus ?from ?the ?responsibility ?of ?offenders.259 ? ? ? Coates ?et ?al. ?attributed ?judicial ?language ?choices ?to ?the ?limitation ?of ?two ?opposing ??repertoires? ?for ?sex ?and ?sexual ?assault: ?one ?of ?consensual ?sex ?and ?one ?of ?stranger ?rape. ?Without ?the ?language ?to ?appropriately ?describe ?acquaintance ?sexual ?assault, ?legal ?discourse ?favoured ?a ?view ?of ?it ?as ?consensual ?and ?erotic.260 ?This ?language ?confuses ?and ?likens ?sexual ?assault ?with ?positive ?sexual ?activity ?while ?undermining ?legal ?findings ?of ?survivors? ?nonconsent.261 ? ?An ?Unequal ?Balance: ?The ?Use ?of ?Discriminatory ?Evidence ? ? Feminist ?scholars ?have ?also ?studied ?the ?interpretation ?and ?application ?of ?the ?procedural ?rules ?enacted ?to ?foreclose ?evidence ?that ?relies ?on ?discriminatory ?reasoning. ?They ?have ?found ?that ?evidence ?of ?delayed ?disclosure, ?corroboration, ?and ?sexual ?history, ?and ?confidential ?records ?continue ?to ?be ?used ?to ?suggest ?that ?complainants ?have ?motives ?to ?lie ?or ?are ?unreliable, ?relying ?on ?myths ?of ?women ?as ?fickle, ?emotional, ?and ?vengeful. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?257 ?Ibid ?at ?191?193; ?Janet ?Bavelas ?& ?Linda ?Coates, ??Is ?It ?Sex ?or ?Assault? ?Erotic ?Versus ?Violent ?Language ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments? ?(2001) ?10:1 ?Journal ?of ?Social ?Distress ?and ?the ?Homeless ?29 ?at ?33?38. ?258 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?38. ?259 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?196?197; ?See ?also ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?30?32. ?260 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?197?198, ?204. ?261 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?38?39; ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?193?194. ? ? 64 ?For ?example, ?in ??The ?Relevance ?of ?Delayed ?Disclosure ?to ?Complainant ?Credibility ?in ?Cases ?of ?Sexual ?Offence?, ?Craig ?found ?that ?courts ?continue ?to ?use ?evidence ?of ?delayed ?disclosure ?to ?undermine ?complainants? ?credibility ?in ?sexual ?assault ?cases.262 ?Elizabeth ?Sheehy ?has ?also ?demonstrated ?that ?evidence ?of ?corroboration, ?recent ?complaint, ?and ?sexual ?history ?continues ?to ?be ?adduced ?to ?support ?the ?medically ?unsound ?theory ?that ?complainants? ?memories ?of ?sexual ?assault ?are ?made ?up, ?the ?result ?of ?False ?Memory ?Syndrome.263 ?Sheehy ?showed ?that ?this ?theory ?is ?used ?to ?justify ?suspicion ?of ?complainants ?who ?do ?not ?immediately ?complain ?of ?sexual ?assault ?or ?who ?have ?histories ?of ?prior ?sexual ?abuse.264 ? ? ? Feminist ?scholars ?have ?found ?that ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?and ?confidential ?third-??party ?documents ?continue ?to ?be ?disclosed ?and ?relied ?upon ?in ?sexual ?assault ?trials. ?The ?use ?of ?this ?evidence ?has ?been ?studied ?extensively ?by ?Gotell, ?who ?has ?illustrated ?that ?courts ?continue ?to ?order ?disclosure ?and ?production ?of ?complainants? ?confidential ?records ?and ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?for ?the ?purpose ?of ?attacking ?their ?credibility. ?This ?follows ?from ?the ?Supreme ?Court?s ?narrowing ?of ?considerations ?of ?equality ?to ?privacy ?rights ?alone, ?limiting ?the ?interests ?of ?survivors ?to ?avoiding ?humiliation ?rather ?than ?being ?free ?from ?structural ?inequality ?and ?discrimination ?before ?the ?law.265 ?The ?narrow ?protection ?of ?privacy ?is ?reduced ?further ?when ?women ?fall ?below ??ideal? ?victim ?standards: ?vulnerable ?women ?with ?significant ?institutional ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?262 ?Elaine ?Craig, ??The ?Relevance ?of ?Delayed ?Disclosure ?to ?Complainant ?Credibility ?in ?Cases ?of ?Sexual ?Offence? ?(2010) ?36 ?Queen?s ?LJ ?551. ?263 ?Elizabeth ?Sheehy, ??Evidence ?Law ?and ?Credibility ?Testing ?of ?Women: ?A ?Comment ?on ?the ?E ?Case? ?(2002) ?2 ?Queensland ?U ?Tech ?L ?& ?Just ?J ?157 ?at ?163. ?264 ?Ibid ?at ?167?173. ?265 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?135?143; ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189 ?at ?114?119, ?140?147. ? ? 65 ?backgrounds ?are ?sexualized ?and ?presented ?as ?hysterical ?and ?unreliable ?to ?justify ?disclosure.266 ? ? ? Benedet ?and ?Grant ?found ?that ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities ?were ?also ?more ?likely ?to ?have ?the ?procedural ?reforms ?circumvented, ?the ?consequence ?of ?the ?intersection ?of ?discrimination ?based ?on ?gender ?and ?disability. ?In ?addition ?to ?the ?unique ?challenges ?women ?with ?mental ?disabilities ?faced ?in ?participating ?in ?the ?trial ?process, ?they ?also ?had ?myths ?about ?their ?unreliability ?and ?hypersexuality ?used ?against ?them, ?sometimes ?as ?a ?part ?of ?inquiries ?into ?capacity ?to ?consent ?or ?testify. ?On ?these ?bases, ?courts ?required ?corroborating ?evidence ?and, ?without ?reference ?to ?Criminal ?Code ?procedures, ?allowed ?the ?disclosure ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?and ?private ?records.267 ? ? ? Craig ?also ?found ?that ?courts ?regularly ?allowed ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?to ?be ?adduced ?in ?cases ?of ?sexual ?violence ?by ?intimate ?partners ?to ?support ?defences ?of ?mistaken ?belief ?in ?consent.268 ?Although ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences ?has ?changed ?considerably, ?courts ?have ?not ?interpreted ?and ?applied ?the ?reformed ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?and ?law ?of ?evidence ?in ?a ?way ?that ?eliminates ?the ?use ?of ?myths ?in ?courts. ?Rather ?than ?maintain ?the ?law?s ?contextual ?understanding ?of ?sexual ?assault ?as ?envisioned ?by ?feminist ?reforms, ?judges ?have ?understood ?the ?law ?outside ?of ?the ?framework ?of ?structural ?inequality, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?266 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?142; ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189 ?at ?115, ?123?124, ?147?153. ?267 ?Janine ?Benedet ?& ?Isabel ?Grant, ??Hearing ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complaints ?of ?Women ?with ?Mental ?Disabilities: ?Evidentiary ?and ?Procedural ?Issues? ?(2007) ?52 ?McGill ?LJ ?515 ?at ?518?519, ?531?541 ?[?Evidentiary ?Issues?]. ?268 ?Craig, ??After ?Ewanchuk?, ?supra ?note ?223 ?at ?259?262. ? ? 66 ?applying ?the ?law ?mechanically. ?As ?a ?result, ?the ?law ?has ?been ?less ?able ?to ?eliminate ?myths ?that ?remain ?current ?in ?society. ? ?The ?literature ?shows ?that ?rape ?myths ?continue ?to ?play ?a ?role ?in ?trials, ?particularly ?against ?women ?and ?adolescents ?facing ?intersecting ?inequalities. ?I ?now ?turn ?to ?the ?law ?of ?sentencing, ?where ?the ?use ?of ?myths ?has ?been ?less ?thoroughly ?addressed ?by ?reforms ?or ?studied ?by ?scholars. ?D. The ?Current ?Approach ?to ?Sentencing ?Sexual ?Offenders ? ? In ?this ?section, ?I ?consider ?the ?current ?approach ?to ?sentencing ?offenders. ?In ?the ?1990s ?Parliament ?introduced ?reforms ?to ?clarify ?the ?principles ?judges ?must ?consider ?in ?sentencing ?offenders, ?including ?sexual ?offenders; ?these ?principles ?now ?explicitly ?include ?considerations ?of ?restorative ?justice. ?A ?second ?set ?of ?reforms ?in ?the ?last ?decade ?has ?restricted ?the ?availability ?of ?conditional ?sentences ?of ?imprisonment ?and ?introduced ?mandatory ?minimum ?penalties, ?including ?for ?some ?sexual ?offences. ?Notwithstanding ?these ?changes, ?judges ?continue ?to ?have ?discretion ?in ?sentencing, ?in ?both ?approach ?and ?outcome, ?and ?weigh ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?circumstances ?in ?much ?the ?same ?way ?they ?always ?have. ? ? ? The ?feminist ?approach ?to ?sentencing, ?particularly ?incarceration, ?has ?not ?been ?uniform. ?While ?most ?recognize ?the ?inequality, ?prejudice, ?and ?violence ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system, ?their ?response ?is ?split: ?some ?see ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?as ?a ?necessary ?tool ?to ?protect ?women ?from ?violence; ?others ?dismiss ?it ?as ?unable ?to ?achieve ?equality ?and ?instead ?look ?to ?grassroots ?supports ?to ?protect ?women ?and ?children. ?Whatever ?their ?view, ?feminist ?advocates ?have ?been ?less ?influential ?in ?shaping ?sentencing ?law ?than ?the ?substantive ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault. ? ? 67 ? ? I ?take ?the ?approach ?of ?feminist ?researchers ?who ?see ?the ?value ?in ?working ?within ?the ?law ?to ?improve ?it, ?a ?position ?I ?explain ?in ?more ?detail ?below. ?I ?therefore ?join ?in ?the ?small ?number ?of ?feminist ?researchers ?looking ?at ?the ?current ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders ?in ?Canada. ?Like ?those ?studying ?convictions ?and ?acquittals ?as ?well ?as ?procedural ?applications, ?these ?researchers ?have ?found ?threads ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing, ?in ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements, ?interpretations ?of ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors, ?and ?narratives ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?However, ?feminist ?research ?on ?sentencing ?is ?limited ?and ?deserves ?further ?development, ?which ?I ?hope ?to ?do ?in ?this ?thesis. ?The ?Law ?of ?Sentencing ? ? In ?1995, ?Parliament ?amended ?the ?law ?of ?sentencing. ?The ?Code ?now ?elucidates ?the ?principles ?judges ?must ?strive ?for ?with ?each ?sentence. ?Although ?putting ?greater ?emphasis ?on ?restorative ?justice, ?particularly ?for ?Aboriginal ?offenders, ?the ?principles ?remained ?much ?the ?same; ?consequently, ?the ?approach ?of ?judges ?in ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders ?also ?continues ?to ?rely ?on ?common ?law ?constructions ?of ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors. ?Judges ?retain ?discretion ?in ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders, ?and ?in ?many ?cases, ?can ?choose ?between ?a ?variety ?of ?sentencing ?options, ?based ?on ?their ?interpretation ?of ?the ?offender?s ?blameworthiness ?and ?the ?offence?s ?seriousness. ?However, ?more ?recent ?reforms ?have ?limited ?alternatives ?to ?imprisonment ?and ?imposed ?minimums ?for ?some ?offences, ?limiting ?judicial ?discretion. ? ? Prior ?to ?1995, ?the ?main ?goals ?of ?sentencing ?in ?Canada ?were ?both ?utilitarian ?and ?retributive, ?aiming ?to ?deter ?and ?prevent ?crime ?as ?well ?as ?express ?society?s ? ? 