@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Law, Faculty of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Welch, Elizabeth Ann"@en ; dcterms:issued "2014-02-28T15:11:25Z"@en, "2014"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Laws - LLM"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms: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."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/46119?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note """ ? ? ?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: ? ?[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! ?. ?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 ?discourse ?about ?sexual ?violence ?reproduces ?or ?constructs ?gendered ?identities ?and ??dominant ?narratives? ?about ?sexual ?assault437 ?through ?the ?accounts ?of ?sexual ?assault ?that ?are ?told. ?My ?analysis ?of ?language ?includes ?looking ?at ?both ?grammar ?and ?expressions ?that ?betray ?worldviews ?or ?notions ?of ??commonsense.?438 ? ?Within ?this ?framework, ?grammatical ?constructions ?are ??ideologically ?important? ?choices439 ?that ?can ?express ?notions ?about ?gender, ?sexuality, ?and ?sexual ?violence. ?For ?example, ?I ?am ?attentive ?to ?words ?that ?minimize ?the ?offender?s ?actions, ?obscure ?violence ?or ?coercion ?or ?survivor ?resistance, ?or ?shift ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?433 ?Hutchinson ?& ?Duncan, ?supra ?note ?420 ?at ?118. ?434 ?Richard ?Ericson, ?Patricia ?Baranek ?& ?Janet ?Chan, ?Representing ?Order: ?Crime, ?Law ?and ?Justice ?in ?the ?News ?Media ?(Toronto: ?University ?of ?Toronto ?Press, ?1991) ?at ?55. ?435 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?28. ?436 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64; ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370; ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66. ?437 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?28?29. ?438 ?Ibid ?at ?39. ?439 ?Ibid. ? ? 101 ?responsibility ?to ?the ?survivor.440 ?I ?am ?also ?cognizant ?of ?the ?broader ?conceptualizations ?of ?sexual ?assault ?revealed ?in ?judicial ?discourse, ?including ?language ?that ?suggests ?female ?sexuality ?is ??whimsical ?or ?capricious?,441 ?force ?is ?normal ?or ?inherent ?in ?consensual ?heterosexuality,442 ?sexual ?assault ?arises ?from ? ?natural ?gender ?miscommunication,443 ?and ?sexual ?assault ?is ?akin ?to ?consensual ?and ?normal ?sex.444 ? ? ? ? ? With ?this ?method ?of ?deconstructing ?judicial ?discourse, ?I ?identify ?whether ?judges ?convey ?sexual ?assault ?myths ?in ?their ?narratives ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?Limitations ? ? Building ?on ?prior ?scholarship, ?my ?thesis ?will ?add ?to ?awareness ?about ?the ?law ?as ?it ?operates ?within ?judicial ?decision-??making ?and ?contribute ?to ?knowledge ?about ?the ?state ?of ?equality ?in ?sexual ?assault ?law.445 ?As ?I ?reviewed ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?many ?feminist ?scholars ?are ?involved ?in ?the ?work ?of ?assessing ?whether ?gender ?inequality ?continues ?in ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault ?and, ?in ?particular, ?whether ?rape ?myths ?continue ?to ?be ?used ?in ?law ?and ?legal ?discourse. ?Their ?research ?provides ?an ?excellent ?basis ?for ?my ?analysis, ?but ?does ?not ?answer ?my ?research ?question: ?whether ?B.C. ?judges ?currently ?rely ?on ?sexual ?assault ?myths ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders. ? ? ? My ?methodological ?choices ?limit ?the ?conclusions ?I ?can ?make. ?I ?will ?not ?analyze ?whether ?there ?is ?a ?correlation ?between ?judicial ?use ?of ?myths ?in ?legal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?440 ?Ibid ?at ?36?61; ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?7; ?See ?also ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64; ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370. ?441 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?31. ?442 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?67?68. ?443 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?121?148. ?444 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64. ?445 ?See ?generally ?Lee ?Epstein ?& ?Gary ?King, ??The ?Rules ?of ?Inference? ?(2002) ?69:1 ?U ?Chicago ?L ?Rev ?1 ?at ?55?61. ? ? 102 ?doctrine ?or ?discourse ?and ?sentence ?outcomes. ?My ?decision ?to ?not ?study ?this ?question ?is ?related, ?in ?part, ?to ?my ?reluctance ?to ?be ?seen ?as ?advocating ?for ?harsher ?sentences ?for ?sexual ?offenders. ?As ?I ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?I ?have ?been ?influenced ?by ?the ?concerns ?of ?some ?feminist ?scholars ?about ?imprisonment; ?on ?the ?other ?hand, ?I ?also ?believe ?that ?incarceration ?serves ?an ?important ?purpose: ?namely, ?the ?separation ?of ?violent ?offenders ?from ?the ?community, ?to ?protect ?women ?and ?children ?from ?violent ?men. ?The ?criminal ?justice ?system ?reproduces ?inequality ?and ?is ?too ?focused ?on ?individual ?responsibility ?to ?the ?detriment ?of ?contextual ?understandings ?of ?gendered ?violence, ?but ?I ?believe ?there ?is ?value ?of ?working ?within ?the ?system ?to ?improve ?it, ?mainly ?because ?the ?system ?is ?necessary ?for ?the ?protection ?and ?safety ?of ?communities. ?Nonetheless, ?because ?of ?these ?issues, ?I ?have ?determined ?to ?not ?assess ?sentence ?outcomes. ? ? ? ? I ?also ?do ?not ?look ?beyond ?sentencing ?decisions ?to ?determine ?the ?sources ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?judicial ?reasoning, ?to ?see ??how ?a ?judge ?constructs ?a ?coherent ?account ?of ?the ?case ?and ?the ?events ?? ?from ?the ?mass ?of ?contradictory ?and ?fragmentary ?information ?accumulated ?within ?the ?court ?record?.446 ?My ?thesis ?is ?also ?unable ?to ?provide ?insight ?into ?the ?subjectivities, ?or ??embodied ?experiences?447 ?of ?the ?survivors ?within ?my ?cases, ?experiences ?that ??cannot ?be ?accessed ?through ?an ?examination ?of ?the ?judgments?.448 ?These ?objectives ?are ?all ?worthwhile, ?but ?ones ?I ?do ?not ?pursue ?here. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?446 ?Cunliffe, ?supra ?note ?398 ?at ?74. ?447 ?Cunliffe ?& ?Cameron, ?supra ?note ?334 ?at ?14. ?448 ?Ibid ?at ?15. ? ? 103 ?Gathering ?the ?Case ?Sample ? ? According ?to ?Lee ?Epstein ?and ?Gary ?King, ?a ?sound ?methodology ?must ?identify ?specific ?objectives ?and ??follow ?some ?general ?rules ?to ?arrive ?there ?? ?or ?at ?least ?arrive ?there ?with ?some ?known ?degree ?of ?confidence.? ?449 ?A ?significant ?part ?of ?this ?process ?is ?ensuring ?that ?the ?information ?on ?which ?the ?study ?is ?based ?is ?capable ?of ?supporting ?the ??descriptive ?inference? ?or ?conclusion ?the ?researcher ?wants ?to ?make ?about ?a ?larger ?category ?of ?individuals ?or ?phenomena.450 ?To ?allow ?readers ?and ?scholars ?to ??evaluate ?the ?research ?and ?its ?conclusions?,451 ?a ?researcher ?should ?explain ?how ?she ?selected ?her ?data, ?because ?this ?process ?can ??influence ?the ?outcomes? ?of ?the ?research.452 ? ? ? In ?my ?case, ?I ?wish ?to ?make ?conclusions ?about ?whether ?B.C. ?judges ?currently ?use ?rape ?myths ?in ?their ?interpretation ?of ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?expression ?of ?narrative ?when ?sentencing ?offenders. ?Although ?I ?rely ?on ?secondary ?research ?to ?inform ?my ?analysis,453 ?my ?primary ?source ?of ?data ?is ?sentencing ?decisions. ?These ?cases, ?recently ?reported ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?decisions ?from ?B.C., ?make ?up ?my ?case ?sample. ?However, ?there ?are ?many ?decisions ?that ?I ?made ?in ?selecting ?the ?cases ?to ?ensure ?I ?have ?a ??defined ?and ?justified ?sample?.454 ? ? I ?have ?drawn ?the ?case ?sample ?from ?sentencing ?cases ?by ?B.C. ?courts ?in ?2011 ?and ?2012455 ?for ?offenders ?convicted ?of ?all ?three ?levels ?of ?sexual ?assault.456 ?To ?gather ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?449 ?Epstein ?& ?King, ?supra ?note ?445 ?at ?19. ?450 ?Ibid ?at ?29?34. ?451 ?Ibid ?at ?42. ?452 ?Ibid ?at ?44. ?453 ?See ?the ?advice ?about ?legal ?research ?given ?in ?Dobinson ?& ?Johns, ?supra ?note ?419 ?at ?22?32 ?to ?gather ?legislation, ?jurisprudence, ?and ?case ?commentaries ?for ?contextual ?and ?analytical ?purposes. ?454 ?Ibid ?at ?34?36. ?455 ?Specifically, ?January ?1, ?2011 ?to ?January ?1, ?2013, ?searched ?from ?CanLII ?on ?June ?6, ?2013. ? ? 104 ?these ?cases, ?I ?searched ?for ?all ?cases ?containing ?the ?words ??sentence? ?and ??sexual ?assault.? ?I ?also ?searched ?for ?sentencing ?cases ?of ?offenders ?guilty ?of ?sexual ?offences ?against ?children ?and ?adolescents.457 ?I ?did ?not ?include ?cases ?of ?offenders ?who ?committed ?what ?amounts ?to ?sexual ?offences ?but ?are ?guilty ?of ?non-??sexual ?crimes: ?from ?my ?review, ?in ?those ?cases, ?analyses ?are ?scrubbed ?free ?of ?considerations ?about ?sexual ?violence ?and ?are, ?therefore, ?unhelpful ?for ?this ?thesis.458 ? ? ? I ?limited ?myself ?to ?looking ?at ?sentencing ?cases. ?I ?discarded ?applications ?for ?dangerous ?offender ?designations ?on ?the ?basis ?that ?they ?have ?a ?dissimilar ?focus ?from ?sentencing ?decisions, ?primarily ?looking ?at ?offenders? ?patterns ?of ?criminal ?conduct ?over ?their ?lifetimes. ?However, ?I ?included ?cases ?that ?couple ?sentencing ?decisions ?with ?applications ?for ?long-??term ?offender ?designations ?because ?of ?their ?focus ?on ?the ?offence ?presently ?before ?the ?court. ? ? ? Because ?the ?sample ?consists ?of ?reported ?sentencing ?decisions, ?my ?study ?only ?looks ?at ?a ?very ?small ?portion ?of ?sexual ?assaults ?in ?B.C. ?Only ?a ?small ?percentage ?of ?sexual ?offences ?result ?in ?convictions459 ?and, ?of ?these ?convictions, ?only ?some ?result ?in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?456 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?ss ?271, ?272, ?273. ?I ?also ?included ?historical ?cases ?in ?which ?the ?offender ?was ?guilty ?of ?a ?crime ?that ?would ?now ?be ?categorized ?as ?sexual ?assault. ?457 ?Ibid, ?ss ?151, ?152,153(1), ?155(1). ?I ?searched ?for ?these ?by ?looking ?for ?cases ?with ?the ?terms ??sexual ?interference?, ??sexual ?touching?, ??sexual ?exploitation? ?or ??incest? ?within ?the ?same ?case ?as ?the ?word ??sentencing.? ?458 ?For ?example, ?I ?excluded ?R. ?v. ?D.A.R., ?2011 ?BCPC ?500 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?from ?my ?case ?sample. ?The ?offender ?pleaded ?guilty ?to ?unlawful ?confinement, ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm, ?and ?threatening ?of ?his ?intimate ?partner; ?however, ?the ?facts ?reveal ?that ?as ?a ?part ?of ?his ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm ?he ?forced ?his ?penis ?into ?the ?survivor?s ?mouth ?and ?repeatedly ?anally ?raped ?her. ?However, ?the ?court ?did ?not ?directly ?consider ?the ?sexual ?nature ?of ?his ?offence ?in ?determining ?a ?fit ?sentence, ?stating ?at ?para ?19: ??There ?are ?sexual ?aspects ?to ?putting ?his ?penis ?in ?her ?mouth ?and ?to ?anal ?intercourse ?and ?those ?acts ?would ?constitute ?violations ?of ?the ?sexual ?integrity ?of ?L. ?but ?I ?must ?sentence ?Mr. ?R. ?for ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm, ?not ?for ?sexual ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm.? ?I ?also ?excluded ?R. ?v. ?B.S., ?2012 ?BCCA ?36 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?from ?my ?sample ?because ?it ?did ?not ?provide ?sufficient ?information ?for ?analysis. ?459 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?632. ?See ?Chapter ?I, ?Section ?A. ? ? 105 ?reported ?sentencing ?decisions.460 ?Thus, ?by ?design, ?the ?case ?sample ?is ?made ?up ?of ?exceptional ?cases. ?Nonetheless, ?it ?allows ?me ?to ?make ?the ?conclusions ?I ?seek ?to ?make. ?Although ?my ?research ?is ?unable ?to ?address ?the ?greater ?phenomena ?and ?consequences ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?my ?research ?is ?informative ?about ?whether ?B.C. ?judges ?use ?myths ?about ?sexual ?assault ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?460 ?Dinovitzer, ?supra ?note ?353 ?at ?155?156 ?citing ?Research ?Section, ?Justice ?Canada, ?A ?Review ?of ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Case ?Law ?1985-??1988, ?Sexual ?Assault ?Legislation ?in ?Canada: ?An ?Evaluation ?(Report ?No ?6) ?(Ottawa: ?Justice ?Canada, ?1992); ?Du ?Mont, ?Forte ?& ?Badgley, ?supra ?note ?359 ?at ?494. ? ? 106 ?IV. ?Case ?Sample ?Characteristics: ?Gendered ?Violence ?and ?Missing ?Pieces ? ? The ?cases ?in ?the ?sample ?reflected ?the ?nature ?of ?sexual ?offences: ?gendered ?and ?violent. ?Although ?their ?existence ?was ?based ?on ?their ?exceptionality, ?they ?confirmed ?what ?feminist ?scholars ?have ?been ?saying ?about ?sexual ?violence. ?However, ?there ?is ?much ?about ?sexual ?violence, ?and ?its ?legal ?construction, ?that ?these ?cases ?do ?not ?reveal. ? ? ? From ?my ?approach ?I ?gathered ?a ?case ?sample ?made ?up ?of ?66 ?cases, ?11 ?of ?which ?are ?appeals ?and ?the ?rest ?trial-??level ?sentencing ?decisions. ?They ?address ?62 ?discrete ?cases, ?with ?four ?cases ?including ?both ?sentencing ?and ?appeal ?decisions.461 ?Slightly ?more ?than ?half ?of ?offenders ?had ?their ?guilt ?established ?by ?conviction. ?In ?these ?cases, ?judges ?most ?often ?relied ?on ?their ?findings ?of ?fact ?from ?convictions, ?typically ?either ?quoting ?from ?or ?summarizing ?their ?earlier ?findings ?of ?fact. ?In ?a ?few ?cases, ?judges ?had ?to ?determine ?the ?facts ?for ?sentencing ?following ?a ?guilty ?verdict ?from ?a ?jury. ?In ?these ?cases, ?judges ?proceeded ?to ?determine ?the ?facts ?of ?the ?offence ?with ?little ?disagreement ?from ?counsel. ?Similarly, ?guilty ?pleas, ?made ?by ?nearly ?half ?of ?offenders, ?did ?not ?often ?result ?in ?disagreements ?about ?the ?facts. ? ? ? ? Within ?the ?sample, ?the ?gendered ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence ?was ?obvious. ?Every ?offender ?was ?male ?and ?nearly ?all ?were ?adults. ?Every ?adult ?survivor, ?except ?one, ?was ?a ?woman. ?The ?majority ?of ?survivors ?were ?under ?18 ?years ?old,462 ?and ?most ?of ?these ?were ?girls. ?However, ?structural ?inequalities ?other ?than ?gender ?and ?age ?were ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?461 ?Of ?the ?62 ?cases, ?there ?are ?65 ?offenders ?and ?96 ?survivors. ?The ?sample ?only ?includes ?offenders ?guilty ?of ?sexual ?offences ?and ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?offences ?other ?than ?child ?pornography. ? ?462 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a)(ii.1) ?dictates ?that ?courts ?consider ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?victimized ?someone ?under ?the ?age ?of ?18. ?As ?a ?result, ?I ?use ?this ?age ?to ?determine ?whether ?survivors ?are ?youths ?or ?adults. ? ? ? 107 ?not ?as ?apparent ?because ?these ?sentencing ?judgments ?omitted ?most ?personal ?characteristics ?about ?offenders ?and ?survivors. ? ? ? Judges ?typically ?did ?not ?record ?offenders? ?race ?or ?ethnicity. ?They ?made ?two ?exceptions: ?they ?identified ?offenders ?who ?were ?immigrants ?when ?chronicling ?offender?s ?lives; ?and ?they ?identified ?Aboriginal ?offenders ?by ?reference ?to ?Gladue ?Reports463 ?submitted ?pursuant ?to ?section ?718.2(e) ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code. ?Beyond ?these ?exceptions, ?courts ?did ?not ?note ?race ?and ?ethnicity; ?therefore, ?any ?role ?the ?offender?s ?race ?may ?have ?played ?in ?the ?proceedings ?is ?unascertainable. ? ? ? Judges ?only ?recorded ?survivors? ?gender, ?age, ?and ?relationship ?(if ?any) ?to ?offenders. ?Information ?about ?survivors? ?race ?or ?ethnicity ?was ?almost ?entirely ?absent ?from ?cases, ?except ?in ?cases ?in ?which ?courts ?identified ?survivors ?as ?Aboriginal, ?which ?they ?often ?did ?indirectly. ?Judges ?typically ?also ?omitted ?other ?vulnerabilities ?or ?inequalities: ?in ?a ?few ?cases, ?judges ?noted ?a ?survivor?s ?drug ?addiction, ?history ?of ?sexual ?abuse, ?or ?involvement ?in ?prostitution; ?however, ?it ?seems ?likely ?that ?judges ?omitted ?these ?and ?other ?circumstances ?and ?identities, ?such ?as ?social ?class, ?sexuality, ?and ?disability, ?more ?often ?than ?not. ?Written ?judgments ?also ?disregarded ?survivors? ?presentation ?and ?appearance, ?including ?clothing, ?speech, ?and ?mannerisms ?during ?assaults ?and ?at ?court. ?Together, ?these ?identities, ?circumstances, ?and ?traits ?may ?have ?influenced ?how ?judges ?understood ?and ?constructed ?offences ?and ?the ?harm ?survivors ?suffered, ?in ?accordance ?with ?rape ?myths ?based ?on ?dominant ?notions ?about ?gender, ?race, ?sexuality, ?and ?class.464 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?463 ?R. ?v. ?Gladue, ?supra ?note ?274. ?464 ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?671?674, ?678?687, ?689?694; ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?625?626; ?Temkin ?& ?Krah?, ?supra ?note ?20 ?at ?45?47; ?See ?also ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7; ?Tracey ?Lindberg, ? ? 108 ? ? I ?hypothesize ?that ?judges ?did ?not ?include ?this ?information ?in ?part ?to ?be ?non-??discriminatory. ?This ?approach ?reflects ?a ?formal ?idea ?of ?equality: ?treating ?everyone ?the ?same, ?regardless ?of ?circumstance. ?However, ?Gotell ?acerbically ?described ?the ?problems ?with ?this ?approach ?as ??the ?universalizing ?pretences ?of ?justice, ?whereby ?racial ?[and ?other] ?power ?relations ?are ?excised ?from ?judicial ?pronouncements, ?thus ?reinforcing ?law?s ?claim ?to ?objectivity.?465 ?The ?blinders ?of ?a ?formal ?equality ?approach ?do ?not ?guarantee ?that ?discrimination ?and ?systemic ?inequality ?are ?eliminated ?from ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system;466 ?rather ?they ?obscure ?their ?presence. ?Race ?and ?gender, ?as ?well ?as ?other ?forms ?of ?inequalities, ?are ?instead ??hidden ?beneath ?the ?individualized ?gaze ?of ?the ?criminal ?law.?467 ? ? ? The ?absence ?of ?information ?about ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?makes ?a ?fulsome ?intersectional ?analysis ?impossible: ?without ?knowing ?how ?judges ?perceived ?offenders? ?and ?survivors? ?race, ?Aboriginality, ?ability, ?sexuality, ?class, ?and ?so ?on, ?I ?cannot ?analyze ?how ?these ?factors ?influenced ?constructions ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system. ?Nonetheless, ?I ?proceeded ?with ?the ?information ?available. ? ? I ?was ?struck ?by ?how ?violent ?the ?sexual ?offences ?committed ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?were.468 ?Although ?most ?offenders ?were ?convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?and ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Priscilla ?Campeau ?& ?Maria ?Campbell, ??Indigenous ?Women ?and ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada? ?in ?Elizabeth ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?87. ?465 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?135. ?466 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?78. ?467 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?135. ?468 ?In ?some ?cases, ?the ?violence ?of ?the ?offence ?was ?not ?reflected ?in ?the ?charge ?at ?conviction. ?Although ?I ?did ?not ?set ?out ?to ?study ?whether ?offenders ?were ?charged ?or ?convicted ?of ?offences ?less ?serious ?than ?the ?crimes ?they ?committed ?on ?the ?facts, ?it ?did ?appear ?that ?this ?occurred ?at ?least ?in ?a ?couple ?of ?cases, ?consistent ?with ?what ?Du ?Mont ?found ?among ?Ontario ?cases: ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?55. ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?2011 ?BCSC ?345 ?at ?paras ?2-??3 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?when ?he ?had ?caused ?a ?swollen ?abrasion ?on ?the ?survivor?s ?head]; ?R. ?v. ?Alasti, ?2011 ?BCSC ?824 ?at ?para ?5 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?when ?he ?caused ?vaginal ?injuries ?to ?the ?survivor]; ?R. ?v. ?Williams, ?2011 ? ? 109 ?interference, ?not ?the ?more ?serious ?offences ?of ?sexual ?assault ?II ?and ?III,469 ?many ?cases ?detailed ?sickening ?levels ?of ?violence ?or ?abuse. ?Offences ?against ?children ?or ?adolescents ?often ?covered ?countless ?acts ?of ?sexual ?assault, ?in ?one ?case ?possibly ?over ?a ?thousand,470 ?over ?months ?or ?years. ?Offences ?against ?adult ?women, ?usually ?consisting ?of ?a ?single ?assault, ?were ?characterized ?by ?violence, ?force ?and ?degradation, ?frequently ?beyond ?what ?is ?typically ?considered ?inherent ?in ?sexual ?assault. ?Of ?the ?most ?vicious ?crimes, ?accounting ?for ?some ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault ?level ?II ?and ?III ?cases, ?one ?offender ?bit ?off ?the ?survivor?s ?entire ?nose;471 ?one ?repeatedly ?strangled ?the ?survivor ?into ?unconsciousness, ?among ?other ?acts ?of ?violence;472 ?and ?another ?padlocked ?the ?survivor ?to ?a ?bed, ?beat ?her ?with ?his ?fists ?and ?the ?handles ?of ?knives, ?and ?attempted ?to ?burn ?her ?with ?a ?butane ?torch.473 ?Often, ?the ?most ?violent ?sexual ?assaults ?against ?adult ?women ?occurred ?within ?intimate ?relationships.474 ? ? ? Perhaps ?sexual ?violence ?is ?even ?more ?horrific ?than ?we ?realize. ?As ?I ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?Raphael ?presented ?a ?portrait ?of ?acquaintance ?rape ?that ?dispels ?the ?common ?perception ?that ?it ?is ?not ?violent. ?She ?revealed ?instead ?that ?perpetrators ?of ?so ?called ??date ?rape? ?often ?use ?significant ?violence ?and ?cause ?serious ?harm ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?BCCA ?194 ?at ?para ?1 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?when ?he ?caused ?vaginal ?injuries ?to ?the ?survivor]; ?R. ?v. ?Allen, ?2012 ?BCSC ?215 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC)], ?rev?d ?2012 ?BCCA ?377 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA)] ?[convicted ?of ?sexual ?assault ?I ?when ?he ?had ?been ?a ?party ?to ?the ?offence ?with ?another ?person]. ?469 ?Sexual ?assault ?II ?and ?III, ?invitation ?to ?sexual ?touching, ?sexual ?exploitation, ?and ?incest ?were ?also ?represented ?but ?less ?common. ?470 ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1406 ?at ?para ?2 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?471 ?R. ?v. ?Gonzalez-??Hernandez, ?2011 ?BCSC ?1039 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?472 ?R. ?v. ?Wheeler, ?2011 ?BCCA ?248 ?at ?para ?4 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?473 ?R. ?v. ?Dariani, ?2011 ?BCCA ?143 ?at ?para ?8 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?474 ?Ibid; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzalez-??Hernandez, ?supra ?note ?471; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?2011 ?BCSC ?1363 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1527 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?However, ?one ?case ?was ?significantly ?different ?than ?the ?other ?domestic ?cases. ?It ?was ?an ?HIV ?failure ?to ?disclose ?case ?involving ?two ?women ?with ?whom ?the ?offender ?was ?in ?intimate ?relationships: ?R. ?v. ?A.T.R., ?2011 ?BCPC ?283 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 110 ?survivors.475 ?Perhaps ?we ?are ?likewise ?underestimating ?the ?violence ?and ?harm ?of ?all ?sexual ?offences, ?based ?on ?a ?gendered ?perspective ?that ?minimizes ?male ?violence ?and ?discounts ?the ?female ?experience ?of ?terror ?and ?injury. ? ? ? However, ?I ?do ?not ?believe ?the ?misperception ?of ?violence ?and ?harm ?entirely ?accounts ?for ?the ?extreme ?violence ?within ?many ?cases ?in ?the ?sample. ?Although ?I ?have ?no ?doubt ?that ?sexual ?offences ?are ?more ?violent ?than ?Canadian ?society ?generally ?appreciates ?them ?to ?be, ?I ?suspect ?that ?the ?case ?sample ?over-??represents ?the ?most ?violent ?and ?injurious ?cases. ?Reporting ?rates ?are ?low ?and ?attrition ?rates ?within ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?are ?high, ?and ?both ?are ?influenced ?by ?rape ?myths ?that ?sexual ?offences ?that ?do ?not ?involve ?weapons ?or ?result ?in ?injury ?are ?illegitimate ?or ?unbelievable. ?Given ?the ?filtering ?process, ?it ?appears ?likely ?that ?less ?obviously ?violent ?offences, ?cases ?without ?weapons, ?confinement, ?threats, ?and ?resistance,476 ?are ?more ?likely ?to ?go ?unreported ?and ?be ??discounted ?and ?rendered ?invisible ?by ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?and ?the ?mainstream ?culture ?more ?generally?.477 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?475 ?Raphael, ?supra ?note ?56. ?476 ?Johnson, ??Limits?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?626?634; ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?55 ?at ?311?314, ?326?327. ?See ?generally ?Chapter ?II, ?Sections ?A ?& ?B. ?477 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?38. ? ? 111 ?V. ?Doctrinal ?Analysis ? ? ? In ?general, ?courts ?constructed ?sexual ?assault ?as ?a ?violent, ?blameworthy, ?and ?harmful ?crime. ?However, ?as ?I ?explore ?in ?my ?doctrinal ?analysis, ?they ?also ?abstracted ?and ?isolated ?sexual ?violence ?from ?inequality ?by ?erasing ?the ?unequal ?power ?between ?survivors ?and ?offenders. ?Assisted ?by ?their ?individualistic ?focus, ?in ?some ?cases ?courts ?interpreted ?and ?applied ?legal ?doctrine ?based ?on ?gendered ?and ?discriminatory ?assumptions ?about ?sexual ?violence ?to ?characterize ?sexual ?violence ?as ?similar ?to ?consensual ?sex. ?Rape ?myths ?were ?apparent ?within ?the ?three ?doctrinal ?aspects ?of ?cases ?I ?considered, ?and ?were ?most ?clear ?in ?cases ?of ?adolescent ?and ?other ??risky? ?survivors. ? ? When ?considering ?the ?principles ?of ?sentencing ?courts ?took ?a ?contextual ?view ?of ?offenders? ?circumstances ?but ?did ?not ?similarly ?consider ?the ?circumstances ?of ?survivors. ?As ?a ?result, ?they ?did ?not ?see ?women ?as ?vulnerable ?to ?sexual ?violence ?or ?generally ?relate ?specific ?vulnerability ?to ?inequality.478 ? ? ? Judges ?did ?not ?regularly ?assess ?the ?relevance ?or ?fairness ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?in ?sentencing. ?As ?a ?result, ?they ?risked ?sexualizing ?survivors ?or ?forced ?them ?to ?address ?discriminatory ?questioning, ?such ?as ?whether ?they ?seduced ?other ?men ?prior ?to ?the ?offence ?or ?were ?seen ?masturbating ?by ?the ?offender.479 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?478 ?One ?example ?is ?that ?courts ?inconsistently ?considered ?the ?Aboriginal ?heritage ?of ?survivors, ?including ?whether ?it ?made ?them ?uniquely ?vulnerable ?or ?harmed ?by ?offences: ?see ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?D.B.V., ?2011 ?BCSC ?1350 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?F.A.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?362 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470. ?479 ?R. ?v. ?Kontzamanis, ?2011 ?BCCA ?269 ?at ?para ?4 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff?g ?R. ?v. ?P.P.K., ?2010 ?BCSC ?460; ?R. ?v. ?W., ?2011 ?BCPC ?462 ?at ?para ?32 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff?d ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?2012 ?BCCA ?454 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? ? 112 ? ? In ?their ?construction ?of ?the ?seriousness ?of ?offences ?and ?blameworthiness ?of ?offenders, ?courts ?typically ?considered ?sexual ?crimes ?to ?be ?violent; ?however, ?in ?some ?cases, ?courts ?characterized ?offences ?as ?not ?violent ?or ?threatening, ?or ?even ?as ??mistakes? ?or ?acts ?of ?poor ?judgment. ?In ?these ?cases, ?courts ?blurred ?the ?line ?between ?consensual ?sex ?and ?sexual ?violence, ?often ?ignoring ?evidence ?of ?explicit ?violence ?to ?do ?so.480 ?Similarly, ?courts ?sometimes ?determined ?offences ?were ?not ??predatory? ?based ?on ?assumptions ?that ?offenders ?who ?assault ?acquaintances, ?do ?not ?stalk ?victims, ?or ?do ?not ?plan ?offences ?are ?less ?dangerous.481 ? ? ? Based ?on ?the ?common ?law ?doctrine ?that ?evidence ?of ??good? ?character ?is ?mitigating, ?courts ?assumed ?offenders ?with ?families, ?jobs, ?or ?church ?affiliations ?were ?less ?blameworthy ?or ?suffered ?more ?professional ?and ?reputational ?consequences ?from ?convictions ?than ?other ?offenders.482 ?As ?well, ?judges ?also ?assumed ?intoxication ?caused ?or ?contributed ?to ?offenders? ?acts ?of ?violence, ?finding ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?abuse ?mitigating ?and ?indicative ?of ?offenders? ?rehabilitation ?potential.483 ?In ?some ?cases, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?480 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?2011 ?BCPC ?254 ?at ?para ?13 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?14-??15, ?34 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?2012 ?BCPC ?273 ?at ?para ?25 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470 ?at ?paras ?2, ?31; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?2012 ?BCPC ?436 ?at ?para ?21 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?2012 ?BCPC ?397 ?at ?para ?37 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?2012 ?BCPC ?115 ?at ?10 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?2012 ?BCCA ?290 ?at ?para ?36 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?rev?g ?R. ?v. ?R.W.V., ?2011 ?BCPC ?471 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?481 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?412 ?at ?paras ?25-??26 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy, ?2011 ?BCSC ?366 ?at ?para ?6 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?25; ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?2011 ?BCSC ?319 ?at ?para ?48 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?2011 ?BCSC ?626 ?at ?para ?33 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?482 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?A.J.L., ?2012 ?BCPC ?420 ?at ?para ?39 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?7; ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?2012 ?BCSC ?502 ?at ?para ?44 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?2012 ?BCPC ?502 ?at ?para ?35 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?2011 ?BCSC ?1553 ?at ?para ?12 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?35. ?483 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?2011 ?BCSC ?915 ?at ?paras ?18, ?20 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?39, ?45; ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?45; ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?40; ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?2011 ?BCPC ?350 ?at ?para ?44 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 113 ?judges ?also ?considered ?offenders? ?misogyny ?as ?contributing ?to ?offences, ?a ?promising ?development.484 ? ? ? In ?assessing ?offences, ?courts ?did ?not ?always ?seriously ?consider ?harm ?to ?survivors.485 ?Courts ?tended ?to ?place ?less ?emphasis ?on ?harm ?when ?they ?also ?portrayed ?survivors ?as ?engaging ?in ?risky ?behaviour ?or ?consenting ?to ?offences. ?Most ?clearly, ?courts ?failed ?to ?seriously ?consider ?harm ?of ?adolescent ?survivors ?of ?offences ?by ?strangers ?and ?acquaintances.486 ?Courts ?also ?interpreted ?the ?harm ?suffered ?by ?women ?in ?prostitution ?differently ?than ?they ?tended ?to ?interpret ?other ?survivors? ?harm, ?determining ?survivors ?had ?not ?suffered ?significant ?harm, ?had ?recovered, ?or ?had, ?in ?part, ?left ?prostitution ?because ?of ?the ?offence.487 ? ? Rape ?myths ?were ?most ?apparent ?in ?courts? ?failure ?to ?consider ?harm; ?however, ?they ?also ?arose ?in ?courts? ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence, ?failure ?to ?consider ?context, ?and ?construction ?of ?aggravating ?and ?mitigating ?circumstances. ? ? Rape ?myths ?seem ?particularly ?entrenched ?against ?adolescents. ?As ?argued ?by ?Benedet ?in ??The ?Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?this ?may ?be ?a ?symptom ?of ?the ?increase ?in ?the ?age ?of ?consent ?at ?a ?time ?when ?the ?wider ?culture ?continues ?to ?sexualize ?adolescents. ?Benedet ?found ?that ??commonsense? ?assumptions ?about ?adolescent ?sexuality ?were ?used ?to ?successfully ?defend ?sexual ?violence ?against ?vulnerable ?adolescents ?who ?appeared ?older ?than ?their ?age, ?socialized ?with ?grown ?men, ?and ?drank ?alcohol.488 ?By ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?484 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?2012 ?BCPC ?211 ?at ?paras ?86-??87 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?2011 ?BCPC ?353 ?at ?para ?45 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?paras ?31-??33, ?51, ?59 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?485 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480. ?486 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?2012 ?BCPC ?80 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?2012 ?BCPC ?414 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?487 ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?39; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?12. ?488 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?679?680. ? ? 