68 ?collective ?revulsion.269 ?In ?1995 ?Parliament ?legislated ?a ?regime ?of ?sentencing,270 ?which ?was, ?in ?many ?respects, ?a ?codification ?of ?the ?common ?law ?approach.271 ?To ?this, ?however, ?Parliament ?added ?a ?restorative ?focus ?to ?balance ??objectives ?of ?denunciation ?with ?reparation ?to ?victims ?and ?communities.?272 ? ? ? The ?current ?approach ?requires ?judges ?to ?balance ?several ?principles ?to ?arrive ?at ?a ?just ?sentence. ?The ?principles ?are ?enumerated ?in ?section ?718 ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?and ?include ?denunciation, ?deterrence, ?separation, ?rehabilitation, ?reparation ?for ?harm, ?and ?promotion ?of ?responsibility. ?The ?principle ?that ?offenders ?should ?not ?be ?incarcerated ?when ?other ?available ?sanctions ?are ?reasonable ?in ?the ?circumstances ?was ?a ?significant ?part ?of ?the ?1995 ?reforms.273 ?This ?principle, ?codified ?in ?section ?718.2(e) ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?is ?a ?particularly ?important ?consideration ?in ?sentencing ?Aboriginal ?offenders, ?for ?whom ?courts ?must ?consider ?background ?and ?contextual ?factors, ?namely ?the ?legacy ?of ?colonialism ?and ?residential ?schools, ?as ?well ?as ?available ?community-??based ?sentences.274 ? ? Courts ?must ?also ?be ?cognizant ?of ?the ?principle ?of ?proportionality: ?the ??sentence ?must ?be ?proportionate ?to ?the ?gravity ?of ?the ?offence ?and ?the ?degree ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?269 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?1.12. ?270 ?Bill ?C-??41, ?An ?Act ?to ?amend ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?(sentencing) ?and ?other ?Acts ?in ?consequence ?thereof, ?1st ?Sess, ?35th ?Parl, ?1994-??96, ?SC ?1995, ?c ?22 ?cited ?in ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?708. ?271 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?1.13?1.15. ?272 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?709 ?[footnote ?omitted]; ?See ?also ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?1.15. ?273 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?708?709. ?274 ?R. ?v. ?Gladue, ?[1999] ?1 ?SCR ?688, ?171 ?DLR ?(4th) ?385; ?R. ?v. ?Ipeelee, ?2012 ?SCC ?13, ?[2012] ?1 ?SCR ?433; ?See ?also ?Allan ?Manson, ?The ?Law ?of ?Sentencing, ?Essentials ?of ?Canadian ?Law ?(Toronto: ?Irwin ?Law, ?2001) ?at ?95?96. ? ? 69 ?responsibility ?of ?the ?offender.?275 ?Courts ?must ?give ?this ?principle ?precedence ?over ?all ?others.276 ? ? ? To ?fashion ?a ?proportionate ?sentence, ?courts ?must ?consider ?and ?weigh ?the ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?circumstances ?in ?each ?case.277 ?The ?Criminal ?Code ?requires ?that ?courts ?consider ?some ?factors ?as ?aggravating: ?namely, ?evidence ?that ?offenders, ?in ?committing ?the ?offence, ?abused ?their ?spouse, ?abused ?a ?person ?under ?18 ?years ?old, ?abused ?a ?position ?of ?trust ?or ?authority, ?or ?had ?a ?significant ?impact ?on ?the ?survivor.278 ? ? ? Courts ?have ?typically ?construed ?other ?circumstances ?as ?either ?aggravating ?or ?mitigating, ?whether ?in ?sexual ?or ?other ?offences. ?For ?all ?offences, ?courts ?generally ?consider ?excessive ?violence, ?the ?use ?of ?weapons, ?and ?premeditation ?as ?aggravating;279 ?conversely, ?courts ?count ?impulsivity ?and ?outside ?factors ?that ?are ?seen ?to ?contribute ?to ?offending, ?like ?addiction ?or ?intoxication, ?in ?mitigation.280 ?Courts ?also ?assess ?the ?criminal ?histories ?of ?offenders, ?considering ?a ?criminal ?record, ?particularly ?for ?similar ?offences, ?as ?aggravating281 ?and ?a ?lack ?of ?a ?criminal ?record ?as ?mitigating.282 ?Generally ?courts ?treat ?good ?backgrounds,283 ?or ?extra-??legal ?consequences ?such ?as ?disgrace ?or ?loss ?of ?employment ?as ?mitigating ?factors.284 ?Courts ?often ?treat ?guilty ?pleas, ?expressions ?of ?remorse, ?a ?change ?of ?attitude, ?efforts ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?275 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.1. ?276 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?2.5?2.6; ?See ?also ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?84?86. ?277 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?2.7?2.9. ?278 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a). ?279 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?5.4?5.5, ?5.140?5.143, ?23.312, ?23.315, ?23.344. ?280 ?Ibid, ?sec ?5.9, ?5.49, ?5.254?5.259, ?5.288, ?23.308?23.309, ?23.328, ?23.330. ?281 ?Ibid, ?sec ?8.2?8.11, ?8.85?8.90, ?23.314?23.320, ?23.337. ?This ?factor ?must ?also ?now ?be ?considered ?aggravating ?pursuant ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?724(3)(e). ?282 ?Ibid, ?sec ?8.13?8.16, ?23.306, ?23.332. ?283 ?Ibid, ?sec ?5.90, ?23.306. ?284 ?Ibid, ?sec ?5.209?5.210, ?5.244?5.253, ?23.336. ? ? 70 ?at ?rehabilitation, ?and ?willingness ?to ?get ?treatment ?as ?mitigating; ? ?however ?courts ?generally ?do ?not ?penalize ?offenders ?for ?not ?pleading ?guilty, ?and ?will ?not ?usually ?treat ?this ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor.285 ? ? ? Although ?sentencing ?is ?an ?individual ?process, ?courts ?must ?adhere ?to ?the ?principle ?of ?parity: ?there ?should ?be ?no ?unjustified ?disparity ?in ?the ?sentences ?of ?offenders ?who ?committed ?like ?offences ?in ?like ?circumstances.286 ?As ?a ?result, ?courts ?often ?look ?to ?the ?sentences ?ordered ?in ?prior, ?similar ?cases. ?Courts ?must ?also ?ensure ?that ?sentences ?meet ?the ?totality ?principle, ?that ?is, ?the ?sentence ?does ?not ?outstrip ?the ?offender?s ?responsibility, ?a ?consideration ?that ?often ?arises ?when ?an ?offender ?is ?sentenced ?for ?multiple ?sentences ?to ?run ?consecutively.287 ? ? ? The ?procedural ?approach ?to ?sentencing ?is ?largely ?at ?the ?discretion ?of ?the ?trial ?court. ?The ?strict ?rules ?of ?evidence ?do ?not ?apply: ?evidence ?that ?would ?otherwise ?be ?inadmissible ?during ?the ?trial ?portion ?can ?be ?admitted ?at ?sentencing ?as ?long ?as ?it ?is ?both ?reliable ?and ?credible.288 ? ? ? Findings ?of ?fact ?for ?sentencing ?are ?based ?on ?information ?disclosed ?at ?trial ?and ?during ?sentencing ?as ?well ?as ?agreed ?facts.289 ?Many ?convictions ?result ?from ?guilty ?pleas: ?in ?these ?cases, ?offenders ?admit ?to ?the ?minimum ?facts ?necessary ?to ?support ?a ?conviction.290 ?For ?sentencing, ?contested ?facts ?must ?be ?established ?on ?a ?balance ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?285 ?Ibid, ?sec ?5.92, ?5.100?5.112, ?5.211?5.214, ?6.1?6.10, ?23.305?23.308, ?23.343. ?286 ?Ibid, ?sec ?2.24?2.28, ?2.33; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?92?93 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(b). ?287 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?2.62?2.66; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?102 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(c). ?288 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?3.7?3.8, ?3.147?3.151; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?163?166; ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?ss ?723-??724, ?726.1. ?289 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?3.148 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?724(1); ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?162, ?172. ?290 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?3.13. ? ? 71 ?probabilities, ?except ?aggravating ?factors, ?which ?the ?Crown ?must ?prove ?beyond ?a ?reasonable ?doubt.291 ? ? ? Fundamentally, ?sentencing ?is ?discretionary. ?Although ?legislation ?outlines ?guiding ?principles, ?judges ?are ?still ?given ?discretion ?to ?determine ?sentences ?from ?a ?wide ?range ?of ?possibilities.292 ?Their ?discretion ?will ?not ?be ?interfered ?with ?lightly, ?as ?courts ?of ?appeal ?will ?only ??intervene ?to ?vary ?a ?sentence ?imposed ?at ?trial ?if ?the ?sentence ?is ?demonstrably ?unfit.?293 ? ? In ?accordance ?with ?the ?wide ?discretion ?granted ?in ?sentencing, ?available ?sanctions ?for ?sexual ?offences ?cover ?a ?wide ?range. ?Sexual ?assault ?I ?is ?a ?hybrid ?offence: ?when ?prosecuted ?on ?indictment, ?it ?has ?a ?maximum ?sentence ?of ?ten ?years ?imprisonment ?and, ?when ?the ?survivor ?is ?under ?16 ?years ?old, ?a ?minimum ?sentence ?of ?one ?year; ?on ?summary ?conviction ?it ?carries ?a ?maximum ?sentence ?of ?18 ?months ?and ?a ?minimum ?of ?90 ?days ?if ?the ?survivor ?is ?under ?16 ?years ?old.294 ?Both ?sexual ?assault ?II ?and ?III ?are ?indictable ?offences: ?sexual ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm ?has ?a ?maximum ?of ?14 ?years ?imprisonment ?and ?aggravated ?sexual ?assault ?has ?a ?maximum ?of ?life ?imprisonment. ?Both ?carry ?five-??year ?minimums ?when ?the ?survivor ?is ?under ?16 ?years ?old ?and ?specific ?minimums ?when ?a ?firearm ?is ?used ?in ?the ?offence.295 ? ? Sexual ?interference, ?invitation ?to ?sexual ?touching, ?and ?sexual ?exploitation ?are ?all ?hybrid ?offences ?and ?carry ?the ?same ?penalty ?as ?sexual ?assault ?I.296 ?Incest ?is ?a ?more ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?291 ?Ibid, ?sec ?3.138?1.139, ?3.145; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?172?173; ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?724(3). ?292 ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?56?61, ?80. ?293 ?R. ?v. ?M.(C.A.), ?[1996] ?1 ?SCR ?500, ?105 ?CCC ?(3d) ?327 ?at ?565 ?[cited ?to ?SCR], ?cited ?in ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?4.5 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ?294 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?271. ?295 ?Ibid, ?ss ?272(2), ?273(2). ?296 ?Ibid, ?ss ?151, ?152, ?153(1.1). ? ? ? 72 ?serious ?crime: ?it ?is ?an ?indictable ?offence ?that, ?when ?committed ?against ?someone ?under ?16, ?carries ?a ?minimum ?of ?five ?years ?and ?a ?maximum ?of ?14 ?years ?imprisonment.297 ? ? As ?well, ?Long ?Term ?Offender ?designations ?(as ?well ?as ?Dangerous ?Offender ?designations) ?can ?be ?made ?for ?offenders ?who ?have ?been ?convicted ?of ?a ?sexual ?offence ?in ?order ?to ?prevent ?further ?crime.298 ?An ?offender ?can ?be ?found ?a ?long-??term ?offender ?if ?a ?prison ?sentence ?of ?two ?years ?or ?more ?is ?appropriate, ??there ?is ?a ?substantial ?risk? ?he ?will ?reoffend, ?and ??there ?is ?a ?reasonable ?possibility ?of ?eventual ?control ?of ?the ?risk ?in ?the ?community.?299 ?Offenders ?can ?also ?be ?designated ?as ?dangerous ?offenders:300 ?this ?category ?is ?reserved ?for ?offenders ?the ?court ?does ?not ?reasonably ?believe ?can ?be ?rehabilitated.301 ? ? ? Clearly, ?there ?is ?a ?wide ?scope ?among ?sentences ?available ?for ?sexual ?offenders. ?Courts ?can ?order ?incarceration ?for ?nearly ?any ?amount ?of ?time. ?In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?can ?order ?imprisonment ?to ?be ?served ?in ?multiple ?ways, ?including ?as ?conditional ?sentences, ?which ?are ?served ?in ?the ?community,302 ?and ?as ?intermittent ?sentences ?for ?terms ?of ?90 ?days ?or ?less.303 ?As ?well, ?alternatives ?to ?incarceration ?are ?sometimes ?available, ?typically ?for ?offences ?considered ?less ?serious: ?absolute ?or ?conditional ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?297 ?Ibid, ?s ?155(2). ?298 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?17.1?17.3, ?17.68. ?299 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?753.1(1). ?300 ?Ibid, ?s ?753. ?301 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?17.73. ?302 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?742.1 ?303 ?Ibid, ?s ?732(1) ?[when ?the ?offender ?is ?sentenced ?to ?imprisonment ?for ?less ?than ?two ?years, ?has ?no ?minimum ?sentence, ?and ?sexual ?assault ?is ?not ?proceeded ?by ?way ?of ?indictment ?(a ?recent ?amendment ?limiting ?its ?application)]. ? ? ? 73 ?discharges,304 ?probation,305 ?and ?restitution.306 ?These ?different ?forms ?of ?punishment ?relate ?to ?the ?belief ?that ?imprisonment ?should ?be ?a ??sanction ?of ?last ?resort?.307 ? ? However, ?the ?more ?recent ?reforms ?to ?sentencing ?in ?2012 ?have ?restricted ?the ?discretion ?of ?judges ?to ?order ?alternative ?sentences, ?requiring ?judges ?to ?order ?incarceration ?more ?often.308 ?These ?reforms ?introduced ?mandatory ?minimum ?sentences ?for ?the ?three ?levels ?of ?sexual ?assault ?and ?incest ?when ?committed ?against ?survivors ?under ?16 ?years ?old ?and ?increased ?the ?length ?of ?existing ?mandatory ?minimums ?for ?offences ?specific ?to ?children ?and ?youth.309 ?At ?the ?same ?time, ?amendments ?also ?restricted ?the ?availability ?of ?conditional ?sentences. ?First ?introduced ?in ?1996 ?as ?a ?part ?of ?the ?sentence ?reforms ?that ?promoted ?reparation ?and ?restorative ?justice ?in ?tandem ?with ?denunciation ?and ?deterrence, ?conditional ?sentences ?were ?initially ?available ?to ?offenders ?sentenced ?to ?less ?than ?two ?years.310 ?However, ?the ?2012 ?amendments ?limited ?their ?availability ?to ?sexual ?offenders ?who ?are ?convicted ?on ?summary ?conviction,311 ?to ?reduce ?their ?perceived ?overuse ?in ?serious ?violent ?offences, ?including ?sexual ?assault.312 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?304 ?Ibid, ?s ?730(1) ?[when ?there ?is ?no ?minimum ?penalty ?prescribed ?and ?the ?maximum ?sentence ?is ?not ?14 ?years ?or ?life ?imprisonment]. ?305 ?Ibid, ?s ?731(1)&(2) ?[in ?lieu ?of ?imprisonment ?where ?no ?minimum ?sentence ?is ?dictated, ?when ?the ?offender ?is ?sentenced ?to ?two ?years? ?imprisonment ?or ?less, ?or ?when ?the ?offender ?is ?given ?a ?discharge]. ?306 ?Ibid, ?s ?738(1). ?307 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?13.1. ?308 ?Bill ?C-??10, ?An ?Act ?to ?enact ?the ?Justice ?for ?Victims ?of ?Terrorism ?Act ?and ?to ?amend ?the ?State ?Immunity ?Act, ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?the ?Controlled ?Drugs ?and ?Substances ?Act, ?the ?Corrections ?and ?Conditional ?Release ?Act, ?the ?Youth ?Criminal ?Justice ?Act, ?the ?Immigration ?and ?Refugee ?Protection ?Act ?and ?other ?Acts, ?1st ?Sess, ?41st ?Parl, ?2011-??12 ?(assented ?to ?13 ?March ?2012), ?SC ?2012, ?c ?1. ?309 ?Laura ?Barnett ?et ?al, ?Legislative ?Summary: ?Bill ?C-??10: ?An ?Act ?to ?enact ?the ?Justice ?for ?Victims ?of ?Terrorism ?Act ?and ?to ?amend ?the ?State ?Immunity ?Act, ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?the ?Controlled ?Drugs ?and ?Substances ?Act, ?the ?Corrections ?and ?Conditional ?Release ?Act, ?the ?Youth ?Criminal ?Justice ?Act, ?the ?Immigration ?and ?Refugee ?Protection ?Act ?and ?other ?Acts, ?Legislative ?Summary ?(Ottawa: ?Library ?of ?Parliament, ?Parliamentary ?Information ?and ?Research ?Service, ?2011) ?at ?26?30. ?310 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?709; ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?15.1?15.19. ?311 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?15.4?15.5 ?citing ?Bill ?C-??10, ?supra ?note ?308, ?c ?34. ?312 ?Barnett ?et ?al, ?supra ?note ?309 ?at ?59?60. ? ? 74 ? ? The ?prior ?and ?more ?recent ?amendments ?exhibit ?a ?tension ?between ?different ?beliefs ?in ?the ?value ?of ?incarceration. ?Historically, ?incarceration ?has ?been ?believed ?to ?deter ?and ?rehabilitate ?offenders ?while ?also ?protecting ?the ?community ?through ?separation; ?however, ?these ?ideas ?have ?been ?subject ?to ?significant ?debate ?and ?critique,313 ?including ?from ?some ?feminist ?scholars. ? ?Divergent ?Feminist ?Approaches ?and ?Overarching ?Concerns ? ? Unlike ?the ?substantive ?law ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?the ?current ?model ?of ?sentencing ?has ?not ?been ?shaped ?significantly ?by ?feminist ?scholarship; ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?generally ?paid ?less ?attention ?to ?sentencing.314 ?However, ?as ?I ?discuss ?in ?what ?follows, ?there ?are ?nonetheless ?two ?camps. ?As ?a ?part ?of ?feminist ?demands ?for ?the ?law ?to ?recognize ?sexual ?offences ?as ?serious, ?feminist ?advocacy ?has ?implicitly, ?and ?in ?some ?cases ?explicitly, ?supported ?longer ?sentences. ?More ?recently, ?some ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?questioned ?this ?approach, ?believing ?that ?more ?incarceration ?will ?not ?ultimately ?lead ?us ?where ?we ?want ?to ?go: ?a ?society ?without ?sexual ?violence.315 ?Although ?I ?share ?their ?concerns, ?I ?nonetheless ?think ?that ?the ?study ?of ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?is ?worthwhile: ?below, ?I ?explain ?my ?belief ?that ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?is ?necessary ?for ?the ?protection ?of ?women ?and ?that ?feminist ?analysis ?is ?critical ?to ?pushing ?the ?system ?towards ?an ?approach ?that ?enhances ?equality. ? ? ? ?Feminist ?advocates ?who ?sought ?legal ?reforms ?aimed ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?offending ?as ?well ?as ?have ?it ?recognized ?as ?a ?serious ?violent ?crime; ?however, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?313 ?See ?generally ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?13.4?13.7; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?43?49; ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?733?735. ?314 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?728; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?724. ?315 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?728. ? ? 75 ?neoliberalism ?removed ?the ?focus ?from ?context ?in ?favour ?of ?individual ?rationality ?and ?responsibility. ?Under ?this ?understanding, ?it ?became ?more ?appropriate ?to ?punish ?and ?penalize ?individual ?offenders ?harshly ?for ?their ?criminal ?behaviour. ?As ?a ?result, ?feminist ?discourse ?that ?called ?for ?more ?serious ?punishment ?to ?reflect ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?offences ?had ?the ?most ?political ?traction; ?these ?statements ?were ?co-??opted ?by ?the ?law ?and ?order ?movement ?to ?increase ?the ?power ?and ?reach ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system.316 ? ? ? When ?the ?audible ?voices ?for ?reform ?were ?calling ?for ?longer ?and ?harsher ?sentences, ?feminist ?advocacy ?split ?into ?two ?directions. ?Some ?continued ?to ?work ?for ?reforms ?within ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault, ??making ?a ?virtue ?out ?of ?the ?necessity ?of ?working ?within ?an ?oppressive ?system?317 ?to ?make ?the ?law ?equitable ?and ?remove ?the ?discriminatory ?barriers ?to ?convictions ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ?As ?a ?part ?of ?this, ?some ?pushed ?for ?longer ?sentences ?to ?reflect ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?violence.318 ?They ?sought ?to ?right ?the ?injustice ?the ?law ?had ?perpetrated ?against ?women ?and ?children ?by ?ignoring ?sexual ?violence ?and ?absolving ?offenders.319 ? ? ? ? Other ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?actively ?resisted ?the ?idea ?that ?the ?recognition ?of ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?violence ?must ?entail ?harsher ?punishment.320 ?Some, ?such ?as ?Clark ?and ?Lewis, ?recognized ?the ?historical ?connection ?between ?draconian ?penalties ?and ?low ?conviction ?rates ?so ?argued ?for ?lower ?sentences ?to ?increase ?convictions ?and ?therefore ?accountability.321 ?Others ?more ?fundamentally ?questioned ?the ?unlikely ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?316 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?128?132; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?155?157. ?317 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?157. ?318 ?Ibid ?at ?166. ?319 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?726?728, ?732?733. ?320 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?158?159. ?321 ?Clark ?& ?Lewis, ?supra ?note ?14 ?at ?57; ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?732?733. ? ? 76 ?alliance ?between ?the ?law ?and ?order ?movement ?and ?feminism ?and ?interrogated ?the ?purpose ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?and ?incarceration, ?ultimately ?decrying ?the ?perverse ?and ?discriminatory ?effects ?the ?move ?towards ?criminalization ?has ?had.322 ?They ?posit ?that, ?fundamentally, ?a ?greater ?recognition ?of ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?violence ?does ?not ?eliminate ?bias ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?or ?the ?punishment ?that ?it ?doles ?out ?because ?the ?status ?quo ?power ?structure ?remains ?undisturbed.323 ?As ?stated ?by ?Laureen ?Snider, ??[t]o ?the ?extent ?that ?feminism ?succeeds ?in ?extending ?punishment, ?it ?widens ?the ?net ?of ?social ?control ?over ?those ?men ?and ?women ?who ?are ?vulnerable ?to ?arrest ?and ?incarceration ?because ?of ?their ?class, ?ethnicity, ?race ?or ?gender.?324 ? ? ? Moreover, ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?found ?that ?the ?emergence ?of ?the ?victims? ?rights ?movement ?has ?not ?benefited ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence: ?victims? ?rights ?are ?understood ?in ?a ?neoliberal ?and ?individualist ?lens, ?not ?a ?feminist ?one, ?rendering ?context ?as ?well ?as ?gender ?and ?other ?inequalities ?invisible ?and ?meaningless.325 ?Many ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence ?do ?not ?fit ?the ?idealized ?image ?of ?real ?victims ?under ?this ?model ?because ?it ?reproduces ?gendered, ?racial, ?class, ?and ?other ?discriminatory ?stereotypes ?in ?its ?notion ?of ?who ?a ?worthy ?victim ?is.326 ?Because ?of ?the ?negative ?consequences ?of ?criminal ?and ?state ?intervention ?on ?women?s ?lives, ?felt ?most ?deeply ?by ?Aboriginal, ?racialized ?and ?impoverished ?women, ?feminist ?advocates ?have ?also ?questioned ?the ?use ?of ?police ?and ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?ahead ?of ?community ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?322 ?See ?e.g. ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68; ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69. ?323 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?160?161. ?324 ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?77. ?325 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?1326; ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?666?670. ?326 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?157?158; ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?675, ?686?687. ? ? 