114 ?focusing ?on ?age, ?judges ?portrayed ?sexual ?violence ?against ?adolescents ?as ??technical? ?sexual ?assaults ?while ?ignoring ?offenders? ?exploitation ?of ?glaring ?power ?imbalances.489 ? ? ? In ?the ?case ?sample, ?courts ?relied ?on ?similar ?reasoning: ?they ?sexualized ?adolescent ?survivors ?by ?determining ?that ?they ?agreed ?to ?offences ?they ?could ?not ?legally ?consent ?to ?or ?by ?subtly ?portraying ?them ?as ?incautious ?while ?leaving ?the ?consequences ?to ?them ?unconsidered.490 ?Courts ?did ?not ?take ?this ?approach ?in ?cases ?of ?offences ?by ?family ?members ?against ?adolescents; ?there, ?courts ?recognized ?the ?inequality ?and ?coercion ?of ?family ?members ?or ?caregivers ?forcing ?sexual ?contact ?on ?youths,491 ?perhaps ?due ?to ?the ?clear ?application ?of ?abuse ?of ?trust, ?dependence, ?and ?power, ?aggravating ?under ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?to ?family ?relationships.492 ?Courts ?did ?not ?as ?clearly ?identify ?similar ?concerns ?in ?cases ?of ?adolescents ?assaulted ?by ?people ?outside ?their ?families ?and ?vulnerable ?women: ?here, ?the ?law?s ?historical ?preoccupation ?with ?morality ?and ?current ?focus ?on ??risk?, ?and ?its ?ignorance ?of ?structural ?inequality ?and ?power ?imbalances, ?was ?most ?evident. ? ? ? Although ?judges ?sometimes ?used ?rape ?myths, ?it ?does ?not ?necessarily ?follow ?that ?they ?intended ?to ?discriminate. ?As ?I ?explored ?in ?Chapters ?I ?and ?II, ?rape ?myths ?have ?become ??commonsense? ?through ?language, ?culture, ?and ?common ?law, ?so ?their ?use ?can ?be ?unintentional ?and ?unnoticed. ?Judges ?do ?not ?construct ?offences ?alone, ?but ?within ?the ?context ?of ?legal ?institutional ?discourse ?and ?in ?the ?face ?of ?the ?language ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?489 ?Ibid ?at ?678?679, ?685?687. ?490 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486; ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486. ?491 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?482 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A., ?2012 ?BCPC ?159 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?S.S.E., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1223 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?W., ?supra ?note ?479. ?492 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a)(iii). ? ? 115 ?witnesses ?and ?counsel. ?I ?speculate ?that ?judges? ?reasoning, ?despite ?their ?best ?intentions, ?evinced ?myths ?because ?they ?did ?not ?situate ?sexual ?violence ?in ?its ?context ?of ?gender ?inequality. ? ? ?A. The ?Principles ?of ?Sentencing: ?An ?Asymmetrical ?Approach ?to ?Context ?and ?Vulnerability ? ? Courts ?universally ?considered ?the ?contextual ?factors ?that ?brought ?offenders ?before ?the ?courts. ?This ?focus ?arose ?from ?the ?sentencing ?principles ?that ?courts ?tailor ?sentences ?to ??the ?degree ?of ?responsibility ?of ?the ?offender?493 ?and ?also ?determine ?the ?appropriate ?purposes ?for ?sentencing ?a ?particular ?offender, ?such ?as ?denunciation, ?deterrence, ?and ?rehabilitation.494 ?Context ?has ?particular ?importance ?when ?courts ?sentence ?Aboriginal ?offenders: ?although ?courts ?must ?consider ??all ?available ?sanctions ?other ?than ?imprisonment ?that ?are ?reasonable ?in ?the ?circumstances? ?for ?all ?offenders, ?they ?must ?pay ??particular ?attention ?to ?the ?circumstances ?of ?aboriginal ?offenders?,495 ?including ?the ?legacy ?of ?colonialism ?and ?residential ?schools. ?As ?a ?consequence, ?a ?large ?proportion ?of ?most ?decisions ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?was ?dedicated ?to ?considering ?the ?contextual ?circumstances ?of ?offenders. ? ? Legislators ?and ?judges ?have ?not ?paid ?the ?same ?attention ?to ?context ?when ?considering ?survivors. ?Although ?courts ?considered ?it ?aggravating ?if ?offenders ?committed ?offences ?against ?a ?vulnerable ?person, ?courts ?inconsistently ?identified ?vulnerability, ?and ?when ?they ?did, ?they ?infrequently ?related ?vulnerability ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?493 ?Ibid, ?s ?718.1. ?494 ?Ibid, ?s ?718. ?495 ?Ibid, ?s ?718.2(e). ?This ?requirement ?has ?been ?considered ?by ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?R. ?v. ?Gladue, ?supra ?note ?274 ?and ?R. ?v. ?Ipeelee, ?supra ?note ?274. ? ? 116 ?inequality, ?particularly ?gender ?inequality; ?instead ?it ?was ?presented ?as ?circumstantial ?and ?transient. ? ? ? As ?required ?by ?the ?Criminal ?Code,496 ?courts ?typically ?identified ?children ?and ?adolescents ?as ?vulnerable ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor. ?This ?rule ?did ?not ?apply ?to ?women: ?despite ?clear ?evidence ?that ?women ?are ?uniquely ?targeted ?for ?sexual ?violence, ?neither ?Parliament ?nor ?courts ?identified ?women ?generally ?as ?vulnerable. ? ? ? However, ?although ?courts ?did ?not ?construct ?women ?as ?vulnerable ?to ?violence, ?they ?did ?sometimes ?note ?that ?they ?needed ?protection ?from ?violence: ?in ?a ?few ?cases, ?courts ?identified ?the ?protection ?of ?women ?from ?violence ?or ?from ?the ?specific ?offender ?as ?a ?principle ?of ?sentencing: ?courts ?variously ?stated ?that ??[a]ll ?women ?? ?all ?people, ?for ?that ?matter, ?but ?women ?in ?particular ?? ?must ?be ?able ?to ?feel ?safe ?in ?a ?taxicab?;497 ?that ?women ?are ?often ?fearful ?for ?their ?safety ?so ?sexual ?assaults ?of ?women ?when ?they ?were ?on ?public ?streets ?in ?daylight, ?where ?they ?would ?feel ?safe, ?were ?particularly ?blameworthy;498 ?that ??[s]ociety ?does ?not ?tolerate ?domestic ?abuse, ?let ?alone ?domestic ?sexual ?abuse, ?nor ?the ?abuse ?of ?women ?generally??;499 ?and ?that ?a ?perpetrator ?needed ?to ?be ?rehabilitated ?to ?learn ?meaningful ?respect ?for ??female ?human ?dignity ?and ?autonomy?.500 ? ? ? With ?these ?statements, ?judges ?alluded ?to ?the ?need ?to ?protect ?women ?from ?violence ?but ?failed ?to ?then ?consider ?why ?women ?in ?particular ?need ?protection. ?They ?did ?not ?discuss ?the ?prevalence ?of ?sexual ?violence ?by ?men ?against ?women, ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?496 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(1)(ii.1). ?497 ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?43 ?[emphasis ?in ?original]. ?498 ?R. ?v. ?Boden, ?2012 ?BCPC ?331 ?at ?paras ?62, ?75 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?499 ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?51. ?500 ?R. ?v. ?Singh, ?2012 ?BCSC ?466 ?at ?para ?29 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 117 ?gendered ?impacts ?of ?sexual ?assault ?on ?survivors, ?or ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system?s ?history ?of ?discriminating ?against ?survivors ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?Judgments ?portrayed ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?women ?in ?a ?vacuum, ?and ?in ?relation ?to ?a ?specific ?offender ?or ?a ?specific ?situation ?(e.g., ?being ?intoxicated ?in ?a ?taxi, ?being ?in ?public, ?being ?undressed ?and ?alone ?with ?a ?message ?therapist),501 ?without ?relating ?it ?to ?the ?vulnerability ?from ?simply ?being ?a ?woman. ?Similarly, ?courts ?identified ?women ?in ?prostitution,502 ?a ?young ?woman ?living ?in ?a ?rooming ?house ?who ?was ?ill,503 ?and ?a ?woman ?addicted ?to ?drugs504 ?as ?vulnerable ?but ?did ?not ?relate ?their ?vulnerability ?to ?gender ?or ?other ?forms ?of ?inequality ?like ?poverty; ?vulnerabilities ?were ?simply ?there, ?again ?suggesting ?an ?individualized ?or ?transient ?circumstance.505 ? ? Courts ?inconsistently ?recognized ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?Aboriginal ?women ?and ?children. ?In ?one ?case ?the ?court ?did ?recognize ?it, ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?the ?judge ?used ?the ?prevalence ?of ?violence ?against ?Aboriginal ?women, ?as ?a ?part ?of ?the ?legacy ?of ?residential ?schools, ?to ?understand ?the ?sexual ?offence ?in ?the ?remote ?community. ?The ?judge ?stated ??the ?sentence ?has ?to ?make ?it ?clear ?that ?violence, ?especially ?forms ?of ?sexual ?violence ?against ?aboriginal ?women, ?is ?unacceptable.?506 ?Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Williams, ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?agreed ?with ?the ?sentencing ?judge?s ?approach ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?501 ?See ?e.g., ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?43; ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?86-??87, ?95; ?R. ?v. ?Alasti, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?39-??40. ?502 ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?39, ?41; ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?2012 ?BCPC ?73 ?at ?paras ?4, ?8, ?11 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?34. ?503 ?R. ?v. ?Kontzamanis, ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?para ?8. ?504 ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?51. ?505 ?R. ?v. ?Klassen, ?2012 ?BCCA ?405 ?at ?paras ?11, ?18-??21 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?is ?an ?exception. ?Although ?the ?court ?did ?not ?explicitly ?consider ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?the ?survivors, ?prostituted ?girls ?in ?Columbia ?and ?Cambodia, ?in ?relation ?to ?their ?gender, ?it ?did ?put ?it ?in ?the ?context ?of ?their ?youth ?and ?economic ?and ?social ?marginalization ?as ?well ?as ?the ?failure ?of ?the ?legal ?institutions ?in ?Columbia ?and ?Cambodia ?to ?protect ?them. ?506 ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?38. ? ? 118 ?consider ?the ?need ?to ?protect ?Aboriginal ?children ?from ?abuse ?and ?deter ?violence ?in ?the ?Aboriginal ?community.507 ? ? ? However, ?in ?other ?cases ?in ?which ?both ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?were ?Aboriginal, ?courts ?considered ?the ?Aboriginal ?background ?of ?the ?offender ?without ?mentioning ?whether ?the ?survivor ?was ?particularly ?vulnerable ?or ?suffered ?particular ?harm ?because ?she ?was ?Aboriginal. ?This ?absence ?seemed ?glaring ?in ?light ?of ?the ?court?s ?fairly ?consistent ?recognition ?of ?the ?intergenerational ?nature ?of ?sexual ?abuse ?in ?regards ?to ?offenders. ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?the ?court ?considered ?the ?Aboriginal ?offender?s ?own ?sexual ?abuse ?to ?understand ?his ?culpability ?and ?determine ?the ?appropriate ?sentencing ?goals;508 ?however, ?the ?judge ?did ?not ?discuss ?that ?the ?offender?s ?targets, ?his ?young ?niece ?and ?nephew, ?were ?also ?Aboriginal ?children ?who ?would ?now ?grow ?up ?with ?the ?trauma ?of ?sexual ?abuse, ?continuing ?the ?cycle. ? ? ? I ?am ?not ?the ?first ?researcher ?to ?find ?that ?judges ?do ?not ?consider ?gender ?inequality ?in ?sexual ?offence ?cases.509 ?It ?is ?not ?surprising, ?given ?that ?courts ?have ?interpreted ?sexual ?assault ?law ?using ?neoliberal, ??transactional? ?logic ?rather ?than ?a ?feminist ?approach.510 ?However, ?it ?is ?problematic ?because ?sentencing ?is ?phase ?of ?the ?trial ?process ?where ?context ?and ?social ?interests ?can ?be ?considered. ?Instead, ?the ?typical ?approach ?of ?courts ?is ?blind ?to ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?the ?extent ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability ?and ?harm, ?and ?ultimately ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?offender?s ?crime; ?it ?renders ?inequalities ?invisible ?and ?fails ?to ?challenge ?them, ?perpetuating ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?507 ?R. ?v. ?Williams, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?5, ?9. ?See ?also ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?32. ?508 ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470 ?at ?paras ?66, ?70. ?509 ?See ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75. ?510 ?See ?generally ?Comack ?& ?Peter, ?supra ?note ?63 ?at ?284?286; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?706?707; ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?872?882. ? ? 119 ?neoliberal ?notion ?that ?they ?have ?no ?relevance ?to ?our ?response ?to ?sexual ?violence. ?This ?blindness ?was ?most ?apparent ?in ?cases ?of ?violence ?against ?Aboriginal ?women ?and ?children ?because ?of ?its ?clear ?imbalance. ?While ?courts ?should ?continue ?to ?consider ?the ?affects ?of ?colonialism, ?racism, ?abuse ?and ?neglect ?suffered ?by ?offenders, ?they ?should ?extend ?these ?considerations, ?as ?well ?as ?recognition ?of ?gender ?and ?other ?types ?of ?inequalities, ?to ?survivors ?to ?understand ?the ?crime ?and ?its ?impact ?on ?them. ?B. The ?Relevance ?and ?Fairness ?of ?Sexual ?History ?Evidence ? ? Within ?the ?case ?sample, ?courts ?consistently ?admitted ?and ?relied ?upon ?similar ?types ?of ?evidence ?to ?sentence ?sexual ?offenders. ?In ?the ?face ?of ?broad ?discretion ?to ?admit ?evidence ?that ?does ?not ?meet ?the ?strict ?rules ?in ?the ?trial ?phase ?together ?with ?the ?duty ?to ?hear ?all ?relevant ?information,511 ?at ?sentencing ?courts ?have ?adopted ?a ?standard ?practice. ?This ?standard ?approach ?does ?not ?seem ?to ?include ?considerations ?of ?fairness ?from ?the ?perspective ?of ?the ?survivor. ?Although ?judges ?have ?an ?overarching ?discretion ?to ?reject ?evidence ?that ?is ?more ?prejudicial ?than ?relevant,512 ?they ?generally ?only ?considered ?fairness ?from ?the ?perspective ?of ?the ?offender.513 ?Perhaps ?as ?a ?result, ?they ?often ?considered ?sexual ?history ?evidence. ? ? Due ?to ?legal ?reforms, ?judge ?must ?weigh ?the ?relevance ?and ?probative ?value ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?during ?the ?trial ?phase: ?to ?be ?adduced, ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?must ?be ?relevant ?and ?its ?probative ?value ?must ?not ?be ?substantially ?outweighed ?by ?its ?prejudicial ?effect. ?When ?it ?is ?adduced, ?it ?cannot ?be ?used ?for ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?511 ?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. ?512 ?However, ?this ?is ?usually ?conceived ?of ?in ?terms ?of ?prejudice ?to ?the ?offender, ?not ?the ?survivor. ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?188, ?196. ?513 ?Ibid ?at ?164?203. ? ? 120 ?twin ?myths: ?to ?suggest ?the ?complainant ??is ?more ?likely ?to ?have ?consented ?to ?the ?sexual ?activity ?that ?forms ?the ?subject-??matter ?of ?the ?charge? ?or ??is ?less ?worthy ?of ?belief.?514 ?Similarly, ?sexual ?reputation ?evidence ?cannot ?be ?used ?to ?challenge ?a ?complainant?s ?credibility.515 ?As ?I ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?these ?reforms ?were ?enacted ?to ?reduce ?judicial ?reliance ?on ?rape ?myths ?and ?to ?encourage ?survivors ?to ?report ?crimes ?and ?participate ?in ?the ?criminal ?justice ?process. ? ? ? In ?the ?case ?sample, ?judges ?did ?not ?appear ?to ?consider ?these ?sections ?or ?the ?goals ?behind ?them ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders. ?As ?a ?result, ?courts ?did ?not ?interrogate ?the ?relevance ?of ?sexual ?history ?or ?reputation ?evidence; ?nor ?did ?they ?further ?the ?goals ?of ?the ?sections ?to ?eliminate ?bias ?and ?encourage ?survivor ?participation. ? ? A ?number ?of ?offenders ?submitted ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?or ?suggested ?survivors ?were ?promiscuous ?to ?imply ?survivors ??consented? ?to ?offences. ?Courts ?nearly ?always ?rejected ?offenders? ?attempts ?to ?use ?this ?reasoning, ?and ?often ?used ?allegations ?of ?seduction ?or ?blame ?in ?aggravation ?rather ?than ?in ?mitigation ?as ?offenders ?intended.516 ?However, ?typically ?judges ?did ?not ?suggest ?that ?information ?purportedly ?showing ?that ?survivors ?were ?at ?fault ?was ?irrelevant ?or ?unfair. ?As ?a ?result, ?decisions ?recorded ?information ?that ?clearly ?evoked ?myths ?of ??impure? ?survivors, ?in ?the ?words ?of ?Gotell, ??reducing ?[the ?survivor] ?to ?a ?sexualized ?body, ?the ?unchaste ?seductress ?whose ??no? ?must ?mean ??yes? ?and ?whose ?story ?is ?rendered ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?514 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?276(1)&(2). ?515 ?Ibid, ?s ?277. ?516 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?A.J.L., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?5, ?12, ?19, ?44; ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?2012 ?BCPC ?310 ?at ?paras ?13-??14 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? ? 121 ?unreliable ?by ?her ?emphatic ?sexuality.?517 ?As ?well, ?by ?admitting ?discriminatory ?allegations, ?courts ?forced ?survivors ?to ?address ?them, ?undermining ?the ?law?s ?goal ?to ?encourage ?complainants ?to ?report ?and ?participate. ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Kontzamanis, ?the ?offender ?submitted ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?within ?the ?trial ?phase ?of ?the ?proceedings. ?Quoting ?the ?trial ?judge, ?the ?offender?s ?defence ?was ?that ?the ?survivor, ?an ?18-??year-??old ?woman ?who ?was ?a ?resident ?of ?the ?offender?s ?rooming ?house ?and ?was ?sick ?at ?the ?time ?of ?the ?offence, ?seduced ?him ?after ?having ?sex ?with ?three ?other ?men: ?He ?says ?that ?Ms. ?M. ?started ?flirting ?with ?various ?tenants ?and ?ultimately ?three ?separate ?tenants ?took ?turns ?going ?into ?her ?bedroom. ?After ?the ?third ?tenant ?came ?out ?of ?the ?bedroom, ?he ?testified ?that ?Ms. ?M. ?came ?out ?wearing ?only ?her ?underpants. ?He ?says ?she ?subsequently ?took ?him ?into ?her ?bedroom ?where ?consensual ?sex ?occurred.518 ?The ?offender ?was ?entitled ?to ?raise ?a ?claim ?of ?consent ?at ?trial, ?and ?therefore, ?allege ?she ??seduced? ?him;519 ?however, ?it ?is ?not ?clear ?why ?the ?trial ?judge ?allowed ?him ?to ?adduce ?evidence ?that ?implied ?the ?survivor ?engaged ?in ?sexual ?activity ?with ?three ?men ?beforehand ?when ?its ?sole ?purpose ?was ?to ?suggest ?that ?she ?was ?promiscuous ?and ?therefore ?likely ?to ?have ?consented. ?Although ?the ?jury ?and ?trial ?judge ?did ?not ?believe ?his ?story, ?it ?was ?before ?the ?court ?and ?something ?the ?survivor ?had ?to ?refute ?in ?her ?testimony ?(she ?testified ?that ?she ?could ?not ?remember ?the ?night ?at ?all).520 ? ? ? Most ?often ?in ?the ?sample, ?sexual ?history ?or ?reputation ?evidence ?was ?adduced ?during ?the ?sentencing ?portion ?of ?trials ?after ?offenders ?had ?pleaded ?guilty. ?Offenders ?alleged ?child ?survivors ?had ?been ?sexually ?active ?or ?sexual ?abused ?prior ?to ?offences ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?517 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?135 ?[citation ?omitted]. ?518 ?R. ?v. ?Kontzamanis, ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?para ?4. ?519 ?Ibid. ?520 ?Ibid. ? ? 122 ?or ?had ?enjoyed ?the ?abuse, ?in ?an ?effort ?to ?deflect ?blame. ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?W., ?when ?listing ?the ?aggravating ?factors, ?the ?judge ?noted ?the ?offender?s ?moral ?blameworthiness ?was ?high ??as ?he ?continues ?to ?blame ?the ?victim ?for ?the ?relationship ?starting ?and ?refers ?constantly ?in ?the ?two ?reports, ?filed ?on ?his ?behalf, ?to ?an ?episode ?where ?he ?found ?her ?masturbating ?in ?front ?of ?a ?webcam, ?which ?J.W. ?repeatedly ?denied ?in ?her ?evidence.?521 ?The ?offender ?presented ?this ?information ?to ?suggest ?his ?13-??year-??old ?stepdaughter ?enticed ?him ?or ?consented ?to ?his ?sexual ?abuse, ?and ?therefore ?he ?was ?less ?blameworthy ?or ?in ?need ?of ?sanction. ?Although ?the ?judge ?determined ?that ?the ?offender?s ?blame ?of ?his ?stepdaughter ?J.W. ?was ?aggravating, ?J.W. ?had ?to ??repeatedly? ?deny ?this ?discriminatory ?allegation. ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Allen, ?the ?court ?repeated ?evidence ?about ?the ?sexual ?history ?of ?the ?14-??year-??old ?boy ?survivor, ?K.R. ?Intended ?to ?demonstrate ?his ?vulnerability, ?the ?evidence ?also ?sexualized ?him ?and ?presented ?him ?as ??asking ?for ?it.? ?In ?the ?case, ?two ?offenders, ?in ?addition ?to ?possessing ?child ?pornography, ?sexually ?assaulted ?and ?exposed ?K.R. ?to ?the ?HIV ?virus ?they ?both ?carried ?after ?meeting ?him ?over ?the ?Internet. ?In ?its ?narrative ?of ?the ?offence, ?the ?trial ?court ?detailed ?K.R.?s ?apparent ?interest ?in ?sexual ?activity ?with ?the ?offenders.522 ?As ?a ?part ?of ?the ?discussion ?of ?K.R.?s ?vulnerability ?to ?sexual ?predators, ?the ?court ?repeated ?information ?that ?K.R. ?had ?sexual ?experiences ?before ?and ?after ?the ?offence: ? ?Before ?his ?encounter ?with ?Mr. ?Allen, ?K.R. ?claimed ?in ?a ?chat ?room ?he ?was ?14 ?years ?old ?and ?sexually ?inexperienced. ?Later ?K.R. ?admitted ?to ?multiple ?sexual ?encounters ?with ?adult ?males ?he ?met ?on ?the ?Internet. ?After ?his ?encounter ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?521 ?R. ?v. ?W., ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?para ?32. ?The ?introduction ?of ?this ?sexual ?history ?evidence ?was ?not ?discussed ?on ?appeal: ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?supra ?note ?479. ?522 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?16. ? ? 123 ?with ?Mr. ?Allen, ?K.R. ?re-??registered ?on ?the ?adult ?chat ?site ?using ?the ?username ?"hotfordaddy".523 ?The ?Court ?of ?Appeal, ?in ?reviewing ?the ?decision ?and ?ultimately ?increasing ?the ?sentence, ?also ?mentioned ?that ?K.R. ?was ?not ?a ?virgin ?and ?continued ?to ?use ?the ?same ?adult ?chat ?site ?after ?the ?offence, ?without ?evincing ?any ?concern ?about ?the ?use ?of ?a ?adolescent?s ?sexual ?history ?evidence,524 ?what ?was ?actually ?evidence ?of ?other ?sexual ?assaults ?against ?a ?boy ?who ?was ?not ?old ?enough ?to ?consent. ? ? ? In ?only ?one ?case ?in ?the ?sample ?did ?a ?judge ?expressly ?consider ?the ?admissibility ?of ?sexual ?history ?and ?character ?evidence ?about ?the ?survivor. ?In ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?Cohen ?J. ?characterized ?seven ?of ?the ?nine ?letters ?of ?support, ?submitted ?as ?a ?part ?of ?a ?joint ?submission, ?as ?blaming ?the ?13-??year-??old ?survivor ?for ?the ?offence ?her ?stepfather ?committed ?against ?her ?by ?suggesting ?she ?seduced ?him. ?The ?judge ?found ?that ?the ?letters ?showed ?the ?offender ?had ?the ?support ?of ?people ?who ?blame ?children ?for ?sexual ?assault525 ?and ?that ?they ??should ?not ?have ?been ?presented ?to ?the ?court.?526 ? ? ? ?My ?findings ?echo ?analyses ?of ?the ?trial ?proceedings ?and ?procedural ?applications ?that ?find ?that ?courts ?continue ?to ?use ?evidence ?of ?past ?sexual ?activity ?or ?abuse ?and ?general ?sexual ?character ?or ?flirtatiousness.527 ?In ?sentencing, ?this ?evidence ?may ?have ?some ?value: ?an ?offender?s ?blame ?of ?the ?survivor ?indicates ?that ?he ?has ?no ?remorse ?or ?insight, ?and ?a ?history ?of ?sexual ?experience ?or ?abuse ?can ?show ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability. ?However, ?these ?goals ?could ?be ?met ?without ?specific ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?523 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?28. ?524 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA) ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?17. ?525 ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?26. ?526 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?22. ?527 ?See ?e.g. ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Evidentiary ?Issues?, ?supra ?note ?267 ?at ?533?537; ?Lise ?Gotell, ??When ?Privacy ?is ?Not ?Enough: ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complainants, ?Sexual ?History ?Evidence ?and ?the ?Disclosure ?of ?Personal ?Records? ?(2006) ?43 ?Alta ?L ?Rev ?743 ?[?Privacy?]; ?Craig, ??After ?Ewanchuk?, ?supra ?note ?223 ?at ?260?262. ? ? 124 ?detailed ?information ?about ?a ?survivor?s ?sexual ?history ?or ?general ?statements ?about ?her ?sexual ?morality. ?When ?this ?evidence ?is ?admitted, ?courts ?risk ?sexualizing ?survivors ?based ?on ?rape ?myths ?about ?sexual ?purity ?and ?suggesting ?sexual ?offences ?against ?them ?are ?less ?opprobrious. ?Using ?this ?evidence, ?courts ?also ?undermined ?the ?goals ?of ?the ?reforms ?to ?promote ?equality, ?protect ?survivors ?from ?re-??victimization, ?and ?encourage ?reporting.528 ?If ?courts ?consider ?sexual ?history ?or ?character ?evidence ?relevant ?to ?show ?the ?offender?s ?lack ?of ?remorse ?or ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability, ?it ?should ?be ?admitted ?and ?handled ?in ?a ?sophisticated ?way, ?one ?that ?is ?mindful ?of ?equality ?concerns ?to ?reduce ?the ?risks ?of ?prejudice ?and ?re-??victimization. ? ?C. The ?Interpretation ?and ?Application ?of ?Aggravating ?and ?Mitigating ?Factors ? ? Although ?judges ?stated ?that ?sexual ?offences ?were ?serious ?and ?violent, ?their ?interpretation ?and ?application ?of ?doctrine ?revealed ?a ?more ?ambivalent ?view. ?Their ?ambivalence ?evokes ?the ?old ?pattern ?of ?decrying ?sexual ?offences ?as ?horrific ?and ?serious ?while ?failing ?to ?classify ?all ?sexual ?offences ?as ??real.? ?As ?I ?explain ?in ?this ?section, ?courts ?failed ?to ?consistently ?apply ?legal ?doctrine, ?specifically ?considerations ?of ?blameworthiness ?and ?seriousness, ?in ?a ?way ?that ?recognized ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violence, ?not ?sex, ?and ?appreciated ?the ?gendered ?and ?unequal ?character ?of ?sexual ?violence. ? ? ? ? ? Typically, ?courts ?considered ?sexual ?offences ?to ?be ?violent; ?however, ?in ?some ?cases, ?these ?statements ?seemed ?hollow, ?as ?courts ?distinguished ?between ?the ?offence ?before ?them ?and ?other, ?truly ?violent ?cases, ?based ?on ?rape ?myths. ?Courts ?rationalized ?violence ?as ?male ?loss ?of ?control ?rather ?than ?an ?exercise ?and ?abuse ?of ?unequal ?power. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?528 ?Gotell, ??Privacy?, ?supra ?note ?527, ?paras ?18, ?54?57. ? ? 125 ?Although ?courts ?considered ?misogyny ?as ?a ?cause ?of ?offences ?in ?some ?cases, ?they ?did ?so ?with ?also ?reflecting ?on ?the ?context ?of ?gender ?inequality ?and ?rape ?myths. ? ? Similarly, ?gendered ?myths ?about ?harm ?surfaced ?in ?judicial ?constructions ?of ?blameworthiness ?and ?future ?risk ?that ?turned ?on ?whether ?offenders ?assaulted ?acquaintances ?or ?strangers ?or ?whether ?they ?were ?considered ??good? ?men ?in ?terms ?of ?having ?jobs, ?families, ?and ?churches. ?Nor ?did ?courts ?consistently ?consider ?harm ?to ?survivors ?fully, ?most ?often ?when ?survivors ?were ?adolescents ?or ?vulnerable ?women. ?In ?cases ?where ?courts ?placed ?little ?or ?no ?emphasis ?on ?harm, ?they ?also ?depicted ?survivors ?as ?taking ?unnecessary ?(and ?de-??contextualized) ?risks, ?such ?as ?being ?in ?a ?vulnerable ?situation ?by ?being ?involved ?in ?prostitution, ?or ?as ??consenting? ?to ?offences; ?as ?a ?result, ?these ?offences ?were ?constructed ?as ?similar ?to ?consensual ?sexual ?touching. ? ? ?Portrayals ?of ?Violence ? ? As ?the ?court ?stated ?in ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ??[t]he ?severity ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault ?must ?be ?considered ?in ?light ?of ?both ?parameters, ?the ?violence ?used ?to ?force ?compliance ?and ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?sexual ?acts ?forced ?upon ?the ?victim.?529 ?These ?two ?factors, ?violence ?and ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?sexual ?acts, ?were ?both ?considered ?and ?ultimately ?measured ?by ?judges ?to ?determine ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?offences. ?In ?some ?cases, ?these ?factors ?were ?informed ?by ?sexist ?and ?gendered ?assumptions ?about ?force ?and ?harm. ? ? In ?considering ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?sexual ?touching, ?some ?courts ?continued ?to ?use ?penetration ?as ?the ?benchmark ?for ?a ?serious ?sexual ?offence. ?As ?well, ?judges ?sometimes ?minimized ?the ?violence ?of ?sexual ?offences: ?they ?characterized ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?529 ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?para ?16. ? ? ? 126 ?offences ?as ?non-??violent ?despite ?evidence ?to ?the ?contrary, ?likened ?offences ?to ??mistakes? ?or ?technical ?assaults, ?and ?held ?that ??opportunistic? ?or ?spontaneous ?offences ?were ?less ?harmful ?or ?likely ?to ?re-??occur ?than ??predatory? ?or ?planned ?offences. ?Penetration ? ? Courts ?generally ?characterized ?offences ?involving ?penetration, ?either ?vaginal ?or ?anal, ?as ?the ?most ?serious. ?Sometimes ?they ?explicitly ?used ?penetration ?as ?a ?barometer ?of ?the ?offence?s ?seriousness ?in ?order ?to ?establish ?the ?range ?of ?appropriate ?sentences: ?in ?these ?cases, ?they ?considered ?non-??penetrative ?assaults ?to ?be ?less ?serious ?and ?distinguishable ?on ?that ?basis, ?an ?approach ?used ?in ?offences ?against ?adult ?women530 ?as ?well ?as ?children ?and ?adolescents.531 ? ? Another ?approach ?was ?to ?consider ?penetration ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor. ?The ?B.C. ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?endorsed ?this ?approach ?in ?R. ?v. ?Worthington. ?The ?court ?cautioned ?against ?over-??emphasizing ?penetration ?or ?using ?penetration ?as ?the ??measure ?of ?the ?offence?, ?a ?possible ?relic ?of ?the ?past ?when ?rape ?required ?proof ?of ?penetration. ?Instead, ?the ?court ?suggested ?penetration ?could ?be ?used ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor, ?but ?the ?absence ?of ?penetration ?should ?not ?be ?mitigating ?or ?mean ?the ?offence ?is ?less ?serious.532 ?Courts ?within ?the ?case ?sample ?sometimes ?followed ?this ?approach.533 ? ? ? Offences ?involving ?vaginal ?and ?anal ?rape ?are ?serious ?and ?horrific; ?however, ?penetration ?should ?not ?be ?the ?standard ?of ?seriousness ?in ?sexual ?offences. ?By ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?530 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?34-??38. ?531 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?paras ?44-??46, ?56-??57; ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?25-??30, ?37. ?532 ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?paras ?41-??45. ?533 ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?2011 ?BCPC ?424 ?at ?para ?52 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?75 ?[considered ?it ?both ?in ?assessing ?the ?range ?of ?sentences ?and ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor]. ? ? 127 ?abolishing ?rape ?and ?creating ?the ?crime ?of ?sexual ?assault, ?Parliament ?removed ?the ?focus ?on ?vaginal ?penetration. ?In ?doing ?so, ?the ?law ?moved ?away ?from ?the ?idea ??that ?the ?value ?of ?a ?woman ?lies ?not ?in ?how ?she ?views ?the ?injury, ?but ?in ?the ?value ?of ?her ?vagina.?534 ?However, ?even ?assuming ?that ?penetration ?is ?aggravating ?is ?perpetuating ?this ?stereotypical ?view. ?By ?not ?questioning ?what ?makes ?penetration ?especially ?blameworthy ?or ?harmful, ?courts ?adopt ?a ?male ?perspective ?of ?sex ?and ?sexual ?violence, ?a ?view ?that ?adheres ?to ?rape ?myths ?and ?fails ?to ?consider ?the ?harm ?and ?violation ?as ?experienced ?by ?the ?survivor.535 ? ?Minimizing ?Violence ?and ?Coercion ? ? Given ?the ?categorization ?of ?sexual ?assault ?based ?on ?the ?level ?of ?violence, ?judges ?nearly ?always ?described ?and ?considered ?the ?violence ?used ?by ?perpetrators ?in ?the ?sample. ?In ?most ?cases, ?judges ?were ?careful ?to ?characterize ?sexual ?assault, ?including ?sexual ?assault ?I, ?as ?inherently ?violent, ?in ?keeping ?with ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?conception ?of ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?touching ?as ?assault;536 ?however, ?in ?other ?cases, ?judges ?portrayed ?some ?sexual ?offences ?as ?not ?truly ?violent. ? ? ? I ?found ?some ?courts ?considered ?violence ?as ?something ?that ?offenders ?committed ?in ?addition ?to ?sexual ?assault, ?meaning ?the ?use ?of ?extreme ?violence, ?torture, ?or ?weapons. ?Courts ?were ?more ?likely ?to ?ignore ?other ?types ?of ?violence, ?such ?as ?violence ?not ?causing ?significant ?bodily ?harm, ?threats, ?force ?used ?to ?restrain ?but ?not ?injure, ?unequal ?size ?and ?strength, ?and ?abuse ?or ?manipulation ?of ?power, ?authority ?and ?fear. ?By ?ignoring ?these ?types ?of ?violence, ?and ?overlooking ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?534 ?Goldsberry, ?supra ?note ?91 ?at ?111. ?535 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?25?26; ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?177?178, ?180. ?536 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?265(2). ? ? 128 ?itself ?a ?demonstration ?and ?act ?of ?violence,537 ?courts ?in ?these ?cases ?used ?a ?masculine ?and ?sexist ?conception ?of ?violence.538 ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?ignored ?overt ?acts ?of ?violence ?to ?characterize ?offences ?as ?non-??violent. ?For ?example, ?the ?judge ?minimized ?the ?offender?s ?force ?and ?threats ?to ?subdue ?the ?survivor ?in ?R. ?v. ?Kane. ?The ?offender ?had ?paid ?S.J. ?to ?perform ?fellatio ?on ?him, ?then ?slammed ?her ?head ?against ?the ?wall ?of ?the ?alley, ?robbed ?her ?of ?the ?money ?he ?had ?paid, ?forced ?off ?her ?pants, ?removed ?the ?condom, ?and ?vaginally ?raped ?her, ?telling ?her ?not ?to ?scream. ?During ?the ?sexual ?assault, ?he ?gave ?S.J. ?a ??quarter-??sized ?abrasion? ?on ?her ?head, ?which ?swelled ?and ?caused ?her ?pain.539 ?Yet, ?in ?determining ?the ?appropriate ?sentencing ?principles ?and ?comparing ?the ?case ?to ?others, ?the ?judge ?said, ??there ?were ?no ?overt ?threats ?of ?violence. ?There ?was ?no ?use ?of ?a ?weapon. ?The ?violence ?outside ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault ?itself ?was ?limited.?540 ?Rather ?than ?focusing ?on ?the ?violence ?the ?offender ?had ?committed, ?the ?judge ?focused ?on ?what ?was ?absent, ?repeatedly ?mentioning ?that ?the ?offender ?did ?not ?threaten ?to ?kill ?S.J.541 ?Even ?though ?the ?offender ?smashed ?S.J.?s ?head ?into ?a ?wall ?and ?told ?her ?to ?be ?quiet, ?these ?acts ?fell ?outside ?the ?legal ?conception ?of ?serious ?violence ?in ?sexual ?assault ?in ?this ?case. ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?the ?court ?minimized ?the ?violence ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault. ?The ?trial ?judge ?determined ?the ?offender ?had ?thrown ?the ?survivor ?onto ?her ?bed, ?then ?pinned ?her ?down ?and ?groped ?her ?under ?her ?pajamas ?for ?45 ?minutes ?to ?an ?hour, ?causing ?her ?significant ?bruising. ?Throughout, ?she ?struggled ?and ?pleaded ?with ?him ?to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?537 ?MacKinnon, ??Equality ?Approach?, ?supra ?note ?52 ?at ?268?269; ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?27; ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?220. ?538 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?67?68. ?539 ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?2. ?540 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?34. ?541 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?3, ?14-??15. ? ? 129 ?stop, ?eventually ?persuading ?him ?to ?leave.542 ?However, ?in ?its ?review ?of ?the ?sentence, ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?stated ?that ?the ?offender ??ceased ?