77 ?resources, ?which ?they ?argue ?may ?better ?support ?women ?and ?keep ?them ?safe.327 ?For ?example, ?this ?approach ?is ?taken ?by ?INCITE!, ?a ?movement ?of ?women ?of ?colour ?who ?seek ?to ?end ?violence ?but ?also ?to ?keep ?the ?racist ?policies ?and ?practices ?of ?the ?state ?out ?of ?women?s ?lives.328 ? ? ? Incarceration ?causes ?a ?great ?deal ?of ?concern ?and ?disagreement ?within ?feminist ?scholarship. ?Many ?feminist ?scholars ?are ?deeply ?troubled ?by ?the ?discrimination ?against ?disadvantaged, ?Aboriginal, ?racialized, ?and ?poor ?offenders ?evident ?in ?sentencing.329 ?Feminist ?scholars ?are ?concerned ?about ?the ?hyper-??masculine ?gender ?identities ?and ?inhumanity ?fostered ?within ?the ?prison ?system, ?which ?may ?incline ?offenders ?towards ?violence ?rather ?than ?rehabilitation.330 ?If ?sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?product ?of ?a ??culture ?of ?misogyny?, ?the ?rationale ?and ?ethics ?of ?scapegoating ?and ?punishing ?individual ?offenders, ?often ?themselves ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?abuse, ?and ?discrimination, ?must ?be ?critically ?examined.331 ?Feminist ?scholars ?are ?concerned ?that, ?to ?teach ?non-??violence, ?the ?violence ?of ?incarceration ?can ?never ?be ?effective.332 ?Most ?basically, ?Snider ?warns ?that, ??[f]eminism, ?a ?movement ?rooted ?in ?amelioration ?and ?empowerment, ?should ?look ?carefully ?before ?embracing ?policies ?which ?have ?historically ?offered ?little ?of ?either.?333 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?327 ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?85?91; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?185?188. ?328 ?INCITE! ?Women ?of ?Color ?Against ?Violence, ?online: ?INCITE! ?<http://incite-??national.org/index.php?s=35>. ?329 ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?86?87; ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?152?153, ?162?164, ?171; ?See ?also ?Nancy ?A ?Wonders, ??Determinate ?Sentencing: ?A ?Feminist ?and ?Postmodern ?Story? ?(1996) ?13 ?Just ?Q ?611 ?[how ?determinate ?sentencing ?reproduces ?inequalities ?and ?discrimination ?while ?purporting ?to ?be ?fair]. ?330 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?733?735; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?282; ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?87. ?331 ?Backhouse, ??Feminist ?Remedy?, ?supra ?note ?69 ?at ?737. ?332 ?Martin, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?164; ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?77, ?82. ?333 ?Snider, ?supra ?note ?68 ?at ?77. ? ? 78 ? ? These ?concerns ?are ?pressing ?for ?feminist ?scholars. ?Nonetheless, ?I ?do ?not ?think ?they ?should ?prevent ?feminist ?legal ?scholarship ?on ?sentencing. ?Although ?the ?larger ?criminal ?justice ?and ?penal ?systems ?need ?reform, ?this ?need ?is ?not ?specific ?to ?sexual ?offences. ?Due ?to ?low ?reporting ?rates ?and ?high ?attrition ?rates, ?sexual ?offenders ?are ?not ?over-??represented ?in ?the ?system. ?Moreover, ?feminist ?scholars ?must ?necessarily ?grapple ?with ?the ?need ?to ?protect ?women ?and ?children ?from ?sexual ?violence: ?grassroots ?support ?is ?crucial, ?but ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?has ?a ?significant ?role ?to ?play ?in ?protecting ?women ?and ?children ?from ?violence. ?Feminist ?scholarship ?can ?reveal ?whether ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?is ?playing ?its ?role ?in ?a ?way ?promotes ?equality, ?not ?discrimination, ?for ?both ?offenders ?and ?survivors.334 ? ? ? In ?spite ?of ?the ?discrimination ?and ?violence ?within ?the ?law ?in ?general ?and ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?in ?particular, ?some ?scholars ?continue ?to ?seek ?to ?promote ?equality ?through ?the ?law, ?including ?the ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ?I ?join ?in ?this ?effort. ? ? ? I ?now ?leave ?behind ?these ?broad ?concerns ?to ?turn ?to ?a ?review ?of ?some ?of ?the ?specific ?issues ?that ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?identified ?in ?the ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Offenders: ?The ?Law ?and ?Feminist ?Research ? ? Feminist ?scholarship ?has ?been ?less ?robust ?in ?the ?area ?of ?sentencing. ?However, ?some ?scholars ?have ?studied ?aspects ?of ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?to ?determine ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?334 ?For ?feminist ?scholars ?who ?argue ?for ?the ?need ?for ?further ?research ?in ?sentencing ?without ?contributing ?to ?the ?law ?and ?order ?paradigm, ?see ?e.g. ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?133; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?723?724; ?See ?also ?Emma ?Cunliffe ?& ?Angela ?Cameron, ??Writing ?the ?Circle: ?Judicially ?Convened ?Sentencing ?Circles ?and ?the ?Textual ?Organization ?of ?Criminal ?Justice? ?(2007) ?19 ?CJWL ?2; ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40. ? ? 79 ?impact ?of ?reforms ?and ?the ?continuing ?presence ?of ?rape ?myths. ?I ?explore ?some ?of ?the ?studies ?relevant ?to ?my ?thesis ?to ?review ?the ?research ?that ?has ?been ?done ?and ?to ?draw ?on ?these ?analyses ?in ?my ?own ?work. ?They ?provide ?a ?base ?for ?my ?research: ?to ?determine ?if ?B.C. ?courts ?currently ?evince ?myth-??based ?reasoning ?in ?their ?application ?of ?doctrine ?and ?discourse. ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements ? ? Victim ?Impact ?Statements, ?a ?recent ?addition ?to ?the ?sentencing ?process, ?provide ?an ?opportunity ?for ?victims ?of ?crime ?to ?tell ?the ?court, ?in ?their ?own ?words, ?about ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?offence ?on ?them. ?According ?to ?section ?722(1) ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?courts ??shall ?consider? ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements ?created ?in ?the ?proper ?form ?as ?a ?source ?of ?information ?about ?the ?harm ?of ?the ?offence. ?Although ?victims ?may ?describe ?the ?harm ?they ?suffered, ?they ?cannot ?express ?recommendations ?for ?length ?of ?sentence ?unless ?they ?recommend ?lenience.335 ? ? In ?the ?sense ?that ?they ?provide ?survivors ?with ?a ?voice ?in ?sentencing ?proceedings, ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements ?are ?supposed ?to ?ameliorate ?their ?experiences ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system. ?However, ?as ?Rakhi ?Ruparelia ?argued ?in ??All ?That ?Glitters ?Is ?Not ?Gold: ?The ?False ?Promise ?of ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements?, ?this ?supposed ?success ?of ?the ?victims? ?rights ?movement ?has ?had ?perverse ?and ?unequal ?effects ?for ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?a ?consequence ?that ?is ?unsurprising ?given ?the ?lack ?of ?feminist ?and ?anti-??racist ?influence ?in ?the ?victims? ?rights ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?335 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?19.6?19.7, ?19.20?19.32; ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?195?196 ?citing ?R. ?v. ?Gabriel ?(1999), ?137 ?CCC ?(3d) ?1, ?26 ?CR ?(5th) ?364 ?at ?382-??89 ?(Ont ?SC) ?[cited ?to ?CR]. ? ? 80 ?movement.336 ?Instead, ?she ?found ?that ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements ?were ?underused ?by ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and, ?when ?they ?were ?used, ?they ?functioned ?to ?perpetuate ?systemic ?sexism ?and ?racism ?by ?their ?reliance ?on ?perceptions ?of ?worthiness ?and ?eloquence ?of ?survivors ?grounded ?in ?rape ?myths ?that ?devalue ?and ?discredit ??non-??ideal ?victims?, ?particularly ?Aboriginal, ?racialized, ?and ?poor ?survivors.337 ? ?Judicial ?Characterizations ?of ?Offences: ?Aggravating ?and ?Mitigating ?Factors ?and ?their ?Impact ?on ?Outcomes ? ? To ?achieve ?proportionality,338 ?judges ?identify ?circumstances ?that ?make ?an ?offence ?more ?or ?less ?grave ?and ?an ?offender ?more ?or ?less ?responsible. ?Typically, ?judges ?explicitly ?identify ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?circumstances. ?However, ?they ?may ?also ?imply ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors: ?in ?written ?sentencing ?judgments, ?judges ?may ?simply ?comment ?about ?the ?offence ?or ?the ?offender ?or ?choose ?words, ?terms ?or ?grammatical ?constructions ?that ?convey ?views ?of ?harm ?and ?wrong. ? ? ? ? Feminist ?scholars ?have ?found ?that ?the ?circumstances ?judges ?identify, ?apply ?and ?weigh ?sometimes ?reveal ?rape ?myths. ?A ?finding ?of ?guilt, ?as ?it ?turns ?out, ?does ?not ?prevent ?bias ?against ?survivors: ?as ?stated ?by ?Patricia ?Marshall, ??[i]n ?cases ?where ?an ?assaulter ?has ?been ?found ?guilty, ?clear ?evidence ?that ?a ?crime ?took ?place ?is ?no ?guarantee ?that ?the ?judge ?understood ?either ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?crime ?or ?its ?impact ?on ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?336 ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?666?667. ?337 ?Ibid ?at ?687?692. ?338 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.1. ? ? 81 ?the ?victim.?339 ?Feminist ?scholars ?have ?also ?linked ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?to ?sentence ?outcomes. ? ? ? Marshall ?conducted ?research ?on ?sentencing ?decisions ?from ?the ?early ?1980s. ?In ?her ?sample, ?she ?found ?that ?judges ?failed ?to ?characterize ?sexual ?assaults ?as ?inherently ?violent ?and ?coercive ?and ?used ?the ?supposed ?absence ?of ?violence ?in ?mitigation.340 ?Judges ?minimized ?offenders? ?responsibility ?by ?portraying ?offences ?as ?mistakes ?or ?out-??of-??character ?acts, ?particularly ?in ?cases ?of ?middle-??class ?offenders ?who ?were ?seen ?as ?good ?candidates ?for ?rehabilitation. ?Judges ?blamed ?survivors ?for ?provocation ?for ?being ?seductive, ?and ?offender?s ?wives ?for ?duress ?for ?failing ?to ?fulfill ?offender?s ?sexual ??needs?, ?citing ?these ?as ?mitigating ?factors.341 ? ? ? In ?the ?early ?1990s, ?Paula ?E. ?Pasquali ?analyzed ?all ?sexual ?assault ?sentencing ?cases ?from ?Yukon ?courts ?for ?an ?18-??month ?period ?in ?1988 ?and ?1989.342 ?In ?these ?cases, ?she ?found ?that ?judges ?often ?ignored ?survivors ?entirely ?or ?failed ?to ?understand ?the ?impact ?of ?sexual ?violence ?on ?them: ?only ?once ?did ?a ?court ?consider ?the ?impact ?on ?the ?survivor ?aggravating; ?courts ?typically ?determined ?there ?was ?no ?evidence ?of ?lasting ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor.343 ?Pasquali ?also ?found ?that ?judges ?regularly ?relied ?on ?evidentiary ?gaps ?together ?with ?their ?own ?assumptions ?about ?sexual ?violence ?in ?mitigation, ?for ?example, ?determining ?that ?there ?was ?no ?evidence ?of ?violence ?because ?a ?survivor ?did ?not ?resist,344 ?and ?generally ?used ?problematic ?reasoning ?about ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?339 ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?219. ?340 ?Ibid ?at ?220?221, ?223. ?341 ?Ibid ?at ?220?222. ?342 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?4. ?343 ?Ibid ?at ?42?49. ?344 ?Ibid ?at ?22, ?27. ? ? 82 ?violence, ?harm, ?and ?responsibility.345 ?A ?significant ?part ?of ?this ?was ?the ?construction ?of ?offender ?responsibility. ?Judges ?considered ?it ?mitigating ?if ?offenders ?had ?respectable ?backgrounds ?or ?high ?statuses ?in ?the ?community, ?finding ?them ?less ?likely ?to ?reoffend, ?and ?attributed ?sexual ?offences ?to ?intoxication, ?questionable ?presumptions ?made ?in ?the ?absence ?of ?any ?evidence.346 ?In ?1994, ?two ?works ?about ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?were ?published ?in ?one ?book. ?Renate ?M. ?Mohr, ?in ??Sexual ?Assault ?Sentencing: ?Leaving ?Justice ?to ?Individual ?Conscience?, ?looked ?at ?court ?of ?appeal ?judgments ?relating ?to ?sexual ?offenders ?from ?1983 ?to ?1991.347 ?She ?examined ?the ?disparity ?in ?sentencing ?approaches ?among ?courts ?of ?appeal ?in ?Canada ?and ?the ?influence ?of ?the ?three ?levels ?of ?sexual ?assault ?on ?the ?lengths ?of ?sentence ?ordered. ?She ?found ?that ?offenders ?were ?frequently ?convicted ?of ?a ?less ?serious ?offence ?than ?the ?facts ?supported.348 ?Of ?particular ?relevance ?to ?my ?work, ?she ?found ?that ?courts ?often ?failed ?to ?consider ?any ?factors ?related ?to ?survivors349 ?and ?gave ?offenders ?significantly ?longer ?sentences ?when ?they ?sexually ?assaulted ?strangers, ?compared ?to ?those ?who ?assaulted ?acquaintances.350 ?In ?the ?same ?book, ?Teressa ?Nahanee ?focused ?on ?sentencing ?of ?Inuit ?offenders ?in ??Sexual ?Assault ?of ?Inuit ?Females: ?A ?Comment ?on ??Cultural ?Bias??. ?She ?critiqued ?the ?discrimination ?evident ?in ?some ?sentencing ?decisions ?that ?implied ?that ?sexual ?assault ?is ?less ?harmful ?to ?Inuit ?females ?because ?of ?the ?stereotype ?that ?they ?become ?sexual ?at ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?345 ?Ibid ?at ?23?41. ?346 ?Ibid ?at ?31. ?347 ?Renate ?M ?Mohr, ??Sexual ?Assault ?Sentencing: ?Leaving ?Justice ?to ?Individual ?Conscience? ?in ?Julian ?V ?Roberts ?& ?Renate ?M ?Mohr, ?eds, ?Confronting ?Sexual ?Assault: ?A ?Decade ?of ?Legal ?and ?Social ?Change ?(Toronto: ?University ?of ?Toronto ?Press, ?1994) ?157 ?at ?159. ?348 ?Ibid ?at ?164?167. ?349 ?Ibid ?at ?171?176. ?350 ?Ibid ?at ?178?181. ? ? 83 ?a ?young ?age ?and ?their ?sexual ?assault ?is ?an ?aspect ?of ?Inuit ?culture.351 ?This ??cultural ?defence? ?as ?well ?as ?the ?use ?of ?intoxication ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor ?resulted ?in ?lighter ?sentences, ?a ?sentencing ?pattern ?that ?she ?argued ?infringes ?Inuit ?females? ?equality ?rights.352 ? ? ? Ronit ?Dinovitzer ?has ?also ?studied ?the ?relationship ?between ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors ?and ?sentence ?outcomes. ?Her ?research ?centred ?on ?the ?interaction ?between ?the ?judicial ?perceptions ?of ?mental ?illness ?and ?sentence ?length. ?In ?her ?regression ?analysis ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?cases ?from ?August ?1992 ?to ?August ?1993 ?from ?the ?Canadian ?Sentencing ?Digest,353 ?she ?found ?that ?judges ?imposed ?longer ?sentences ?when ?they ?perceived ?that ?offenders ?had ?a ?mental ?illness ?and ?used ?force ?in ?the ?offence. ?When ?both ?factors ?were ?present, ?they ?operated ?in ?aggravation.354 ?This ?finding ?revealed ?dissonance ?between ?what ?judges ?said ?they ?were ?doing, ?relying ?on ?mental ?disorder ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor, ?and ?what ?they ?actually ?did.355 ?Using ?labeling ?theory, ?she ?found ?that ?these ?offenders ?were ?discursively ?characterized ?as ?outside ?the ?realm ?of ??normal? ?offenders ?and ?instead ?as ??dangerous ?offenders?, ?even ?though ?they ?were ?not ?legally ?categorized ?as ?such ?pursuant ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code.356 ? ? Janice ?Du ?Mont ?and ?her ?colleagues ?have ?conducted ?a ?number ?of ?studies ?on ?Ontario ?sexual ?assault ?sentencing ?decisions ?dating ?from ?1993 ?to ?2001 ?on ?the ?relationship ?between ?myths ?about ?sexual ?violence ?in ?sentencing ?factors ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?351 ?Teressa ?Nahanee, ??Sexual ?Assault ?of ?Inuit ?Females: ?A ?Comment ?on ??Cultural ?Bias?? ?in ?Julian ?V ?Roberts ?& ?Renate ?M ?Mohr, ?eds, ?Confronting ?Sexual ?Assault: ?A ?Decade ?of ?Legal ?and ?Social ?Change ?(Toronto: ?University ?of ?Toronto ?Press, ?1994) ?192 ?at ?193?197. ?352 ?Ibid ?at ?196?199. ?353 ?Ronit ?Dinovitzer, ??The ?Myth ?of ?Rapists ?and ?Other ?Normal ?Men: ?The ?Impact ?of ?Psychiatric ?Considerations ?on ?the ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ?Offenders? ?(1997) ?12 ?CJLS ?147 ?at ?155?157. ?354 ?Ibid ?at ?160?164. ?355 ?Ibid ?at ?165?167. ?356 ?Ibid ?at ?164?165 ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?753. ? ? 84 ?sentence ?outcome. ?The ?first ?two ?studies ?empirically ?evaluated ?the ?correlation ?between ?offence ?seriousness ?and ?sentence ?outcomes. ?In ?2003, ?in ??Charging ?and ?Sentencing ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases: ?An ?Exploratory ?Examination?, ?Du ?Mont ?found ?that ?charges ?and ?convictions ?did ?not ?consistently ?reflect ?the ?seriousness ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault ?as ?dictated ?by ?the ?three ?levels ?in ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?with ?some ?offenders ?charged ?and ?convicted ?of ?lesser ?offences. ?She ?also ?found ?that ?factors ?going ?to ?the ?offence?s ?seriousness, ?such ?as ?harm ?suffered ?by ?the ?survivor, ?played ?a ?lesser ?role ?than ?factors ?about ?the ?offender ?in ?sentencing.357 ?She ?worried ?that ?judicial ??discretion ?is ?influenced ?not ?only ?by ?legal ?considerations ?but ?also ?by ?social ?influences ?such ?as ?the ?adherence ?to ?rape ?myths.?358 ? ? ? Du ?Mont, ?Tania ?Forte ?and ?Robin ?F. ?Badgley, ?pursued ?this ?line ?of ?inquiry ?further ?in ?2008 ?in ??Does ?The ?Punishment ?Fit ?The ?Crime? ?Judicial ?Sentencing ?in ?Adolescent ?and ?Adult ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases?. ?They ?looked ?at ?judicial ?consideration ?of ?factors ?relating ?to ?the ?seriousness ?of ?the ?offence ?where ?offenders ?were ?sentenced ?to ?imprisonment.359 ?They ?found ?factors ?reflecting ?the ?offence?s ?gravity ?that ?supported ?stereotypical ?views ?about ?sexual ?assault ?? ?vaginal ?or ?anal ?rape ?and ?use ?of ?a ?weapon ?? ?correlated ?with ?federal, ?and ?therefore ?longer, ?prison ?sentences; ?no ?other ?factors ?reflecting ?offence ?seriousness ?were ?linked ?with ?prison ?sentences.360 ? ? In ?2012, ?Du ?Mont ?and ?Gillian ?Balfour ?studied ?conditional ?sentences ?for ?sexual ?offenders, ?asking ?whether ?judges ?ordered ?them ?on ?the ?basis ?of ?rape ?myths.361 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?357 ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?55 ?at ?326?329. ?358 ?Ibid ?at ?329 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ?359 ?Janice ?Du ?Mont, ?Tania ?Forte ?& ?Robin ?F ?Badgley, ??Does ?the ?Punishment ?Fit ?the ?Crime? ?Judicial ?Sentencing ?in ?Adolescent ?and ?Adult ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases? ?(2008) ?27:2 ?Med ?& ?L ?477 ?at ?487?490. ?360 ?Ibid ?at ?491?494. ?361 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?710. ? ? 85 ?Considering ?whether ?rape ?myths ??appeared ?to ?play ?a ?role ?in ?framing? ?the ?legal ?and ?rape ?narratives ?in ?conditional ?sentencing ?judgments,362 ?they ?found ?judges ?used ?reasoning ?based ?on ?rape ?myths ?modified ?to ?reflect ?neoliberalism. ?Judges ?rendered ?survivors ?invisible ?and ?used ?discourse ?that ?highlighted ?survivors? ?responsibility ?for ?their ?own ?risk-??taking ?and ?protection.363 ?As ?well, ?courts ?justified ?conditional ?sentences ?based ?on ?the ?circumstances ?of ?the ?offender, ?which ?often ?demonstrated ?masculinist ?beliefs ?about ?the ?worthiness ?of ?men ?based ?on ?the ?idealization ?of ?breadwinners ?and ?business ?owners, ?for ?whom ?incarceration ?was ?inappropriate ?and ?their ?risk ?in ?the ?community ?manageable.364 ? ? ? ?Benedet ?has ?also ?analyzed ?sentencing ?decisions, ?specifically, ?ancillary ?orders. ?In ??A ?Victim-??Centred ?Evaluation ?of ?the ?Federal ?Sex ?Offender ?Registry?, ?she ?assessed ?the ?judicial ?interpretation ?of ?exceptions ?from ?the ?registration ?requirements365 ?under ?the ?Sex ?Offender ?Information ?Registration ?Act,366 ?exceptions ?that ?had ?been ?recently ?eliminated ?to ?make ?registration ?of ?sex ?offenders ?mandatory.367 ?She ?determined ?that ?decisions ?on ?applications ?for ?judicial ?exception ?revealed ?the ??persistence ?of ?problematic ?assumptions ?about ?what ?a ??real? ?sex ?offender ?looks ?like.?368 ?In ?the ?case ?law, ?she ?found ?the ?development, ?and ?then ?limiting, ?of ?the ??predatory ?stranger ?model.? ?Using ?this ?model, ?courts ?excepted ?perpetrators ?who ?committed ?offences ?against ?their ?spouses ?or ?against ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?362 ?Ibid ?at ?711. ?363 ?Ibid ?at ?712?717. ?364 ?Ibid ?at ?717?722. ?365 ?Formerly ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s. ?490.012(4). ?366 ?Sex ?Offender ?Information ?Registration ?Act, ?SC ?2004, ?c ?10. ?367 ?Bill ?S-??2, ?Protecting ?Victims ?from ?Sex ?Offenders ?Act, ?3rd ?Sess, ?40th ?Parl, ?2010, ?SC ?2010, ?c ?17. ?368 ?Janine ?Benedet, ??A ?Victim-??Centred ?Evaluation ?of ?the ?Federal ?Sex ?Offender ?Registry? ?(2012) ?37:2 ?Queen?s ?LJ ?437 ?at ?440 ?[?Registry?]. ? ? 86 ?acquaintances, ?were ?middle-??class ?or ?professionals, ?or ?were ?generally ?perceived ?to ?not ?be ??predatory.?369 ? ?Discursive ?Analysis: ?Attributions ?in ?Judicial ?Constructions ? ? ? The ?sentencing ?of ?sexual ?offenders ?has ?also ?attracted ?discursive ?analysis. ?As ?I ?discussed ?above, ?studies ?have ?looked ?at ?whether ?judicial ?language ?in ?trial ?decisions ?reflects ?stereotypes ?or ?biases. ?Similar ?studies ?have ?been ?conducted ?on ?sentencing ?decisions, ?assessing ?whether ?language ?choices ?are ?correlated ?with ?sentence ?outcome. ? ? Coates, ?often ?with ?her ?colleagues, ?has ?studied ?the ?language ?of ?judges ?and ?sentence ?length. ?In ?her ?1997 ?study ?of ?B.C. ?sentencing ?decisions ?from ?1986 ?to ?1994 ?entitled ??Causal ?Attributions ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments?, ?Coates ?used ?an ?empirical ?methodology ?to ?correlate ?judicial ?language ?of ??causal ?attributions? ?to ?the ?length ?of ?sentences.370 ?She ?discovered ?that ?judges ?often ?depicted ?the ?causes ?of ?sexual ?offences ?as ?non-??violent, ?including ?psychological ?or ?sexual, ?decontextualized ?from ?offences, ?and ?arising ?from ?an ?external ?circumstance ?rather ?than ?something ?within ?the ?offender?s ?control.371 ?She ?also ?found ?that ?nonviolent ?attributions, ?and ?all ?three ?attributions ?together, ?correlated ?with ?shorter ?sentences.372 ? ? ? With ?Allan ?Wade, ?Coates ?elaborated ?on ?this ?topic ?in ?2004. ?In ?sexual ?assault ?trial ?and ?sentencing ?judgments ?from ?British ?Columbia ?and ?the ?Yukon ?from ?1986 ?to ?1993, ?they ?found ?that ?judges ?described ?violence ?in ?mutual ?and ?erotic ?language ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?369 ?Ibid ?at ?449?462. ?370 ?Linda ?Coates, ??Causal ?Attributions ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments? ?