[the ?assault] ?when ?asked? ?by ?the ?survivor,543 ?in ?direct ?contradiction ?to ?the ?stated ?facts. ?The ?court?s ?characterization ?ignored ?the ?offender?s ?continuing ?sexual ?violence ?despite ?the ?survivor?s ?pleas ?to ?stop, ?instead ?evoking ?a ?picture ?of ?a ?request ?and ?polite ?cessation. ? ? Similarly, ?in ?a ?number ?of ?cases, ?judges ?mitigated ?sentences ?or ?distinguished ?case ?law ?on ?the ?basis ?that ?there ?was ??no ?force?, ??no ?threats? ?or ??no ?violence? ?in ?offences, ?ignoring ?that ?the ?offences ?themselves ?were ?forceful, ?threatening, ?and ?violent ?from ?the ?perspective ?of ?the ?survivors.544 ?Courts ?devalued ?the ?inherently ?violent ?nature ?of ?sexual ?assault ?most ?obviously ?in ?a ?few ?cases ?in ?the ?sample ?in ?which ?they ?characterized ?offences ?as ??mistakes?, ??assumptions ?of ?consent,? ?or ??poor ?judgment?. ?These ?terms ??disguise[d] ?the ?severity ?of ?the ?violation?545 ?and ?transformed ?sexual ?assault ?from ?an ?act ?of ?violence ?into ?an ?unreciprocated ?sexual ?advance, ?treating ?sex ?and ?sexual ?violence ?as ?more ?similar ?than ?different. ? ? One ?example ?is ?R. ?v. ?B.L. ?The ?offender, ?an ?employer, ?sexually ?assaulted ?his ?female ?employee ?in ?his ?office ?while ?she ?was ?picking ?up ?her ?pay ?cheque: ?he ?grabbed ?her ?waist ?and, ?while ?trying ?to ?kiss ?her, ?pushed ?his ?hand ?underneath ?her ?shirt ?and ?bra ?and ?groped ?her ?breasts. ?He ?then ?tried ?to ?undo ?her ?pants, ?touching ?her ?groin ?as ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?542 ?R. ?v. ?R.W.V., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?4-??5, ?rev?d ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?supra ?note ?480. ?543 ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?36. ?544 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?43; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?21; ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?37; ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L. ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?25. ?545 ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?220. ? ? 130 ?he ?did ?so.546 ?The ?judge ?characterized ?this ?assault ?as ?a ??mistake? ?based ?on ?an ??erroneous ?and ?unlawful ?assumption ?of ?consent?.547 ? ? ? ? In ?another ?case, ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?the ?judge ?characterized ?the ?offender?s ?persistent ?sexual ?touching ?of ?the ?survivor ?while ?she ?protested ??no? ?repeatedly548 ?this ?way: ? ?If ?I ?were ?to ?characterize ?it, ?I ?would ?say ?he ?was ?perhaps ?a ?little, ?maybe, ?obsessed. ?He ?believed ?perhaps ?that ?he ?loved ?the ?complainant ?and ?that ?she ?is, ?and ?he ?said ?she ?was, ?beautiful, ?and ?he ?could ?not ?stop ?thinking ?about ?that. ?So ?he ?found ?himself ?in ?the ?opportunity ?or ?in ?the ?circumstances ?where ?he ?could ?not ?control ?his ?impulses ?and ?he, ?I ?suppose ?one ?might ?say, ?tried ?to ?see ?if ?he ?could ?get ?away ?with ?it, ?and ?he ?could ?not. ?It ?was ?not ?going ?to ?work ?because ?the ?complainant ?was ?engaged ?to ?another ?person ?and ?she ?was ?not ?welcoming ?to ?Mr. ?H.'s ?advances.549 ?The ?judge ?directly ?identified ?the ?sexual ?assault ?as ?arising ?from ?the ?offender?s ?failure ?to ?control ?his ?urges ?based ?on ?his ?love ?of ?the ?beautiful ?survivor. ?The ?offender?s ?brain ?injury ?could ?explain ?the ?judge?s ?generous ?(to ?the ?offender) ?characterization ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault;550 ?however, ?it ?does ?not ?explain ?the ?judge?s ?reliance ?on ?rape ?myths ?about ?beauty ?and ?desire ?causing ?a ?man ?to ?lose ?control. ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?the ?offender, ?a ?33-??year-??old ?man, ?pleaded ?guilty ?to ?sexually ?assaulting ?his ?17-??year-??old ?neighbour ?and ?family ?friend. ?After ?inviting ?her ?into ?his ?house, ?he ?tried ?to ?give ?her ?alcohol, ?kissed ?her, ?touched ?her ?face ?and ?breasts, ?showed ?her ?pornography, ?and ?offered ?her ?money ?in ?exchange ?for ?a ?sex ?act. ?She ?fled ?in ?fear. ?The ?judge ?described ?the ?offence ?as ??a ?fundamental ?error ?in ?judgment?,551 ?where ?the ?offender ??showed ?no ?judgment ?or ?restraint.?552 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?546 ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?1. ?547 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?13. ?548 ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?2-??3. ?549 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?10. ?550 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?64-??65. ?551 ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?7. ?552 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?26. ? ? 131 ? ? Likewise, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?the ?court ?characterized ?the ?offence ?as ??a ?single ?communication ?that ?was ?made ?by ?someone ?exercising ?extremely ?poor ?judgment?553 ?and ??a ?single ?incident ??[where] ?he ?acted ?in ?an ?immature ?manner, ?in ?a ?manner ?that ?demonstrated ?somewhat ?of ?a ?lack ?of ?understanding ?on ?a ?moral ?basis ?of ?the ?difference ?between ?right ?and ?wrong?.554 ?The ?offender, ?a ?28-??year-??old ?student ?teacher, ?had ?asked ?a ?15-??year-??old ?student ?from ?his ?school ?in ?an ?online ?conversation ??to ?lift ?up ?her ?shirt ?and ?expose ?her ?breasts. ?He ?then ?asked ?her ?to ?meet ?at ?the ?Apollo ?gym ?parking ?lot ?so ?they ?could ?engage ?in ?an ?act ?of ?oral ?sex.?555 ?The ?court ?apparently ?further ?excused ?his ??poor ?judgment? ?because ?it ?happened ?early ?in ?the ?morning ?and ?on ?the ?Internet.556 ? ? ? ? Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N, ?when ?sentencing ?the ?offender ?for ?sexually ?assaulting ?his ?young ?daughter ?on ?at ?least ?two ?occasions, ?the ?court ?called ?the ?offence ??a ?huge ?mistake?,557 ?and ?found ?that ?there ?were ??no ?suggestions ?of ?violence ?or ?threats?.558 ? ? The ?idea ?that ?sexual ?assault ?is ?a ?mistake ?caused ?by ?an ?assumption ?of ?consent ?or ?poor ?self-??control ?belies ?the ?violence ?and ?harm ?that ?sexual ?assault ?causes ?and ?the ?agency ?of ?offenders. ?It ?accords ?with ?the ?script ?of ?normal ?men ?seeking ?to ?seduce ?passive ?women, ?with ?sexual ?offences ?resulting ?when ?a ?reasonable ?man ?misdirects ?his ?normal ?sexual ?aggression ?towards ?a ?woman ?(or ?even ?child) ?who ?was ?incidentally ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?553 ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?para ?12. ?554 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?16. ?555 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?4. ?556 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?18. ?557 ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?75. ?558 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?21. ? ? 132 ?and ?unexpectedly ?unwelcoming, ?or ?what ?Smart ?called ??the ?deep-??seated ?notions ?of ?natural ?male ?sexual ?need ?and ?female ?sexual ?capriciousness.?559 ? ? ? When ?courts ?minimize ?offences ?because ?offenders ?assumed ?consent, ?they ?evoke ?the ?doctrine ?of ?implied ?consent ?that ?was ?supposed ?to ?have ?been ?definitively ?eliminated ?by ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?in ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk.560 ?Implied ?consent, ?according ?to ?Joanne ?Wright, ??encourages ?the ?view ?that ?women ?are ?always ?passively ?open ?to ?sexual ?interactions, ?that ?they ?do ?not ?have ?to ?be ?consulted ?before ?a ?sexual ?approach ?is ?made.?561 ?Implied ?consent ?also ?presupposes ?that ?women ?are ?likely ?to ?consent ??in ?the ?most ?unlikely ?circumstances.?562 ?With ?implied ?consent, ?women ?must ?say ?no ?or ?resist,563 ?and ?do ?so ?without ?any ?stereotypical ?feminine ?ambiguity.564 ?This ?woeful ?view ?of ?what ?consent ?means, ?as ?Lucinda ?Vandervort ?observes, ?fundamentally ?undermines ?the ?ability ?of ?the ?law ?to ?protect ?women ?from ?sexually ?assaultive ?touching: ?The ?"'no' ?means ?'no'? ?standard ?places ?the ?onus ?on ?the ?targeted ?individual ?to ?protest ?and ?offers ?no ?protection ?for ?bodily ?integrity, ?human ?dignity, ?or ?privacy ?until ?an ?assault ?is ?threatened ?or ?already ?in ?progress. ?That ?type ?of ?protection ?is ?not ?meaningful ?in ?the ?intimate ?social ?contexts ?in ?which ?acquaintances ?and ?family ?members ?are ?typically ?assaulted. ?It ?is ?too ?little ?and ?too ?late.565 ?If ?women ?must ?say ??no,? ?they ?must ?accept ?some ?initial ?sexual ?touching ?to ?say ??no? ?to; ?therefore, ?some ?nonconsensual ?sexual ?touching ?becomes ?an ?acceptable ?sexual ?advance. ?Similar ?thinking ?seems ?to ?operate ?in ?the ?cases ?in ?which ?sexual ?assault ?is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?559 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?35. ?560 ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?supra ?note ?196 ?at ?para ?31. ?561 ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197 ?at ?198. ?562 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?31; ?See ?also ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197 ?at ?198. ?563 ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?1998 ?ABCA ?52, ?57 ?Alta ?LR ?(3d) ?235, ?at ?para ?67, ?Fraser ?C.J.A., ?dissenting ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?564 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?133?134. ?565 ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?404. ? ? 133 ?thought ?to ?be ?a ?mistake. ?Although ?the ?law ?did ?not ?imply ?the ?survivor?s ?consent, ?as ?offenders ?were ?convicted, ?it ?did ?trivialize ?it, ?portraying ?it ?as ?a ?legal ?formality ?that ?can ?be ?understandably ?forgotten ?by ?a ?well-??meaning ?offender. ?Invasive ?and ?frightening ?sexual ?assault ?is ?then ?transformed ?into ?a ?failed ?romantic ?overture. ?Technical ?Sexual ?Assaults ?and ?Judicial ?Misinterpretation ?of ??Consent? ? ? The ?Criminal ?Code ?establishes ?16 ?as ?the ?age ?of ?consent: ?children ?under ?this ?age ?lack ?the ?legal ?capacity ?to ?consent, ?and ?so ?any ?sexual ?touching ?of ?them ?amounts ?to ?sexual ?assault.566 ?Nonetheless, ?the ??consent? ?of ?children ?and ?adolescents ?played ?a ?role ?in ?sentencing: ?some ?judges ?remarked ?on ?survivors? ?conduct ?in ?a ?way ?that ?suggested ?they ?agreed ?to ?sexual ?activity, ?distinguished ?cases ?on ?the ?basis ?of ?agreement, ?or ?considered ?consent ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor. ?This ?approach ?was ?not ?universal ?or ?even ?typical, ?but ?the ?exceptions ?are ?worth ?considering ?for ?what ?they ?say ?about ?the ?judicial ?construction ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?namely, ?the ?persistence ?of ?a ?view ?that ?erases ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?adolescents ?and ?paints ?sexual ?violence ?against ?them ?as ?more ?like ?sex ?than ?violence ?or ?abuse. ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?the ?judge ?determined ?that ?a ?severely ?intoxicated ?14-??year-??old, ?C.H., ?agreed ?to ?sex ?with ?the ?40-??year-??old ?offender, ?stating ?that ?it ?was ?not ?proven ?beyond ?a ?reasonable ?doubt ?the ?survivor ?was ?too ?intoxicated ?to ?consent ?or ?that ?she ?subjectively ?did ?not ?agree.567 ?After ?making ?these ?findings, ?the ?judge ?stated ?that ?C.H. ?was ??legally ?incapable ?of ?giving ?her ?consent? ?due ?to ?her ?age, ?so ?sexual ?assault ?was ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?566 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?ss ?150.1(1) ?& ?273.1(2)(b). ?567 ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?para ?13. ? ? ? 134 ?established.568 ?The ?judge ?offered ?no ?explanation ?why ?the ?survivor?s ?subjective ?agreement ?and ?intoxication ?were ?considered ?and ?described ?first, ?before ?her ?age. ?Although ?her ?age ?and ?intoxication ?were ?used ?as ?aggravating ?factors, ?the ?finding ?that ?she ?consented ?suggests ?the ?offender ?is ?less ?blameworthy ?because ?his ?offence ?was ?not ?really ?violent, ?or ?not ?a ??real? ?rape. ?It ?also ?ignores ?the ?vast ?inequality ?between ?the ?offender ?and ?survivor ?that ?the ?offender ?exploited ?in ?preying ?upon ?C.H.569 ? ? Likewise, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Allen, ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?determined ?the ?sentence ?ordered ?by ?the ?trial ?judge ?was ?unfit ?and ?substituted ?a ?longer ?sentence, ?a ?decision ?the ?judges ?must ?have ?felt ?strongly ?about ?given ?that ?they ?issued ?their ?judgment ?after ?the ?offender ?had ?died.570 ?However, ?the ?court ?suggested ?it ?could ?be ?mitigating ?or ?indicate ?a ?lower ?sentence ?range ?if ?the ?underage ?survivor ?agreed ?to ?the ?sexual ?touching: ?Counsel ?for ?Mr. ?Allen ?pointed ?out ?that ?the ?boy ?consented ?to ?a ??three-??way? ?and ?was ?not ?lured, ?in ?the ?sense ?of ?being ?tricked, ?to ?come ?to ?Mr. ?Allen?s ?apartment. ?Counsel ?did ?not ?press ?this ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor. ?He ?took ?the ?position ?that ?there ?are ?cases ?of ?non ?consent ?where ?the ?behaviour ?is ?much ?worse. ?This ?submission ?would ?have ?had ?some ?force ?if ?the ?Crown ?was ?contending ?for ?a ?much ?higher ?sentence, ?but ?it ?is ?not.571 ?Although ?the ?boy?s ?supposed ?agreement ?was ?not ?used ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor, ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?suggested ?that ?it ?could ?have ?been ?if ?the ?Crown ?had ?sought ?a ?longer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?568 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?14. ?569 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?56. ?However, ?Benedet ?has ?questioned ?Crown ?practice ?to ?allege ?age ?before ?nonconsent. ?Her ?concerns ?are ?that ?this ?approach ?may ?also ?give ?the ?impression ?that ?the ?offence ?is ?a ??technical? ?sexual ?assault ?because ?the ?Crown ?did ?not ?alleged ?nonconsent, ?the ?defence ?of ?mistake ?of ?age ?has ?been ?applied ?in ?a ?way ?that ?fails ?to ?protect ?particularly ?vulnerable ?adolescents, ?and ?reliance ?on ?age ?does ?not ?encourage ?the ?judiciary ?to ?develop ?a ?robust ?conception ?of ?consent. ?Similar ?concerns ?arise ?in ?this ?case, ?even ?though ?the ?court ?did ?not ?begin ?with ?age: ?this ?case ?reflects ?her ?argument ?that ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?is ??impoverished? ?because ?it ?ignores ?the ?offender?s ?predatory ?behaviour ?of ?exploiting ?a ?clear ?power ?inequality ?and ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability ?based ?on ?gender, ?age, ?and ?intoxication: ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?678?682. ?570 ?The ?Court?s ?determination ?to ?substitute ?a ?longer ?sentence ?was ?to ?denounce ?and ?deter ?not ?only ?his ?sexual ?assault ?of ?the ?survivor ?but ?also ?his ?possession ?of ?child ?pornography, ?described ?by ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?as ?falling ?on ?the ?severe ?end ?of ?the ?spectrum ?and ?including ?depictions ?of ?torture ?of ?babies ?that ?may ?have ?caused ?their ?deaths: ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?61-??66. ?571 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?67. ? ? 135 ?sentence: ?on ?this ?view, ?tricking ?an ?adolescent ?is ?wrong, ?but ?exploiting ?his ?vulnerability ?less ?so. ? ? Courts ?did ?not ?always ?consider ?the ?supposed ?agreement ?of ?adolescents ?mitigating ?or ?suggestive ?of ?a ?less ?violent ?offence. ?In ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?the ?sentencing ?case ?of ?Allen?s ?co-??offender, ?the ?provincial ?court ?judge ?appeared ?to ?reject ?the ?idea ?that ?the ?survivor?s ?apparent ?complicity ?was ?mitigating, ?instead ?citing ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?that ?it ?is ?no ?defence ?that ?the ?survivor ?consented ?because ?he ?was ?simply ?unable ?to ?consent.572 ?Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?the ?court ?rejected ?the ?offender?s ?allegation ?that ?the ?13-??year-??old ?survivor, ?his ?stepdaughter, ?was ?responsible ?for ?his ?abuse, ?stating ??[t]o ?be ?clear, ?even ?if ?there ?were ?evidence ?that ?the ?complainant ?had ?made ?any ?sort ?of ?advances ?toward ?the ?defendant, ?this ?would ?likely ?not ?be ?accepted ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor ?as ?the ?defendant ?is ?the ?adult ?of ?the ?pair, ?not ?the ?complainant.?573 ?In ?these ?cases, ?judges ?resisted ?the ?conception ?of ?sexual ?offences ?against ??willing? ?children ?as ?less ?serious ?or ?non-??violent; ?however, ?this ?view ?was ?not ?universal. ? ? When ?courts ?attribute ?sexual ?willingness ?to ?children ?and ?adolescents ?who, ?by ?legal ?definition, ?are ?unable ?to ?consent, ?courts ?imply ?that ?sexual ?assault ?of ?them ?is ?only ?technically ?a ?crime, ?a ??statutory? ?assault. ?Ultimately, ?they ?suggest ?these ?acts ?are ?not ?real ?sexual ?assaults.574 ?Suggestions ?of ?consent ?obscure ?the ?inequality ?between ?adults ?and ?adolescents ?that ?makes ?consent ?impossible, ?power ?imbalances ?that ?the ?law ?is ?supposed ?to ?recognize ?in ?the ?age ?of ?consent, ?the ?criminalization ?of ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?572 ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?2012 ?BCPC ?348 ?at ?paras ?73, ?90 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?citing ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?150.1(1). ?573 ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?25. ?574 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?678. ? ? 136 ?contact ?with ?children, ?and ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?generally.575 ?In ?relying ?on ?evidence ?of ??agreement,? ?courts ?adopt ?the ?point ?of ?view ?of ?the ?offender: ?the ?law ?sees ?a ?willing ?child ?or ?adolescent ?while ?ignoring ?the ?child?s ?inability ?or ?fear ?to ?do ?otherwise ?than ?submit ?to ?an ?adult?s ?power, ?manipulation, ?and ?coercion. ?This ?failure ?of ?the ?law ?of ?consent ?is ?amplified, ?and ?its ?prejudices ?laid ?bare, ?in ?cases ?of ?particularly ?vulnerable ?adolescents ?who ?can ?be ?sexualized ?because ?they ?look ?or ?act ?in ?ways ?outside ?what ?society ?constructs ?as ?appropriate ?for ?children.576 ?In ?sentencing, ?an ?underage ?survivor?s ?apparent ?willingness ?should ?not ?be ?mitigating ?because ?it ?indicates ?nothing ?as ?much ?as ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability.577 ? ? ? The ?idea ?of ?adolescent ?agreement ?to ?sexual ?assault ?also ?evokes ?the ?false ?equivalence ?of ?consent ?and ?survivor ?resistance, ?based ?on ?the ?rape ?myth ?that ??real? ?survivors ?can ?and ?always ?do ?resist ?to ?the ?utmost. ?The ?requirement ?for ?resistance ?is ?gendered ?because ?it ?rests ?on ?masculine ?notions ?of ?what ?a ?virtuous ?survivor ?would ?do.578 ?Pasquali ?identified ?judges ?requiring ?resistance ?in ?her ?review ?of ?Yukon ?cases ?in ?the ?1980s ?when ?she ?found ?that ?some ?judges ?understood ?force ?in ?relation ?to ?visible ?efforts ?of ?the ?survivor ?to ?resist. ?She ?pointed ?out ?the ?fallacy ?of ?this ?gendered ?assumption ?of ?force, ?noting ?that: ?There ?are ?many ?reasons ?why ?a ?victim ?does ?or ?does ?not ?demonstrate ?what ?others ?define ?as ??active ?resistance.? ?Active ?resistance ?can ?and ?often ?does ?prolong ?the ?assault ?and/or ?result ?in ?greater ?physical ?injury ?to ?the ?victim. ?To ?link ?the ?presence ?of ?absence ?of ?threats ?with ?resistance ?on ?the ?part ?of ?the ?victim ?is ?to ?disregard ?her ?attempts ?to ?minimize ?the ?harm ?done ?to ?her.579 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?575 ?MacKinnon, ??Equality ?Approach?, ?supra ?note ?52 ?at ?269; ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?677?687. ?576 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?679?685. ?577 ?Ibid ?at ?685. ?578 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?67?68, ?79. ?579 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?27. ? ? 137 ?Assuming ?that ?children ?and ?adolescents ?who ?appear ?to ?not ?resist ?are ?consenting ?to ?sexual ?touching ?makes ?an ?unwarranted ?leap ?from ?passivity ?to ?consent. ?Similarly, ?it ?may ?also ?conflate ?conditioning ?of ?a ?youth ?to ?sexual ?abuse ?to ?consent ?of ?the ?child. ?Fundamentally, ?it ?ignores ?the ?greater ?power, ?influence ?and ?strength ?the ?offender ?can ?exert ?to ?make ?the ?child ?or ?adolescent ?appear ?to ?submit ?as ?well ?as ?the ?physical ?danger ?that ?resistance ?provokes. ? ? ? The ?facts ?in ?R. ?v. ?D.C.E. ?illustrate ?that ?survivors ?may ?not ?resist ?but ?this ?does ?not ?amount ?to ?consent. ?The ?offender ?beat ?his ?stepson ?repeatedly ?to ?force ?him ?to ?submit ?to ?sexual ?abuse ?before ?resorting ?to ?coercion ?and ?duress ?to ?get ?the ?survivor ?to ??agree,?580 ?showing ?that ?an ?individual?s ?will ?can ?be ?overborne ?by ?either ?physical ?force ?or ?manipulation ?but ?neither ?amounts ?to ?consent, ?something ?the ?court ?appreciated ?in ?that ?case. ?When ?the ?law ?fails ?to ?recognize ?coercion ?and ?manipulation ?in ?addition ?to ?force, ?it ?ignores ?the ?experiences ?of ?survivors ?and ?minimizes ?their ?assaults. ? ?Predatory ?or ?Opportunistic ?Offences ? ? Judges ?often ?characterized ?offences ?and ?offenders ?as ??opportunistic? ?(less ?blameworthy) ?or ??predatory? ?(more ?blameworthy). ?The ?meanings ?assigned ?to ?these ?two ?terms ?varied ?and ?often ?overlapped, ?as ?did ?the ?relation ?of ?these ?characterizations ?to ?offender ?blameworthiness ?and ?dangerousness. ?However, ?judges ?limited ?the ?category ?of ?predatory ?offences ?to ?sexual ?assaults ?looking ?most ?like ?the ?stereotypical ?ideas ?of ?a ??real? ?rape, ?with ?the ?requirements ?that ?the ?offender ?stalk ?and ?sexually ?assault ?a ?stranger ?and ?plan ?his ?attack ?in ?advance. ?This ?category ?excludes ?most ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?580 ?R. ?v. ?D.C.E., ?2012 ?BCPC ?491 ?at ?paras ?9-??17, ?49 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 138 ?offences, ?including ?offences ?against ?acquaintances ?and ?strangers ?the ?offender ?happens ?into; ?it ?is ?also ?based ?on ?a ?stereotypical ?view ?of ?which ?offenders ?are ?the ?most ?dangerous. ? ? Judges ?sometimes ?characterized ?exceptionally ?violent ?attacks ?as ?opportunistic ?simply ?because ?the ?survivor ?was ?not ?a ?stranger ?to ?the ?offender. ?This ?characterization ?is ?apparent ?in ?R. ?v. ?Reis: ?the ?offender ?sexually ?assaulted ?a ?woman ?he ?met ?earlier ?that ?day. ?He ?brought ?her ?to ?his ?house, ?and ?once ?there, ?assaulted ?her ?in ?a ?degrading ?and ?vicious ?manner, ?using ?a ?baseball ?bat ?and ?sword, ?among ?other ?weapons, ?to ?sexually ?assault ?and ?confine ?her ?in ?his ?house. ?The ?judge ?suggested ?the ?offence ?was ?not ?predatory ?because ?it ?did ?not ?look ?like ??stalking ?rapes ?or ?stranger ?rapes.?581 ?It ?appears ?that ?their ?prior ?acquaintance ?and ?the ?survivor?s ?willingness ?to ?go ?with ?the ?offender ?to ?his ?house ?were ?the ?judge?s ?reasons ?for ?not ?seeing ?the ?offence ?as ?predatory. ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?the ?distinction ?between ??predatory? ?and ??opportunistic? ?appears ?to ?be ?based ?on ?planning ?and ?forethought. ?Under ?this ?construction, ?even ?stalking ?and ?stranger ?rapes ?can ?also ?be ?called ?opportunistic ?if ?they ?were ?committed ?on ?the ?spur ?of ?the ?moment. ?That ?was ?the ?case ?in ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy: ?the ?offender ?saw ?the ?survivor ?at ?7-??11 ?late ?at ?night, ?then ?followed ?her ?until ?he ?grabbed ?her ?from ?behind ?and ?dragged ?her ?into ?a ?park ?where ?he ?threatened ?to ?beat ?her ?and ?sexually ?assaulted ?her. ?The ?judge ?said ?the ?offence ?was ??unplanned ?and ?to ?some ?extent ?opportunistic? ?apparently ?in ?part ?because ?it ?was ?a ??chance ?encounter? ?at ?the ?convenience ?store.582 ?Similarly, ?the ?court ?called ?a ?taxi ?driver?s ?sexual ?assault ?of ?his ?intoxicated ?17-??year-??old ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?581 ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?48. ?582 ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?6. ? ? ? 139 ?passenger ?in ?his ?home ?where ?he ?had ?brought ?her ??opportunistic, ?rather ?than ?predatory ?or ?pre-??planned?,583 ?presumably ?because ?the ?offender ?did ?not ?plan ?for ?the ?survivor ?to ?get ?into ?his ?taxi. ?In ?another ?case, ?the ?court ?characterized ?the ?offence ?of ?a ?man ?who ?sexually ?assaulted ?and ?beat ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution ?as ??spontaneous ?and ?not ?planned? ?to ?lessen ?the ?aggravating ?nature ?of ?his ?offence,584 ?perhaps ?because ?the ?offender ?expected ?she ?would ?continue ?to ?consent. ? ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?also ?characterized ?offences ?against ?children ?as ?not ?predatory.585 ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?interference ?of ?two ?sleeping ?girls, ?aged ?9 ?and ?10, ?on ?separate ?occasions ?was ?characterized ?by ?the ?Crown ??as ?opportunistic ?as ?opposed ?to ?predatory? ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor.586 ?In ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?the ?court ?did ?not ?consider ?the ?offence ?of ?sexual ?exploitation ?for ?inviting, ?counseling, ?or ?inciting ?a ?young ?person ?to ?touch ?him ?for ?a ?sexual ?purpose, ?arising ?from ?an ?online ?communication ?in ?which ?the ?offender ?asked ?a ?15-??year-??old ?girl ?to ?expose ?her ?breasts ?and ?meet ?him ?in ?a ?parking ?lot ?for ?oral ?sex, ??predatory? ?or ?even ??opportunistic? ?because ?it ?was ?unlikely ?that ?the ?survivor ?would ?have ?been ?able ?to ?sneak ?out ?and ?meet ?him ?at ?night ?in ?any ?event.587 ? ? ? Grooming ?was ?considered ?predatory, ?however, ?as ?shown ?in ?the ?court?s ?nuanced ?approach ?in ?R. ?v ?D.B.D. ?The ?offender ?sexually ?assaulted ?an ?11-??year-??old ?boy ?in ?his ?condominium ?complex ?on ?two ?separate ?occasions, ?after ?he ?had ??insinuated ?himself ?into ?that ?boy?s ?and ?then ?others? ?activities ?by ?offering ?to ??help ?out??.588 ?He ?also ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?583 ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?37. ?584 ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?33. ?585 ?For ?an ?example ?that ?was ?considered ?predatory, ?see ?R. ?v. ?F.A.B., ?supra ?note ?478 ?at ?para ?11. ?586 ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?25. ?587 ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?11, ?18. ?588 ?R. ?v. ?D.B.D., ?2012 ?BCPC ?324 ?at ?para ?4 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 140 ?masturbated ?in ?front ?of ?a ?number ?of ?boys ?and ?possessed ?child ?pornography. ?The ?court ?found ?that ??although ?his ?behaviour ?may ?be ?described ?as ?opportunistic, ?there ?is ?also ?a ?predatory ?aspect ?to ?it ?which ?involved ?a ?non-??sexual ?form ?of ?grooming?,589 ?ultimately ?finding ?it ?to ?be ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?put ?himself ?in ?a ?position ?to ?commit ?the ?offences. ? ? ? As ?a ?general ?rule ?in ?sentencing, ?a ?crime ?that ?is ?premeditated ?attracts ?more ?blame ?in ?sentencing, ?and ?spontaneous ?crimes ?less, ?based ?on ?the ?idea ?that ?offenders ?who ?plan ?are ?more ?dangerous ?because ?they ?are ?more ?skilled ?and ?more ?blameworthy ?because ?they ?have ?had ?time ?to ?consider ?their ?actions.590 ?The ?court ?in ?R. ?v. ?DaPonte, ?a ?case ?within ?the ?sample, ?clearly ?applied ?this ?doctrine. ?The ?offender ?broke ?into ?his ?friends? ?house ?at ?night ?to ?assault ?their ?12-??year-??old ?daughter ?at ?knife ?point, ?biking ?over ?to ?her ?home ?and ?bringing ?a ?mask ?and ?tools ?to ?break ?her ?bedroom ?window ?to ?do ?so. ?The ?court ?considered ?his ?premeditation ?aggravating.591 ? ? ? Although ?premeditation ?may ?be ?an ?appropriate ?aggravating ?factor ?in ?other ?offences, ?such ?as ?robbery ?or ?murder, ?it ?does ?not ?seem ?to ?adequately ?capture ?the ?blameworthiness ?and ?harm ?of ?sexual ?offences. ?As ?Pasquali ?asked, ?Is ?the ?offender ?who ?apparently ?assaults ?on ?impulse ?and ?takes ?advantage ?of ?some ?situation ?which ?arises ?any ?less ?dangerous ?than ?one ?who ?plans ?his ?assault ?in ?advance? ?It ?is ?hard ?to ?imagine ?that ?any ?sexual ?assault ?victim, ?or ?any ?potential ?victim, ?would ?find ?comfort ?in ?the ?knowledge ?that ?an ?offender?s ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?are ?spontaneous ?or ?random.592 ?An ?offender ?who ?sees ?an ?intoxicated ?girl ?alone ?in ?his ?taxi, ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution, ?a ?child ?alone ?with ?him, ?or ?a ?sleeping ?individual ?as ?an ?opportunity ?for ?sexual ?violence ?is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?589 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?23. ?590 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?5.4 ?citing ?R. ?v. ?Stone, ?[1999] ?2 ?SCR ?290, ?173 ?DLR ?(4th) ?66. ?591 ?R. ?v. ?DaPonte, ?2012 ?BCSC ?52 ?at ?paras ?39-??40 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?592 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?29. ? ? 141 ?just ?as ?dangerous ?as ?one ?who ?sets ?out ?to ?attack ?in ?advance. ?The ?consequences ?of ?an ?impulse ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence ?do ?not ?seem ?all ?the ?different ?than ?the ?consequences ?of ?a ?plan ?commit ?sexual ?violence. ? ? The ?distinction ?between ??predatory? ?and ??opportunistic? ?also ?suggests ?that ?the ?rarer ?stranger ?sexual ?assaults ?are ?more ?dangerous ?and ?insidious ?than ?the ?majority ?of ?sexual ?assaults, ?which ?are ?committed ?against ?acquaintances ?and ?family ?members.593 ?As ?Brownmiller ?commented, ??rape ?is ?a ?crime ?of ?opportunity ?and ?opportunity ?knocks ?most ?frequently ?in ?a ?familiar ?milieu.?594 ?By ?construing ?the ?majority ?of ?sexual ?assaults ?as ?less ?violent ?than ?stereotypical ??predatory? ?rape, ?courts ?ignore ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?assault ?and ?excuse, ?in ?part, ?male ?sexual ?assault ?of ?women ?and ?children ?known ?to ?them. ? ? Characterizing ?sexual ?offences ?as ?opportunistic ?also ?portrays ?women ?and ?children ?as ?sexual ?objects, ?whose ?mere ?presence ?signals ?opportunities ?for ?or ?invitations ?to ?sexual ?activity. ?Vandervort, ?in ?expressing ?the ?value ?of ?Canada?s ?affirmative ?standard ?of ?consent, ?touches ?on ?this ?by ?commenting ?that, ??participation ?in ?the ?mundane ?activities ?of ?everyday ?life ?? ?even ?just ?living ?and ?breathing ?? ?is ?often ?alleged ?to ?be ?conduct ?that ?is ??seductive,? ?that ?invites ?sexual ?touching?.595 ?The ?portrayal ?of ?survivors ?as ?creating ?opportunities ?for ?sexual ?violence ?internalizes ?the ?point ?of ?view ?of ?the ?offender ?that ?objectivizes ?and ?fetishizes ?women ?and ?children ?rather ?than ?seeing ?them ?as ?people. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?593 ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?30. ?594 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?349. ?595 ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?405 ?[emphasis ?in ?original]. ? ? 142 ? ? To ?combat ?the ??predatory ?stranger ?model? ?in ?judicial ?assessments ?of ?exception ?applications ?from ?the ?federal ?sex ?offender ?registry, ?Benedet ?suggested ?courts ?characterize ?the ?offence ?based ?on ?the ?offender?s ?exploitation ?or ?abuse ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability.596 ?Exploitation ?and ?abuse ?of ?vulnerability ?are ?more ?useful ?concepts ?because ?they ?place ?the ?assessment ?of ?the ?risk ?offenders ?pose, ?the ?shamefulness ?of ?their ?crimes, ?and ?the ?harm ?they ?cause ?within ?the ?social ?and ?structural ?context ?of ?their ?offences, ?gender ?and ?other ?sources ?of ?inequality ?and ?disempowerment. ?Rather ?than ?ignoring ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?this ?approach ?would ?be ?based ?on ?it, ?and ?removes ?focus ?from ?the ?false ?distinction ?between ??predatory? ?and ??opportunistic,? ?recognizing ?that ?sexual ?offences ?are ?both. ?Relationships ?and ?Stranger ?Danger ? ? Judges ?regularly ?considered ?the ?relationship ?between ?offenders ?and ?survivors. ?Together ?or ?independent ?from ?descriptions ?of ?offences ?as ?predatory, ?judges ?often ?found ?it ?aggravating ?when ?the ?offender ?was ?a ?stranger ?to ?the ?survivor. ?They ?typically ?also, ?as ?required ?by ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?found ?it ?aggravating ?when ?the ?offender ?offended ?against ?his ?spouse ?or ?someone ?he ?was ?in ?a ?position ?of ?trust ?or ?authority ?over.597 ?Thus, ?while ?the ?law ?has ?moved ?towards ?recognizing ?the ?harm ?of ?sexual ?offences ?against ?family ?members ?and ?spouses, ?courts ?in ?some ?decisions ?continued ?to ?evoke ?the ?myth ?of ?the ?dangerous ?stranger. ? ? When ?judges ?considered ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?attacked ?a ?stranger ?they ?seemed ?to ?focus ?on ?the ?randomness ?of ?the ?assault, ?the ?innocence ?of ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?596 ?Benedet, ??Registry?, ?supra ?note ?368 ?at ?453?456. ?597 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a)(ii)&(iii). ? ? 143 ?unknown ?survivor, ?and ?the ?expectation ?of ?safety ?in ?public ?places. ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?the ?court ?found ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?was ?a ?stranger ?to ?the ?survivor; ?while ?doing ?so, ?the ?court ?highlighted ?the ?innocence ?of ?survivors ?of ?stranger ?attacks, ?stating: ??this ?was ?an ?attack ?on ?a ?stranger. ?These ?were ?two ?people ?who ?did ?not ?know ?each ?other. ?The ?complainant ?was ?going ?about ?her ?life ?in ?a ?totally ?correct ?and ?proper ?way ?and ?she ?ended ?up ?being ?horribly ?victimized.?598 ?Likewise, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?the ?judge ?considered ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?sexually ?assaulted ?a ?stranger, ?focusing ?on ?the ??unprovoked ?and ?random? ?nature ?of ?the ?attack.599 ? ? In ?other ?cases, ?although ?not ?necessarily ?stated ?to ?be ?an ?aggravating ?factor, ?the ?offender?s ?attack ?of ?a ?stranger ?appeared ?to ?affect ?the ?judge?s ?understanding ?of ?the ?seriousness ?of ?the ?crime. ?This ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy, ?where ?the ?judge, ?also ?emphasizing ?the ?survivor?s ?blamelessness, ?stated: ??In ?this ?case ?we ?have ?particular ?serious ?offences, ?involving ?a ?violent ?sexual ?assault ?on ?an ?innocent ?stranger ?in ?the ?downtown ?community ?very ?near ?law ?enforcement ?agencies ?and ?this ?very ?court ?house.?600 ? ? Like ?the ?distinction ?between ??predatory? ?and ??opportunistic? ?offences, ?understanding ?assaults ?by ?strangers ?as ?particularly ?serious ?is ?based ?on ?the ?myth ?of ??real? ?rapists. ?Seemingly ?contrary ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code?s ?direction ?to ?judges ?to ?treat ?offences ?against ?intimate ?partners ?and ?abuses ?of ?familial ?trust ?as ?aggravating,601 ?these ?cases ?suggest ?that ?it ?is ?more ?blameworthy ?or ?causes ?more ?harm ?to ?attack ?a ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?598 ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?2011 ?BCPC ?382 ?at ?para ?28 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?599 ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?86-??87. ?600 ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?18. ?601 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a). ? ? 144 ?stranger. ?This ?assumption ?is ?gendered, ?based ?on ?long ?history ?of ?law ?ignoring ?or ?condoning ?offences ?by ?men ?against ?family ?members ?or ?intimate ?partners.602 ?According ?to ?this ?view, ?only ?strangers ?pose ?a ?threat ?to ?women, ?not ?the ?men ?they ?know ?and ?live ?with. ?It ?ignores ?the ?experiences ?of ?survivors ?of ?intimate ?partner, ?family, ?or ?acquaintance ?sexual ?assault, ?who ?may ?suffer ?unique ?psychological ?trauma ?in ?part ?due ?to ?the ?lack ?of ?social ?recognition ?and ?support.603 ?It ?also ?ignores ?the ?particular ?vulnerabilities ?that ?arise ?within ?intimate ?or ?family ?relationships.604 ?As ?pointed ?out ?by ?Benedet, ?such ?thinking ?also ?(falsely) ?assumes ?that ?men ?who ?sexually ?assault ?intimate ?partners ?or ?family ?members ?do ?not ?pose ?a ?risk ?to ?other ?women.605 ? ? ? The ?emphasis ?in ?some ?cases ?on ?the ?innocence ?of ?survivors, ?or ?how ?they ?did ?not ?provoke ?offenders, ?is ?also ?worth ?pointing ?out. ?It ?seems ?to ?suggest ?that ?survivors ?who ?knew ?their ?assaulters ?may ?not ?be ?innocent ?or ?may ?have ?provoked ?violence, ?hinting ?at ?the ?idea ?that ?some ?women ??ask? ?for ?sexual ?assault. ?Causes ?of ?Offences ?and ?Treatment ? ? In ?the ?majority ?of ?cases ?in ?the ?sample, ?judges ?relied ?on ?psychological ?and ?psychiatric ?assessments ?to ?learn ?about ?offenders? ?motivations, ?future ?risk ?of ?offending, ?and ?likelihood ?of ?rehabilitation. ?From ?these ?reports ?courts ?gleaned ??causes? ?for ?offences. ?In ?this ?section ?I ?argue ?that ?both ?experts ?and ?courts ?frequently ?saw ?intoxication ?and ?addiction ?as ?causing ?offences. ?Less ?frequently, ?they ?considered ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?602 ?See ?Chapter ?II, ?Section ?B ?& ?Chapter ?III, ?Section ?A. ?603 ?Robin ?Warshaw, ??The ?Aftereffects ?of ?Acquaintance ?Rape? ?in ?I ?Never ?Called ?it ?Rape: ?the ?Ms ?Report ?on ?Recognizing, ?Fighting, ?and ?Surviving ?Date ?and ?Acquaintance ?Rape, ?1st ?HarperPerennial ?ed ?(New ?York: ?HarperPerennial, ?1994) ?65; ?See ?also ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?180. ?604 ?See ?generally ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?38?43, ?64?67; ?Sinha, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?52?65; ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?404?405. ?605 ?Benedet, ??Registry?, ?supra ?note ?368 ?at ?452. ? ? 145 ?misogyny ?as ?a ?contributing ?factor ?to ?offences; ?however, ?when ?they ?did, ?courts ?did ?not ?situate ?misogyny ?within ?structural ?inequality. ? ? By ?far, ?the ?most ?common ?treatable ??cause? ?of ?sexual ?offences ?in ?the ?sample ?was ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?use. ?In ?many ?cases, ?judges ?appeared ?to ?accept ?that ?offenders ?committed ?offences ?because ?they ?were ?intoxicated, ?not ?because ?they ?acted ?violently ?by ?choice. ?When ?courts ?saw ?intoxication ?as ?the ?cause ?of ?the ?offence, ?they ?typically ?treated ?it ?as ?a ?mitigating ?factor, ?evidencing ?the ?offender?s ?lessened ?moral ?blameworthiness. ?Courts ?also ?often ?counted ?offenders? ?expressed ?willingness ?to ?undergo ?addiction ?treatment ?as ?mitigating ?and ?indicative ?of ?rehabilitative ?potential. ? ? One ?example ?is ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?concerning ?an ?offender ?who ?sexually ?assaulted ?and ?choked ?a ?woman ?with ?whom ?he ?had ?been ?socializing ?at ?a ?pub.606 ?In ?describing ?the ?circumstances ?of ?the ?offender, ?the ?court ?said ?he ?had ??a ?significant ?and ?persistent ?problem ?with ?alcohol? ?and ?he ?became ??confrontational ?and ?aggressive? ?when ?intoxicated.607 ?Although ?the ?court ?considered ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?deliberately ?decided ?to ?drink ?contrary ?to ?a ?term ?of ?his ?recognizance ?from ?a ?previous ?conviction, ?it ?also ?considered ?his ?intoxication ?within ?three ?separate ?mitigating ?factors: ?it ?was ?mitigating ?that ?he ??committed ?the ?offence ?while ?highly ?intoxicated?; ?acknowledged ?his ?alcoholism ?and ?need ?for ?treatment; ?and ?was ?amendable ?to ?counselling ?for ?alcohol ?abuse, ?as ?well ?as ?anger ?management ?and ?sexual ?violence.608 ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?continued ?risk ?to ?the ?public ?squarely ?in ?terms ?of ?his ?alcohol ?abuse, ?stating ?that ??the ?public ?will ?continue ?to ?be ?at ?risk ?on ?his ?release ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?606 ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?para ?4. ?607 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?8. ?608 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?18. ? ? 146 ?unless ?Mr. ?Allard ?learns ?to ?control ?his ?use ?of ?alcohol ?and ?his ?temper?,609 ?and ?ordering ?probation ?terms ?that ?reflected ?this ?concern.610 ? ? The ?cases ?in ?the ?sample ?are ?peppered ?with ?legal ?interpretations ?that ?attribute ?sexual ?violence ?to ?intoxication ?and ?link ?rehabilitation ?to ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?counseling. ?Intoxication ?was ?mitigating ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?where ?the ?court ?stated ?that ?the ?offender ?needed ?treatment ?because ?his ??past ?offending ?and ?violent ?behaviour ?is ?largely ?tied ?to ?his ?problems ?with ?substance ?abuse.?611 ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?addiction ?to ?crystal ?meth ?as ?well ?as ?his ?desire ?to ?continue ?drug ?treatment ?as ?mitigating ?of ?his ?sexual ?assault ?of ?a ?14-??year-??old ?boy ?and ?possession ?of ?child ?pornography ?in ?R. ?v. ?Allen.612 ?In ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?the ?court ?determined ?it ?was ?mitigating ?that ?the ?offender ?had ?been ?sober ?since ?the ?offence ?and ?had ?taken ?counselling ?to ?address ?his ?alcoholism,613 ?with ?the ?judge ?stating, ?when ?discussing ?the ?aim ?of ?the ?sentence, ??[m]ost ?of ?all, ?I ?have ?to ?recognize ?that ?your ?risk ?to ?re-??offend ?has ?an ?awful ?lot ?to ?do ?with ?your ?consumption ?of ?alcohol.?614 ?Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?the ?court ?found ?it ?aggravating ?that ?the ?offender ?persisted ?in ?drinking ?and ?taking ?drugs, ?but ?mitigating ?that ?he ?was ?adjudged ?to ?be ?low ?risk ?if ?sober, ?and ?that ?he ?had ?attended ?church ?and ?abstained ?from ?alcohol ?since ?the ?offence.615 ?As ?well, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?609 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?20. ?610 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?26. ?611 ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?45. ?612 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?39, ?45. ?The ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?considered ?it ?an ?error ?that ?the ?trial ?judge ?accorded ?rehabilitation ?the ?same ?weight ?as ?denunciation ?and ?deterrence ?as ?a ?sentencing ?objective, ?contrary ?to ?the ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.01 ?requirement ?that ?denunciation ?and ?deterrence ?be ?the ?primary ?aims ?of ?sentencing ?for ?offences ?involving ?abuse ?of ?someone ?under ?18 ?years ?old: ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?49-??52, ?60-??66. ?613 ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?35. ?614 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?40. ?615 ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?2012 ?BCPC ?354 ?at ?paras ?66-??67 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 147 ?court ?held ?that ?it ?was ?mitigating ?that ?the ?offender ?showed ??insight ?into ?the ?need ?to ?address ?his ?alcohol ?abuse? ?and ?had ?abstained ?from ?drinking ?since ?the ?offence.616 ? ? ? Attributing ?sexual ?violence ?to ?intoxication ?reflects ?assumptions ?about ?responsibility ?that ?are ?embedded ?in ?the ?law ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ?judges ?did ?not ?substantiate ?these ?widely ?held ?presumptions: ?they ?did ?not ?cite ?evidence ?that ?intoxication ?causes ?sexual ?violence ?or ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?treatment ?reduces ?offending; ?instead, ?they ?relied ?on ?psychological ?reports ?and ??commonsense? ?that ?linked ?offences ?to ?intoxication, ?without ?discussing ?causality. ? ? These ?assumptions ?have ?been ?questioned ?before. ?Pasquali ?criticized ?the ?beliefs ?that ?offenders ?would ?not ?commit ?sexual ?offences ?but ?for ?alcohol ?or ?drugs ?and ?that ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?treatment ?rehabilitates ?sexual ?offenders, ?preventing ?re-??offence.617 ?Coates ?and ?Wade ?pointed ?out ?that ?the ?suggestion ?that ?offenders ?are ?good ?men ?who ?were ?victims ?of ?the ?unintended ?effects ?of ?alcohol ??cannot ?explain ?why ?the ?majority ?of ?men ?do ?not ?assault ?someone ?in ?sexualized ?ways ?after ?they ?use ?alcohol ?or ?drugs.?618 ? ? ? Intoxication ?and ?violence ?might ?be ?linked, ?but ?intoxication ?is ?unlikely ?to ?cause ?violence. ?Statistics ?on ?domestic ?violence ?demonstrate ?this: ?It ?is ?clear ?that ?alcohol ?use ?is ?highly ?correlated ?with ?spousal ?violence ?but ?alcohol ?abuse ?cannot ?be ?said ?to ?be ?a ?direct ?cause ?of ?violence. ?Alcohol ?abusers ?tend ?to ?have ?other ?risk ?factors ?for ?violence, ?such ?as ?low ?occupational ?status ?and ?attitudes ?approving ?of ?violence ?against ?women. ?When ?income ?and ?alcohol ?are ?considered ?together ?with ?the ?presence ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?616 ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?para ?107. ?617 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?31, ?55?56. ?618 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?11. ? ? 148 ?controlling ?and ?psychologically ?abusive ?behaviours, ?the ?latter ?predominates ?over ?alcohol ?as ?the ?most ?important ?risk ?factor ?for ?spousal ?assault.619 ?This ?research ?suggests ?that ?although ?alcohol ?may ?be ?a ?risk ?factor ?for ?domestic ?violence, ?it ?is ?one ?among ?other, ?more ?significant ?and ?co-??existing ?risk ?factors, ?including ?attitudes ?approving ?of ?violence ?against ?women. ?Focus ?on ?alcohol ?obscures ?the ?influence ?of ?structural ?inequalities ?in ?violence ?against ?women. ?It ?also ?obscures ?the ?direct ?role ?misogynistic ?views ?have: ?more ?than ?alcohol ?abuse ?or ?any ?other ?variable, ?research ?has ?found ?that ?spousal ?violence ?correlates ?with ??[m]ale ?attitudes ?and ?beliefs ?in ?the ?rightness ?of ?control ?over ?female ?partners?.620 ? ? ? However, ?in ?the ?case ?sample, ?judges ?did ?not ?generally ?consider ?that ?violence ?is ?about ?gender ?inequality ?and ?offenders? ?beliefs ?in ?the ?right ?of ?men ?to ?dominate ?women ?and ?children. ?Instead ?they ?relied ?on ?the ?presumed ?link ?between ?intoxication ?or ?addiction ?and ?violence. ?Although ?a ?number ?of ?cases ?explicitly ?characterized ?offenders ?as ?directly ?responsible ?for ?their ?sexual ?offences ?in ?spite ?of ?their ?intoxication,621 ?the ?doubtful ?but ?commonsense ?idea ?that ?intoxication ?causes ?sexual ?offending ?was ?a ?theme ?throughout ?many ?cases. ?Intoxication ?may ?reflect ?a ?lesser ?intent ?to ?cause ?harm ?or ?reduced ?moral ?responsibility. ?Equally, ?intoxication ?may ?be ?a ?smokescreen, ?a ?tool ?violent ?men ?use ?to ?reduce ?their ?inhibitions ?to ?commit ?violence ?against ?women,622 ?or, ?like ?violence ?against ?women, ?a ?display ?of ?masculinity.623 ?Intoxication ?may ?be ?relevant, ?but ?courts ?should ?challenge ?their ?assumptions ?and ?be ?thoughtful ?about ?the ?role ?intoxication ?should ?play ?in ?sentencing. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?619 ?Johnson, ??Statistical ?Trends?, ?supra ?note ?3 ?at ?41 ?[citations ?omitted]. ?620 ?Holly ?Johnson, ??Contrasting ?Views ?of ?the ?Role ?of ?Alcohol ?in ?Cases ?of ?Wife ?Assault? ?(2001) ?16:1 ?J ?Interpers ?Violence ?54 ?at ?68 ?[?Role ?of ?Alcohol?]. ?621 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?19, ?22-??23. ?622 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?31?32. ?623 ?Johnson, ??Role ?of ?Alcohol?, ?supra ?note ?620 ?at ?69. ? ? 149 ? ? That ?said, ?in ?some ?cases, ?courts ?did ?consider ?the ?misogyny ?of ?offenders, ?using ?information ?offenders ?devalued ?women ?as ?aggravating ?or ?evidence ?of ?higher ?risk ?to ?reoffend. ?For ?example, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?the ?author ?of ?the ?psychological ?profile ?found ?that ?the ?offender?s ?repeated ?sexual ?assaults ?against ?young ?intoxicated ?women ?and ?girls ?were ?related ?to ??underlying ?negative ?beliefs ?about ?girls/women? ?and ??distorted ?beliefs ?about ?his ?own ?entitlements ?in ?sexual ?relations?.624 ?On ?this ?basis ?he ?was ?rated ?as ?a ?moderate-??high ?risk ?to ?reoffend, ?a ?factor ?the ?judge ?used ?in ?aggravation.625 ?Similarly, ?although ?the ?judges ?in ?R. ?v. ?Reis ?and ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani ?focused ?on ?intoxication ?as ?a ?causative ?factor, ?they ?also ?hinted ?that ?the ?offenders ?devalued ?women ?and ?believed ?that ?violence ?against ?them ?was ?acceptable, ?and ?that ?these ?factors ?heightened ?the ?moral ?blameworthiness ?of ?their ?offences.626 ? ? Although ?considerations ?of ?misogyny ?were ?not ?regular ?features ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?that ?they ?appeared ?at ?all ?could ?show ?that ?some ?judges ?(and ?perhaps ?psychologists) ?understand ?sexual ?violence ?as ?gendered. ?Boyle ?suggested ?that ?misogynistic ?motivation ?should ?be ?considered ?as ?akin ?to ?psychological ?disorder ?so ?that ?offenders ?can ?be ?given ?appropriate ?treatment ?during ?incarceration ?before ?they ?are ?released ?into ?the ?public ?to ?act ?on ?their ?hatred ?again.627 ?I ?agree: ?courts ?should ?denounce ?misogyny ?and ?be ?cognizant ?of ?the ?need ?for ?treatment ?on ?this ?issue. ?However, ?they ?should ?also ?situate ?misogyny ?in ?the ?context ?of ?gender ?inequality ?to ?reflect ?the ?gendered ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?its ?prevalence ?in ?the ?law. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?624 ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?para ?45. ?625 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?46, ?56. ?626 ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?paras ?31-??33, ?51, ?59; ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?86-??87. ?627 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?174?175. ? ? 150 ?Good ?Offenders ? ? ? At ?common ?law, ?evidence ?of ?an ?offender?s ?good ?reputation ?is ?considered ?relevant ?because ??[a] ?good ?background ?indicates ?that ?the ?offence ?was ?out ?of ?character ?and ?that, ?therefore, ?the ?offender?s ?attitude ?is ?such ?that ?he ?is ?not ?likely ?to ?be ?involved ?in ?crime ?in ?the ?future.?628 ?Typically, ?this ?factor ?will ?operate ?in ?mitigation, ?possibly ?in ?two ?ways: ?the ?offender ?is ?seen ?as ?less ?likely ?to ?reoffend ?and ?also ?to ?suffer ??the ?shame ?and ?disgrace? ?that ?could ?only ?befall ?a ?person ?of ?good ?reputation, ?which ??should ?be ?treated ?as ?a ?partial ?punishment ?in ?itself.?629 ? ? This ?doctrine ?was ?applied ?throughout ?the ?case ?sample. ?In ?their ?decisions, ?courts, ?if ?supported ?by ?the ?evidence, ?highlighted ?the ?offender?s ?good ?standing ?in ?the ?community, ?stable ?job, ?support ?from ?family ?and ?friends, ?or ?church ?involvement. ?Courts ?regularly ?considered ?this ?evidence ?mitigating. ?They ?also ?considered ?the ?consequences ?that ??good? ?offenders ?experienced ?from ?their ?offences, ?including ?loss ?of ?good ?social ?standing ?or ?employment, ?mitigating ?or ?lessening ?the ?need ?for ?criminal ?sanction. ? ? ? Evidence ?that ?the ?offender ?is ?otherwise ?a ?good ?man ?is ?relevant ?to ?sentencing ?for ?all ?offences, ?not ?only ?sexual ?crimes. ?Some ?rationales ?are ?unproblematic: ?an ?offender?s ?commitment ?to ?public ?service, ?community, ?and ?charity ?may ?show ?he ?is ?deserving ?of ?the ?benefit ?of ?the ?doubt ?and ?that ?he ?is ?unlikely ?to ?commit ?crimes ?in ?the ?future. ?However, ?in ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?these ?assumptions ?should ?be ?scrutinized ?to ?ensure ?they ?are ?not ?propped ?up ?by ?rape ?myths. ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ??good? ?character ?evidence ?and ?the ?myth ?of ?the ??real? ?rapist ?overlapped ?in ?the ?idea ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?628 ?Ruby, ?Chan ?& ?Hasan, ?supra ?note ?70, ?sec ?5.90 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ?629 ?Ibid, ?sec ?5.235 ?[footnote ?omitted]. ? ? 151 ?that ?a ?family ?man, ?professional, ?or ?member ?of ?a ?church ?was ?unlikely ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence. ?In ?what ?follows, ?I ?claim ?these ?assumptions ?are ?unfounded. ?Arguably, ?the ?reverse ?is ?true: ?power ?and ?position ?can ?facilitate ?sexual ?violence ?as ?well ?as ?prevent ?detection ?and ?criminal ?liability. ? ? ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?used ?evidence ?that ?the ?offender ?was ?a ?caring ?spouse ?or ?father ?in ?mitigation ?without ?explaining ?how ?the ?offence ?was ?related ?to ?the ?offender?s ?family ?or ?familial ?devotion. ?For ?instance, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?the ?offender ?committed ?sexual ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm ?against ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution. ?In ?their ?letters ?of ?support, ?his ?family ?stated ?that ?he ?was ?a ??good ?father ?and ?family ?man, ?working ?hard ?to ?support ?his ?family ?and ?to ?instil ?good ?values ?and ?the ?importance ?of ?education ?in ?his ?children.?630 ?The ?court ?cited ?these ??glowing ?letters ?of ?support? ?in ?mitigation.631 ?It ?did ?not ?explain ?how ?being ?a ?good ?father ?or ?valuing ?education ?related ?to ?committing ?sexual ?violence ?against ?vulnerable ?women. ?Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?the ?offender ?had ?sexually ?assaulted ?a ?sleeping ?young ?woman ?who ?was ?(apparently) ?his ?friend. ?The ?court ?found ?it ?mitigating ?that ?at ?the ?time ?of ?sentencing ?the ?offender ?was ?employed ?and ?a ??family ?man ?now ?who ?understands ?his ?responsibilities ?to ?his ?family.?632 ?How ?the ?offender?s ?employment ?or ?acceptance ?of ?responsibility ?for ?his ?family ?had ?any ?bearing ?on ?his ?sexual ?assault ?of ?a ?friend ?is ?unclear; ?for ?instance, ?the ?court ?did ?not ?state ?that ?he ?offended ?because ?he ?did ?not ?have ?a ?job ?or ?was ?an ?irresponsible ?father. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?630 ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?paras ?10-??11. ?631 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?35. ?632 ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?35. ? ? 152 ? ? Faith ?and ?religious ?involvement ?were ?also ?considerations ?in ?some ?cases ?in ?the ?case ?sample.633 ?Its ?clearest ?use ?was ?in ?R. ?v. ?W.S. ?There, ?the ?offender ?sexually ?abused ?his ?stepdaughter ?H.T. ?for ?two ?years, ?beginning ?when ?she ?was ?11 ?years ?old ?and ?only ?stopping ?when ?she ?disclosed ?the ?sexual ?assaults.634 ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?extensive ?grooming ?of ?H.T. ?aggravating, ?which ?included ?that ?he ?relied ?on ?their ?shared ?religious ?faith ?to ?coerce ?her, ?telling ?her ??that ?the ?Bible ?said ?that ?girls ?should ?get ?married ?when ?they ?are ?11 ?to ?13 ?year[s] ?old?,635 ?and ??if ?you ?tell ?anyone ?I?ll ?kill ?you. ?The ?devil ?tried ?to ?destroy ?us.?636 ?In ?apparent ?contradiction, ?however, ?the ?court, ?without ?comment, ?considered ?reference ?letters ?from ?pastors ?and ?friends ?that ?stated ?the ?offender ?was ??actively ?involved ?in ?the ?church ?community? ?during ?the ?time ?he ?was ?sexually ?abusing ?H.T. ?and ?that ?at ?the ?time ?of ?sentencing ?he ??wishe[d] ?to ?reunite ?with ?his ?faith ?family ?and ?that ?he ?is ?most ?unlikely ?to ?reoffend ?in ?the ?future.?637 ?The ?court ?ignored ?how ?the ?offender ?abused ?the ?moral ?authority ?he ?gained ?from ?his ?faith ?and ?church ?affiliation ?to ?facilitate ?and ?justify ?his ?sexual ?abuse; ?rather ?than ?suggesting ?he ?is ?a ?good ?man, ?this ?spoke ?to ?the ?tools ?he ?continued ?to ?have ?to ?exploit ?children. ?In ?considering ?the ?opinions ?of ?his ?family ?and ?community ?that ?his ?faith ?would ?ensure ?he ?did ?not ?re-??offend, ?the ?court ?also ?ignored ?that ?the ?church ?community ?was ?unaware ?of ?or ?failed ?to ?stop ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?abuse. ?Nor ?did ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?633 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615 ?at ?para ?56; ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?11. ?634 ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?para ?11. ?635 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?13. ?636 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?14. ?637 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?50. ? ? 153 ?court ?question ?how ?the ?church ?community ?could ?ensure ?that ?this ?would ?not ?be ?the ?case ?in ?the ?future.638 ? ? Courts ?also ?considered ?professional ?success ?and ?or ?extra-??legal ?consequences ?as ?mitigating. ?In ?two ?cases, ?courts ?considered ?the ?reputations, ?achievements, ?and ?professional ?losses ?of ?educators ?significantly ?mitigating, ?even ?though ?the ?offenders ?had ?committed ?sexual ?violence ?against ?their ?students. ?In ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?the ?offender ?was ?convicted ?of ?sexually ?assaulting ?his ?Grade ?3 ?student ?and ?track ?and ?field ?pupil, ?S.F., ?in ?the ?1986 ?to ?1987 ?school ?year: ?he ?had ?rubbed ?her ?back ?and ?shoulders ?and ?then ?her ?breasts ?with ?his ?hands ?after ?she ?ran ?a ?race ?at ?school.639 ?The ?sentencing ?decision ?was ?disproportionately ?given ?over ?to ?the ?shadow ?the ?offence ?(and ?other ?complaints ?that ?did ?not ?result ?in ?conviction) ?had ?cast ?on ?the ?offender?s ?glowing ?record: ?I ?turn ?now ?to ?the ?circumstances ?of ?the ?offender. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?is ?59 ?years ?old. ?He ?spent ?his ?entire ?career ?of ?close ?to ?30 ?years ?teaching ?elementary ?school ?students ?in ?Grades ?3 ?to ?5. ?He ?was, ?by ?all ?accounts, ?an ?exceptionally ?talented ?and ?effective ?teacher ?who ?cared ?passionately ?about ?his ?students ?and ?brought ?out ?the ?best ?in ?them. ?All ?of ?the ?complainants ?at ?the ?trial, ?including ?S.F., ?acknowledged ?that ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?was ?a ?very ?good ?teacher. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?was ?born ?and ?raised ?in ?Port ?Alberni ?and ?spent ?his ?life ?in ?that ?area, ?teaching ?until ?the ?complaints ?leading ?to ?his ?conviction ?came ?to ?light ?in ?April ?2008. ?He ?has ?not ?taught ?at ?all ?since ?then, ?and ?moved ?out ?of ?the ?community ?immediately ?following ?the ?allegations. ?He ?retired ?from ?teaching ?officially ?in ?October ?2008. ?He ?now ?lives ?in ?Qualicum ?Beach. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?returns ?to ?Port ?Alberni ?only ?to ?visit ?his ?mother, ?who ?is ?elderly ?and ?in ?poor ?health, ?and ?to ?visit ?his ?brother ?and ?his ?brother's ?family. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?took ?early ?retirement ?because ?he ?was ?no ?longer ?receiving ?any ?pay ?as ?a ?teacher ?after ?July ?2008. ?He ?was, ?at ?that ?point ?in ?his ?career, ?three ?years ?short ?of ?a ?full ?pension. ?Because ?he ?had ?to ?take ?early ?retirement, ?Mr. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?638 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?108. ?For ?similar ?concerns ?about ?community ?support ?in ?the ?context ?of ?sentencing ?circles, ?see ?Cunliffe ?& ?Cameron, ?supra ?note ?334 ?at ?25. ?639 ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?3-??4. ? ? 154 ?Semchuk ?receives ?a ?pension ?of ?$2,300 ?per ?month ?rather ?than ?$3,000 ?per ?month, ?which ?would ?have ?been ?his ?entitlement ?had ?he ?completed ?a ?further ?three ?years ?of ?teaching. ?It ?is ?not ?an ?exaggeration ?to ?say ?that ?teaching ?was ?Mr. ?Semchuk's ?life ?and ?his ?reason ?for ?being. ?The ?charges ?at ?trial ?received ?a ?great ?deal ?of ?publicity ?in ?Port ?Alberni, ?which ?is ?a ?small ?community. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?has ?experienced ?the ?stigma ?that ?rightly ?attaches ?to ?charges ?of ?this ?kind. ?He ?has ?also ?watched ?his ?parents, ?although ?his ?father ?is ?now ?recently ?deceased, ?and ?his ?brother ?and ?his ?brother's ?family ?bear ?the ?shame ?caused ?by ?the ?charges ?and ?conviction. ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?has ?withdrawn ?from ?social ?contact ?with ?all ?but ?his ?closest ?friends ?and ?his ?family. ?I ?accept ?that ?the ?trial ?and ?conviction ?have ?had ?a ?profound ?effect ?on ?him.640 ?The ?court ?presented ?the ?offender ?as ?an ?exceptional ?teacher, ?whose ?talents ?and ?dedication ?could ?not ?be ?denied ?even ?by ?the ?survivor ?and ?other ?complainants, ?and ?who ?was ?crushed ?by ?the ?loss ?of ?his ?career ?and ?forced ?abandonment ?of ?his ?community. ?The ?court ?did ?not ?explain ?its ?contradictory ?finding ?that ?he ?was ?a ?good ?teacher ?but ?also ?sexually ?assaulted ?a ?student: ?that ?is ?not ?something ?a ?good ?teacher ?does. ?Nor ?did ?the ?court ?directly ?link ?the ?offender?s ?loss ?of ?teaching ?career, ?as ?well ?as ?the ?losses ?to ?his ?pension, ?with ?his ?breach ?of ?trust ?of ?that ?position.641 ? ? ? As ?well, ?the ?court ?related ?every ?one ?of ?the ?four ?mitigating ?factors ?it ?enumerated ?in ?its ?judgment ?to ?the ?offender?s ?professional ?and ?reputational ?consequences: ?The ?mitigating ?factors ?in ?this ?case ?(many ?of ?which ?relate ?to ?a ?form ?of ?punishment ?or ?consequence ?apart ?from ?anything ?that ?this ?Court ?could ?impose), ?are ?as ?follows. ?First, ?Mr. ?Semchuk ?has ?lost ?his ?employment ?and ?a ?significant ?portion ?of ?his ?pension, ?a ?consequence ?that ?he ?will ?experience ?for ?the ?rest ?of ?his ?life. ?Second, ?he ?has ?lost ?his ?social ?and ?professional ?standing ?in ?a ?small ?community ?and ?has ?had ?to ?move ?away ?from ?the ?town ?he ?spent ?his ?life ?in. ?Third, ?he ?now ?faces ?disciplinary ?proceedings ?from ?the ?College ?of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?640 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?5-??8. ?641 ?Parenthetically, ?I ?think ?it ?is ?curious ?that ?the ?court ?did ?not ?mention ?that ?the ?offender ?benefitted ?from ?the ?many ?years ?that ?passed ?between ?his ?offence ?and ?charges: ?he ?held ?onto ?his ?community ?reputation ?and ?career ?teaching ?children, ?as ?well ?as ?contributed ?to ?his ?pension, ?for ?longer ?that ?he ?should ?have. ? ? ? 155 ?Teachers. ?Fourth, ?he ?has ?experienced ?the ?intense ?publicity ?and ?stigma ?associated ?with ?the ?charges ?and ?the ?trial ?and ?conviction ?over ?the ?past ?three ?years.642 ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?professional ?consequences ?of ?sexually ?assaulting ?a ?student, ?as ?well ?loss ?of ?community ?standing, ?as ?mitigating ?factors. ?In ?contrast, ?the ?court ?paid ?less ?attention ?to ?the ?impact ?on ?the ?survivor, ?dedicating ?only ?one ?paragraph ?to ?her ??embarrassment? ?and ?subsequent ?introversion ?and ?poor ?self-??esteem.643 ?In ?balance, ?a ??good? ?teacher ?appeared ?to ?be ?the ?victim ?of ?his ?community?s ?rejection ?and ?his ?professional ?losses; ?in ?this ?light, ?criminal ?sanctions ?were ?excessive.644 ? ? ? The ?court ?in ?R. ?v. ?Hamade ?took ?a ?similar ?approach. ?Throughout ?the ?judgment, ?the ?court ?characterized ?the ?28-??year-??old ?student ?teacher?s ?sexual ?exploitation ?of ?a ?15-??year-??old ?student ?as ?an ?isolated ?incident ?of ?poor ?judgment.645 ?The ?court ?detailed ?the ?consequences ?of ?the ?offender?s ?crime ?on ?him ?while ?highlighting ?his ?past ?success ?at ?school: ? ?The ?accused ?has ?suffered ?greatly ?as ?a ?result ?of ?his ?arrest. ?It ?has ?been ?submitted ?by ?defence ?counsel ?he ?was ?within ?three ?months ?of ?completing ?his ?degree ?from ?the ?University ?of ?British ?Columbia. ?He ?was ?a ?former ?quarterback ?at ?W. ?J. ?Mouat ?high ?school ?with ?the ?Abbotsford ?Air ?Force ?in ?the ?B.C. ?Junior ?Football ?League ?and ?played ?at ?the ?University ?of ?British ?Columbia ?as ?well, ?and ?he ?had ?a ?promising ?career ?ahead ?of ?him ?at ?one ?point ?as ?a ?teacher. ?After ?his ?arrest, ?his ?picture ?was ?on ?the ?front ?page ?of ?the ?Vancouver ?Province ?and ?this ?has ?obviously ?caused ?not ?only ?him ?but ?his ?family ?a ?great ?deal ?of ?embarrassment ?in ?the ?community, ?and ?it ?has ?certainly ?undermined ?his ?ability ?to ?find ?suitable ?employment. ?He ?has ?abandoned ?his ?pursuit ?of ?a ?career ?as ?an ?educator, ?and ?defence ?counsel ?has ?emphasized ?that ?this ?was ?a ?single ?communication ?that ?was ?made ?by ?someone ?exercising ?extremely ?poor ?judgment. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?642 ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?12. ?643 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?13. ?644 ?The ?court ?ordered ?a ?suspended ?sentence ?and ?probation: ?Ibid ?at ?para ?18. ?645 ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?11-??13, ?16, ?18. ? ? 156 ?He ?has ?now, ?despite ?his ?arrest, ?commenced ?full ?time ?and ?is ?regularly ?engaged ?in ?employment, ?the ?shipping ?department, ?which ?is ?a ?vocation ?that ?is ?probably ?below ?his ?intellectual ?abilities ?and ?not ?really ?in ?keeping ?with ?the ?amount ?of ?formal ?education ?that ?he ?has ?achieved. ?As ?counsel ?has ?pointed ?out, ?he ?never ?did ?engage ?in ?any ?sexual ?assault ?or ?touching ?whatsoever ?of ?the ?complainant, ?and ?as ?I ?have ?observed, ?a ?lot ?of ?things ?would ?have ?had ?to ?come ?into ?place ?for ?such ?a ?thing ?to ?happen.646 ?The ?court ?portrayed ?the ?offender ?as ?a ?promising ?young ?professional ?suffering ?undue ?and ?even ?unfair ?consequences ?to ?his ?career, ?without ?apparently ?considering ?the ?risk ?he ?might ?present ?to ?the ?students ?he ?would ?be ?instructing ?if ?he ?did ?pursue ?teaching. ? ? The ?myth ?that ?good ?men ?are ?not ?dangerous ?continued ?to ?impact ?sentencing. ?Others ?before ?me ?have ?found ?that ?courts ?commonly ?used ?this ?reasoning ?when ?sentencing ?sexual ?offenders.647 ?Courts ?have ?more ?readily ?excused ?white ?middle-??class ?offenders ?from ?responsibility, ?and ?ultimately ?in ?some ?cases, ?incarceration,648 ?by ?seeing ?offences ?as ??a ?single ?instance ?and ??out ?of ?character?"649 ?and ?offenders ?as ?more ?manageable ?risks ?to ?the ?public, ?risks ?necessary ?to ?enable ?productive, ?employed ?offenders ?to ?contribute ?to ?the ?economy ?and ?community.650 ?As ?noted ?by ?Marshall, ?the ?assumption ?that ?men ?of ?certain ?classes ?or ?professions ?do ?not ?commit ?sexual ?offences ?is ?baseless: ??Men ?who ?rape ?are ?to ?be ?found ?in ?all ?social, ?educational ?and ?professional ?categories.?651 ? ? ? By ?making ?this ?assumption ?about ??good? ?offenders, ?the ?law ?is ?ignoring ?what ?is ?known ?about ?sexual ?violence: ?that ?it ?is ?committed ?in ?private. ?By ?design, ?community ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?646 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?12-??13. ?647 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281, ?293?294; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?717?722; ?Benedet, ??Registry?, ?supra ?note ?368 ?at ?456?458; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?165?166; ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?35?36; ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?221?222. ?648 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?719?722; ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?281. ?649 ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?222. ?650 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?717?720. ?651 ?Marshall, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?222. ? ? 157 ?reputation ?or ?professional ?status ?will ?not ?generally ?reflect ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?violence, ?because ?the ?offender ?will ?try ?to ?keep ?his ?violence ?a ?secret ?from ?others. ?Although ?the ?limited ?value ?of ?character ?evidence ?in ?sexual ?offences ?was ?recognized ?as ?a ?matter ?of ?commonsense, ?but ?not ?law, ?by ?the ?Supreme ?Court ?of ?Canada ?in ?R. ?v. ?Profit, ?652 ?it ?did ?not ?appear ?to ?be ?considered ?in ?the ?cases ?in ?the ?case ?sample.653 ? ? This ?assumption ?also ?ignores ?that ?good ?reputation ?and ?community ?and ?professional ?activities ?afford ?offenders ?the ?opportunity ?to ?get ?access ?to ?individuals ?to ?sexually ?assault ?and ?to ?manipulate ?them ?into ?silence. ?Sexual ?violence ?is ?an ?abuse ?of ?power ?and ?inequality, ?committed ?by ?men ?empowered ?by ?cultural ?and ?social ?institutions ?to ?dominate ?women ?and ?children. ?Social ?power ?has ?not ?made ?men ?harmless; ?it ?has ?made ?them ?dangerous: ? ?While ?each ?sexual ?abuser ?may ?imagine ?he ?is ?operating ?alone, ?his ?power ?to ?abuse ?as ?well ?as ?its ?abuse ?are ?part ?of ?the ?social ?order ?keeping ?all ?women ?in ?our ?structurally ?debased ?place. ?No ?man ?on ?his ?own, ?without ?the ?overt ?or ?implicit ?collusion ?of ?others ?and ?without ?ideological ?and ?institutional ?backing ?gets ?into ?a ?position ?to ?successfully ?attack ?women ?and ?get ?away ?with ?it. ?The ?individual ?rapist, ?batterer ?or ?woman-??killer ?is ?supported ?by ?the ?hierarchies ?that ?allow ?him ?the ?extra ?power ?and ?status ?to ?exercise ?abusive ?or ?exploitive ?control ?over ?his ?unequals ?and ?to ?enforce ?his ?desires, ?by ?the ?same ?hierarchies ?that ?keep ?her ?vulnerable ?to ?attack ?because ?she ?is ?economically, ?politically ?and ?legally ?disempowered ?and ?socially ?devalued?654 ?Although ?the ?offenders ?in ?the ?sample ?have ?been ?found ?guilty, ?and ?therefore ?not ??gotten ?away ?with ?it?, ?some ?nonetheless ?benefitted ?from ?their ?institutional ?and ?social ?privilege ?in ?sentencing. ?This ?facet ?of ?the ?gender ?(and ?race ?and ?class) ?bias ?in ?the ?law ?ignores ?or ?privileges ?the ?abuses ?of ?male ?authority, ?such ?as ?professional ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?652 ?R. ?v. ?Profit, ?[1993] ?3 ?SCR ?637, ?85 ?CCC ?(3d) ?232. ?653 ?This ?proposition ?has ?been ?argued ?to ?apply ?to ?sentencing ?as ?well ?as ?trials: ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?132. ?654 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?78?79. ? ? 158 ?authority, ?that ?is ?given ?unequally ?to ?certain ?men ?by ?patriarchy, ?and ?is ?therefore ?unequally ?in ?their ?power ?to ?abuse ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence.655 ? ? ? ? This ?is ?not ?to ?say ?courts ?failed ?to ?consider ?abuse ?of ?power ?and ?dependence ?as ?aggravating ?factors: ?they ?regularly ?did ?in ?the ?context ?of ?offences ?by ?caregivers ?and ?spouses,656 ?as ?well ?as ?the ?two ?cases ?of ?educators.657 ?However, ?courts ?offset ?abuse ?of ?power ?with ?evidence ?of ??good? ?character, ?loss ?of ?employment, ?and ?public ?disgrace, ?giving ?the ?impression ?that ?they ?considered ?abuse ?of ?trust ?or ?authority ?in ?a ?limited ?and ?atomistic ?way.658 ? ? R. ?v. ?Greenhalgh ?provides ?a ?more ?nuanced ?approach ?to ?the ?balance ?between ?the ?mitigating ?effects ?of ?good ?reputation ?and ?professional ?standing ?and ?abuse ?of ?trust ?and ?authority ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence. ?There, ?the ?offender ?committed ?sexual ?assault ?and ?breach ?of ?trust ?by ?abusing ?his ?authority ?as ?a ?Border ?Services ?Officer. ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?professional, ?reputational, ?and ?family ?consequences, ?including ?his ?corresponding ?financial ?losses, ?as ?mitigating ?factors;659 ?however, ?the ?court ?appears ?to ?have ?tempered ?the ?mitigating ?effect ?of ?these ?factors ?when ?it ?cited ?a ?case ?that ?held ?that, ?in ?breach ?of ?trust ?crimes, ?most ?offenders ?are ?able ?to ??adduce ?abundant ?good ?character ?evidence? ?because ?their ?good ?characters ?enabled ?them ?to ?achieve ?the ?position ?of ?trust ?that ?they ?abused, ?and ?in ?turn, ?they ?may ?more ?greatly ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?655 ?MacKinnon, ??Equality ?Approach?, ?supra ?note ?52 ?at ?268. ?656 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?33; ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?17; ?R. ?v. ?F.A.B., ?supra ?note ?478 ?at ?paras ?26, ?28; ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?75. ?657 ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?11; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?para ?6. ?658 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?17-??22; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?6, ?12-??13; ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?12. ?See ?also ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480, ?where ?the ?court ?considered ?many ?reference ?letters ?regarding ?the ?offender?s ?success ?in ?his ?small ?business ?and ?community ?standing ?but ?did ?not ?consider ?his ?sexual ?assault ?of ?his ?employee ?as ?aggravated ?by ?his ?position ?of ?authority ?over ?her. ?659 ?R. ?v. ?Greenhalgh, ?2011 ?BCSC ?511 ?at ?para ?68 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?[R. ?v. ?Greenhalgh ?(SC)], ?aff?d ?2012 ?BCCA ?236 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 159 ?experience ?shame ?and ?disgrace, ?but ??these ?consequences ?are ?not ?to ?be ?over-??emphasized? ?in ?sentencing.660 ? ? ? Similar ?reasoning ?should ?apply ?in ?some ?cases ?of ?sexual ?offences ?to ?recognize ?that ??good? ?men ?commit ?sexual ?crimes, ?and ?may ?have ?unique ?opportunities ?to ?do ?so ?and ?to ?escape ?detection ?and ?sanction. ?Pasquali ?pointed ?out ?that ?survivors ?face ?more ?difficulty ?reporting ?on ?men ?who ?have ?abused ?their ?unequal ?influence ?and ?power ?to ?commit ?sexual ?offences ?precisely ?because ?of ?their ?reputations ?and ?social ?standing; ?therefore, ?courts ?should ?limit ?the ?degree ?to ?which ?the ??goodness? ?of ?offenders ?and ?the ?consequences ?they ?suffer ?act ?in ?mitigation. ?This ?consideration ?could ?play ?a ?particularly ?important ?role ?in ?cases ?of ?offenders ?who ?victimize ?children ?who, ?as ?Pasquali ?noted, ?often ?rely ?on ?a ??presumption ?of ?trustworthiness? ?to ?gain ?access ?to ?and ?silence ?children.661 ?If ?the ?law ?wished ?to ?challenge ?the ?dominance ?of ?men ?that ?enables ?them ?to ?commit ?sexual ?violence ?without ?detection ?and ?punishment, ?it ?would ?reject ?these ?factors ?as ?bases ?for ?mitigating ?blame ?for ?abuse ?of ?trust ?or ?authority ?in ?sexual ?violence ?or ?would ?ensure ?it ?does ?not ?give ?these ?factors ?undue ?weight. ? ? ?Different ?Understandings ?of ?Harm ?to ?Survivors ? ? The ?Criminal ?Code ?mandates ?that ?judges ?consider ??evidence ?that ?the ?offence ?had ?a ?significant ?impact ?on ?the ?victim? ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor.662 ?Like ?Boyle ?in ?her ?study ?of ?sexual ?offence ?sentencing ?decisions ?prior ?to ?the ?reforms,663 ?I ?found ?that ?judges ?considered ?the ?harm ?offenders ?caused ?survivors ?in ?the ?majority ?of ?cases. ?In ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?660 ?Greenhalgh ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?659 ?at ?para ?53. ?661 ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?35?36. ?662 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a)(iii.1). ?663 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?176. ? ? 160 ?many ?cases, ?it ?was ?a ?primary ?consideration. ?However, ?like ?other ?authors, ?I ?also ?found ?courts ?typically ?apportioned ?the ?harm ?suffered ?by ?survivors ?significantly ?less ?space ?in ?judgments ?than ?other ?factors, ?especially ?those ?relating ?to ?offenders. ?In ?this ?sense, ?survivors ?were ?relatively ?invisible, ?and ?the ?cases ?left ?the ?overall ?impression ?of ?survivors? ?harm ?as ?less ?important ?than ?other ?factors.664 ? ? ? When ?courts ?considered ?harm, ?they ?relied ?on ?particular ?evidence ?of ?the ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor ?when ?it ?was ?available, ?from ?Victim ?Impact ?Statements, ?or ?in ?their ?absence, ?testimony, ?statements ?to ?the ?Crown, ?or ?Pre-??Sentence ?Reports.665 ?As ?well, ?in ?some ?cases ?judges ?recognized ?the ?trauma ?that ?sexual ?assault ?survivors ?experience ?generally.666 ?However, ?without ?evidence ?of ?harm, ?the ?consequences ?of ?the ?offence ?on ?the ?survivor ?played ?a ?minimal ?role ?in ?sentencing.667 ? ? However, ?in ?some ?cases, ?courts ?barely ?considered ?harm ?or ?did ?not ?mention ?it ?at ?all.668 ?In ?some ?cases ?where ?courts ?gave ?harm ?to ?survivors ?little ?or ?no ?consideration ?in ?judgments, ?they ?also ?appeared ?to ?subtly ?suggest ?survivors ?contributed ?to ?assaults. ?These ?lacunae ?were ?most ?clear ?in ?cases ?where ?judges ?suggested ?that ?adolescent ?survivors ?agreed ?to ?sexual ?touching.669 ?Courts ?also ?failed ?to ?seriously ?consider ?harm ?to ?survivors, ?or ?determined ?that ?survivors ?had ?not ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?664 ?See ?e.g. ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?42?50; ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?712?716. ?665 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?12; ?R. ?v. ?Boden, ?supra ?note ?498 ?at ?para ?30; ?R. ?v. ?F.A.B., ?supra ?note ?478 ?at ?paras ?12-??13; ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L. ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?9, ?31-??32; ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615 ?at ?para ?37; ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?15-??18; ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572 ?at ?para ?92; ?R. ?v. ?Rao ?and ?MacFadden, ?2012 ?BCSC ?929 ?at ?para ?27 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?paras ?36-??37, ?46, ?111. ?666 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?D.B.D., ?supra ?note ?588 ?at ?paras ?9, ?24-??25. ?667 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?para ?14. ?668 ?R. ?v. ?D.C.E., ?supra ?note ?580; ?R. ?v. ?Dariani, ?supra ?note ?473 ?[the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?only ?noted ?that ?the ?survivor ?was ?traumatized ?and ?listed ?the ?physical ?injuries ?she ?suffered]; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480. ?669 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486; ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486. ? ? 161 ?suffered ?long-??term ?or ?serious ?psychological ?harm, ?when ?they ?were ?women ?who ?could ?be ?seen ?as ?taking ?risks.670 ? ? ? The ?judge ?in ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?did ?not ?seriously ?consider ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?offence ?on ?the ?14-??year-??old ?survivor, ?K.R. ?The ?court ?did ?not ?accept ?his ?verbal ?Victim ?Impact ?Statement ?to ?Crown ?counsel, ?but ?instead ?discussed ?the ?circumstances ?of ?his ?report ?of ?the ?offence, ?finally ?noting ?that, ??[i]t ?is ?obvious ?this ?14-??year-??old ?boy ?was ?impacted ?by ?the ?actions ?of ?Mr. ?Allen ?and ?Mr. ?Nelson. ?K.R. ?has ?engaged ?in ?self-??harming, ?but ?he ?indicates ?it ?is ?unrelated ?to ?the ?matter ?before ?this ?Court.?671 ?The ?court ?then ?discussed ?K.R.?s ?sexual ?history ?evidence, ?namely ?that ?he ?was ?not ?a ?virgin ?and ?continued ?to ?speak ?to ?adult ?men ?on ?the ?Internet ?chat ?room ?where ?he ?met ?the ?two ?offenders, ?to ?show ?that ?he ?was ??vulnerable ?prey?.672 ?The ?court ?did ?not ?list ?harm ?to ?K.R. ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor. ? ? ? In ?contrast, ?the ?court ?in ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?dealing ?with ?Allen?s ?co-??offender ?in ?the ?joint ?sexual ?assault ?of ?K.R., ?cited ?K.R.?s ??significant ?psychological ?harm? ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor: ?the ?court ?stated ?that ?the ?offence ?and ?its ?aftermath ?were ?a ??nightmare? ?for ?him, ?and ?that ?he ?consequently ?had ?to ?undergo ?repeated ?tests ?for ?HIV, ?suffered ?a ?mood ?disorder, ?and ?faced ?family ?problems.673 ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?discussed ?in ?the ?previous ?section, ?the ?28-??year-??old ?offender ?was ?guilty ?of ?sexually ?exploiting ?a ?15-??year-??old ?girl, ?a ?student ?of ?the ?school ?that ?employed ?him ?as ?a ?student ?teacher. ?The ?judge ?described ?the ?survivor ?as ?having ?a ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?670 ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?3, ?5; ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?39; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?12. ?671 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?27. ?672 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?28-??29. ?673 ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572 ?at ?para ?92. ? ? 162 ??schoolgirl ?crush? ?on ?the ?offender, ?and ?suggested ?that ?she ?agreed ?to ?some ?of ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?requests, ?such ?as ?exposing ?her ?breasts ?and ?engaging ?in ??role ?playing? ?(something ?that ?was ?not ?explained).674 ?Although ?the ?court ?said ?it ?considered ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?sexual ?offence ?on ?the ?survivor, ?all ?it ?mentioned ?was ?that ?she ??was ?understandably ?traumatized ?and ?eventually ?transferred ?to ?another ?school.?675 ?In ?contrast, ?the ?judge ?dedicated ?two ?paragraphs ?to ?the ?consequences ?of ?the ?offence ?on ?the ?offender, ?as ?I ?discussed ?above, ?stating ?that ?he ??has ?suffered ?greatly?, ?having ?lost ?his ?job, ?given ?up ?his ?career ?as ?an ?educator, ?and ?experienced ?embarrassment.676 ?In ?this ?case, ?the ?consequences ?for ?the ?offender ?appear ?to ?play ?a ?much ?larger ?role ?than ?the ?impact ?on ?the ?young ?survivor, ?who ?was ?additionally ?portrayed ?as ?somewhat ?complicit ?in ?the ?offence. ? ? Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?the ?court ?did ?not ?appear ?to ?seriously ?consider ?harm ?to ?the ?13-??year-??old ?Aboriginal ?male ?survivor, ?with ?the ?court ?also ?suggesting ?doubt ?that ?the ?survivor ?was ?not ?in ?some ?way ?complicit ?in ?the ?offence ?by ?describing ?the ?sexual ?assaults ?as ??the ?allegations? ?and ?apparently ?considering ?the ?defendant?s ?statement ?that ?the ?survivor ?had ?initiated ?the ?offence.677 ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?the ?court ?did ?not ?discuss ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor ?at ?all. ?This ?case, ?which ?I ?discussed ?previously, ?arose ?when ?a ?40-??year-??old ?man ?raped ?a ?14-??year-??old ?girl. ?The ?court ?did ?not ?find ?the ?survivor?s ?testimony ?that ?she ?did ?not ?consent ?while ?she ?was ?heavily ?intoxicated ?proved ?nonconsent, ?emphasizing ?her ?history ?of ?alcohol-??induced ?blackouts ?and ?intoxication ?before ?and ?during ?the ?sexual ?assault. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?674 ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?4, ?11. ?675 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?6, ?21. ?676 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?12-??13. ?677 ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?5-??6. ? ? 163 ?The ?court ?did ?not ?mention ?harm ?to ?the ?survivor ?in ?the ?judgment ?beyond ?noting, ?in ?aggravation, ?that ?the ?offender ?lacked ?empathy ?for ?the ?harm ?he ?caused ?the ?survivor.678 ?At ?no ?point ?did ?the ?court ?explain ?what ?that ?harm ?was, ?leaving ?the ?impression ?that ?the ?offence ?had ?no ?real ?impact ?on ?her. ? ? We ?are ?also ?left ?with ?the ?impression ?of ?the ?survivor ?as ?both ?sexualized ?and ?an ?alcoholic. ?Sadly, ?this ?construction ?is ?nothing ?new. ?In ?fact, ?it ?is ?a ?regular ?portrait ?of ?sexually ?assaulted ?Aboriginal ?girls. ?A ?description ?of ?how ?Aboriginal ?girls ?have ?been ?portrayed ?in ?the ?law ?can ?be ?found ?in ?Tracey ?Lindberg, ?Priscilla ?Campeau, ?and ?Maria ?Campbell?s ?indigenous ?analysis ?of ?a ?case ?where ?three ?men ?gave ?a ?12-??year-??old ?girl ?from ?the ?Yellowquill ?First ?Nation ?alcohol ?and ?then ?raped ?and ?sexually ?assaulted ?her.679 ?Placing ?the ?case ?in ?its ?historical ?context ?of ?racism, ?colonization, ?and ?misogyny ?against ?Aboriginal ?women, ?they ?revealed ?how ?the ?court?s ?determination ?of ?the ?relevance ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?past ?sexual ?abuse ?and ?portrayal ?of ?her ?as ?drunk ?and ?willing ?dehumanized ?her: ? ?this ?is ?the ?sexualization ?of ?a ?child ?and ?the ?dehumanization ?of ?a ?person. ?It ?strikes ?us ?that ?we ?are ?not ?just ?talking ?about ?physical ?acts/assaults. ?We ?are ?talking ?about ?her ?legal ?evisceration. ?A ?person ?who ?testifies ?about ?the ?brutality ?that ?was ?perpetrated ?on ?her/him ?is ?one ?of ?the ?bravest ?people ?we ?can ?imagine; ?sitting ?there ?in ?the ?courtroom ?while ?she ?is ?legally ?constructed ?as ?a ?drunken, ?potentially ?willing, ?and ?definitively ?sexual ?being ?is ?unbelievable ?brutish. ?Additionally, ?she ?is ?brutally ?constructed ?as ?a ?sexualized ?adult ?woman. ?Her ?childhood ?is ?discarded ?on ?the ?courtroom ?steps, ?previous ?incidents ?of ?sexual ?assault ?are ?detailed, ?shaming ?her ?and ?making ?her ?act ?of ?bravery ?an ?act ?that ?must ?have ?been ?diminished ?by ?the ?revelation ?about ?previous ?sexual ?assault(s).680 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?678 ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?para ?56. ?679 ?Lindberg, ?Campeau ?& ?Campbell, ?supra ?note ?464 ?at ?90?91. ?680 ?Ibid ?at ?93. ? ? 164 ?A ?similar ?critique ?could ?be ?leveled ?here. ?The ?court ?transformed ?an ?adolescent ?girl ?raped ?by ?an ?adult ?man ?into ?a ?sexualized ?adult ?woman ?by ?making ?her ?intoxication ?and ?supposed ?willingness ?relevant ?to ?sentencing ?beyond ?what ?was ?necessary ?to ?establish ?her ?as ?extremely ?vulnerable. ?Relying ?on ?Razack?s ?insight ?that ?those ?who ?inhabit ??degenerate ?spaces? ?are ?racialized ?to ??naturalize? ?the ?violence ?committed ?against ?them,681 ?I ?suggest ?the ?survivor, ?whose ?ancestry ?was ?left ?unrecorded, ?was ?racialized ?by ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?into ?the ?stereotypical ?drunken ?and ?promiscuous ?Aboriginal ?girl. ?Her ?racialization ?made ?the ?harm ?against ?her ?seem ?natural ?and ?ultimately ?unimportant. ? ? ? Courts ?also ?differently ?approached ?the ?harm ?of ?adult ?survivors ?they ?presented ?as ?taking ?risks. ?In ?some ?cases ?of ?adult ?survivors, ?judges ?discussed ?harm ?to ?find ?that ?the ?survivor ?had ?not ?been ?significantly ?impacted ?or ?had ?recovered. ?This ?happened, ?to ?varying ?degrees, ?in ?the ?three ?cases ?of ?rape ?of ?adult ?women ?in ?prostitution,682 ?women ?who, ?as ?discussed ?by ?Razack, ?are ?often ?racialized ?and ?seen ?of ?as ?occupying ?spaces ?of ?violence ?and ?degeneracy.683 ?Courts ?were ?respectful ?but, ?by ?comparison, ?they ?seemed ?to ?consider ?their ?harm ?as ?somehow ?different ?than ?that ?of ?other ?survivors. ? ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?the ?offender ?committed ?sexual ?assault ?causing ?bodily ?harm ?when ?he ?pinned ?the ?survivor ?underneath ?him ?and ?punched ?her ?in ?the ?face, ?knocking ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?681 ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7 ?at ?116?117. ?682 ?This ?was ?not ?the ?approach ?taken ?in ?a ?case ?about ?sexual ?offences ?against ?multiple ?young ?prostituted ?girls ?in ?Colombia ?and ?Cambodia. ?There ?the ?trial ?court ?and ?appeal ?court ?both ?rejected ?the ?offender?s ?claim ?that ?the ?survivors ?were ?not ?vulnerable ?and ?were ?less ?harmed ?by ?his ?offences ?because ?they ?were ?already ?involved ?in ?prostitution. ?The ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?specifically ?rejected ?the ?offender?s ?submission ?that ?the ?trial ?judge ?overemphasized ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?the ?survivors ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor ?in ?sentencing: ?R. ?v. ?Klassen, ?supra ?note ?505 ?at ?paras ?11, ?18-??21. ?683 ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7 ?at ?93?94, ?116?117. ? ? 165 ?her ?unconscious ?while ?he ?raped ?her. ?Based ?on ?her ?testimony ?at ?trial ?and ?in ?the ?absence ?of ?a ?Victim ?Impact ?Statement, ?the ?judge ?determined ?that ?she ??suffered ?short ?term ?physical ?injuries? ?but ??[h]er ?evidence ?did ?not ?suggest ?that ?she ?suffered ?lasting ?emotional ?trauma ?caused ?by ?the ?assault.? ?The ?judge ?said ?she ?did ?not ?mean ?to ??minimize ?what ?occurred? ?but ?to ?distinguish ?impact ?on ?the ?survivor ?from ??other ?cases ?where ?the ?violence ?is ?more ?severe.?684 ?The ?offence ?in ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?a ?sexual ?assault ?where ?the ?offender ?punched ?a ?woman ?in ?the ?face, ?robbed ?her ?of ?the ?money ?he ?paid ?her, ?and ?raped ?her, ?was ?found ?to ?have ?positive ?consequences ?for ?the ?survivor, ?S.J. ?The ?court ?stated ?that ?although ?the ?assault ?was ?an ?attack ?on ?a ?vulnerable ?person?s ?physical ?and ?psychological ?integrity, ?S.J. ?had ?stated ?that ?she ?remade ?her ?life ?because ?of ?the ?assault, ?leaving ?behind ?her ?addictions. ?The ?court ?stated ?that, ??[i]nsofar ?as ?it ?is ?possible ?to ?recover ?from ?a ?sexual ?assault, ?she ?had ?done ?well.?685 ? ? ? In ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?the ?court ?found ?that ?the ?survivor ?continued ?to ?be ?psychologically ?traumatized ?by ?the ?sexual ?assault, ?where ?the ?offender ?had ?tied ?her ?to ?his ?bed ?and ?raped ?her ?while ?she ?was ?asleep, ?as ?well ?as ?the ?10-??year ?delay ?in ?identifying ?and ?charging ?the ?offender. ?Although ?the ?court ?detailed ?her ?psychological ?trauma ?from ?the ?offence, ?it ?also ?noted ?that ?she ??made ?some ?very ?positive ?changes ?in ?her ?life. ?She ?is ?now ?a ?married ?mother ?who ?has ?overcome ?her ?addictions.?686 ?The ?court ?did ?not ?link ?this ?statement ?to ?the ?offence, ?but ?coupling ?the ?discussion ?of ?the ?serious ?trauma ?the ?offender ?caused ?her ?with ?a ?discussion ?of ?her ?subsequent ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?684 ?R. ?v ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?12. ?685 ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?39. ?686 ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?supra ?note ?502 ?at ?para ?12. ? ? 166 ?changing ?her ?life ?could ?suggest ?the ?offence ?may ?have ?had ?some ?positive ?consequences ?for ?her, ?at ?least ?in ?part. ? ? ? In ?another ?case, ?the ?adult ?survivor ?was ?explicitly ?portrayed ?as ?reaping ?the ?consequences ?of ?the ?risks ?she ?took. ?In ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?the ?offender ?sexually ?assaulted ?T.F., ?his ?employee, ?in ?his ?office. ?In ?sentencing ?the ?offender, ?the ?court ?failed ?to ?consider ?the ?harm ?the ?offence ?caused ?T.F.; ?instead, ?the ?court ?obliquely ?mentioned ?that ?she ?delayed ?making ?a ?criminal ?complaint, ?was ?unemployed ?for ?three ?months, ?was ??quite ?distraught ?after ?the ?incident?,687 ?and ?the ?offender ?pleaded ?guilty ?after ?T.F.?s ?friend ?had ?testified ?about ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?offence ?on ?her.688 ?However, ?the ?court ?also ?suggested ?the ?offence ?was ?partly ?the ?survivor?s ?doing: ?it ?reiterated ?counsel?s ?comments ?that ?the ??atmosphere ?of ?sexuality? ?that ?existed ?in ?the ?workplace ?before ?the ?offence ?including ?that ?T.F. ?was ?subjected ?to ?discussions ?of ?sex, ?horseplay, ?and ?buttocks-??slapping, ?were ?things ?she ??might ?well ?have ?regarded ?as ?harbingers ?to ?be ?heeded.?689 ?In ?repeating ?this ?suggestion, ?the ?court ?blames ?the ?survivor ?for ?failing ?to ?avoid ?the ?assault ?by ?continuing ?to ?be ?subjected ?to ?possibly ?harassing ?behaviour: ?the ?court ?implied ?that ?because ?she ?put ?up ?with ?it, ?she ?invited ?the ?sexual ?assault; ?perhaps ?then ?any ?harm ?she ?suffered ?was ?not ?necessary ?to ?seriously ?consider. ?The ?court ?ignored ?the ?contextual ?factors ?that ?left ?the ?survivor ?with ?few ?options ?but ?to ?remain, ?with ?or ?without ??harbingers?: ?as ?noted ?in ?the ?judgment, ?she ?was ?a ?single ?mother ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?687 ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?3. ?688 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?5. ?689 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?11. ? ? 167 ?who ?remained ?unemployed ?for ?three ?months ?after ?the ?offender ?sexually ?assaulted ?her.690 ? ? ? These ?cases ?reflect ?Gotell?s ?concern ?that, ?in ?law, ??[c]oncepts ?of ?risk ?are ?deployed ?to ?construct ?and ?demarcate ?revised ?boundaries ?of ?good ?and ?bad ?victimhood.?691 ?Applied ?to ?sentencing ?cases, ?even ?when ?offenders ?are ?guilty, ?survivors ?may ?be ?seen ?as ?incautious ?or ??flirting ?with ?risk.?692 ?The ?idea ?of ?risk-??taking ?fits ?with ?what ?Ruparelia ?calls ?the ??situational ?requirement? ?of ?ideal ?victimhood: ?the ?survivor ?must ?be ?sexually ?assaulted ?while ??carrying ?out ?a ?respectable ?task ?in ?a ?location ?where ?she ?cannot ?be ?blamed ?for ?being?.693 ?It ?appears ?that ?in ?these ?cases ?courts ?perceived ?both ?adolescent ?and ?adult ?survivors ?as ?taking ?risks, ?doing ?disreputable ?things, ?or ?inhabiting ??degenerate ?spaces?, ?to ?borrow ?from ?Razack694 ?? ?being ?young ?and ?in ?the ?company ?of ?adult ?men, ?engaging ?in ?prostitution, ?or ?working ?in ?a ?sexualized ?workplace ?? ?and ?therefore ?somewhat ?complicit ?in ?sexual ?assaults. ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ?it ?seems ?that ?notions ?of ?risk ?or ?agreement, ?replacing ?considerations ?of ?vulnerability ?and ?exploitation, ?led ?to ?courts ?disregarding ?survivors? ?harm. ?D. Feminist ?Considerations ? ? ? Discriminatory ?ideas ?about ?sexual ?violence, ?based ?on ?sexist, ?classist, ?racist ?and ?other ?dominant ?prejudices, ?appeared ?in ?recent ?B.C. ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?decisions. ?I ?found ?these ?ideas ?within ?courts? ?interpretations ?and ?applications ?of ?legal ?doctrine: ?in ?some ?cases, ?courts ?characterized ?sexual ?offences ?as ?less ?violent, ?less ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?690 ?Ibid ?at ?paras ?3, ?24. ?691 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?879. ?692 ?Ibid ?at ?880. ?693 ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?673. ?694 ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7. ? ? 168 ?harmful, ?and ?less ?the ?fault ?of ?offenders ?based ?on ?prejudicial ?and ?gendered ?ideas ?about ?violence ?in ?sexual ?activity, ??good? ?offenders, ?intoxication, ?and ??risky? ?survivors. ?I ?observed ?a ?pattern ?of ?courts ?confusing ?sexual ?violence ?with ?sex. ?It ?was ?particularly ?apparent ?in ?cases ?against ?adolescent ?and ?adult ?survivors ?who ?could ?be ?understood ?as ?taking ?risks ?and ?therefore ??consenting? ?to ?offences. ?It ?was ?also ?apparent ?in ?courts? ?failure ?to ?recognize ?and ?consider ?the ?gendered ?and ?unequal ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence: ?courts ?mitigated ?the ?sentences ?of ?offenders ?who ?were ??good?, ?who ?committed ?crimes ?that ?were ??not ?predatory?, ?who ?assaulted ?acquaintances, ?and ?who ?were ?thought ?to ?have ?momentarily ?lost ?control ?due ?to ?intoxication. ?Although ?these ?myths ?were ?not ?prevalent ?in ?the ?majority ?of ?cases, ?that ?they ?appeared ?at ?all, ?and ?with ?some ?frequency, ?is ?an ?indictment ?of ?the ?system ?that ?is ?supposed ?to ?achieve ?justice ?and ?foster ?equality. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?I ?do ?not ?mean ?to ?give ?the ?impression ?that ?there ?are ?no ?justifiable ?distinctions ?among ?the ?seriousness ?of ?sexual ?offences ?and ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ?I ?question ?the ?legitimacy ?of ?some ?mitigating ?factors ?that ?are ?premised ?on ?rape ?myths, ?not ?the ?legitimacy ?of ?all ?mitigating ?factors. ?Some ?mitigating ?factors ?address ?inequality ?and ?the ?social ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?When ?courts ?look ?at ?the ?offender?s ?background, ?including ?the ?circumstances ?he ?was ?raised ?in, ?and ?whether ?he ?was ?himself ?a ?survivor ?of ?sexual ?abuse, ?neglect ?or ?other ?violence, ?they ?are ?considering ?how ?he ?may ?have ?learned ?to ?abuse ?or ?exploit ?others ?and ?the ?cyclical ?nature ?of ?violence. ?These ?histories ?are ?sadly ?common ?among ?Aboriginal ?offenders ?who ?suffer ?from ?the ?legacies ?of ?colonialism ?and ?residential ?schools. ?Courts ?rightly ?consider ?these ?factors ?as ?mitigating ?the ?offender?s ?blameworthiness ?on ?the ?rationale ? ? 169 ?that ?offenders ?are ?products ?of ?the ?society ?they ?live ?in ?and, ?therefore, ?society ?in ?general ?must ?also ?bear ?some ?responsibility ?for ?sexual ?violence.695 ?This ?analysis ?is ?not ?neoliberal ?or ?even ?liberal, ?but ?based ?on ?a ?contextual ?consideration ?of ?violence. ?For ?many ?offenders, ?particularly ?those ?who ?are ?Aboriginal ?or ?racialized ?or ?were ?raised ?in ?poverty ?and ?neglect, ?these ?factors ?also ?speak ?to ?the ?offender?s ?experiences ?of ?inequality, ?oppression, ?and ?alienation, ?factors ?courts ?should ?consider ?not ?only ?to ?be ?egalitarian ?and ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?violence, ?but ?also ?to ?be ?compassionate.696 ? ? As ?well, ?courts ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?regularly ?considered ?guilty ?pleas, ?expressions ?of ?remorse, ?and ?demonstrations ?of ?insight ?and ?empathy ?for ?survivors ?as ?mitigating. ?These ?factors ?are ?not ?based ?on ?rape ?myths. ?A ?guilty ?plea ?spares ?the ?survivor ?from ?testifying ?and ?shows ?the ?offender ?accepts ?responsibility ?for ?his ?crime. ?Insight ?and ?empathy ?similarly ?suggest ?the ?offender ?is ?gaining ?an ?understanding ?of ?the ?harm ?he ?caused, ?pointing ?towards ?rehabilitation.697 ?Similarly, ?courts ?in ?the ?sample ?considered ?it ?mitigating ?if ?offenders ?had ?support ?from ?their ?families ?or ?communities ?in ?rehabilitation; ?however, ?courts ?should ?ensure ?support ?is ?not ?blind ?but ?based ?on ?a ?recognition ?of ?the ?offender?s ?responsibility ?as ?well ?as ?role ?of ?supporters ?in ?creating ?an ?environment ?free ?of ?violence ?and ?engendering ?responsibility ?in ?offenders.698 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?695 ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?145?147. ?696 ?For ?feminist ?considerations ?about ?the ?inequalities ?perpetuated ?by ?the ?justice ?system, ?see ?Chapter ?I, ?Section ?C ?& ?Chapter ?II, ?Sections ?B ?& ?D. ?697 ?Manson, ?supra ?note ?274 ?at ?133, ?138. ?698 ?In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?questioned ?the ?support ?offered ?by ?families ?and ?communities, ?noting ?that ?they ?had ?supported ?offenders ?in ?the ?past ?but ?their ?support ?had ?not ?stopped ?the ?offences, ?perhaps ?because ?the ?families ?had ?protected ?offenders ?more ?than ?supported ?them: ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?26; ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?para ?84; ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?supra ?note ?598 ?at ?para ?41. ? ? 170 ? ? From ?the ?case ?sample, ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack ?provides ?a ?good ?example ?of ?a ?court ?identifying ?mitigating ?factors ?to ?situate ?the ?offender?s ?crime ?within ?his ?tragic ?upbringing ?and ?desire ?for ?change. ?The ?court ?considered ?the ?impact ?of ?the ?legacy ?of ?colonialism ?on ?the ?Aboriginal ?offender ?as ?well ?as ?his ?childhood ?of ?physical ?abuse, ?neglect, ?exposure ?to ?hard ?drugs ?and ?drug-??related ?violence, ?and ?repeated ?removal ?into ?foster ?care.699 ?The ?court ?also ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?remorse ?and ?interest ?in ?treatment, ?including ?that ?he ?immediately ?told ?his ?mother ?he ?had ?done ?something ?wrong ?and ?he ?did ?not ?want ?to ?be ?a ??rapist.? ?When ?enumerating ?the ?mitigating ?factors, ?the ?courts ?considered ?the ?offender?s ?guilty ?plea, ?youth, ?remorse, ?and ?lack ?of ?criminal ?record.700 ?When ?citing ?the ?unique ?circumstances ?the ?offender ?faced ?as ?a ?young ?Aboriginal ?man, ?the ?court ?stated: ??He ?comes ?from ?generations ?of ?grinding ?poverty, ?violence, ?and ?neglect. ?His ?life ?is ?characterized ?by ?instability, ?ineffective ?and ?indifferent ?parenting, ?little ?if ?any ?education, ?exposure ?to ?substance ?abuse, ?trauma, ?and ?dislocation ?from ?his ?own ?culture ?and ?extended ?family.?701 ?To ?me, ?these ?considerations ?properly ?reflect ?the ?socially ?situated ?nature ?of ?violence ?and ?the ?inequality ?that ?fosters ?it. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?699 ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?paras ?14-??35. ?700 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?51. ?701 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?60. ? ? 171 ?VI. ?Discourse ?Analysis ? ? ? Legal ?discourse, ?like ?doctrine, ?can ?create ?and ?reproduce ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?law. ?Informed ?by ?the ?work ?of ?Ehrlich ?and ?Coates ?and ?her ?colleagues, ?in ?this ?chapter ?I ?analyze ?the ?case ?sample ?for ?gendered ?identities ?and ?dominant ?social ?scripts ?about ?sexual ?assault ?to ?ascertain ?whether ?judges ?expressed ?rape ?myths ?in ?their ?narratives.702 ? ? ? Looking ?for ?grammatical ?constructions ?that ?betrayed ?gendered ?assumptions, ?I ?found ?that ?judges ?commonly ?used ?words ?that ?denote ?mutuality ?and ?imply ?eroticism ?to ?describe ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence; ?these ?constructions ?concealed ?the ?violence ?of ?the ?crime, ?equated ?it ?with ?regular ?sexuality, ?and ?suggested ?the ?survivor ?consented ?despite ?legal ?findings ?of ?nonconsent.703 ?I ?found ?grammatical ?constructions, ?what ?Ehrlich ?identified ?as ??agentless ?passives?, ??unaccusative ?constructions? ?and ?nominalizations, ?which ?omitted ?or ?obscured ?the ?agents ?of ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence.704 ?I ?also ?found ?constructions ?that ?presented ?survivors ?as ?co-??agents ?or ?the ?agents ?of ?actions.705 ?With ?these ?discursive ?tactics, ?courts ?portrayed ?sexual ?violence ?as ?something ?that ?simply ?happens, ?almost ?inevitably, ?or ?something ?the ?survivor ?and ?offender ?both ?do. ?They ?minimized ?the ?offender?s ?responsibility ?and ?the ?survivor?s ?harm, ?and ?ultimately ?reproduced ?gendered ?and ?discriminatory ?beliefs ?about ?sexual ?assault ?in ?legal ?discourse.706 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?702 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?13?35; ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?189?190; ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?370 ?at ?281?284; ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?29?30; ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?3?4. ?703 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?30?32, ?38?39. ?704 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?47?53; ?See ?also ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?196?197, ?202. ?705 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?43?47; ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?202?203. ?706 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?60?61. ? ? 