(1997) ?16 ?Journal ?of ?Language ?and ?Social ?Psychology ?278 ?at ?283?284. ?371 ?Ibid ?at ?289. ?372 ?Ibid ?at ?290?291, ?293. ? ? 87 ?commonly ?attributed ?sexual ?offences ?to ??psychological ?theories ?and ?concepts?, ?most ?usually ?alcohol ?and ?drug ?addiction ?or ?sexual ?dissatisfaction ?and ?deviance.373 ?These ?causal ?explanations ??were ?psychologizing ?attributions; ?that ?is, ?they ?functioned ?to ?conceal ?violence ?or ?reduce ?the ?offender?s ?responsibility.?374 ?As ?a ?result, ?judges ?recommended ?offenders ?receive ?counselling ?for ?psychological ?issues ?other ?than ?their ?propensity ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence.375 ?E. Incomplete ?Knowledge ? ? In ?sexual ?offence ?law ?and ?sentencing, ?discriminatory ?myths ?have ?found ?their ?way ?into ?both ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?language. ?They ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?both ?the ?law ?as ?interpreted ?and ?applied ?and ?the ?narratives ?and ?attributions ?in ?judicial ?discourse. ?Feminist-??inspired ?reforms ?have ?eliminated ?rape ?myths ?in ?formal ?statements ?of ?the ?law; ?however, ?recent ?scholarship ?has ?demonstrated ?that ?myths ?and ?discrimination ?continue ?within ?the ?law?s ?application. ? ? Although ?a ?significant ?amount ?of ?research ?has ?been ?conducted ?on ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing, ?the ?state ?of ?knowledge ?is ?incomplete. ?Specifically, ?no ?contemporary ?research ?has ?been ?conducted ?on ?B.C. ?sentencing ?decisions ?generally ?to ?determine ?if ?rape ?myths ?continue ?to ?surface. ?Most ?analyses ?focus ?on ?trial ?decisions, ?including ?procedural ?applications ?and ?acquittals/convictions. ?Although ?some ?scholars ?have ?looked ?at ?sentencing, ?including ?Du ?Mont, ?Coates, ?and ?their ?colleagues, ?their ?research ?is ?limited. ?The ?most ?comprehensive ?studies, ?looking ?at ?sentencing ?as ?a ?whole ?for ?the ?purpose ?of ?identifying ?myths, ?is ?dated, ?studying ?cases ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?373 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?8?18. ?374 ?Ibid ?at ?10. ?375 ?Ibid ?at ?18. ? ? 88 ?in ?the ?1970s, ?1980s ?and ?1990s, ?during ?the ?time ?Parliament ?was ?reforming ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?and ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?was ?actively ?interpreting ?and ?shaping ?reforms. ?These ?studies ?are ?also ?often ?limited ?jurisdictionally, ?with ?the ?most ?recent ?studies ?on ?case ?law ?in ?the ?later ?1990s ?to ?present ?addressing ?only ?Ontario ?cases ?or ?confined ?to ?particular ?aspects ?of ?sentencing ?or ?sentence ?outcomes. ?The ?existing ?literature ?is ?illuminating ?about ?the ?use ?of ?myths ?in ?sentencing, ?but ?it ?is ?far ?from ?comprehensive. ? ? I ?will ?build ?on ?the ?existing ?knowledge ?that ?suggests ?that ?discriminatory ?myths ?continue ?to ?be ?used ?in ?sentencing ?to ?contribute ?to ?the ?scholarship ?in ?a ?critical ?area ?of ?feminist ?concern. ?In ?2011, ?Balfour ?and ?Du ?Mont ?called ?on ?feminist ?researchers ?to ?further ?study ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?sentencing, ?to ?ensure ?that ?feminist ?scholars ?participate ?in ?shaping ?the ?meaning ?of ??harm ?and ?reparation.?376 ?My ?ability ?to ?meet ?Balfour ?and ?Du ?Mont?s ?challenge ?is ?necessarily ?limited: ?I ?cannot ?study ?all ?aspects ?of ?sentencing ?in ?this ?thesis. ?Methodology ?is ?dictated ?in ?part ?by ?the ?distinct ?objectives ?of ?each ?study, ?to ?which ?I ?now ?turn. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?376 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?724. ? ? 89 ? ?III. ?Conceptual ?Approach ?and ?Methodology ? ? I ?devote ?this ?chapter ?to ?explaining ?my ?methodology. ?To ?determine ?whether ?myths ?inform ?current ?B.C. ?sexual ?assault ?sentencing ?decisions, ?I ?take ?a ?feminist ?approach. ?My ?approach ?is ?grounded ?in ?feminist ?theory ?that ?identifies ?the ?role ?law ?and ?legal ?discourse ?have ?in ?creating ?and ?reproducing ?mythologies ?about ?gender, ?sexuality, ?and ?ultimately, ?sexual ?violence. ?I ?analyze ?a ?sample ?of ?recent ?cases ?from ?B.C. ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?decisions ?to ?see ?how ?sentencing ?judgments ?may ?reflect ?or ?perpetuate ?discriminatory ?ideas, ?and ?in ?particular ?whether ?judges ?blur ?the ?line ?between ?sexual ?violence ?and ?consensual ?sex. ?I ?ascertain ?the ?presence ?of ?prejudicial ?assumptions ?or ?beliefs ?within ?legal ?doctrine, ?including ?judicial ?determinations ?of ?the ?admissibility ?and ?relevance ?of ?evidence, ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors, ?and ?sentencing ?objectives. ?This ?work ?can ?be ?understood ?as ?primarily ?doctrinal. ?I ?also ?conduct ?non-??doctrinal ?research ?that ?consists ?of ?feminist ?discourse ?analysis. ?Using ?this ?method, ?I ?examine ?the ?narrative ?judges ?tell ?about ?sexual ?assault ?to ?determine ?the ?presence ?of ?sexist ?assumptions ?including ?the ?use ?of ?rape ?myths. ?Although ?these ?two ?approaches ?overlap ?in ?many ?ways, ?thinking ?about ?them ?as ?distinct ?has ?helped ?me ?structure ?my ?methodology. ? ? ?A. Conceptual ?Framework ? ? My ?framework ?draws ?on ?a ?feminist ?approach ?to ?sexual ?violence. ?I ?also ?understand ?legal ?discourse ?as ?shaping ?the ?perceived ?reality ?of ?sexual ?assault ?and ?reproducing ?or ?creating ?discrimination. ?Although ?I ?have ?mentioned ?these ? ? 90 ?conceptualizations ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?discourse ?already, ?I ?now ?discuss ?them ?in ?more ?depth, ?to ?frame ?my ?approach. ?A ?Feminist ?Approach ?to ?Sexual ?Violence ? ? Taking ?a ?feminist ?approach, ?I ?understand ?sexual ?violence ?as ?an ?expression ?of ?systemic ?gender ?inequality. ?This ?approach ?sees ?the ?basis ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?not ?grounded ?in ?biology ?but ?based ?on ?the ?social ?construction ?of ?gender ?within ?a ?particular ?cultural ?and ?historical ?context.377 ?I ?adopt ?MacKinnon?s ?conception ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?acts ?of ??sex ?inequality?378 ?enabled ?by ?the ??erotization ?of ?subordination ?and ?dominance? ?of ?women ?based ?on ?cultural ?norms ?of ?femininity ?and ?masculinity379 ?and ?by ?institutions ?that ?oppress ?women ?and ?ignore ?violence ?against ?them.380 ? ? Although ?women ?are ?the ?primary ?targets ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?their ?experiences ?are ?not ?universal. ?Aboriginality, ?race, ?class, ?sexual ?orientation, ?physical ?and ?mental ?ability, ?and ?involvement ?in ?prostitution ?are ?circumstances ?that ?make ?women ?more ?vulnerable ?to ?and ?shape ?their ?experiences ?of ?sexual ?violence.381 ?They ?also ?affect ?their ?experiences ?of ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?in ?the ?discrimination ?they ?face ?from ?myths ?designating ?them ?as ?less ?credible ?or ?the ?harms ?against ?them ?less ?opprobrious.382 ?Because ?inequalities ?are ?related ?to ?and ?reinforce ?one ?another, ?they ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?377 ?MacKinnon, ??Dominance?, ?supra ?note ?171 ?at ?37?40. ?378 ?MacKinnon, ??Equality ?Approach?, ?supra ?note ?52 ?at ?267. ?379 ?Ibid ?at ?265. ?380 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?78?79; ?See ?e.g. ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62. ?381 ?Kimberle ?Crenshaw, ??Race, ?Gender, ?and ?Sexual ?Harassment? ?(1991) ?65 ?S ?Cal ?L ?Rev ?1467 ?at ?1468. ?382 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?78; ?See ?e.g. ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?251?253; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38; ?Crenshaw, ?supra ?note ?381 ?at ?1469?1472; ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7; ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?672?687, ?689?692. ? ? 91 ?cannot ?be ?considered ?in ?isolation ?from ?one ?another;383 ?therefore, ?an ?intersectional ?approach ?is ?necessary ?to ?ensure ?that ?all ?women?s ?experiences ?are ?considered.384 ? ? ? Although ?sexual ?violence ?has ?a ?fundamentally ?gendered ?character, ?it ?does ?not ?follow ?that ?sexual ?assault ?against ?men ?and ?children ?holds ?no ?interest ?for ?feminist ?analysis. ?Gender ?norms ?dictate ?roles ?for ?men ?and ?children ?as ?well ?as ?women. ?Male ?gender ?norms ?come ?to ?the ?fore ?in ?homophobia, ?since, ?as ?stated ?by ?Trina ?Grillo, ??[h]omophobia ?enforces ?sexism ?by ?making ?people ?pay ?a ?heavy ?price ?for ?departing ?from ?socialized ?gender ?roles.?385 ?Therefore, ?cases ?of ?sexual ?violence ?against ?men ?and ?boys, ?although ?less ?common, ?can ?also ?reveal ?discriminatory ?notions ?about ?gender ?and ?sexuality.386 ?As ?well, ?sexual ?offences ?against ?children, ?even ?young ?children, ?have ?the ?potential ?to ?reflect ?rape ?myths ?about ?sexual ?assault.387 ?The ?Law ?as ?Discourse: ?A ?Powerful ?Voice ?Discourse ?and ?the ?Law ? ? Michel ?Foucault?s ?concept ?of ??discourse? ?expresses ?the ?idea ?that ?our ?perception ?of ?reality ?is ??mediated ?through ?language.?388 ?Discourse ?denotes ?language ?situated ?within ?a ?cultural, ?historical, ?and ?institutional ?context, ?contexts ?that ?provide ??frameworks ?which ?structure ?what ?can ?be ?experienced ?or ?the ?meaning ?that ?experience ?can ?encompass, ?and ?thereby ?influence ?what ?can ?be ?said, ?thought ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?383 ?Grillo, ?supra ?note ?169 ?at ?17?21, ?27. ?384 ?Crenshaw, ?supra ?note ?381 ?at ?1474?1475. ?385 ?Grillo, ?supra ?note ?169 ?at ?27. ?386 ?See ?generally ?Caroline ?Ramazanoglu ?& ?Janet ?Holland, ?Feminist ?Methodology: ?Challenges ?and ?Choices ?(London: ?Sage, ?2002) ?at ?147. ?387 ?See ?e.g. ??Exactly ?what ?the ?judge ?said ?to ?the ?convicted ?sex ?offender?, ?The ?Vancouver ?Sun ?(1 ?December ?1989) ?A17 ?[in ?an ?unreported ?sentencing ?hearing ?in ?1989, ?the ?judge ?characterized ?the ?three-??year ?old ?survivor ?as ??sexually ?aggressive?]. ?388 ?Alan ?Hunt, ?Foucault ?and ?Law: ?Towards ?a ?Sociology ?of ?Law ?as ?Governance ?(London: ?Pluto ?Press, ?1994) ?at ?7. ? ? 