172 ? ? I ?also ?analyzed ?cases ?for ?broader ?expressions ?of ?norms ?about ?sexuality, ?cognizant ?of ?the ?findings ?of ?other ?scholars ?that ?female ?sexuality ?is ?constructed ?as ??whimsical ?or ?capricious?,707 ?sexual ?assault ?results ?from ?female ?miscommunication,708 ?force ?occurs ?in ?normal ?consensual ?heterosexuality,709 ?and ?sexual ?assault ?is ?akin ?to ?consensual ?sex.710 ?Because ?the ?case ?sample ?primarily ?consisted ?of ?sexual ?offences ?against ?children ?and ?adolescents ?and ?especially ?vicious ?sexual ?assaults ?against ?women, ?I ?believe ?judges ?were ?moved ?away ?from ?the ?tropes ?and ?language ?of ?consensual ?sex ?toward ?language ?of ?stranger ?sexual ?assault.711 ?Nonetheless, ?confusion ?was ?still ?apparent. ?Courts ?often ?characterized ?offences ?as ?non-??violent, ?particularly ?offences ?against ?adolescents. ?In ?many ?cases, ?courts ?linked ?the ?cause ?of ?offences ?to ?something ?external ?to ?the ?offender, ?including ?intoxication ?and ??risky? ?survivors; ?sexual ?assault ?was ?therefore ?portrayed ?as ?the ?arising ?when ?men ?lose ?control ?(rather ?when ?they ?are ?exerting ?it). ?Finally, ?judges ?used ?terms ?throughout ?judgments ?? ?accused, ?complainant, ?and ?defendant ?? ?that ?undermined ?legal ?findings ?of ?offenders? ?guilt ?and ?cast ?suspicion ?on ?survivors. ? ? ? Often, ?the ?discourse ?judges ?used ?reinforced ?legal ?doctrine ?that ?evoked ?rape ?myths. ?Like ?doctrinal ?interpretation ?and ?application, ?gendered ?discourse ?reproduced ?the ?same ?ideas: ?some ?sexual ?assaults ?as ?non-??violent, ?offenders ?as ?not ?wholly ?responsible, ?and ?survivors ?as ?complicit ?in ?offences, ?ultimately, ?leaving ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?707 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?31. ?708 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?121?148. ?709 ?Pether, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?67?68. ?710 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64. ?711 ?See ?ibid ?at ?197?198. ? ? 173 ?unequal ?and ?prejudicial ?social ?constructions ?of ?gender ?and ?sexual ?assault ?undisputed.712 ? ? ? By ?analyzing ?judicial ?language, ?I ?do ?not ?intend ?to ?demonize ?judges. ?Judges ?are ?immersed ?in ?social ?and ?legal ?discourse ?that ?portrays ?some ?sexual ?violence ?as ?less ?serious ?than ?others. ?In ?many ?cases, ?I ?found ?judges ?resisted ?such ?portrayals; ?nonetheless, ?they ?did ?surface, ?often ?subtly. ?Given ?how ?pervasive ?and ?powerful ?these ?constructions ?of ?sexual ?assault ?are, ?I ?suspect ?they ?can ?only ?be ?eliminated ?with ?deliberate ?and ?conscious ?attention. ? ?A. The ?Contributions ?of ?Offenders ?to ?Narrative: ?Survivor ?Blaming ? ? Before ?I ?move ?on ?to ?judicial ?discourse, ?I ?note ?judges ?did ?not ?construct ?the ?narratives ?in ?sexual ?assault ?decisions ?alone. ?In ?particular, ?judges ?allowed ?offenders ?to ?partially ?construct ?narratives. ?Although ?judges ?frequently ?put ?forward ?opposing ?narratives ?about ?offences, ?they ?also ?reproduced ?or ?repeated ?statements ?by ?offenders ?from ?testimony, ?Pre-??Sentence ?Reports ?or ?Psychological ?Assessments, ?and ?submissions ?of ?defence ?counsel.713 ? ? ? ? This ?practice ?was ?most ?apparent ?when ?offenders ?suggested ?they ?were ?less ?morally ?culpable ?by ?making ?allegations ?about ?survivors? ?sexual ?history ?or ?suggesting ?survivors ?seduced ?them. ?For ?instance, ?one ?offender ?stated ?that ?his ?underage ?stepdaughter ?was ??sexually ?aggressive?, ?enjoyed ?the ?sexual ?assaults ?and ?had ?orgasms ?during ?the ?assaults, ?offensive ?and ?prejudicial ?allegations ?the ?court ?repeated ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?712 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?61. ?713 ?For ?information ?on ?how ?judicial ?narratives ?are ?constructed, ?see ?generally ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?[the ?discourse ?of ?the ?accused ?in ?his ?testimony ?and ?its ?impacts]; ?Cunliffe, ?supra ?note ?398 ?[the ?construction ?of ?judicial ?narratives ?from ?the ?court ?record]. ? ? 174 ?in ?the ?judgment.714 ?Another ?judgment ?detailed ?the ?offender?s ?shock ?that ?the ?sleeping ?survivor ?was ?not ?receptive ?to ?his ?advances ?and ?his ?belief ?that ?he ?was ?not ?at ?fault ?because ??there ?was ?more ?to ?the ?situation ?than ?the ?Court? ?knew, ?hinting ?at ?flirtatious ?behaviour ?on ?her ?part.715 ? ? Sometimes, ?discriminatory ?and ?gendered ?ideas ?that ?judges ?reproduced ?came ?from ?defence ?counsel: ?in ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?defence ?counsel ?argued ?that ?the ?court ?should ?consider ?that ?the ?survivor, ?a ?14-??year-??old ?boy, ??made ?himself ?available ?to ?engage ?in ?this ?sexual ?adventure.?716 ? ? ? Apparently, ?some ?offenders ?and ?defence ?counsel ?continue ?to ?think ?that ?discriminatory ?ideas ?based ?on ?rape ?myths ?amount ?to ?relevant ?and ?persuasive ?evidence ?for ?sentencing. ?Judges ?often ?censured ?offenders ?for ?survivor-??blaming ?statements, ?but ?not ?always. ?These ?statements ?need ?to ?be ?opposed, ?in ?courtrooms ?and ?in ?judicial ?discourse ?within ?case ?narratives: ?as ?Shelia ?McIntyre ?and ?her ?contributors ?argued, ??[p]lainly, ?we ?need ?to ?contest ?the ?conflation ?of ?an ?accused's ?right ?to ?a ?vigorous ?defence ?with ?the ?right ?to ?a ?wilfully ?discriminatory ?and/or ?rule-??flouting ?defence.?717 ?B. Narratives ?of ?Offences ? ? In ?my ?discourse ?analysis, ?I ?found ?the ?language ?judges ?chose ?to ?narrate ?offences ?frequently ?confused ?sexual ?offences ?with ?sex; ?they ?used ?erotic, ?affectionate ?or ?mutual ?terms ?to ?describe ?violent ?acts, ?making ?offences ?appear ?non-??violent ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?714 ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?paras ?13-??14, ?34-??36. ?715 ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615 ?at ?para ?44. ?716 ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572 ?at ?para ?73. ?717 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?79. ? ? 175 ?even ?welcomed. ?Judgments ?also ?often ?erased ?offenders ?from ?the ?picture: ?in ?narratives, ?sexual ?offences ?appeared ?to ?happen ?without ?the ?offender ?acting, ?diffusing ?his ?responsibility ?for ?the ?offence. ?I ?explore ?these ?issues ?in ?turn ?below. ?Eroticization ?and ?Minimization ?of ?Sexual ?Violence ? ? In ?some ?cases ?in ?the ?sample, ?judges ?characterized ?offences ?as ?essentially ?non-??violent. ?They ?accomplished ?this ?through ?doctrine, ?but ?also ?discourse, ?with ?judges ?using ??language ?[that] ?suggested ?that ?when ?someone ?sexually ?assaults ?another ?person, ?this ?behavior ?is ?not ?violent.?718 ?In ?analyzing ?word ?choices, ?I ?found ?that ?courts ?used ?erotic ?and ?affectionate ?language ?as ?well ?as ?neutral ?language ?that ?simply ?described ?physical ?acts ?without ?positive ?or ?negative ?connotation. ?Courts ?less ?frequently ?described ?offences ?employing ?words ?that ?denoted ?violence ?or ?unilateral ?force.719 ? ? ? Within ?the ?case ?sample, ?courts ?frequently ?used ?the ?term ??intercourse? ?or ?even ??sexual ?intercourse? ?to ?describe ?anal ?and ?vaginal ?rape. ?These ?terms ?were ?used ?in ?cases ?of ?rape ?of ?adult ?women720 ?and ?children ?and ?adolescents.721 ?Judges ?also ?described ?rape ?as ??sex,? ?such ?as ?in ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?in ?which ?the ?court ?described ?the ?offender?s ?repeated ?anal ?rape ?of ?his ?young ?niece ?and ?nephew ?as ??anal ?sex? ?as ?well ?as ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?718 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?194. ?719 ?This ?was ?similar ?to ?the ?divisions ?found ?in ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257. ?720 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?para ?9; ?R. ?v ?.Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?2; ?R. ?v. ?Munt, ?2012 ?BCCA ?228 ?at ?para ?3 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?supra ?note ?502 ?at ?para ?3; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?paras ?6, ?33; ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?supra ?note ?598 ?at ?para ?10; ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?paras ?18, ?35, ?41, ?44-??45. ?721 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470 ?at ?paras ?2, ?6; ?R. ?v. ?A.J.L., ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?6; ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?paras ?8, ?12, ?75; ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?2; ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1889 ?at ?para ?7 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?para ?12. ? ? ? 176 ??anal ?intercourse?.722 ?Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?the ?judge ?described ?the ?offender?s ?violent ?rape ?of ?the ?survivor ?while ?threatening ?her ?with ?a ?sword ?and ?a ?baseball ?bat ?as ??having ?vaginal ?and ?anal ?sex ?with ?her?.723 ? ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?modified ?words ?like ??intercourse? ?and ??oral ?sex? ?with ??forced.? ?Judges ?used ?terms ?of ?force ?less ?frequently ?in ?cases ?of ?sexual ?abuse ?against ?children: ?they ?simply ?described ?sexual ?assault ?using ?language ?of ?consensual ?sex ?without ?any ?reference ?to ?violence.724 ? ? Conversely, ?the ?term ??rape? ?rarely ?appeared ?in ?the ?case ?sample. ?The ?rare ?cases ?in ?which ?judges ?described ?the ?offence ?at ?bar ?as ?rape ?include ?R. ?v. ?Dariani ?when ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?quoted ?the ?trial ?judge,725 ?and ?in ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A.726 ?and ?R. ?v. ?L. ?et ?al. ?727 ??Rape? ?was ?also ?used ?when ?judges ?quoted ?offenders? ?own ?words, ?including ?their ?threats ?to ?survivors,728 ?indicating ?that ?offenders? ?language ?identified ?the ?forceful ?and ?unilateral ?nature ?of ?their ?acts ?even ?when ?legal ?discourse ?did ?not. ? ? ? Courts ?frequently ?used ?the ?term ??fondle? ?to ?describe ?sexually ?assaultive ?touching.729 ?Similarly, ?they ?often ?used ??oral ?sex? ?and ??fellatio,? ?sometimes ?with ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?722 ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470 ?at ?para ?2. ?723 ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?11. ?724 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?paras ?8, ?12; ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?supra ?note ?721 ?at ?para ?7. ?725 ?R. ?v. ?Dariani, ?supra ?note ?473 ?at ?para ?8. ?726 ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?1. ?727 ?R. ?v. ?L. ?et ?al., ?2012 ?BCPC ?503 ?at ?paras ?17, ?22-??23, ?72 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ?728 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?36; ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?10; ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?paras ?7-??8, ?10; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?paras ?19, ?23. ?729 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?1; ?R. ?v. ?DaPonte, ?supra ?note ?591 ?at ?para ?6; ?R. ?v. ?J.L.C., ?2012 ?BCSC ?623 ?at ?para ?5 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572 ?at ?para ?15; ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?para ?12. ? ? ? 177 ?adjective ??forced?, ?to ?describe ?the ?offender ?forcing ?his ?penis ?into ?the ?survivor?s ?mouth ?or ?forcing ?his ?mouth ?onto ?the ?survivor?s ?genitals.730 ? ? ? Courts ?also ?used ?words ?that ?connote ?the ?idea ?of ?a ?sexual ?advance ?to ?describe ?sexual ?offences, ?including ??importunings?,731 ??dalliance?,732 ??liberties? ?and ??advance?.733 ?In ?particular, ?as ?I ?previously ?discussed, ?in ?a ?few ?cases ?judges ?characterized ?offences ?as ?mistakes ?or ?unreciprocated ?sexual ?come-??ons.734 ? ? The ?use ?of ?sexual ?language ?to ?describe ?sexual ?offences ?is ?harmful ?because ?it ?fails ?to ?convey ?the ?violence ?in ?sexual ?offences ?in ?the ?law. ?As ?Janet ?Bavelas ?and ?Coates ?explained, ?the ?difference ?between ?the ?two ?is ?often ?one ?of ?mutuality ?versus ?unilateral ?force. ?Using ?words ?like ??intercourse? ?and ??fondle? ?to ?describe ?sexual ?violence ?implies ?that ?the ?act ?was ?not ?forced ?but ?reciprocal ?and ?even ?pleasurable. ?These ?words ?undermine ?legal ?findings ?of ?nonconsent ?and ?present ?sexual ?violence ?as ?welcomed, ?blurring ?the ?lines ?between ?sexual ?violence ?and ?consensual ?sex: ?Only ?when ?the ?acts ?are ?mutually ?consensual ?should ?they ?be ?described ?in ?sexual ?terms, ?because ?these ?terms ?inevitably ?connote ?mutuality ?and ?consent. ?If ?the ?same ?term ?is ?used ?to ?describe ?both ?consensual ?and ?nonconsensual ?acts, ?then ?a ?crucial ?distinction ?in ?the ?law ?has ?been ?obscured. ?In ?the ?law ?and ?in ?the ?complainant?s ?experience, ?sexual ?assault ?is ?unilateral. ?An ?assault ?is ?accomplished ?by ?physical ?force, ?threat, ?or ?abuse ?of ?power. ?In ?an ?assault, ?one ?person ?uses ?the ?body ?of ?another, ?who ?thereby ?loses ?control ?over ?the ?most ?intimate ?access ?to ?his ?or ?her ?body. ?One ?person ?imposes ?his ?or ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?730 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?8; ?R. ?v. ?D.B.D., ?supra ?note ?588 ?at ?para ?6; ?R. ?v. ?D.C.E., ?supra ?note ?580 ?at ?paras ?13-??15, ?17; ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?supra ?note ?598 ?at ?para ?10; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?21; ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?para ?12. ?731 ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?33. ?732 ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?para ?11. ?733 ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615 ?at ?paras ?43-??44, ?54, ?69; ?see ?also ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?2, ?10. ?734 ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?2, ?10; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?75; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?11-??13. ? ? 178 ?her ?will ?and ?body ?upon ?another ?and ?violates ?that ?person?s ?right ?to ?control ?access ?to ?his ?or ?her ?body.735 ?As ?Bavelas ?and ?Coates ?explained, ?the ?word ??intercourse? ?denotes ?a ?positive, ?consensual, ?and ?mutual ?act, ?not ?an ?act ?of ?violence ?imposed ?by ?one ?person ?on ?another. ?Similarly, ?the ?word ??fondle? ?conveys ?ideas ?of ?mutuality ?and ?even ?love ?and ?affection,736 ?based ?on ?its ?primary ?dictionary ?definition ?to ??touch ?or ?stroke ?lovingly; ?caress?737 ?and ?its ?etymological ?origins ?as ?a ?derivation ?of ?the ?word ??fond?, ?as ?in ?to ??treat ?with ?fondness?.738 ?Just ?as ??boxing? ?conveys ?none ?of ?the ?violence ?of ??beating? ?and ??donation? ?suggests ?a ?positive ?giving ?where ??robbery? ?expresses ?force ?and ?threats, ?sexual ?terms ?like ??fondle? ?fail ?to ?convey ?the ?violence ?and ?harm ?of ?sexual ?assault.739 ? ? ? ? According ?to ?Bavelas ?and ?Coates, ?when ?words ?that ?express ?mutuality ?and ?pleasure ?are ?used, ?it ?is ??harder ?to ?visualize ?that ?they ?were ?unwanted ?violations. ?The ?language ?used ?does ?not ?just ?euphemize; ?it ?actively ?misleads ?and ?misdirects.?740 ?Equating ?sexual ?assault ?with ?mutually ?desired ?sex, ?at ?best, ?transforms ?sexual ?violence ?into ?perhaps ??inappropriate? ?or ?unreciprocated ?sexual ?acts741 ?or, ?at ?worst, ?expresses ?the ?myth ?that ?women ?want ?to ?be ?raped ?and ?enjoy ?being ?dominated ?because ?of ?their ?inherent ?subordinate ?sexuality.742 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?735 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?31. ?736 ?Ibid. ?737 ?Canadian ?Oxford ?Dictionary, ?2nd ?ed ?(Canada: ?Oxford ?University ?Press, ?2004), ?sv ??fondle?. ?However, ?the ?second ?definition ?of ??fondle? ?is ?to ??sexually ?molest ?(a ?person) ?by ?touching ?etc.? ?Its ?third ?definition ?is ?to ??touch ?(a ?person?s ?genitals) ?erotically.? ?738 ?The ?Oxford ?English ?Dictionary ?Online ?(Oxford ?University ?Press, ?2013), ?sv ??fondle?. ?739 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?30?31. ?740 ?Ibid ?at ?38. ?741 ?Ibid. ?742 ?Brownmiller, ?supra ?note ?25 ?at ?309?316. ?See ?Chapter ?I, ?Section ?B. ? ? 179 ? ? Language ?that ?equates ?sexual ?violence ?with ?consensual ?sexual ?and ?affectionate ?acts ?presents ?sexual ?assault ?from ?the ?offender?s ?point ?of ?view. ?It ?presumes ?offenders? ?motives ?are ?sexual, ?rather ?than ?violent ?or ?based ?on ?dominance, ?and ?then ?privileges ?this ?point ?of ?view ?while ?denying ?survivors? ?experiences ?of ?force ?and ?harm.743 ?It ?sexualizes ?survivors ?and ?sexual ?violence, ?risking ?turning ?sentencing ?judgments ?into ??pornographic ?vignettes?.744 ? ? Other ?than ?the ?word ??intercourse,? ?judges ?most ?often ?used ?neutral ?words ?to ?describe ?acts ?of ?sexual ?assault ?in ?the ?case ?sample. ?In ?their ?narratives, ?they ?described ?what ?the ?offender ?did ?to ?particular ?body ?parts ?of ?the ?survivor ?without ?any ?connotation, ?positive ?or ?negative. ?Bavelas ?and ?Coates ?called ?these ??physical ?descriptions.?745 ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ?they ?included ??penetration?, ?which ?was ?sometimes ?used ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?instead ?of ?or ?in ?addition ?to ??intercourse.?746 ?They ?also ?included ?neutral ?verbs ?such ?as ??touch? ?and ??place?. ? ? ? For ?example, ?the ?judge?s ?description ?of ?the ?sexual ?assault ?in ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?which ?the ?offender ?committed ?after ?unlawfully ?entering ?the ?survivor?s ?house ?at ?2:30 ?in ?the ?morning ?through ?an ?unlocked ?door, ?used ?mutual ?and ?neutral ?terms: ?The ?Defendant ?went ?upstairs ?to ?W.B.'s ?bedroom, ?saw ?her ?sleeping ?naked ?on ?the ?bed ?and, ?while ?still ?clothed, ?limbed ?into ?bed ?beside ?her. ?He ?began ?kissing ?and ?fondling ?W.B. ?and ?inserted ?his ?fingers ?into ?her ?vagina. ?W.B. ?awoke ?and ?told ?the ?Defendant ?to ?leave. ?The ?Defendant ?replied ?"I ?thought ?we ?were ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?743 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?31?32. ?744 ?Smart, ?Feminism, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?38?39 ?citing ?Catharine ?MacKinnon, ?Feminism ?Unmodified: ?Discourses ?on ?Life ?and ?Law ?(London: ?Harvard ?University ?Press, ?1987). ?745 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?34?35. ?746 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?paras ?9, ?52; ?R. ?v. ?E.M., ?2011 ?BCPC ?91 ?at ?paras ?4, ?21 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?Rao ?and ?MacFadden, ?supra ?note ?665 ?at ?paras ?8-??9; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?20; ?R. ?v. ?T.B.M., ?2012 ?BCSC ?286 ?at ?paras ?5, ?34 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 180 ?partying". ?He ?did ?not ?immediately ?depart ?but ?did ?so ?after ?a ?few ?minutes ?saying ?to ?W.B. ??don?t ?tell? ?on ?his ?way ?out.747 ?The ?language ?used ?could ?just ?as ?easily ?describe ?a ?consensual ?sexual ?encounter: ?he ??limbed? ?into ?bed, ??kissing ?and ?fondling? ?her. ?He ??inserted ?his ?fingers?. ?These ?terms ?do ?not ?capture ?the ?violence ?or ?harm ?of ?what ?the ?offender ?did. ?They ?also ?failed ?to ?portray ?the ?survivor?s ?perspective, ?likely ?of ?shock ?and ?fear ?at ?finding ?the ?offender ?in ?her ?home ?and ?bed ?sexually ?assaulting ?her ?in ?the ?middle ?of ?the ?night. ? ? Similarly, ?the ?narrative ?of ?the ?taxi ?driver?s ?assault ?of ?an ?intoxicated ?young ?woman ?in ?R. ?v. ?Singh ?used ?neutral ?descriptors: ? ?Mr. ?Singh ?did ?not ?take ?the ?complainant ?where ?he ?was ?instructed ?and ?had ?agreed. ?Instead, ?he ?took ?her ?to ?his ?basement ?suite ?where ?he ?brought ?her ?to ?his ?bedroom, ?put ?her ?on ?his ?bed, ?and ?placed ?his ?penis ?in ?her ?mouth. ?He ?then ?took ?her ?to ?her ?boyfriend?s ?home. ?The ?event ?lasted ?about ?an ?hour ?in ?total. ?The ?complainant ?was ?incapable ?of ?consenting ?due ?to ?a ?gross ?level ?of ?intoxication ?and ?did ?not ?consent ?to ?engage ?in ?sex ?with ?the ?taxi ?driver.748 ?The ?terms ??put? ?and ??place? ?are ?neutral, ?suggesting ?no ?violence ?or ?force. ? ?These ?words ?do ?not ?suggest ?mutuality ?and ?consent, ?but ?they ?also ?do ?not ?capture ?violence, ?force, ?and ?harm. ?Or, ?in ?the ?words ?of ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?describing ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?abuse ?of ?his ?stepdaughter ?in ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ??[t]he ?rather ?clinical ?descriptions ?of ?the ?behaviour ?which ?is ?admitted, ?to ?some ?degree, ?mask ?the ?forbidden ?nature ?of ?Mr. ?Worthington?s ?actions, ?and ?his ?admitted ?knowledge, ?from ?the ?beginning, ?that ?his ?behaviour ?was ?wrong.?749 ? ? ? Judges? ?positive ?and ?neutral ?language ?does ?not ?necessarily ?suggest ?they ?approve ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?At ?the ?same ?time ?that ?they ?used ?sexual ?or ?neutral ?terms ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?747 ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615 ?at ?para ?16 ?[emphasis ?added]. ?748 ?R. ?v. ?Singh, ?supra ?note ?500 ?at ?para ?2 ?[emphasis ?added]. ?749 ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?supra ?note ?479 ?at ?para ?41. ? ? 181 ?to ?narrate ?sexual ?offences, ?judges ?often ?also ?conveyed ?their ?denunciation ?of ?offenders? ?actions. ?For ?example, ?the ?judge ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D. ?used ?neutral ?and ?sexual ?language ?to ?describe ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?abuse ?of ?his ?daughter ?and ?stepdaughter, ?but ?in ?discussing ?the ?principles ?of ?sentencing ?the ?judge ?said ?the ?offender ?abused ?his ?parental ?trust ??in ?a ?perverse ?way ?in ?appalling ?acts ?of ?selfishness.?750 ?Likewise, ?the ?judge ?called ?T.G.D.?s ?sexual ?abuse ?of ?his ?three ?children ??grossly ?horrific ?conduct?.751 ? ? ? By ?analyzing ?judicial ?language, ?I ?do ?not ?mean ?to ?imply ?that ?judges ?intentionally ?choose ?problematic ?language ?in ?preference ?to ?other ?possible ?constructions. ?Judges ?are ?situated ?in ?cultures ?and ?institutions, ?influenced ?by ?social ?and ?legal ?discourse ?around ?sexual ?violence. ?As ?articulated ?by ?Coates, ?Bavelas, ?and ?James ?Gibson, ?in ?legal ?discourse, ?only ?two ?interpretive ?repertoires ?are ?commonly ?used, ?which ??are ?limited ?to ?and ?therefore ?juxtapose ?stranger ?rape ?and ?consensual ?sex.?752 ?Judges ?often ?end ?up ?using ?the ?terms ?for ?consensual ?sex, ??[b]y ?default ?and ?for ?lack ?of ?a ?well-??developed ?repertoire ?for ?non-??stranger ?rape?.753 ?They ?do ?not ?use ?these ?terms ?necessarily ?through ?a ?desire ?to ?discriminate. ? ? ? Furthermore, ?judges ?may ?choose ?to ?avoid ?detailed ?and ?violent ?language ?based ?on ?understandable ?concerns. ?As ?discussed ?by ?Bavelas ?and ?Coates, ?sexualized ?language ?is ??familiar, ?available, ?and ?convenient? ?as ?well ?as ??euphemistic.? ?On ?the ?other ?hand, ?language ?of ?violence ?and ?force ?is ??more ?awkward, ?unfamiliar, ?and ?graphic?.754 ?Familiar ?sexual ?euphemisms ??may ?be ?simply ?easier ?to ?bear? ?because ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?750 ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?supra ?note ?721 ?at ?para ?33. ?751 ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?18. ?752 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?197. ?753 ?Ibid. ?754 ?Bavelas ?& ?Coates, ?supra ?note ?257 ?at ?38. ? ? 182 ?they ?do ?not ?force ?the ?writer ?or ?reader ?to ?visualize ?awful ?acts ?of ?violence.755 ?I ?also ?struggled ?with ?language, ?trying ?to ?determine ?which ?words ?to ?use ?without ?being ?unduly ?graphic. ?However, ?sanitizing ?violence ?with ?language ?of ?sex ?and ?affection ?denies ?the ?survivor?s ?experience, ?obscuring ?her ??courage ?in ?surviving ?it?, ?and ?ultimately ?re-??victimizes ?her. ?Although ?it ?may ?be ?natural ?to ?wish ?to ?avoid ?contemplating ?the ?awfulness ?of ?cases, ?this ?tendency ?will ?not ?help ?the ?law ?to ?understand ?and ?express ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence.756 ?Agency: ?Invisible ?Offenders ?and ?Survivor ?Co-??Agents ? ? In ?the ?case ?sample, ?judges ?used ?grammatical ?constructions ?that ?clouded ?offenders? ?agency ?in ?descriptions ?of ?sexually ?violent ?acts. ?According ?to ?Ehrlich, ?offender ?agency ?can ?be ?made ?vague ?by ??agentless ?passives?, ?such ?as ?passive ?phrasings ?where ?verbs ?have ?no ?agents, ?and ??unaccusative ?constructions?, ?such ?as ?nominalizations ?in ?which ?acts ?of ?violence ?are ?made ?into ?nouns ?like ??the ?sexual ?activity?, ??the ?penetration,? ?and ?so ?on, ?again ?with ?no ?agent.757 ?Together, ?they ?render ?the ?offender?s ?actions ??as ?spontaneous ?sexual ?events, ?as ?happenings ?that ?have ?taken ?their ?natural ?course ?without ?any ?particular ?cause ?or ?agent.?758 ?Similarly, ?offender ?agency ?can ?be ?transferred ?to ?survivors ?by ?depictions ?of ?survivors ?as ?agents ?who ?performed ?sexual ?acts ?or ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?mutual ?acts.759 ?Just ?as ?Ehrlich ?found ?examples ?in ?a ?university ?sexual ?assault ?case, ?and ?Coates ?and ?her ?colleagues ?found ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?755 ?Ibid ?at ?39. ?756 ?Ibid. ?757 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?47?53. ?758 ?Ibid ?at ?50. ?759 ?Ibid ?at ?43?47. ? ? 183 ?examples ?in ?their ?analysis ?of ?sexual ?assault ?cases ?in ?the ?past,760 ?I ?found ?examples ?of ?courts ?diffusing ?offender ?agency ?with ?language ?in ?the ?sample ?of ?recent ?B.C. ?sentencing ?cases. ? ? ? Although ?not ?common, ?in ?a ?number ?of ?cases ?judges ?used ?passive ?phrasing ?and ?nominalizations ?that ?obscured ?offenders? ?agency. ?Sometimes ?judges ?used ?this ?language ?exclusively; ?sometimes ?they ?used ?it ?in ?tandem ?with ?more ?direct ?phrasing. ? ? ? In ?Chapter ?V, ?I ?discussed ?the ?case ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?specifically ?that ?the ?court ?did ?not ?consider ?harm ?to ?the ?young ?survivor ?in ?its ?analysis ?while ?at ?the ?same ?time ?suggesting ?he ?might ?have ?participated ?in ?the ?offence. ?The ?narrative ?of ?the ?offence ?provides ?an ?example ?of ?where ?the ?court ?used ?agentless ?passives, ?which ?depicted ?acts ?and ?circumstances ?as ?happening ?without ?a ?clear ?actor:761 ?In ?any ?event, ?the ?complainant's ?pants ?were ?down, ?his ?underwear ?was ?pulled ?down ?slightly, ?and ?his ?penis ?was ?showing. ?The ?Crown ?says ?that ?there ?was ?also ?touching ?that ?occurred ?on ?that ?occasion.762 ? ?In ?this ?excerpt, ?the ?offender ?has ?disappeared. ?There ?is ?no ?agent ?of ?the ?crime; ?rather, ?objects, ?like ?the ?survivor?s ?pants, ?seem ?to ?be ?acting ?on ?their ?own. ?Who ?pulled ?down ?the ?survivor?s ?pants ?and ?underwear ?and ?exposed ?his ?penis ?and ?who ?sexually ?touched ?whom ?is ?unclear; ?based ?on ?this ?construction, ?the ?survivor, ?a ?13-??year-??old ?boy, ?is ?just ?as ?plausible ?an ?agent ?as ?the ?offender. ? ? Judges ?used ?constructions ?that ?obscured ?offender ?agency ?most ?clearly ?in ?cases ?dealing ?with ?child ?and ?adolescent ?sexual ?abuse. ?Although ?courts ?used ?direct ?language ?to ?describe ?grooming ?by ?offenders, ?they ?nominalized ?acts ?of ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?760 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?196?197, ?202?203. ?761 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?47. ?762 ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?para ?6 ?[emphasis ?added]. ? ? 184 ?violence: ??the ?assaults? ?or ??the ?activities? ??occurred? ?or ??took ?place?, ?or ??escalated ?to? ?or ??involved? ?acts, ?without ?reference ?to ?the ?offender ?as ?an ?agent.763 ?In ?this ?way, ?narratives ?isolated ?crimes ?from ?offenders. ?For ?example, ?the ?judge ?in ?R. ?v. ?S.S.E. ?described ?the ?offender?s ?sexual ?assault ?of ?his ?stepdaughter, ?starting ?when ?she ?was ?12 ?years ?old ?and ?lasting ?until ?she ?was ?17, ?in ?this ?way: ?The ?sexual ?assaults ?on ?S.S. ?started, ?as ?I ?said, ?when ?she ?was ?around ?12. ?The ?activities ?progressed ?from ?caressing ?to ?digital ?penetrations ?to ?oral ?sex ?to ?vaginal ?and ?anal ?intercourse. ?Mr. ?E. ?maintained ?control ?over ?S.S. ?by ?repeatedly ?suggesting ?that ?if ?she ?disclosed ?what ?was ?going ?on ?she ?would ?lose ?her ?relationship ?with ?her ?mother ?and ?her ?younger ?sister ?would, ?as ?had ?S.S., ?lose ?her ?relationship ?with ?her ?birth ?father.764 ?The ?court ?used ?direct ?language ?when ?stating ?the ?offender ??maintained ?control? ?over ?S.S., ?but ?used ?nominalizations ?and ?agentless ?phrasing ?(as ?well ?as ?terms ?of ?consensual ?sex) ?to ?describe ?the ?offender?s ?acts ?of ?sexual ?assault. ?As ?a ?result, ?the ?sexual ?abuse ?seems ?to ?occur ?of ?its ?own ?accord. ? ? ? Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?after ?directly ?identifying ?the ?offender ?as ?sexually ?assaulting ?the ?survivor, ?H.T., ?the ?judge ?described ?the ?specific ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?without ?any ?reference ?to ?the ?offender: ?The ?assaults ?began ?as ?fondling, ?proceeded ?to ?include ?oral ?sex ?and ?eventually ?sexual ?intercourse. ?The ?assaults ?occurred ?frequently ?and ?did ?not ?cease ?until ?H.T.'s ?disclosure.765 ? ?Once ?again, ?the ?offender?s ?assaultive ?actions ?are ?nominalized ?so ?that ?they ?appear ?to ?occur ?unbidden, ?in ?absence ?of ?the ?offender. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?763 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?supra ?note ?470 ?at ?para ?2 ?[including ??the ?sexual ?assaults ?consisted ?most ?commonly ?of ?anal ?intercourse?, ??anal ?intercourse ?took ?place? ?and ??sexual ?assaults ?described ?by ?S. ?most ?frequently ?consisted ?of ?anal ?intercourse?]; ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?supra ?note ?721 ?at ?para ?7 ?[?the ?events ?in ?question ?began? ?and ??[t]he ?activity ?progressed ?to ?sexual ?touching, ?to ?stroking ?his ?penis, ?and ?to ?actual ?sexual ?intercourse.?]. ?764 ?R. ?v. ?S.S.E., ?supra ?note ?491 ?at ?para ?9 ?[emphasis ?added]. ? ?765 ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516 ?at ?para ?12 ?[emphasis ?added]. ?Again, ?the ?court ?used ?active ?language ?to ?describe ?the ?offender?s ?acts ?of ?grooming. ? ? 185 ? ? Judges ?also ?sometimes ?employed ?language ?that ?obscured ?offender ?agency ?to ?describe ?the ?injuries ?offenders ?caused ?survivors. ?Coates ?et ?al. ?made ?similar ?observations, ?including ?that ?judges ?described ?survivors ?as ?having ??sustained ?some ?bruises? ?or ?referred ?to ??medical ?evidence? ?rather ?than ?directly ?describing ?offenders ?as ?causing ?survivors? ?injuries.766 ?Within ?the ?case ?sample, ?similar ?descriptions ?were ?not ?infrequent: ?in ?some ?cases, ?courts ?described ?some ?or ?all ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?injuries ?without ?directly ?identifying ?the ?cause, ?the ?offender.767 ?One ?example ?is ?R. ?v. ?Wheeler. ?After ?the ?court ?described ?the ?horrific ?sexual ?assault ?the ?offender ?committed ?using ?direct ?language, ?it ?stated ?that ?the ?survivor ??was ?badly ?bruised, ?her ?voice ?box ?was ?damaged, ?she ?had ?soft ?tissue ?injuries ?and ?her ?hair ?was ?pulled ?out ?of ?her ?head ?in ?clumps?;768 ?the ?court ?did ?not ?with ?its ?language ?directly ?attribute ?her ?injuries ?to ?the ?offender?s ?actions. ? ? ? Within ?the ?sample, ?offender ?agency ?was ?also ?minimized ?by ?grammatical ?constructions ?that ?presented ?the ?survivor ?as ?an ?agent ?or ?as ?a ?co-??agent: ?in ?some ?cases ?courts ?depicted ?survivors ?as ?initiating ?or ?performing ?sexual ?acts ?or ?sexual ?acts ?as ?mutual. ?For ?example, ?the ?child ?survivor ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D. ?was ?briefly ?portrayed ?as ?the ?agent ?of ?her ?father?s ?sexual ?violence ?when ?the ?judge ?wrote, ??D. ?testified ?that ?she ?had ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?766 ?Coates, ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?Gibson, ?supra ?note ?64 ?at ?197, ?203. ?767 ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?9 ?[?S. ?was ?found ?to ?have ?sustained ?injuries ?consisting ?of??]; ?R. ?v. ?Dariani, ?supra ?note ?473 ?at ?para ?9 ?[?Her ?injuries ?included??]; ?R. ?v. ?D.B.V., ?supra ?note ?478 ?at ?paras ?10-??11 ?[the ?survivor?s ?injuries ?are ?described ?in ?terms ?of ?how ?she ?was ?found, ?bleeding]; ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?supra ?note ?598 ?at ?para ?15 ?[?A ?number ?of ?injuries ?were ?noted??]; ?R. ?v. ?Williams, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?1 ?[?he ?was ?found ?to ?have??]; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?para ?6 ?[?the ?victim ?was ?understandably ?traumatized??]; ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?2 ?[?On ?examination ?at ?the ?hospital ?there ?was ?found ?to ?be??]; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?25 ?[?The ?nurse ?who ?examined ?Ms. ?N ?and ?observed ?the ?following ?injuries??]. ?768 ?R. ?v. ?Wheeler, ?supra ?note ?472 ?at ?para ?6. ? ? 186 ?intercourse ?eight ?or ?nine ?times ?with ?her ?father.?769 ?This ?example ?is ?unusual, ?however. ?Survivors ?were ?made ?agents ?more ?often ?when ?judges ?described ?survivors ?as ??performing? ??oral ?sex? ?or ??fellatio? ?on ?offenders, ?although ?these ?acts ?were ?often ?also ?described ?as ?being ?forced.770 ?It ?seems ?that ?judges ?wanted ?to ?avoid ?the ?awkward ?and ?more ?graphic ?description ?of ?the ?offender ?thrusting ?his ?penis ?into ?the ?survivor?s ?mouth ?or ?forcing ?her ?to ?suck ?it, ?phrasings ?that ?were ?infrequently ?used.771 ?However, ?the ?language ?judges ?more ?frequently ?used, ?while ?sanitized, ?made ?survivors ?agents ?in ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?against ?them, ?which ?they ?often ?also ?expressed ?in ?consensual ?terms. ? ? Even ?after ?conviction, ?when ?judicial ?discourse ?minimizes ?the ?role ?of ?the ?offender ?in ?his ?own ?crime, ?it ?diminishes ?his ?blameworthiness ?in ?the ?social ?and ?legal ?construction ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?This ?discourse ?impacts ?how ?readers ?interpret ?offences: ?when ?faced ?with ?language ?that ?obscures ?agency ?of ?sexual ?violence, ?readers ?see ?offenders ?as ?less ?culpable ?and ?survivors? ?harm ?as ?more ?trivial. ?It ?also ?affects ?the ?law: ?by ?obscuring ?agency, ?legal ?discourse ?ultimately ?constructs ?and ?validates ?a ?privileged ?idea ?of ?masculine ?sexuality ?that ?countenances ?violence ?within ?the ?law. ?772 ? ?Causes ?of ?Offences: ?Intoxication ?and ?Risk ? ? As ?I ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?V, ?judicial ?application ?and ?interpretation ?of ?doctrine ?in ?some ?cases ?considered ?offender ?responsibility ?and ?rehabilitation ?potential ?based ?on ?perceived ?causes ?of ?offences. ?As ?I ?consider ?here, ?this ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?769 ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?supra ?note ?721 ?at ?para ?7. ?770 ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?para ?4; ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?21; ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?17; ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533 ?at ?para ?10; ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572 ?at ?para ?17; ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?11; ?R. ?v. ?Wheeler, ?supra ?note ?472 ?at ?para ?4. ?771 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Rao ?and ?MacFadden, ?supra ?note ?665 ?at ?para ?7. ?772 ?Ehrlich, ?supra ?note ?29 ?at ?40, ?60?61. ? ? 187 ?interpretation ?of ?doctrine ?was ?reinforced ?by ?judicial ?discourse. ?In ?some ?cases ?within ?the ?sample, ?judges ?used ?discourse ?that ?attributed ?the ?cause ?of ?offences ?to ?something ?outside ?offenders? ?direct ?responsibility. ?In ?what ?follows, ?I ?discuss ?two ?of ?these ?external ?causes: ?intoxication ?and ??risky? ?survivors. ?Intoxication ? ? As ?I ?discussed ?in ?my ?doctrinal ?analysis, ?judges ?frequently ?found ?intoxication ?as ?a ?factor ?in ?offences ?for ?the ?purpose ?of ?sentencing. ?Intoxication ?was ?also ?discursively ?linked ?to ?offending ?in ?the ?language ?judges ?used ?to ?describe ?assaults ?or ?offenders? ?circumstances. ?Echoing ?the ?findings ?of ?Coates ?and ?Wade, ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?judicial ?narratives ?suggested ?offenders ?who ?committed ?sexual ?offences ?while ?intoxicated ?were ?more ?accountable ?for ?drinking ?alcohol ?or ?using ?drugs ?than ?for ?willful ?sexual ?violence ?by ?their ?focus ?on ?intoxication ?and ?addiction ?counselling.773 ? ? ? One ?example ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?a ?case ?where ?the ?offender ?violently ?sexually ?assaulted ?and ?threatened ?his ?intimate ?partner. ?Based ?on ?the ?psychologist?s ?report ?that ?linked ?the ?offender?s ?substance ?abuse ?to ?his ?offending,774 ?the ?court ?expressed ?concern ?about ?the ?offender?s ?continuing ?risk ?for ?violence ?because ?he ?had ?not ?put ?his ?substance ?abuse ??behind ?him?.775 ?In ?delivering ?the ?sentence, ?the ?judge ?spoke ?of ?the ?need ?to ?deter ?R.N.A. ?from ?committing ?violence ?against ?women, ?stating, ?although ?he ?was ?intoxicated ?at ?the ?time ?and ?has ?no ?memory ?of ?the ?event, ?what ?he ?does ?know ?is ?that ?he ?becomes ?violent, ?obviously ?here ?exceedingly ?violent, ?when ?intoxicated ?and ?it ?must ?be ?brought ?home ?to ?him ?that ?he ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?773 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?10?11. ?774 ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?21. ?775 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?38. ? ? 188 ?cannot ?put ?himself ?in ?situations ?where ?his ?violence ?will ?erupt ?and ?cause ?harm.776 ?The ?judge?s ?language ?externalized ?the ?offence ?from ?the ?offender, ?suggesting ?that ?his ?primary ?fault ?was ?becoming ?intoxicated, ?which ?put ?him ?in ?a ?situation ?of ?risk: ?when ?he ?drinks, ?the ?offender?s ??violence?, ?not ?the ?offender, ?erupts ?and ?causes ?harm. ? ? ? Similarly, ?in ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?the ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?found ?that ?the ?trial ?judge ?had ?not ?given ?enough ?weight ?to ?the ?goal ?of ?rehabilitation ?in ?fashioning ?the ?offender?s ?sentence. ?The ?Court ?of ?Appeal ?directly ?linked ?the ?offender?s ?rehabilitation ?from ?being ?a ?repeat ?sexual ?offender ?to ?his ?alcoholism ?and ?Post ?Traumatic ?Stress ?Disorder, ?finding ?that ?the ?trial ?judge ?had ?not ?recognized ?that ?he ?was ?taking ?steps ?to ?rehabilitate ?himself ?by ?getting ?treatment ?for ?his ?alcoholism ?and ?PTSD. ?In ?the ?two ?paragraphs ?the ?court ?discussed ?the ?offender?s ?attempts ?to ?rehabilitate ?himself, ?the ?court ?did ?not ?mention ?sexual ?violence, ?suggesting ?he ?was ?not ?guilty ?of ?sexual ?assault ?but ?of ?intoxication.777 ? ? In ?other ?cases, ?judges ?resisted ?linking ?the ?offender?s ?responsibility ?to ?his ?intoxication ?in ?their ?discourse. ?This ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W.: ? ?In ?my ?opinion, ?notwithstanding ?his ?state ?of ?intoxication, ?R.L.W. ?knew ?was ?he ?was ?doing ?and ?went ?ahead ?and ?did ?it ?without ?any ?consideration ?of ?the ?lasting ?impact ?it ?would ?have ?on ?the ?woman ?who ?had ?once ?loved ?him ?or ?upon ?the ?children ?who ?had ?been ?used ?and ?abused ?during ?the ?course ?of ?the ?production ?of ?child ?pornography.778 ?The ?judge ?described ?the ?offender ?as ?highly ?morally ?blameworthy ?because ?he ?chose ?to ?commit ?his ?crimes, ?regardless ?of ?his ?intoxication. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?776 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?51. ?777 ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?paras ?31-??32. ?778 ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?130. ? ? 189 ? ? When ?judges ?used ?language ?that ?linked ?sexual ?violence ?to ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?use, ?they ?reinforced ?legal ?findings ?that ?intoxicated ?offenders ?were ?less ?morally ?blameworthy ?for ?their ?offences. ?Together ?discourse ?and ?doctrine ?minimized ?offender ?responsibility ?for ?sexual ?violence ?and ?expressed ?a ?view ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?caused ?by ?men ??losing ?control? ?from ?alcohol ?and ?drugs, ?not ?by ?men ?acting ?on ?their ?own ?will,779 ?emboldened ?by ?gender ?inequality, ?norms ?of ?masculine ?aggression, ?and ?the ?near ?impunity ?of ?sexual ?offenders. ? ?Risky ?Survivors ? ? Overlapping ?with ?cases ?in ?which ?judges ?failed ?to ?consider ?harm ?to ?survivors, ?in ?some ?cases, ?judicial ?discourse ?portrayed ?survivors ?as ?causative ?factors ?in ?offences. ?In ?some ?cases, ?this ?appears ?to ?be ?related ?to ?the ?perception ?of ?survivors ?as ??risky.? ? ? Within ?a ?normative ?standard ?of ?rationality ?and ?risk ?aversion, ?some ?women ?will ?be ?perceived ?as ?failing ?to ?live ?up ?to ?that ?ideal. ?A ?woman ?may ?be ?perceived ?as ??risky? ?if ?she ??avoids ?personal ?responsibility ?for ?sexual ?safety? ?or ??places ?herself ?within ?and ?occupies ?a ?space ?of ?risk.?780 ?Notions ?like ?this ?can ?be ?expressed ?with ?language ?that ?portrays ?survivors ?as ??catalysts ?that ?incite? ?sexual ?violence.781 ?From ?here ?it ?is ?a ?short ?leap ?to ?constructing ?survivors ?as ?posing ?a ?risk ?to ?offenders ?rather ?than ?the ?reverse.782 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?779 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?10?11. ?780 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?882. ?781 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?24. ?782 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?882?897; ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?24. ? ? 190 ? ? In ?the ?case ?sample, ?I ?found ?language ?that ?painted ?adolescent ?survivors ?as ?risky ?and ?causing ?offences. ?One ?example ?is ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales. ?As ?I ?discussed ?in ?my ?doctrinal ?analysis, ?nearly ?the ?entire ?narrative ?of ?the ?offence ?revolved ?around ?the ?14-??year-??old ?survivor?s ?alcohol ?abuse, ?which ?we ?learn ?has ?landed ?her ?in ?the ??drunk ?tank? ?numerous ?times, ?and ?her ?intoxication ?in ?the ?company ?of ?the ?offender ?and ?other ?adults.783 ?In ?the ?same ?manner, ?the ?court ?in ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?portrayed ?K.R. ?as ?risky ?by ?the ?court?s ?portrayal ?of ?the ?boy ?as ?sexually ?aggressive ?by ?reproducing ?his ?statement ?to ?the ?offender ?that ??he ?was ?up ?for ?anything? ?and ?his ?question ?about ?which ?offender ??had ?the ?bigger ??dick??,784 ?as ?well ?as ?stating ?that, ?after ?being ?assaulted ?by ?the ?offenders, ?K.R. ??re-??registered ?on ?the ?adult ?chat ?site ?using ?the ?username ??hotfordaddy?.?785 ? ? In ?these ?narratives, ?courts ?portrayed ?adolescent ?survivors ?as ?risky ?to ?adult ?men. ?Although ?the ?courts ?identified ?both ?survivors ?as ?vulnerable ?and ?in ?need ?of ?protection, ?they ?put ?greater ?emphasis ?on ?their ?incaution ?and ?risk-??taking, ?emphasis ?that ?could ?imply ?that ?survivors ?constituted ?a ?risk ?to ?offenders ?by ?the ?threat ?they ?posed ?to ?rational ?sexual ?expectations.786 ? ? ? Within ?the ?case ?sample ?an ?adult ?survivor ?was ?portrayed ?as ?risky ?in ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf. ?The ?offender?s ?family, ?in ?letters ?to ?the ?court ?that ?were ?referenced ?in ?the ?judgment, ?painted ?the ?survivor ?as ?other ?or ?different ?from ?them. ?They ?state ?that ?the ?offence, ?a ?sexual ?assault ?of ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution, ?was ?out ?of ?character ?in ?part ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?783 ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?6-??11. ?784 ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?16. ?785 ?Ibid ?at ?para ?28. ?786 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?884?893. ? ? 191 ?because ?the ?offender ?was ?not ?known ??to ?associate ?with ?prostitutes.?787 ?Beyond ?the ?suggestion ?that ?the ?problematic ?aspect ?of ?the ?offender?s ?behaviour ?was ?associating ?with ?the ?survivor ?rather ?than ?sexually ?assaulting ?her, ?the ?submission ?implied ?that ?she ?is ?other ?than ?him; ?he ?is ?a ?good ?man ?with ?no ?prior ?record ?whereas ?she ?is ?the ?real ?criminal ?who ?presents ?a ?risk ?to ?offender ?and ?his ?family. ?This ?sentiment ?was ?not ?the ?court?s ?but ?the ?court ?reproduced ?it, ?tapping ?into ?the ?idea ?of ?the ?survivor, ?not ?the ?offender, ?as ?risky ?and ?dangerous. ? ? ? ? Coates ?and ?Wade ?made ?a ?similar ?observation ?in ?their ?analysis ?of ?a ?case ?about ?a ?teacher ?who ?sexually ?abused ?two ?students. ?There, ?the ?children ?were ?presented ?as ?posing ?the ?risk ?for ?sexual ?violence, ?in ?their ?words ?as ??incit[ing] ?overwhelming ?emotions ?or ?drives ?in ?the ?perpetrator, ?which ?in ?turn ?compel ?him ?to ?act ?violently.?788 ?Rather ?than ?presenting ?the ?crime ?from ?the ?perspective ?of ?the ?child ?survivors, ?the ?court ?took ?the ?offender?s ?view ?of ?the ?children ?as ?posing ?a ?risk ?to ?him, ?that ?they ?will ?be ?too ?irresistible ?to ?his ?violent ?sexual ?desires, ?forcing ?him ?to ?act. ?When ?such ?language ?is ?used, ?offenders ?are ?presented ?as ?less ?blameworthy ?because ?they ?were ?led ?astray ?by ?sexualized ?children ?or ?dangerous ?women.789 ?C. Undermining ?Findings ?of ?Guilt ? ? Within ?the ?case ?sample, ?judges ?frequently ?used ?language ?that ?undermined ?offenders? ?guilt. ?In ?spite ?of ?offenders? ?convictions ?or ?guilty ?pleas, ?judges ?frequently ?referred ?to ?the ?offender ?as ??the ?accused? ?and ?sometimes ??the ?defendant?, ?and ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?787 ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?10. ?788 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?24. ?789 ?Ibid. ? ? 192 ?survivors ?as ??complainants.?790 ?These ?terms ?are ?inappropriate ?given ?the ?offender?s ?guilt ?under ?law ?and ?the ?purpose ?of ?the ?decision: ?to ?sentence ?him ?for ?his ?crime. ?As ?noted ?by ?Coates ?et ?al., ?with ?these ?terms, ?the ?judge ??alludes ?indirectly ?to ?the ?presumption ?of ?innocence ?and ?calls ?into ?question ?the ?validity ?of ?the ?conviction.?791 ?The ?implied ?doubt ?about ?offenders? ?guilt ?and ?the ?distrust ?of ?survivors ?contained ?in ?the ?term ??complainant? ?in ?this ?context ?could ?be ?particularly ?prejudicial ?in ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?given ?the ?long ?tradition ?of ?disbelieving ?and ?vilifying ?survivors ?on ?the ?basis ?of ?myths ?grounded ?in ?gender, ?race, ?class ?and ?other ?biases.792 ?As ?noted ?by ?Ruparelia, ?sexual ?assault ?survivors ?are ??distinguished ?from ??real? ?victims, ?whether ?or ?not ?a ?conviction ?has ?been ?entered.?793 ?Courts? ?continued ?use ?of ?these ?terms ?after ?conviction ?suggests ?a ?difference ?between ??real? ?victims ?and ?sexual ?assault ?survivors ?and ?evokes ?rape ?myths ?by ?constructing ?perpetrators ?as ?not ?quite ?responsible ?and ?survivors ?as ?not ?entirely ?believable. ? ? ? ? Rape ?myths ?that ?confuse ?some ?acts ?of ?sexual ?violence ?with ?sex ?were ?apparent ?in ?judicial ?discourse ?in ?the ?case ?sample. ?Judges ?used ?narratives ?and ?language ?that ?concealed ?violence ?and ?perpetrator ?responsibility ?and ?painted ?survivors ?as ?contributing ?to ?sexual ?assaults. ?In ?using ?this ?language, ?courts ?did ?not ?convey ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?790 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?supra ?note ?481; ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?supra ?note ?533; ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480; ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?supra ?note ?491; ?R. ?v. ?D.B.D., ?supra ?note ?588; ?R. ?v. ?DaPonte, ?supra ?note ?591; ?R. ?v. ?E.M., ?supra ?note ?746; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzalez-??Hernandez, ?supra ?note ?471; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486; ?R. ?v. ?L. ?et ?al., ?supra ?note ?727; ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?supra ?note ?615; ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482; ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?supra ?note ?572; ?R. ?v. ?Nguyen, ?2012 ?BCPC ?97 ?(available ?on ?CanLII); ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A. ?, ?supra ?note ?491; ?R. ?v. ?R.W.V. ?, ?supra ?note ?480; ?R. ?v. ?Rao ?and ?MacFadden, ?supra ?note ?665; ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486; ?R. ?v. ?S.S.E. ?, ?supra ?note ?491; ?R. ?v. ?Singh, ?supra ?note ?500; ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H. ?, ?supra ?note ?480; ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?supra ?note ?480; ?R. ?v. ?W., ?supra ?note ?479; ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?supra ?note ?516; ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?483. ?791 ?Coates ?& ?Wade, ?supra ?note ?66 ?at ?20. ?792 ?See ?Chapters ?I ?& ?II. ?793 ?Ruparelia, ?supra ?note ?40 ?at ?675. ? ? 193 ?violence ?and ?harm ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?the ?responsibility ?of ?offenders; ?instead ?they ?portrayed ?it ?as ?normal, ?even ?erotic ?and ?reciprocal, ?and ?not ?entirely ?the ?fault ?of ?offenders. ?Rather ?than ?blaming ?men ?for ?the ?violence ?they ?commit, ?in ?some ?cases ?courts ?used ?language ?that ?attributed ?violence ?to ?intoxication ?or ?to ?survivors, ?based ?on ?discriminatory ?notions ?of ?risk-??taking ?and ?the ?sexualization ?of ?adolescents. ?As ?in ?doctrine, ?these ?constructions ?most ?clearly ?arose ?in ?cases ?of ?adolescents. ? ? ? The ?language ?of ?courts ?in ?the ?case ?sample ?reveals ?that ?feminist ?reforms ?have ?not ?entirely ?succeeded. ?Reforms ?have ?failed ?to ?make ?legal ?discourse ?show ?the ?gender ?and ?inequality ?in ?sexual ?violence ?and ?challenge ?the ?notion ?that ?some ?sexual ?offences ?are ?not ?dissimilar ?from ?sex. ? ? ? ? ? 194 ?VII. ?Discussion ? ? ? My ?doctrinal ?and ?discursive ?analyses ?illustrate ?that ?judges ?did ?not ?situate ?sexual ?violence ?within ?gender ?inequality. ?As ?a ?result, ?rape ?myths ?from ?the ?past ?echoed ?in ?recent ?cases. ?Informed ?by ?a ?neoliberal ?lens ?as ?well ?as ?feminist-??inspired ?legal ?reforms, ?current ?rape ?myths ?are ?modified ?iterations ?of ?historical ?rape ?myths. ?Nonetheless, ?the ?theme ?that ?some ?sexual ?violence ?is ?akin ?to ?sex ?endured, ?cropping ?up ?most ?plainly ?in ?cases ?of ?particularly ?vulnerable ?survivors, ?including ?adolescents. ? ?Themes: ?Sex ?and ?Context-??Blindness ? ? Woven ?through ?the ?case ?sample ?was ?the ?idea ?that ?there ?is ?a ?grey ?area ?between ?sexual ?violence ?and ?sex. ?With ?courts ?suggesting ?survivors ?had ?taken ?undue ?risks, ?this ?theme ?appeared ?most ?clearly ?in ?cases ?of ?offences ?against ?survivors ?with ?intersecting ?inequalities, ?particularly ?adolescent ?survivors. ?In ?a ?variety ?of ?ways, ?courts ?interpreted ?doctrine ?and ?used ?discourse ?to ?suggest ?offences ?were ?akin ?to ?consensual ?sex, ?were ?not ?violent, ?were ?mistakes, ?or ?did ?not ?cause ?significant ?harm. ? ? ? In ?a ?number ?of ?cases, ?judges ?made ?findings ?of ?facts ?that ?adolescents ?consented ?to ?offences ?by ?acquaintances ?or ?strangers. ?Although ?judges ?recognized ?that ?adolescents ?could ?not ?legally ?consent ?due ?to ?their ?age ?as ?required ?by ?the ?Criminal ?Code,794 ?they ?used ?agreement ?in ?sentencing ?to ?distinguish ?offences ?from ??real? ?violence. ?In ?these ?cases, ?courts ?paid ?lip-??service ?to ?the ?inequalities ?and ?power ?imbalances ?that ?make ?consent ?between ?adolescents ?and ?adult ?offenders ?impossible, ?while ?simultaneously ?failing ?to ?express ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?exploiting ?the ?vulnerabilities ?of ?youth ?and ?gender. ?Judges ?failed ?to ?identify ?that ?offenders ?did ?not ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?794 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?ss ?150.1(1), ?273.1(2)(b). ? ? 195 ?need ?to ?use ?explicit ?physical ?force ?because ?of ?survivors? ?vulnerabilities, ?instead ?implying ?that ?exploitation ?of ?vulnerability ?and ?inequality ?is ?less ?harmful ?or ?blameworthy ?than ?physical ?force. ?Courts ?did ?not ?take ?this ?approach ?in ?all ?cases ?of ?adolescent ?survivors, ?namely ?cases ?of ?sexual ?violence ?within ?families: ?courts ?typically ?described ?the ?offences ?of ?fathers, ?stepfathers ?and ?uncles ?against ?adolescents ?as ?nonconsensual, ?forceful, ?and ?harmful, ?even ?if ?they ?did ?sometimes ?also ?suggest ?they ?were ?non-??violent. ? ? With ?these ?legal ?and ?discursive ?constructions, ?courts ?sometimes ?depicted ?sexual ?offences ?as ?technical ?crimes; ?consequently, ?they ?interpreted ?offenders ?as ?less ?blameworthy. ?Courts ?also ?suggested ?that ??statutory? ?sexual ?offences ?do ?not ?cause ?significant ?harm ?by ?omitting ?consideration ?of ?harm ?to ?young ?survivors ?as ?an ?aggravating ?factor ?or ?omitting ?consideration ?of ?harm ?at ?all. ?As ?well, ?courts ?appeared ?to ?partially ?blame ?adolescent ?survivors ?for ?offences ?by ?providing ?details ?in ?narratives ?that ?sexualized ?them, ?discursively ?presenting ?them ?as ?posing ?a ?risk ?to ?offenders, ?rather ?than ?the ?reverse.795 ? ? ? Similarly, ?in ?the ?cases ?against ?adult ?women ?taking ?risks ?or ?occupying ?dangerous ?spaces, ?courts ?interpreted ?their ?harm ?differently ?than ?they ?did ?for ?other ?survivors. ?While ?courts ?were ?respectful, ?they ?to ?varying ?degrees ?suggested ?sexual ?violence ?had ?less ?of ?a ?serious ?impact ?on ?women ?in ?prostitution ?or ?encouraged ?them ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?795 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?16, ?28; ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(CA), ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?17; ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?supra ?note ?486 ?at ?paras ?5-??7; ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?6-??13. ? ? 196 ?to ?improve ?their ?lives.796 ?These ?interpretations ?of ?harm ?stand ?in ?contrast ?to ?those ?courts ?typically ?made ?in ?regard ?to ?other ?survivors. ? ? ? ? Because ?of ?their ?neoliberal ?approach, ?judges ?were ?less ?able ?to ?recognize ?inequalities ?based ?on ?gender, ?Aboriginality, ?race, ?class, ?sexuality, ?and ?even ?youth. ?In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?ignored ?or ?obscured ?the ?coercion ?and ?violence ?faced ?by ?survivors ?by ?presuming ?them ?to ?be ?acting ?freely ?and ?without ?restraint, ?a ?tactic ?that ?made ?their ?actions ?appear ?illogical ?and ?risky, ?for ?example, ?questioning ?why ?a ?single ?mother ?remained ?in ?a ?job ?where ?she ?was ?subjected ?to ?behaviour ?that ?could ?amount ?to ?sexual ?harassment.797 ? ? ? Although ?courts ?designated ?some ?classes ?of ?survivors ?as ?vulnerable ?or ?in ?special ?need ?of ?protection, ?they ?did ?not ?recognize ?all ?forms ?of ?vulnerability, ?particularly ?gender. ?Courts ?recognized ?that ?youth, ?relationships ?of ?trust ?and ?authority, ?and ?spousal ?relationships ?cause ?vulnerability, ?based ?on ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?requirements ?that ?these ?factors ?be ?considered ?aggravating.798 ?However, ?even ?when ?they ?cited ?the ?need ?to ?protect ?women ?from ?violence ?as ?a ?consideration ?in ?sentencing, ?courts ?did ?not ?identify ?women ?as ?vulnerable ?to ?violence ?from ?men; ?for ?women, ?vulnerability ?was ?situational, ?not ?a ?permanent ?state ?caused ?by ?their ?gender. ?Courts ?recognized ?specific ?women ?alone ?with ?offenders ?they ?did ?not ?know ?as ?vulnerable, ?including ?women ?in ?prostitution, ?women ?in ?taxis, ?and ?women ?alone ?with ?a ?massage ?therapist,799 ?but ?not ?women ?as ?a ?whole. ?Moreover, ?in ?these ?cases, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?796 ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?39; ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?supra ?note ?502 ?at ?para ?12; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?para ?12. ?797 ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?11. ?798 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a). ?799 ?See ?e.g., ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?para ?43; ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?supra ?note ?484 ?at ?paras ?86-??87, ?95; ?R. ?v. ?Alasti, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?paras ?39-??40. ? ? 197 ?vulnerability ?seemed ?rote: ?courts ?did ?not ?scrutinize ?the ?structural ?forces ?that ?made ?these ?survivors ?vulnerable, ?which ?were ?created ?by ?inequality, ?exploited ?by ?violent ?offenders, ?and ?affected ?the ?harm ?survivors ?suffered; ?instead ?they ?treated ?it ?as ?an ?isolated ?fact ?of ?the ?case. ?It ?was ?particularly ?glaring ?in ?cases ?of ?Aboriginal ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?when ?courts ?considered ?offenders? ?contextual ?factors ?but ?ignored ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?survivors. ? ? ? Reinforcing ?doctrine, ?judicial ?discourse ?blurred ?the ?line ?between ?sex ?and ?sexual ?violence. ?Often, ?judges ?narrated ?and ?described ?sexual ?crimes ?using ?terms ?of ?affection ?and ?eroticism. ?With ?the ?words ?they ?chose, ?courts ?suggested ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?mutually ?participated ?in ?erotic ?or ?affectionate ?acts. ?Language ?obscured ?the ?presence ?and ?agency ?of ?offenders ?in ?crimes ?or ?linked ?offences ?to ?causes ?outside ?the ?offender, ?such ?as ?intoxication ?or ?the ??risk? ?posed ?by ?survivors. ?These ?constructions ?did ?not ?describe ?violent ?crimes ?but ?sexual ?encounters. ?Directly ?evoking ?rape ?myths, ?courts ?also ?suggested ?some ?doubt ?about ?the ?claims ?of ?survivors ?by ?using ?legal ?terms ?designated ?in ?cases ?of ?unproven ?charges, ?such ?as ??complainant? ?and ??accused.? ?Appearing ?throughout ?the ?case ?sample, ?these ?discursive ?themes ?suggest ?reforms ?have ?not ?changed ?the ?law?s ?perception ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?sex ?rather ?than ?violence, ?particularly ?in ?cases ?against ?adolescents ?and ?especially ?vulnerable ?women. ? ? ? The ?case ?sample ?shows ?that ?reforms ?to ?eradicate ?rape ?myths ?have ?had ?the ?least ?benefit ?for ?survivors ?facing ?intersectional ?inequalities. ?As ?I ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?II, ?other ?feminist ?researchers ?made ?similar ?findings: ?women ?with ?mental ? ? 198 ?disabilities,800 ?adolescent ?girls,801 ?Aboriginal ?women,802 ?women ?with ?institutional ?records ?or ?psychological ?treatment ?histories,803 ?and ?women ?in ?intimate ?relationships804 ?continue ?to ?face ?myths ?at ?court. ?However, ?the ?myths ?against ?vulnerable ?survivors ?are ?changing. ?The ?Adaptation ?of ?Rape ?Myths ? ? ? Rape ?myths ?surfaced ?in ?B.C. ?sentencing ?decisions ?in ?the ?1970s ?and ?in ?2011 ?and ?2012. ?To ?my ?eyes, ?the ?myths ?in ?the ?1970s ?cases ?were ?more ?explicit, ?more ?obviously ?based ?on ?old-??fashioned ?conceptions ?of ?morality ?and ?gender ?roles. ?Within ?the ?recent ?case ?sample, ?the ?myths ?were ?subtler: ?morality ?judgments ?were ?less ?obvious, ?and ?gender ?less ?rigidly ?constructed. ?Although ?they ?have ?not ?eliminated ?rape ?myths ?in ?the ?law, ?legal ?reforms ?starting ?in ?the ?1980s ?appear ?to ?have ?influenced ?judges. ?I ?also ?speculate ?that ?an ?increasingly ?entrenched ?neoliberal ?approach ?has ?made ?the ?myths ?less ?obvious, ?obfuscating ?them ?in ?the ?reasoning ?of ?rationality ?and ?risk, ?making ?them ?harder ?to ?spot. ?Rape ?myths ?are ?also ?less ?obvious ?in ?sentencing ?judgments ?than ?trial ?decisions ?because ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system ?has ?validated ?the ?conduct ?at ?issue ?as ?a ?crime. ? ? ? In ?the ?1970s ?case ?sample, ?judges ?considered ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?in ?light ?of ?their ?compliance ?with ?gender ?norms. ?In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?directly ?recorded ?whether ?or ?not ?the ?survivor ?was ?a ?virgin, ?with ?this ?factor ?influencing ?the ?offence ?as ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?800 ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Evidentiary ?Issues?, ?supra ?note ?267; ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Situational?, ?supra ?note ?211. ?801 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93. ?802 ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7. ?803 ?Gotell, ??Disappearance?, ?supra ?note ?75 ?at ?142; ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189. ?804 ?Craig, ??After ?Ewanchuk?, ?supra ?note ?223 ?at ?259?262, ?264?268. ? ? 199 ?charged ?and ?convicted ?and, ?often, ?the ?judicial ?construction ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?harm.805 ?Courts ?also ?considered ?the ?sexuality ?of ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?as ?relevant ?to ?sentencing, ?pathologizing ?survivors ?or ?offenders ?and ?understanding ?crimes ?and ?harms ?through ?a ?lens ?of ?homophobia.806 ? ? ? In ?the ?recent ?case ?sample, ?the ?approach ?to ?sexual ?morality ?was ?different. ?Courts ?did ?not ?so ?directly ?focus ?on ?virginity ?or ?sexual ?identification. ?However, ?perceptions ?of ?survivors? ?chastity ?or ?sexual ?curiosity ?seemed ?to ?fuel ?the ?equation ?of ?risky ?sexual ?behaviour ?with ?consent ?and ?the ?presumption ?that ?offences ?caused ?little ?harm ?to ?survivors.807 ?In ?both ?time ?frames, ?courts ?constructed ?some ?adolescents ?as ?sexualized ?and ?consenting ?to ?offences. ? ? ? Similarly, ?in ?both ?the ?1970s ?and ?recently, ?courts ?depicted ?some ?offences ?as ?non-??violent. ?In ?some ?1970s ?cases, ?judge ?characterized ?offences ?against ?young ?and ?adolescent ?girls ?as ?not ?violent ?or ?failed ?to ?identify ?offenders? ?abuses ?of ?authority ?and ?dependence.808 ?In ?2011 ?and ?2012 ?cases, ?courts ?also ?distinguished ?some ?offences ?from ?other ??violent? ?cases, ?saying ?offenders ?did ?not ?use ?violence ?or ?minimizing ?the ?violence ?they ?committed.809 ? ? ? The ?notion ?of ??good? ?offenders, ?not ?directly ?addressed ?in ?reforms ?more ?focused ?on ?the ?treatment ?and ?construction ?of ?survivors, ?continued ?from ?the ?1970s ?to ?recent ?cases. ?In ?the ?1970s ?case ?sample, ?judges ?portrayed ??good? ?offenders ?as ?less ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?805 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?paras ?1, ?3, ?22; ?R. ?v. ?Crockett, ?supra ?note ?154 ?at ?para ?4. ?806 ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?supra ?note ?157 ?at ?para ?7. ?807 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?supra ?note ?484; ?R. ?v. ?Allen ?(SC), ?supra ?note ?468; ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?supra ?note ?486; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481; ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?supra ?note ?480. ?808 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?LeBlanc, ?supra ?note ?161 ?at ?para ?3; ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?para ?22. ?809 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?supra ?note ?468 ?at ?para ?34; ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?21; ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?37; ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L. ?supra ?note ?480 ?at ?para ?25. ? ? 200 ?likely ?to ?reoffend ?and ?more ?deserving ?of ?lenience ?and ?compassion,810 ?with ?goodness ?based ?on ?a ?respectable ?upbringing ?or ?family ?status,811 ?and ?manners, ?hygiene, ?and ?work ?ethic.812 ?At ?the ?same ?time, ?courts ?also ?constructed ?offences ?as ?not ?the ?sole ?fault ?of ?offenders, ?linking ?crimes ?to ?offenders? ?sexual ?dissatisfaction ?or ?inability ?to ?relate ?to ?women.813 ? ? ? Similar ?thinking ?was ?evident ?in ?recent ?sentencing ?cases: ?judges ?considered ??good? ?offenders ?as ?better ?candidates ?for ?rehabilitation ?or ?less ?likely ?to ?re-??offend. ?However, ?courts ?constructed ?goodness ?somewhat ?more ?narrowly, ?now ?largely ?basing ?it ?on ?steady ?employment ?or ?professional ?reputation ?as ?well ?as ?marital ?or ?parental ?status.814 ?Unlike ?in ?the ?1970s, ?courts ?did ?not ?directly ?attribute ?offending ?to ?the ?fault ?of ?women ?in ?offenders? ?lives ?in ?recent ?cases; ?instead, ?they ?more ?often ?assumed ?that ?inebriation ?caused ?men ?to ?be ?sexually ?violent ?and ?mitigated ?sentences ?on ?that ?basis.815 ?What ?remained ?constant ?was ?courts? ?failure ?to ?consistently ?highlight ?offender ?agency ?and ?recognize ?the ?unique ?opportunities ?certain ?men ?have ?to ?offend, ?escape ?detection, ?and ?be ?treated ?leniently ?when ?convicted. ?Male ?privilege, ?buoyed ?middle-??class ?privilege, ?remained ?intact ?despite ?reforms. ? ? Discourse ?in ?the ?recent ?case ?sample ?also ?revealed ?that ?rape ?myths ?continue ?in ?how ?judges ?construct ?offences ?in ?language: ?courts ?portrayed ?sexual ?violence ?as ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?810 ?See ?e.g., ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?para ?15; ?R. ?v. ?Giesbrecht, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?3; ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?supra ?note ?157 ?at ?paras ?3-??4; ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?2; ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?supra ?note ?156 ?at ?para ?5; ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?supra ?note ?155 ?at ?para ?3. ?811 ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?2; ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?supra ?note ?156 ?at ?para ?5; ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?supra ?note ?158 ?at ?para ?15; ?R. ?v. ?Giesbretch, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?3. ?812 ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?supra ?note ?155 ?at ?para ?3. ?813 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?B.F.D., ?supra ?note ?165 ?at ?paras ?2-??3, ?11; ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?supra ?note ?162 ?at ?para ?2. ?814 ?See ?e.g. ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?9-??14, ?44; ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?supra ?note ?481 ?at ?paras ?10-??11, ?35; ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk ?supra ?note ?482 ?at ?paras ?5-??8, ?12. ?815 ?See ?e.g., ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?paras ?4, ?8, ?18; ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?supra ?note ?474 ?at ?para ?45; ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?483 ?at ?para ?107. ? ? 