92 ?done.?389 ?Discourse ?in ?institutional ?contexts ?is ?powerful ?because ?it ?presents ?a ?situated ?and ?contingent ?truth ?as ?a ?universal ?truth, ?to ?become ?accepted ?as ?fact ?or ?commonsense ?within ?society.390 ?Discourse ?therefore ?works ?to ?dictate ?social ?norms, ?including ?standards ?of ?expected ?behaviour ?and ?behaviour ?requiring ?sanction ?or ?deterrence.391 ? ? ? Law ?is ?discourse.392 ?Law ?is ?produced ?and ?disseminated ?through ?specialized ?institutional ?language: ?legal ?knowledge ?can ?be ?understood ?as ??embodied, ?habituated ?expertise ?in ?legal ?discourse.?393 ?Like ?other ?forms ?of ?discourse, ?legal ?discourse ?governs ?who ?speaks, ?what ?is ?said, ?what ?amounts ?to ?knowledge, ?and ?the ?meaning ?of ?words. ?Within ?these ?power ?structures, ?courts ?adjudicate ?the ?legal ??truth?,394 ?creating ?a ?version ?of ?what ?occurred ?between ?the ?parties.395 ?Legal ?institutions ?then ?enforce ?the ??truth? ?through ?sanctions ?or ?orders. ?As ?a ?result, ?legal ?discourse ?influences ?cultural ?norms.396 ? ? ? ? Although ?presented ?as ?a ?universal, ?neutral ?truth, ?the ?law ?is ?situated ?and ?partial. ?It ?often ?reflects ?dominant ?cultural ?assumptions ?and ?biases. ?As ?Coates ?and ?Wade ?suggest, ?because ?of ?its ?pervasive ?and ?invisible ?power ?in ?shaping ?perceptions ?of ?reality, ?intention ?is ?not ?necessary ?to ?reproduce ?discrimination ?through ?discourse: ? ?Our ?view ?is ?that ?it ?is ?not ?essential ?to ?take ?up ?an ?ideological ?position ?to ?produce ?and ?reproduce ?social ?injustices. ?The ?simple ?act ?of ?participating ?in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?389 ?Ibid ?at ?8. ?390 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?9. ?391 ?Ramazanoglu ?& ?Holland, ?supra ?note ?386 ?at ?87?88. ?392 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189. ?393 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?62. ?394 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?11. ?395 ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370 ?at ?281. ?396 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?18?19. ? ? 93 ?everyday, ?taken-??for-??granted ?discursive ?practices, ?such ?as ?those ?we ?have ?documented ?here, ?directly ?and ?indirectly ?reproduces ?social ?injustices...397 ?Absent ?malicious ?intent, ?judicial ?discourse ?can ?reproduce ?and ?construct ?discrimination ?because ?it ?comes ?from ?within ?an ?institution ?and ?a ?society ?with ?histories ?of ?inequality. ?Nor ?do ?judges ?construct ?a ?case ?in ?law ?and ?discourse ?alone: ?they ?are ?informed ?and ?rely ?on ?the ?discourse ?of ?existing ?case ?law, ?lawyers, ?and ?witnesses, ?also ?situated ?and ?partial.398 ?Placing ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?within ?greater ?society, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J. ?reminded ?us, ??[t]his ?baggage ?belongs ?to ?us ?all.?399 ? ? Legal ?discourse ?has ?reproduced ?and ?maintained ?gender ?inequality. ?Susan ?Ehrlich ?has ?described ?this ?inequality ?as ?the ??androcentric ?and ?sexist ?assumptions ?that ?typically ?masquerade ?as ??objective? ?truths? ?within ?the ?law.400 ?Sexist ?assumptions ?find ?their ?way ?into ?sexual ?offence ?cases ?when ?judges ?rely ?on ?pervasive ?and ?discriminatory ?cultural ?norms ?about ?gender ?and ?sexuality ?to ?interpret ?and ?apply ?the ?law,401 ?including ?the ?procedural ?rules, ?interpretations ?of ?consent, ?and ?requirements ?of ?forceful ?resistance ?grounded ?in ?the ?presumed ?low ?credibility ?of ?survivors,402 ?and ?when ?judges ?construct ?narratives ?of ?sexual ?violence ?that, ?for ?example, ?normalize ?or ?conceal ?coercion ?and ?violence.403 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?397 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?26. ?398 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189; ?For ?an ?in-??depth ?analysis ?on ?how ?a ?judge ?constructs ?an ?offence, ?infanticide, ?from ?a ?trial ?record ?in ?its ?institutional ?context ?from ?a ?feminist ?perspective, ?see ?generally: ?Emma ?Cunliffe, ??(This ?Is ?Not ?a) ?Story: ?Using ?Court ?Records ?to ?Explore ?Judicial ?Narratives ?in ?R ?v ?Kathleen ?Folbigg? ?(2007) ?27 ?Austl ?Feminist ?LJ ?71. ?399 ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer, ?supra ?note ?26 ?at ?para ?153, ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J, ?dissenting ?[emphasis ?in ?original]. ?400 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?9. ?401 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?54?55, ?67?68. ?402 ?See ?Chapter ?II. ?403 ?See ?e.g. ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?7; ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?79?86. ? ? 94 ? ? Carol ?Smart ?has ?examined ?how ?legal ?discourse ?constructs ?gender ?identities, ?in ?being ?both ??gendered? ?and ??a ?gendering ?strategy.?404 ?According ?to ?Smart, ?legal ?discourse ?creates ?gender ?identities ?by ?distinguishing ?and ?dichotomizing ?abstract ?ideas ?of ?woman ?from ?man, ?as ?well ?as ?certain ?women, ?like ??bad ?mothers?, ?from ?other ?women.405 ?Law ?then ?coaxes ?women ?into ?the ?identities ?legal ?discourse ?has ?created.406 ?In ?time, ?these ?gendered ?identities ?or ?norms ?become ??self-??evident ?and ?matters ?of ?common ?sense.?407 ? ? ? The ?power ?of ?law ?to ?reproduce ?and ?create ?gendered ?identities ?is ?within ?both ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?narrative. ?Judges ?extend ?the ?law?s ?power ?beyond ?laws ?and ?legal ?interpretation ?to ?encompass ?cultural ?knowledge ?by ?relying ?on ?legal ?discourse: ?as ?Smart ?noted, ??the ?judge ?does ?not ?remove ?his ?wig ?when ?he ?passes ?comment ?on, ?for ?example, ?issues ?of ?sexual ?morality ?in ?rape ?cases. ?He ?retains ?the ?authority ?drawn ?from ?legal ?scholarship ?and ?the ??truth? ?of ?law, ?but ?he ?applies ?it ?to ?non-??legal ?issues.?408 ?Similarly, ?Ehrlich ?identifies ?the ?duality ?of ?law?s ?power ?in ?both ??the ?enactment ?of ?rules ?and ?the ?imposition ?of ?punishments? ?and ??the ?capacity ?to ?impose ?and ?affirm ?culturally ?powerful ?definitions ?of ?social ?reality.?409 ?Therefore, ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?legal ?narrative ?are ?two ?important ?sites ?for ?feminist ?legal ?research.410 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?404 ?Carol ?Smart, ??The ?Woman ?of ?Legal ?Discourse? ?(1992) ?1:1 ?Soc ?& ?Leg ?Stud ?29 ?at ?30. ?405 ?Ibid ?at ?34?39. ?406 ?Ibid ?at ?37. ?407 ?Ibid ?at ?39. ?408 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?13. ?409 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?18. ?410 ?Ibid ?at ?19. ? ? 95 ?Sentencing ?Decisions ?as ?a ?Source ?of ?Legal ?Discourse ? ? Sentencing ?decisions, ?like ?trial ?judgments, ?are ?important ?sources ?of ?legal ?discourse. ?Each ?decision ?is ?an ?expression ?of ?judicial ?interpretation ?of ?the ?law ?at ?the ?time ?of ?the ?decision,411 ?as ?well ?as ?a ?construction ?of ?what ?occurred, ?the ?facts.412 ? ? ? Given ?the ?precedential ?nature ?of ?sentencing, ?written ?sentencing ?decisions ?have ?significant ?value ?in ?common ?law ?systems. ?Although ?judges ?have ?discretion ?to ?determine ?fit ?sentences ?within ?a ?range ?of ?possibilities,413 ?sentencing ?is ?precedent ?driven ?to ?promote ?parity ?among ?cases.414 ?By ?analogizing ?to ?past ?cases, ?lawyers ?and ?judges ?rely ?on ?written ?sentencing ?decisions ?to ?craft ?sentences ?for ?similar ?offences ?and ?similar ?offenders.415 ?Sentencing ?decisions ?therefore ?guide ?future ?dispositions ?of ?sexual ?assault ?cases, ?together ?constituting ?the ?body ?of ?case ?law ?on ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?as ?well ?as ?representing ?an ?important ?source ?of ?legal ?discourse ?on ?sexual ?violence.416 ?For ?this ?reason, ?sentencing ?is ?also ?a ?site ?likely ?to ?reproduce ?rape ?myths ?from ?the ?past ?into ?the ?future. ? ? Within ?sentencing ?decisions, ?judges ?interpret ?and ?apply ?the ?law ?in ?a ?number ?of ?ways, ?all ?of ?which ?may ?rely ?on ?myths ?about ?sexual ?assault. ?Judges ?interpret ?and ?apply ?procedural ?law, ?including ?what ?evidence ?is ?considered ?relevant ?and ?relied ?upon, ?as ?well ?as ?the ?substantive ?law ?of ?sentencing, ?determining ?what ?constitutes ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors ?and ?what ?principles ?of ?sentencing ?are ?paramount ?in ?each ?case, ?based ?on ?the ?offender, ?offence, ?and ?impact ?on ?the ?survivor. ?These ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?411 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189. ?412 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?4, ?7; ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370 ?at ?281; ?Du ?Mont, ?Forte ?& ?Badgley, ?supra ?note ?359 ?at ?485?486. ?413 ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?57?61, ?80?81. ?414 ?Ibid ?at ?92. ?415 ?Ibid ?at ?94; ?Du ?Mont, ?Forte ?& ?Badgley, ?supra ?note ?359 ?at ?486. ?416 ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370 ?at ?281; ?Du ?Mont, ?Forte ?& ?Badgley, ?supra ?note ?359 ?at ?494?495. ? ? 96 ?features ?are ?also ?present, ?in ?modified ?ways, ?in ?appellate ?judgments.417 ?Studying ?these ?aspects ?of ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?cases ?will ?allow ?me ?to ?assess ?whether ?they ?foster ?inequality ?within ?the ?law. ? ? Sentencing ?decisions ?also ?contain ?narratives ?about ?sexual ?violence ?that ?form ?the ?factual ?basis ?for ?sentencing. ?Within ?narratives, ?discriminatory ?ideas ?may ?be ?expressed ?through ?stereotypical ?images ?and ?norms ?as ?well ?as ?word ?choice ?and ?grammatical ?constructions. ?Judicial ?language ?can ?subtly ?convey ?ideas ?about ?the ?nature ?of ?offences, ?responsibility, ?and ?harm: ? ?Accounts ?are ?not ?objective ?or ?impartial ?reflections ?of ?events; ?rather, ?they ?must ?be ?treated ?as ?representations ?of ?events ?that ?vary ?in ?accuracy. ?Such ?fundamental ?constructs ?as ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?events ?(e.g. ?violent ?versus ?sexual), ?the ?cause ?of ?events ?(e.g. ?deliberate ?verses ?accidental), ?the ?character ?of ?the ?offender ?(e.g. ?good ?versus ?bad), ?and ?the ?character ?of ?the ?victim ?(e.g. ?passive ?versus ?active) ?are ?constructed ?within ?the ?account ?of ?the ?crime.418 ? ?Judicial ?narratives ?are ?part ?of ?legal ?discourse, ?and ?so ?like ?interpretations ?and ?applications ?of ?the ?law, ?are ?partial ?and ?situated ?expressions ?of ?sexual ?violence ?that ?can ?promote ?inequality ?by ?depicting ?sexual ?offences ?in ?discriminatory ?ways. ?B. Methodology ? ? Relying ?on ?these ?conceptualizations ?of ?legal ?discourse, ?I ?have ?constructed ?a ?methodology ?that ?includes ?two ?frameworks ?for ?analysis. ?To ?interrogate ?legal ?discourse ?in ?sentencing ?decisions ?for ?rape ?myths ?about ?the ?credibility ?and ?blame ?of ?survivors, ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?offenders, ?and ?other ?notions ?of ?what ?sexual ?assault ?is ?and ?is ?not, ?I ?examine ?both ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?narrative. ?Although ?these ?categories ?overlap ?when ?law ?and ?narrative ?are ?woven ?together, ?this ?division ?helps ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?417 ?See ?generally ?Chapter ?II. ?418 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?7. ? ? 97 ?me ?to ?identify ?my ?two ?purposes ?in ?reading ?the ?cases: ?as ?a ?source ?of ?law ?and ?as ?a ?source ?of ?judicial ?narrative. ?I ?therefore ?follow ?both ?doctrinal ?and ?non-??doctrinal ?research ?methods. ?Doctrinal: ?An ?Expansive ?Approach ? ? My ?doctrinal ?method ?analyzes ?the ?cases ?as ?a ?source ?of ?law. ?The ?purpose ?of ?this ?method ?is ??to ?describe ?a ?body ?of ?law ?and ?how ?it ?applies?, ?including ?the ?development ??of ?judicial ?reasoning?.419 ?In ?particular, ?I ?examine ?two ?doctrinal ?aspects ?of ?sentencing ?within ?the ?cases: ?procedural ?law, ?including ?the ?evidence ?admitted, ?considered ?relevant, ?and ?relied ?upon; ?and ?substantive ?law, ?including ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?factors ?and ?sentencing ?principles. ? ? My ?doctrinal ?methodology ?is ?qualitative: ?it ?is ?a ?subjective ?task ?that ?requires ?synthesis, ?interpretation ?and ?contextual ?analysis.420 ?I ?primarily ?rely ?on ?inductive ?reasoning, ?a ?doctrinal ?tool ?that ?works ?from ?the ?level ?of ?individual ?cases ?to ?identify ?principles ?and ?themes ?among ?them.421 ? ? ? I ?take ?an ?expansive ?approach ?to ?my ?doctrinal ?method. ?Unlike ?traditional ?doctrinal ?research, ?I ?do ?not ?focus ?on ?finding ?a ?statement ?of ?the ?law; ?rather, ?I ?am ?interested ?in ?the ?law ?as ?it ?is ?interpreted ?and ?applied ?by ?judges, ?regardless ?of ?stare ?decisis ?and ?precedent. ?Although ?I ?am ?cognizant ?of ?the ?important ?distinctions ?between ?the ?institutional ?roles ?of ?appellate ?and ?trial ?courts,422 ?my ?project ?seeks ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?419 ?Ian ?Dobinson ?& ?Francis ?Johns, ??Qualitative ?Legal ?Research? ?in ?Mike ?McConville ?& ?Wing ?Hong ?Chui, ?eds, ?Research ?Methods ?for ?Law ?(Edinburgh: ?Edinburgh ?University ?Press, ?2007) ?16 ?at ?19. ?420 ?Terry ?Hutchinson ?& ?Nigel ?Duncan, ??Defining ?and ?Describing ?What ?We ?Do: ?Doctrinal ?Legal ?Research? ?(2012) ?17 ?Deakin ?Law ?Review ?83 ?at ?116. ?421 ?Ibid ?at ?111; ?Dobinson ?& ?Johns, ?supra ?note ?419 ?at ?21 ?& ?32. ?422 ?Stephen ?Robertson, ??What?s ?Law ?Got ?to ?Do ?with ?It? ?Legal ?Records ?and ?Sexual ?Histories? ?(2005) ?14:1 ?Journal ?of ?the ?History ?of ?Sexuality ?161 ?at ?173. ? ? 98 ?provide ?illumination ?on ?the ?law ?as ?both ?apply ?it; ?therefore, ?I ?have ?analyzed ?trial ?and ?appellate ?decisions ?alike. ? ? ? According ?to ?Gotell, ?who ?has ?used ?a ?similar ?methodology, ?moving ?away ?from ?rigid ?conceptions ?of ?doctrinal ?analysis ?can ?enable ?researchers ?to ?better ?understand ?the ?law. ?Because ?each ?written ?decision ?is ?an ?expression ?of ?judicial ?interpretation ?of ?the ?law ?at ?the ?time ?of ?the ?decision,423 ?an ?analysis ?of ?a ?group ?of ?cases ?can ?reveal ?how ?one ?aspect ?of ?the ?law ?is ?being ?interpreted ?and ?applied.424 ?A ?similar ?methodology ?allows ?me ?to ?assess ?whether ?mythologies ?about ?sexual ?violence ?inform ?judicial ?interpretation ?of ?legal ?doctrine ?within ?sentencing ?and ?appellate ?decisions. ? ? The ?framework ?for ?my ?doctrinal ?analysis ?is ?informed ?by ?feminist ?theories ?of ?legal ?discourse ?and ?will ?be ?based ?on ?feminist ?legal ?methods. ?In ?particular, ?to ?interrogate ?the ?statements ?of ?legal ?doctrine ?in ?sentencing ?cases ?for ?rape ?myths, ?I ?rely ?on ?two ?of ?the ?feminist ?legal ?methods ?described ?by ?Katharine ?T. ?Bartlett: ?asking ??the ?woman ?question? ?and ?feminist ?practical ?reasoning. ?These ?methods ?direct ?me ?to ?interrogate ?legal ?doctrine?s ?claims ?of ?truth ?by ?considering ?whether ?the ?law ?is ?discriminatory ?in ?application ?or ?consequence. ?Asking ?the ?woman ?question ?exposes ?biases ?within ?doctrine ?by ?asking ?how ?law ?may ?exclude ?the ?perspectives ?or ?experiences ?of ?women ?or ?other ?marginalized ?groups425 ?or ?reflect ?embedded ?assumptions ?about ?gender ?and ?sexuality ?that ?subordinate ?or ?exclude.426 ?Using ?this ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?423 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189. ?424 ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189 ?at ?114. ?425 ?Katharine ?T ?Bartlett, ??Feminist ?Legal ?Methods? ?(1990) ?103:4 ?Harv ?L ?Rev ?829 ?at ?831, ?836. ?426 ?Ibid ?at ?843. ? ? 99 ?method, ?I ?pose ?questions ?such ?as ??[w]hose ?point ?of ?view ?do ?these ?assumptions ?reflect? ?Whose ?interests ?are ?invisible ?or ?peripheral??427 ? ? ? The ?method ?of ?feminist ?practical ?reasoning ?questions ?the ?doctrine ?of ?relevance428 ?by ?analyzing ?whose ?interests ?it ?advances.429 ?It ?works ?to ?promote ?legal ?reasoning ?that ?is ?contextual ?rather ?than ?abstract ?and ?to ?include ?perspectives ?of ?marginalized ?and ?excluded ?groups,430 ?on ?the ?basis ?that ?there ?is ?not ?one ?universal ?perspective ?but ?competing ?perspectives.431 ?It ?also ?helps ?to ?unmask ?the ?operation ?of ?privilege ?that ?favours ?certain ?groups. ?Using ?feminist ?practical ?reasoning, ?I ?use ?a ?contextual ?method ?to ?be ?attentive ??to ?certain ?forms ?of ?injustice ?that ?otherwise ?go ?unnoticed ?and ?unaddressed?432 ?in ?a ?neoliberal ?approach. ? ? Using ?this ?method, ?I ?determine ?whether ?judges ?use ?myths ?in ?their ?interpretation ?and ?construction ?of ?doctrine ?in ?sentencing. ?Comparing ?my ?findings ?to ?previous ?scholarship, ?I ?also ?assess ?whether ?rape ?myths ?have ?changed ?over ?time. ?Non-??Doctrinal: ?Feminist ?Discourse ?Analysis ? ? Since ?gender ?discrimination ?can ?be ?found ?in ?both ?doctrine ?and ?narrative, ?I ?also ?analyze ?judicial ?narratives. ?Specifically, ?I ?assess ?sentencing ?decisions ?for ?unequal ?or ?discriminatory ?constructions ?of ?sexual ?violence ?using ?feminist ?discourse ?analysis, ?a ?non-??doctrinal ?approach. ? ? ? Although ?it ?examines ?legal ?texts ?like ?doctrinal ?research, ?a ?discourse ?analysis ?does ?not ?seek ?to ?determine ?the ?law. ?A ?critical ?discourse ?analysis, ?similar ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?427 ?Ibid ?at ?848. ?428 ?Ibid ?at ?836?837. ?429 ?Ibid ?at ?856?857. ?430 ?Ibid ?at ?850?851. ?431 ?Ibid ?at ?857. ?432 ?Ibid ?at ?863. ? ? 100 ?qualitative ?content ?analysis, ?looks ?at ?language ?to ??identify ?meaning ?behind ?the ?words ?of ?judicial ?and ?legislative ?text. ?It ?is ?a ?way ?of ?deconstructing ?text ?rather ?than ?reading ?and ?synthesising ?meaning ?from ?the ?text.?433 ?This ?aspect ?of ?my ?project ?can ?therefore ?be ?seen ?in ?another ?light: ?doctrinal ?research ?for ?a ?non-??doctrinal ?purpose. ? ? Discourse ?analysis ?is ?inherently ?qualitative ?because ?it ?is ??aimed ?at ?understanding ?how ?human ?expression ?articulates ?social ?order, ?begin[ning] ?by ?picking ?apart ?the ?order ?that ?is ?presented ?to ?us ?as ?common ?sense.?434 ? ? ? To ?analyze ?judicial ?narratives ?for ?rape ?mythologies, ?I ?adapt ?Ehrlich?s ?framework ?of ??unpacking ?the ?discourse ?of ?law? ?to ?analyze ?the ?language ?in ?sentencing ?cases ?to ??understand ?the ?way ?that ?gendered ?meanings ?are ?constructed ?and ?reproduced ?in ?discourse?.435 ?Together ?with ?the ?approach ?and ?insights ?of ?Coates ?and ?her ?colleagues,436 ?I ?assess ?how ?judicial ?discou
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Theses and Dissertations /
- Succumbing to the siren song : rape myths in sexual...
Open Collections
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Featured Collection
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Succumbing to the siren song : rape myths in sexual offender sentencing in B.C. Welch, Elizabeth Ann 2014
pdf
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
| Title | Succumbing to the siren song : rape myths in sexual offender sentencing in B.C. |
| Creator |
Welch, Elizabeth Ann |
| Publisher | University of British Columbia |
| Date Issued | 2014 |
| Description | Sexual violence is characterized by inequality: it is a gendered crime whose perpetrators frequently escape criminal responsibility. The inequality of sexual violence has been masked and perpetuated by rape myths about ‘real’ sexual assault embedded in the law. Feminist reformers have struggled to have the law eliminate rape myths and recognize sexual offences as gendered violence; this struggle continues. In this thesis the author explores the judicial expression of rape myths in a sample of recent B.C. sentencing decisions. She analyzes two aspects of the cases, doctrine and discourse, to ascertain whether judges reproduced discriminatory beliefs about sexual violence in their interpretations of law or their narratives. The thesis found that courts expressed rape myths in some recent sentencing cases. Rape myths appeared in constructions of violence that turned on penetration, the notion of the dangerous stranger, and definitions of violence that excluded coercion, manipulation, and exploitation. They also appeared when judges used terms that were more appropriate for narratives of sex or romance than sexual violence. Rape myths underpinned courts’ use of sexual history evidence, findings that survivors ‘consented’ to offences, and failures to seriously consider harm to ‘risky’ survivors. They also propped up the doctrines that ‘good’ offenders and intoxicated offenders are less blameworthy or dangerous, and informed language that obscured offender agency and responsibility, including the frequent use of terms that expressed doubt about legal findings of guilt. The author speculates the enduring influence of rape myths appeared not because of judges’ intention to discriminate but the neoliberal approach that guides legal thinking. Informed by notions of rationality and risk, courts ignored the inequality of sexual violence, particularly gender inequality. With inequality and vulnerability erased from consideration, the line between consensual sex and violence blurred, most conspicuously in sexual offences against adolescents and women perceived as taking undue risks. Therefore, this thesis suggests that the law should be cognizant of the unequal and gendered nature of sexual violence by situating it in its social context, an approach that will ultimately help to promote equality within the law. |
| Genre |
Thesis/Dissertation |
| Type |
Text |
| Language | eng |
| Date Available | 2014-02-28 |
| Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
| Rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International |
| DOI | 10.14288/1.0077774 |
| URI | http://hdl.handle.net/2429/46119 |
| Degree |
Master of Laws - LLM |
| Program |
Law |
| Affiliation |
Law, Faculty of |
| Degree Grantor | University of British Columbia |
| Graduation Date | 2014-05 |
| Campus |
UBCV |
| Scholarly Level | Graduate |
| Rights URI | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| Aggregated Source Repository | DSpace |
Download
- Media
- 24-ubc_2014_spring_welch_elizabeth.pdf [ 1.5MB ]
- Metadata
- JSON: 24-1.0077774.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0077774-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0077774-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0077774-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0077774-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0077774-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0077774-source.json
- Full Text
- 24-1.0077774-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- 24-1.0077774.ris