201 ?wanted ?by ?survivors ?with ?terms ?suggesting ?sex ?and ?intimacy, ?and ?as ?incited ?by ?alcohol ?or ?survivors ?rather ?than ?offenders. ?Judicial ?discourse ?evoked ?the ?myth ?of ?the ?unbelievable ?woman ?when ?courts ?referred ?to ?survivors ?as ??complainants? ?and ?offenders ?as ??accused? ?after ?complaints ?had ?been ?validated ?in ?the ?law. ?While ?I ?did ?not ?conduct ?a ?discourse ?analysis ?of ?the ?1970s ?case ?sample, ?the ?themes ?within ?the ?recent ?cases ?nonetheless ?illustrate ?that ?rape ?myths ?continue ?today. ? ? The ?case ?sample ?lends ?weight ?to ?the ?feminist ?identification ?of ?the ?neoliberal ?influence ?on ?courts? ?approach ?to ?sexual ?violence. ?Within ?the ?sample, ?courts ?almost ?entirely ?ignored ?the ?gendered ?character ?and ?inequality ?of ?sexual ?offences. ?Because ?the ?individualistic ?and ?formal ?equality ?lens ?of ?neoliberalism ?did ?not ?eliminate ?pre-??conceived ?notions ?about ?gender, ?sex, ?and ?sexual ?violence ?embedded ?within ?the ?law ?and ?larger ?society, ?rape ?myths ?continued ?in ?both ?doctrine ?and ?discourse. ?However, ?neoliberalism ?appeared ?to ?modify ?rape ?myths: ?I ?speculate ?the ?importance ?of ?individual ?autonomy ?in ?the ?law ?helped ?moderate ?discrimination, ?such ?as ?the ?requirement ?for ?chastity ?in ?women ?and ?heterosexuality ?in ?men, ?and ?the ?fiction ?that ?men ?commit ?sexual ?violence ?when ?they ?are ?denied ?sexual ?release ?from ?wives ?and ?girlfriends. ? ? ? ? ? Rape ?myths ?within ?the ?case ?samples ?were ?likely ?also ?tempered ?by ?the ?phase ?of ?the ?process. ?In ?the ?past, ?evidence ?that ?focused ?entirely ?on ?the ?complainants? ?conduct ?and ?character ?predominated ?at ?trial. ?Feminist ?scholars ?argue ?this ?focus ?continues, ?in ?how ?courts ?scrutinize ?and ?parse ?the ?actions ?of ?complainants ?to ?determine ?consent ?and ?capacity ?to ?consent ?instead ?of ?addressing ?the ?predatory ? ? 202 ?actions ?of ?accused ?men.816 ?Therefore, ?the ?trial ?phase ?provides ?more ?opportunity ?for ?myths ?about ?survivors. ?In ?contrast, ?sentencing ?decisions ?focus ?primarily ?on ?the ?offender ?to ?understand ?his ?blameworthiness, ?which ?creates ?space ?for ?rape ?myths ?about ?offenders. ?Indeed, ?most ?often, ?when ?myths ?surfaced ?in ?cases, ?I ?found ?they ?revolved ?around ?offenders ?and ?why ?they ?committed ?offences. ? ? ? That ?offenders ?have ?been ?legally ?determined ?to ?be ?guilty ?also ?moderated ?myths: ?they ?could ?only ?go ?so ?far. ?Because ?courts ?had ?legitimated ?survivors? ?complaints ?as ?valid, ?survivors ?were ?more ?or ?less ?believable ?but ?they ?are ?all, ?on ?some ?level, ?believable; ?offenders ?were ?more ?or ?less ?dangerous ?or ?blameworthy ?but ?are ?still ?criminally ?at ?fault; ?and ?offences ?were ?more ?or ?less ?serious ?or ?violent ?but ?are ?all ?nonetheless ?criminal. ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ?made ?up ?of ?rare ?cases ?where ?legal ?convictions ?followed ?violence, ?it ?makes ?sense ?that ?myths ?were ?restricted ?in ?scope ?and ?a ?matter ?of ?degree. ? ? ? Finally, ?rape ?myths ?were ?less ?evident ?in ?sentencing ?due ?to ?the ?women?s ?movement ?and ?the ?resulting ?reforms ?in ?the ?1980s. ?Legal ?reforms ?helped ?refocus ?the ?law ?away ?from ?chastity ?and ?gender ?norms. ?As ?a ?result ?of ?feminist ?advocacy, ?courts ?usually ?identified ?sexual ?violence ?as ?inherently ?violent, ?as ?well ?as ?a ?violation ?of ?individual ?bodily ?autonomy ?and ?integrity. ?However, ?the ?reforms ?have ?not ?been ?entirely ?successful. ?In ?the ?case ?sample, ?courts ?continued ?to ?fail ?to ?recognize ?all ?forms ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?violence, ?including ?violence ?commonly ?used ?in ?sexual ?offences, ?for ?example, ?coercion ?and ?abuse ?of ?unequal ?power. ?The ?reforms ?also ?failed ?to ?make ?courts ?recognize ?the ?context ?of ?sexual ?violence: ?gender ?inequality. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?816 ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?263?266, ?282, ?288; ?Benedet, ??Intoxicated ?Women?, ?supra ?note ?253 ?at ?459, ?461. ? ? 203 ?VIII. ?Conclusion ? ? Historically, ?legislators ?and ?judges ?minimized ?and ?denied ?sexual ?violence ?using ?rape ?myths. ?In ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?the ?law ?normalized ?a ?prevalent ?crime ?men ?commit ?against ?women ?and ?children, ?legitimizing ?some ?forms ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?acceptable ?sexual ?coercion ?based ?on ?gender ?norms ?that ?expect ?men ?to ?aggressively ?seduce ?women ?who ?want ?to ?be ??taken?. ?Rape ?myths ?that ?held ?women ?and ?children ?responsible ?for ?the ?violence ?men ?committed ?against ?them ?created ?a ?fictional ?portrait ?of ?sexual ?violence ?within ?the ?law. ? ? Substantive ?and ?procedural ?laws ?developed ?to ?reflect ?the ?perspectives ?of ?elite ?men, ?who ?viewed ?women ?and ?children ?as ?weak, ?corrupt, ?and ?not ?worthy ?of ?belief. ?On ?prejudices ?based ?on ?gender, ?age, ?race, ?and ?class, ?rape ?myths ?were ?given ?expression ?in ?substantive ?offences ?that ?barred ?actions ?against ?husbands ?or ?required ?chastity ?in ?survivors, ?and ?evidentiary ?rules ?that ?allowed ?or ?required ?evidence ?of ?the ?complainant?s ?sexual ?history, ?corroboration, ?and ?immediate ?complaint. ?These ?rules ?operated ?to ?justify ?incidents ?of ?sexual ?violence. ? ? At ?the ?same ?time ?that ?legislators ?and ?judges ?enacted ?rape ?myths ?within ?the ?law, ?harsh ?penalties ?like ?the ?death ?penalty ?gave ?the ?impression ?that ?Canada ?took ?sexual ?violence ?seriously. ?However, ?like ?substantive ?laws ?and ?evidentiary ?rules, ?harsh ?sentences ?may ?have ?impeded ?convictions. ? ? ? When ?feminist ?researchers ?identified ?the ?prejudice ?of ?the ?law ?and ?the ?gap ?between ?the ?rates ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?criminal ?conviction, ?they ?advocated ?for ?change. ?Reforms ?came ?in ?the ?1970s, ?1980s, ?and ?1990s; ?however, ?despite ?changes ?to ?substantive ?and ?procedural ?laws, ?current ?feminist ?research ?shows ?that ?rape ?myths ? ? 204 ?continue ?in ?judicial ?reasoning. ?I ?chose ?to ?study ?sentencing ?because ?it ?is ?a ?site ?of ?informal ?and ?discretionary ?judicial ?decision-??making ?as ?well ?as ?an ?area ?little ?studied ?by ?feminist ?researchers, ?making ?it ?ripe ?for ?analysis. ? ? Sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?cases ?from ?B.C. ?in ?2011 ?and ?2012 ?confirmed ?the ?feminist ?construction ?of ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violence: ?the ?facts ?of ?cases ?revealed ?violence ?and ?degradation, ?coercion, ?force, ?manipulation, ?and ?abuse ?of ?power. ?The ?facts ?of ?cases ?did ?not ?show ?sexual ?offence ?as ?sex ?gone ?wrong ?or ?as ?bad ?sex, ?but ?as ?offenders ?exploiting ?their ?physical ?power, ?familial ?or ?professional ?authority, ?and ?male ?privilege ?against ?women, ?adolescents, ?and ?children. ?The ?case ?sample ?also ?confirmed ?the ?feminist ?characterization ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?gender ?inequality. ?While ?the ?cases ?left ?some ?power ?imbalances, ?barriers, ?and ?prejudice ?unstated, ?they ?provided ?enough ?detail ?to ?illustrate ?that ?women ?and ?adolescents ?facing ?intersectional ?inequalities ?are ?uniquely ?vulnerable ?to ?sexual ?violence. ? ? ? However, ?the ?case ?sample ?also ?confirmed ?the ?law?s ?continuing ?ignorance ?of ?the ?gender ?of ?sexual ?violence. ?In ?the ?sample, ?B.C. ?courts ?resisted ?feminist ?attempts ?to ?contextualize ?sexual ?offences ?as ?gendered; ?courts ?rarely ?considered ?sexual ?offences ?in ?terms ?of ?their ?structural ?context. ?Instead, ?courts ?adopted ?a ?view ?of ?sexual ?violence ?based ?on ?individuality ?and ?autonomy. ?Therefore, ?in ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?survivors ?and ?offenders ?seemed ?isolated ?from ?the ?greater ?social ?world ?and ?offences ?seemed ?random ?and ?infrequent. ?This ?inaccurate ?portrayal ?of ?sexual ?violence ?also ?fueled ?courts? ?continuing ?reliance ?on ?rape ?myths. ? ? 205 ?Rape ?Myths ?In ?Sentencing ?Today ? ? The ?case ?sample ?illustrated ?that ?survivors ?continue ?to ?be ?vulnerable ?to ?rape ?myths ?during ?sentencing. ?By ?ignoring ?inequality, ?courts ?did ?not ?combat ?the ?discriminatory ?presumptions ?embedded ?in ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse. ?Although ?courts ?were ?typically ?respectful ?of ?survivors ?and ?condemnatory ?of ?sexual ?offences, ?rape ?myths ?surfaced ?in ?constructions ?of ?harm, ?blameworthiness, ?and ?violence. ?Within ?the ?sample ?was ?the ?notion ?that ?some ?sexual ?offences ?are ?more ?like ?sex ?than ?violence, ?suggesting ?offences ?fell ?in ?a ?grey ?area ?between ?consensual ?sex ?and ?the ?stereotypical ??real? ?rape, ?and ?were ?consequently ?less ?serious, ?less ?dangerous, ?and ?less ?harmful. ?It ?was ?most ?apparent ?in ?cases ?of ?survivors ?facing ?intersectional ?vulnerabilities, ?especially ?in ?cases ?of ?adolescent ?survivors ?who ?were ?assaulted ?by ?acquaintances ?or ?strangers. ? ? ? ? These ?myths ?are ?not ?new. ?They ?draw ?on ?historical ?myths ?that ?many ?types ?of ?sexual ?violence ?are ?wanted ?sex. ?Blame ?of ?survivors, ?minimizing ?harm, ?and ?pardoning ?offenders ?has ?become ?less ?obvious ?over ?time; ?however, ?as ?illustrated ?by ?the ?case ?sample, ?it ?has ?continued. ? ? ? In ?the ?past, ?judges ?used ?survivors? ??inculpatory? ?conduct ?to ?mitigate ?sentence ?length ?because ?survivors ?not ?meeting ?the ?chaste, ?white, ?middle-??class ?ideal ?(and ?indeed ?many ?of ?those ?too) ?were ?seen ?as ?less ?worthy ?of ?belief ?and ?protection. ?This ?myth ?existed ?historically ?and ?continued ?up ?to ?the ?reforms: ?Backhouse ?and ?Drysdale ?found ?judicial ?discounting ?of ?harm ?against ?survivors ?of ??ill-??repute?;817 ?Boyle ?found ?cases ?where ?judges ?determined ?that ?it ?was ?less ?blameworthy ?to ?commit ?violence ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?817 ?Backhouse, ?Carnal ?Crimes, ?supra ?note ?38 ?at ?426; ?Drysdale, ?supra ?note ?70 ?at ?162?163. ? ? 206 ?against ?women ?who ?drank ?alcohol ?with ?men;818 ?and ?I ?found ?that ?B.C. ?courts ?in ?the ?1970s ?sometimes ?suggested ?survivors ?were ?to ?blame ?by ?sexualizing ?them ?while ?failing ?to ?consider ?their ?harm. ? ? ? In ?some ?recent ?cases, ?myths ?continued, ?apparent ?in ?doctrine ?within ?principles ?of ?sentencing ?that ?ignored ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?women, ?use ?of ?sexual ?history ?evidence, ?and ?interpretations ?of ?violence, ?causality, ?harm, ?and ??good? ?offenders. ?Rape ?myths ?were ?also ?embedded ?within ?discourse ?in ?narratives ?that ?depicted ?violence ?as ?mutual ?and ?erotic, ?obscured ?offender ?agency, ?and ?portrayed ?survivors ?as ?sexual ?and ?incautious. ? ? ? Decisions ?blended ?notions ?of ?morality ?and ?risk ?to ?subtly ?normalize ?violence ?and ?censure ?survivors, ?most ?clearly ?in ?cases ?of ?adolescents ?and ?survivors ?who ?took ?risks ?or ?occupied ??degenerate ?spaces?.819 ?In ?these ?cases, ?courts ?portrayed ?survivors ?as ?sexualized ?and ?courting ?harm: ?the ?drunken ?girl, ?the ?sexually ?curious ?boy, ?the ?women ?in ?prostitution, ?and ?the ?woman ?going ?along ?with ?a ?sexualized ?work ?atmosphere. ?In ?other ?cases, ?courts ?sexualized ?survivors ?and ?portrayed ?them ?as ??asking ?for? ?by ?citing ?sexual ?history ?or ?reputation ?evidence, ?often ?disclosed ?by ?offenders ?to ?show ?the ?survivor ??consented? ?to ?offences. ?Using ?these ?myths, ?courts ?applied ?doctrine ?in ?a ?way ?that ?validated ?the ?point ?of ?view ?of ?offenders ?that ?survivors ?were ?complicit ?in ?offences. ? ? Courts ?more ?frequently ?considered ?harm ?to ?survivors ?than ?in ?the ?past, ?a ?requirement ?of ?the ?Criminal ?Code,820 ?but ?they ?did ?not ?do ?this ?across ?the ?board. ?At ?the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?818 ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?175?177. ?819 ?See ?generally ?Razack, ?supra ?note ?7. ?820 ?Criminal ?Code, ?supra ?note ?67, ?s ?718.2(a)(iii.1). ? ? 207 ?same ?time ?that ?courts ?constructed ?survivors ?as ?inciting ?offences, ?they ?interpreted ?their ?harm ?unusually ?or ?failed ?to ?consider ?it ?at ?all, ?even ?while ?recognizing ?survivors ?as ?vulnerable. ?Although ?it ?is ?possible ?some ?adolescents ?and ?vulnerable ?women ?were ?not ?traumatized ?by ?offences ?or ?were ?harmed ?less ?than ?other ?survivors, ?it ?seems ?more ?likely ?that ?courts ?were ?less ?able ?to ?recognize ?their ?harm ?within ?lives ?of ??risk? ?or ?to ?see ?it ?as ?exacerbated, ?not ?lessened, ?by ?their ?vulnerability. ? ? ? Judicial ?language ?also ?undermined ?the ?credibility ?of ?survivors ?with ?the ?terms ??complainant?, ??accused? ?and ??defendant? ?despite ?convictions ?or ?guilty ?pleas. ?With ?these ?words, ?courts ?suggested ?offenders ?could ?be ?innocent. ? ? ? The ?theme ?that ?sexual ?offences ?were, ?in ?some ?cases, ?more ?akin ?to ?consensual ?sex ?was ?reproduced ?in ?how ?judges ?constructed ?offences. ?In ?some ?cases, ?judges ?downplayed ?direct ?violence, ?force, ?or ?threats ?evident ?in ?the ?facts. ?They ?also ?categorized ?some ?offences ?as ?non-??violent ?based ?on ?stereotypical ?notions ?of ?violence. ?The ?most ?obvious ?of ?these ?cases ?were ?when ?judges ?found ?that ?survivors ?consented ?to ?offences, ?in ?spite ?of ?their ?legal ?incapacity ?to ?do ?so, ?based ?on ?their ?youth ?and ?therefore ?vulnerability ?in ?relation ?to ?the ?offender. ? ? ? ? Drawing ?on ?myths ?about ?real ?rape ?being ?committed ?by ?strangers, ?courts ?characterized ?some ?offences ?as ?opportunistic ?and ?some ?as ?predatory, ?a ?distinction ?seemingly ?based ?on ?prior ?acquaintance ?or ?pre-??planning. ?This ?distinction ?as ?well ?as ?the ?interpretation ?that ?stranger ?offences ?were ?especially ?serious ?ignored ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence ?based ?of ?rape ?myths. ? ? ? In ?some ?cases, ?courts ?used ?doctrine ?and ?discourse ?to ?construct ?offences ?as ??mistakes? ?or ??advances.? ?By ?downplaying ?sexual ?violence ?as ?a ??mistake?, ?courts ? ? 208 ?breathed ?life ?into ?the ?myth ?that ?sexual ?violence ?is ?a ?miscommunication ?between ?men ?and ?women, ?committed ?by ?well-??meaning ?men ?trying ?to ?form ?a ?romantic ?connection. ?These ?constructions ?reinforced ?the ?gender ?norm ?of ?males ?as ?sexually ?aggressive ?and ?women ?as ?passive. ?It ?also ?placed ?the ?onus ?on ?women ?to ?resist ?or ?respond ?and ?trivialized ?sexual ?assaultive ?touching. ? ? Judicial ?discourse ?that ?conveyed ?ideas ?of ?mutuality ?and ?eroticism ?rather ?than ?violence ?and ?force ?reinforced ?the ?idea ?of ?sexual ?violence ?as ?wanted ?sex. ?Using ?erotic ?and ?affectionate ?language ?as ?well ?as ?neutral ?language, ?terms ?like ??intercourse,? ??sex,? ??oral ?sex,? ?and ??fondle,? ?to ?describe ?sexual ?violence ?confused ?it ?with ?consensual ?sex, ?blurring ?the ?legal ?distinction ?between ?the ?two. ?By ?using ?these ?terms, ?courts ?also ?legitimized ?and ?prioritized ?the ?perspectives ?of ?offenders ?while ?denying ?the ?perspectives ?and ?experiences ?of ?survivors ?of ?force, ?fear, ?and ?loss ?of ?control. ?As ?I ?discussed, ?judges ?may ?have ?used ?this ?language ?to ?sanitize ?offences, ?making ?the ?facts ?easier ?to ?bear; ?however, ?it ?misrepresented ?the ?horrific ?nature ?of ?sexual ?violence ?within ?the ?law. ? ? When ?courts ?characterized ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violent, ?they ?were ?also ?portrayed ?as ?committed ?by ?men ?acting ?individually ?and ?irrationally. ?Courts ?presumed ?that ?intoxication ?caused ?sexual ?violence, ?isolating ?offences ?from ?social ?influences ?like ?inequality. ?Although ?courts ?sometimes ?considered ?offenders? ?misogyny, ?they ?did ?not ?identify ?inequality ?as ?causing ?and ?contributing ?to ?sexual ?violence. ?Attributing ?crimes ?to ?intoxication ?rather ?than ?offenders? ?choices ?to ?be ?violent ?had ?a ?similar ?effect ?as ?denying ?the ?violence ?of ?offences: ?it ?reframed ?offences ?as ?not ?inherently ?and ?essentially ?violent ?and ?refocused ?agency ?outside ?offenders. ? ? 209 ? ? Courts ?also ?obscured ?offenders? ?agency ?by ?grammar. ?In ?some ?cases, ?the ?language ?judges ?used ?made ?offences ?appear ?to ?occur ?on ?their ?own, ?without ?the ?direct ?involvement ?or ?agency ?of ?offenders. ?Using ?passive ?voice ?and ?nominalizations, ?courts ?sometimes ?removed ?offenders ?from ?narratives ?of ?their ?crimes. ?As ?well, ?sometimes ?courts ?presented ?survivors ?as ?co-??agents ?to ?sexual ?offences. ? ? Within ?the ?case ?sample ?was ?the ?myth ?that ??good? ?men ?are ?not ?real ?sexual ?offenders. ?Courts ?saw ?employed, ?family, ?church-??involved, ?and ?reputable ?men ?as ?less ?blameworthy, ?more ?amenable ?to ?rehabilitation, ?suffering ?greater ?consequences ?from ?criminal ?conviction, ?and ?less ?likely ?to ?reoffend. ?As ?argued ?by ?Balfour ?and ?Du ?Mont, ?these ?offenders ?are ?more ?often ?deemed ?to ?be ?manageable ?in ?the ?community ?and ?worth ?the ?risk ?to ?the ?public ?for ?the ?contributions ?they ?make ?to ?society.821 ?Poor ?men, ?racialized ?men, ?or ?single ?men, ?men ?not ?making ?the ?contributions ?expected ?under ?the ?white ?middle-??class ?ideal, ?can ?perhaps ?be ?scapegoated ?as ?less ?likely ?to ?change ?their ?stripes ?and ?less ?worth ?the ?risk ?to ?the ?community. ?Courts ?ignored ?the ?power ?imbalances ?that ?uniquely ?positioned ?men ?to ?abuse ?their ?positions ?and ?statuses ?to ?find ?targets ?for ?offences, ?to ?coerce ?or ?manipulate ?survivors ?into ?silence, ?and ?to ?escape ?punishment. ?Courts ?did ?not ?question ?the ?relevance ?of ?evidence ?of ??goodness? ?to ?offenders? ?blameworthiness, ?or ?to ?the ?recognition ?of ?harm, ?insight, ?or ?empathy ?for ?survivors ?they ?or ?their ?communities ?or ?families ?showed. ? ? I ?caution ?my ?findings ?do ?not ?speak ?to ?judges? ?intention ?to ?discriminate. ?Typically, ?I ?observed ?that ?judges ?were ?respectful ?of ?survivors ?and ?careful ?in ?their ?constructions ?of ?sexual ?offences ?as ?violent ?and ?harmful. ?Nonetheless, ?intention ?is ?not ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?821 ?Balfour ?& ?Du ?Mont, ?supra ?note ?179 ?at ?718?722. ? ? 210 ?necessary ?to ?reproduce ?rape ?myths. ?Like ?all ?of ?us, ?judges ?are ?steeped ?in ?an ?unequal ?society, ?socialized ?into ?gender ?roles, ?and ?exposed ?to ??commonsense? ?stories ?about ?rape ?and ?sexual ?violence. ?Judges ?are ?also ?situated ?within ?a ?legal ?institution ?with ?a ?long ?history ?of ?constructing ?sexual ?violence ?according ?to ?rape ?myths. ?These ?influences ?are ?not ?only ?powerful, ?but ?also ?invisible. ? ?Unfinished ?Reforms ? ? The ?goals ?of ?the ?feminist ?intervention ?in ?the ?law ?beginning ?in ?the ?1970s ?were ?substantive ?equality ?and ?the ?elimination ?of ?rape ?myths. ?That ?these ?goals ?have ?yet ?to ?be ?achieved ?suggests ?reforms ?have ?not ?been ?entirely ?successful. ?By ?tracking ?the ?law?s ?use ?of ?rape ?myths ?up ?until ?now, ?we ?see ?that ?they ?are ?less ?explicit ?and ?perhaps ?less ?common; ?we ?also ?see ?that ?they ?have ?sometimes ?changed ?guises, ?from ?chastity ?and ?morality ?to ?rationality ?and ?caution; ?in ?other ?senses, ?we ?see ?that ?they ?have ?changed ?little, ?if ?at ?all. ? ? ? While ?acknowledging ?that ?prejudice ?continues, ?some ?feminist ?scholars ?see ?the ?law?s ?potential ?to ?promote ?women?s ?equality. ?Vandervort ?argues ?Canada?s ?law ?of ?affirmative ?consent ?is ?sufficiently ?robust ?to ?safeguard ?the ?sexual ?autonomy ?and ?self-??determination ?of ?women. ?She ?argues ?that ?the ?continuous ?use ?of ?stereotypical ?beliefs ?about ?survivors ?and ?misunderstandings ?of ?the ?law ?by ?police, ?prosecutors ?and ?judges ?contribute ?to ?the ?failure ?of ?the ?law ?to ?reach ?its ?potential.822 ?Wright ?holds ?a ?similar ?view, ?finding ?the ?problem ?not ?with ?the ?law ?but ?with ?dominant ?social ?beliefs ?and ?attitudes ?that ?act ?as ??an ?obstacle ?to ?realizing ?the ?social ?benefits ?of ?a ?revised ?sexual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?822 ?Vandervort, ?supra ?note ?185 ?at ?438?442. ? ? 211 ?assault ?law.?823 ?She ?argues ?the ?law ?can ?be ?transformed ?with ?the ?redefinition ?of ?consent, ?in ?both ?legal ?and ?social ?narratives, ??to ?empower ?women ?and ?men ?to ?create ?new ?sexual ?scripts ?that ?are ?not ?limited ?by ?the ?faults ?of ?the ?old ?one.?824 ? ? Although ?the ?law ?of ?affirmative ?consent ?is ?undercut ?by ?social ?norms, ?including ?the ?currency ?of ?rape ?myths ?in ?wider ?culture, ?the ?problem ?is ?arguably ?more ?fundamental. ?Liberalism ?and ?neoliberalism ?individualizes ?sexual ?offences, ?rendering ?them ?as ?isolated ?events ?between ?offenders ?and ?survivors. ?This ?perspective ?ignores ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence: ?it ?ignores ?the ?contextual ?restraints ?that ?make ?actions ?or ?circumstances ?of ?survivors ?unavoidable ?or ?necessary, ?instead ?portraying ?them ?as ?risky, ?and ?it ?ignores ?the ?social ?power ?and ?privilege ?of ?offenders ?and ?the ?prevalence ?of ?their ?violence, ?instead ?portraying ?offences ?as ?arising ?from ?illogicality ?or ?loss ?of ?control. ?As ?discussed ?by ?Gotell, ??[v]ulnerability ?is ?reconstructed ?as ?a ?failure ?of ?responsibility ?and ?women ?who ?occupy ?spaces ?of ?risk ?become ?reframed ?as ?sexual ?threats, ?thereby ?legitimizing ?and ?normalizing ?deviations ?from ?responsibilized ?masculine ?sexual ?subjectivity.?825 ?As ?a ?result, ?women ?facing ?intersectional ?inequalities ?are ?less ?likely ?to ?find ?reforms ?have ?transformed ?the ?law: ?as ?my ?study ?and ?others ?before ?it ?have ?illustrated, ?reforms ?have ?had ?less ?influence ?on ?the ?experiences ?of ?the ?most ?vulnerable ?women ?in ?the ?criminal ?justice ?system.826 ? ? McIntyre ?and ?her ?contributors ?persuasively ?identified ?the ?problem ?with ?the ?formal ?equality ?approach ?to ?sexual ?violence: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?823 ?Wright, ?supra ?note ?197 ?at ?201. ?824 ?Ibid ?at ?203. ?825 ?Gotell, ??Rethinking ?Consent?, ?supra ?note ?1 ?at ?898. ?826 ?See ?e.g. ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211; ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93; ?Gotell, ??Tracking ?Decisions?, ?supra ?note ?189. ? ? 212 ?Gender ?neutral ?language ?and ?rules ?only ?obscure ?gender ?specific ?problems ?and, ?particularly ?the ?linkages ?between ?sexualized ?violence, ?systemic ?social ?inequality ?and ?the ?systemically ?unequal ?treatment ?of ?rape ?survivors ?in ?and ?by ?law. ?De-??sexing ?legal ?language ?and ?rules ?does ?not ?de-??sex ?the ?context ?in ?which ?sexual ?violence ?occurs, ?is ?(infrequently) ?reported ?and ?is ?legally ?processed; ?nor ?does ?it ?de-??sex ?the ?"common ?sense" ?or ?subjective ?premises ?underlying ?relevancy ?determinations. ?Finally, ?the ?(hetero)sexist, ?racist, ?ablist ?and ?classist ?biases ?and ?stereotypes ?about ?"women" ?as ?a ?class ?or ?about ?particular ?constituencies ?of ?women ?that ?distort ?the ?fact ?finding ?process ?are ?not ?"irrational" ?biases ?curable ?with ?a ?little ?education ?once ?exposed ?to ?light. ?They ?are ?the ?predictable ?outcomes ?of ?systemically ?institutionalized ?relations ?of ?domination ?which ?rationalize ?expropriations ?in ?a ?variety ?of ?forms, ?including ?sexual.827 ? ?Essentially, ?reforms ?that ?treat ?all ?individuals ?alike ?do ?not ?combat ?the ?reality ?of ?sexual ?violence ?and ?the ?structural ?inequality ?that ?enables ?it; ?nor ?do ?they ?oust ?discriminatory ?presumptions ?embedded ?in ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?as ?well ?as ?public ?consciousness, ?which ?result ?from ?institutional-??and ?ideologically-??supported ?inequality. ? ? ? Dismantling ?inequality ?in ?society ?may ?be ?necessary ?to ?truly ?address ?inequality ?in ?the ?law, ?but ?a ?more ?preliminary ?step ?would ?simply ?be ?for ?the ?law ?to ?recognize ?its ?existence ?and ?influence. ?When ?inequality ?is ?not ?a ?consideration ?in ?interpreting ?and ?applying ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent, ?the ?restrictions ?on ?sexual ?history ?evidence, ?the ?seriousness ?of ?offences, ?or ?offenders? ?blameworthiness, ?equality ?is ?not ?likely ?to ?emerge. ? ? To ?achieve ?a ?sexual ?assault ?law ?based ?on ?equality ?rather ?than ?rape ?myths, ?equality ?must ?be ?considered. ?According ?to ?the ?L?Heureux-??Dub? ?J., ?the ?law ?must ?be ?cognizant ?of ?the ?gender ?inequality ?underlying ?sexual ?violence ?and ?the ?law.828 ?My ?findings ?point ?to ?the ?same ?conclusion. ?One ?way ?of ?doing ?this ?would ?be ?to ?ensure ?that ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?827 ?McIntyre, ?supra ?note ?23 ?at ?78. ?828 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?, ?supra ?note ?11 ?at ?4. ? ? 213 ?judges ?are ?cognizant ?of ?inequality ?in ?how ?they ?interpret ?and ?apply ?doctrine ?and ?the ?discourse ?they ?use. ? ? I ?have ?considered ?in ?a ?preliminary ?fashion ?factors ?that ?would ?recognize ?gender ?and ?other ?forms ?of ?inequality, ?or ?what ?I ?consider ?to ?be ?a ?feminist ?approach ?to ?sentencing. ?A ?fulsome ?analysis ?of ?the ?best ?factors ?for ?an ?equality ?analysis ?and ?what ?legal ?reforms ?would ?be ?necessary ?to ?ensure ?courts ?consistently ?considered ?these ?factors ?in ?sentencing ?are ?beyond ?the ?scope ?of ?this ?thesis; ?perhaps ?this ?is ?an ?area ?for ?further ?research. ?That ?said, ?I ?suggest ?this ?approach ?would ?reject ?factors ?that ?rely ?on ?rape ?myths ?for ?their ?relevance ?and ?rationale. ?Instead ?it ?would ?focus ?on ?inequality ?and ?vulnerability ?as ?experienced ?by ?both ?survivors ?and ?offenders. ? ? To ?assess ?the ?seriousness ?of ?the ?offence, ?courts ?consider ?a ?number ?of ?factors, ?among ?them ?violence ?and ?whether ?the ?offender ?was ?predatory. ?Relying ?on ?Benedet?s ?and ?Grant?s ?works ?on ?the ?doctrine ?of ?consent ?in ?the ?context ?of ?adolescents ?and ?women ?with ?cognitive ?disabilities, ?I ?suggest ?courts ?should ?consider ?the ?vulnerability ?of ?the ?survivor ?relative ?to ?the ?power ?of ?the ?offender ?and ?the ?offender?s ?exploitation ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability. ?Using ?this ?sort ?of ?analysis, ?courts ?would ?meaningfully ?consider ?factors ?relating ?to ?inequality ?and ?vulnerability: ?gender; ?age; ?positions ?of ?authority, ?trust ?or ?dependence, ?including ?within ?families, ?workplaces, ?and ?schools; ?incapacity; ?disability; ?Aboriginality; ?and ?so ?on.829 ? ? ? By ?considering ?inequalities ?and ?vulnerabilities ?when ?addressing ?force, ?violence, ?and ?whether ?survivors ??agreed?, ?courts ?could ?more ?readily ?recognize ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?829 ?Benedet, ??Age ?of ?Innocence?, ?supra ?note ?93 ?at ?680?687; ?Benedet, ??Registry?, ?supra ?note ?368 ?at ?453?456; ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Consent?, ?supra ?note ?211 ?at ?284?286; ?See ?also ?Benedet ?& ?Grant, ??Situational?, ?supra ?note ?211. ? ? 214 ?coercion, ?manipulation, ?and ?power ?relationships ?that ?make ?survivors, ?particularly ?adolescent ?survivors, ?feel ?that ?they ?cannot ?say ?no ?or ?resist, ?helping ?courts ?resist ?equating ?physical ?passivity ?or ?conditioning ?with ?consent. ?Courts ?could ?also ?identify ?the ?blameworthiness ?of ?exploiting ?vulnerability ?and ?consider ?the ?cumulative ?harm ?to ?survivors ?vulnerable ?to ?abuse ?and ?violence. ?For ?example, ?in ?considering ?gender, ?class, ?and ?racial ?inequality ?in ?a ?case ?of ?sexual ?violence ?against ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution, ?courts ?could ?see ?the ?offender?s ?sexualization ?and ?objectification ?of ?poor ?and ?Aboriginal ?or ?racialized ?women, ?helping ?them ?identify ?the ?survivor?s ?vulnerability, ?but ?also ?the ?violent ?and ?exploitative ?nature ?of ?the ?offender?s ?crime ?and ?the ?cumulative ?harm ?to ?women ?who ?experience ?frequent ?and ?serious ?violence. ?Courts ?could ?recognize ?the ?perpetrator?s ?offence ?against ?a ?woman ?in ?prostitution ?as ?reproducing ?inequality: ?a ?part ?of ?what ?keeps ?her ?vulnerable, ?marginalized, ?and ?unequal, ?and ?constructs ?her ?as ?an ?appropriate ?target ?for ?male ?sexual ?violence. ? ? Courts ?should ?not ?stop ?looking ?at ?the ?level ?of ?violence ?offenders ?commit, ?but ?should ?broaden ?their ?understanding ?of ?violence ?to ?coercion, ?manipulation, ?and ?exploitation. ?As ?suggested ?by ?others, ?rather ?than ?comparing ?offences ?to ?a ?stereotypical ?rape, ?a ?better ?approach ?would ?be ?to ?consider ?the ?violence ?and ?harm ?as ?experienced ?by ?the ?survivor, ?including ?fear, ?humiliation, ?loss ?of ?trust, ?physical ?injury, ?and ?psychological ?trauma.830 ? ? To ?recognize ?the ?prevalence ?of ?sexual ?violence ?across ?society, ?an ?analysis ?cognizant ?of ?gender ?inequality ?would ?also ?limit ?the ?relevance ?of ?factors ?in ?sexual ?offender ?sentencing ?such ?as ?an ?offender?s ?professional ?standing, ?educational ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?830 ?See ?generally ?Boyle, ?supra ?note ?62 ?at ?180; ?Pasquali, ?supra ?note ?51 ?at ?25, ?27; ?Goldsberry, ?supra ?note ?91 ?at ?111. ? ? 215 ?attainment, ?family ?status, ?community ?reputation, ?or ?church ?allegiance, ?beyond ?the ?positive ?support ?family, ?friends, ?and ?community ?offer ?in ?rehabilitation. ?Further, ?courts ?would ?challenge ?the ?support ?offered, ?ensuring ?that ?individuals, ?institutions, ?and ?communities ?supporting ?the ?offender ?considered ?whether ?they ?played ?a ?role ?in ?facilitating ?the ?circumstances ?within ?which ?the ?offender ?committed ?sexual ?violence ?or ?in ?failing ?to ?support ?the ?survivor. ?An ?equality ?analysis ?would ?also ?question ?the ?link ?between ?intoxication ?and ?abuse, ?and ?consider ?whether ?alcohol ?or ?drugs ?were ?causative ?agents ?or ?rather ?excuses ?for ?the ?offender ?to ?act ?on ?his ?belief ?he ?could ?dominant ?and ?control ?women. ? ? Of ?course, ?some ?factors ?should ?be ?mitigating. ?I ?argued ?at ?the ?end ?of ?Chapter ?V ?that ?courts ?should ?continue ?to ?consider ?factors ?that ?situate ?the ?offender ?in ?a ?social ?world ?that ?normalizes ?and ?justifies ?violence ?to ?ensure ?they ?do ?not ?blame ?the ?individual ?entirely ?for ?society?s ?sexism. ?They ?should ?also ?consider ?the ?offender?s ?own ?experiences ?of ?inequality ?and ?subordination, ?including ?the ?legacy ?of ?colonialism ?and ?experiences ?of ?sexual ?abuse, ?to ?assess ?how ?the ?offender ?learned ?to ?commit ?violence. ? ? ? A ?feminist ?analysis ?would ?also ?require ?judges ?to ?critically ?examine ?the ?language ?they ?use ?to ?narrate ?sexual ?violence. ?Courts ?would ?question ?whether ?their ?language ?reflects ?the ?offender?s ?or ?the ?survivor?s ?perception ?of ?the ?crime. ?Courts ?would ?ensure ?language ?describing ?sexual ?assault ?conveyed ?that ?it ?was ?forceful, ?violent, ?and ?frightening, ?and ?committed ?solely ?by ?the ?offender. ?Using ?this ?approach, ?judges ?would ?refrain ?from ?using ?language ?that ?eroticized ?offences, ?sexualized ?survivors, ?or ?painted ?the ?offender?s ?motivations ?as ?intimacy ?or ?affection. ?They ?would ? ? 216 ?question ?whether ?survivors ?appeared ?relatively ?unimportant ?or ?seemed ?to ?incite ?offences ?in ?their ?written ?decisions. ?They ?would ?also ?ensure ?that ?the ?terms ?they ?use ?to ?identify ?offenders ?and ?survivors ?reflect ?the ?legal ?finding ?of ?guilt ?and ?validation ?of ?the ?survivor?s ?complaint. ? ? A ?judicial ?commitment ?to ?equality ?in ?doctrine ?and ?discourse ?does ?not ?require ?courts ?to ?order ?longer ?or ?harsher ?sentences ?for ?sexual ?offenders. ?In ?fact, ?a ?consideration ?of ?equality ?factors ?may ?suggest ?the ?need ?for ?greater ?lenience ?and ?mercy: ?when ?the ?linkages ?between ?sexual ?violence ?and ?inequality ?are ?recognized, ?the ?responsibility ?and ?complicity ?of ?social ?institutions ?and ?the ?discrimination ?certain ?offenders ?face ?may ?become ?apparent. ?Considered ?in ?the ?context ?of ?inequality, ?sexual ?violence ?is ?not ?an ?offence ?committed ?entirely ?by ?the ?offender, ?but ?an ?offence ?supported ?by ?larger ?forces. ?Individual ?responsibility ?is ?a ?pillar ?of ?our ?criminal ?justice ?system; ?however, ?gender ?inequality ?is ?a ?larger ?problem ?for ?which ?we ?are ?all ?responsible. ? ? If ?sexual ?violence ?is ?contextualized ?as ?an ?expression ?of ?gender ?inequality, ?maybe ?courts ?will ?rid ?themselves ?of ?the ?tendency ?to ?see ?some ?acts ?of ?violence ?as ?sex ?and ?to ?rely ?on ?rape ?myths ?altogether. ?Once ?it ?has ?eliminated ?discrimination ?and ?inequality ?within ?legal ?doctrine ?and ?discourse, ?the ?law ?will ?be ?better ?placed ?to ?use ?its ?powerful ?voice ?to ?challenge ?social ?stereotypes ?about ?sexual ?violence ?and ?women ?and ?to ?promote ?women?s ?equality ?in ?Canadian ?society. ? ? ? ? ? 217 ?Bibliography ?LEGISLATION ?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. ? ?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. ? ?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. ? ?Bill ?C-??49, ?An ?Act ?to ?Amend ?the ?Criminal ?Code ?(sexual ?assault), ?3rd ?Sess, ?34th ?Parl, ?1992, ?SC ?1992, ?c ?38. ? ?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. ? ?Bill ?S-??2, ?Protecting ?Victims ?from ?Sex ?Offenders ?Act, ?3rd ?Sess, ?40th ?Parl, ?2010, ?SC ?2010, ?c ?17. ? ?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. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1892, ?c ?29. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1920, ?c ?43. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1948, ?c ?39. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?RSC ?1970 ?c ?C-??34. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?SC ?1976-??77, ?c ?53. ? ?Criminal ?Code, ?RSC ?1985, ?c ?C-??46. ? ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act, ?SC ?1972, ?c ?13. ? ?Criminal ?Law ?Amendment ?Act, ?SC ?1974-??75-??76, ?c ?93. ? ? ? 218 ? ?Sex ?Offender ?Information ?Registration ?Act, ?SC ?2004, ?c ?10. ?JURISPRUDENCE ?R. ?v. ?B.S., ?2012 ?BCCA ?36 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ? ?R. ?v. ?D.A.R., ?2011 ?BCPC ?500 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?D.G.S. ?(2004), ?72 ?OR ?(3d) ?223, ?2004 ?CanLII7198 ?(Ont ?CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Darrach, ?2000 ?SCC ?46, ?[2000] ?2 ?SCR ?443. ? ?R. ?v. ?Esau, ?[1997] ?2 ?SCR ?777, ?148 ?DLR ?(4th) ?662. ? ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?1998 ?ABCA ?52, ?57 ?Alta ?LR ?(3d) ?235 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Ewanchuk, ?[1999] ?1 ?SCR ?330, ?169 ?DLR ?(4th) ?193, ?rev?g ?1998 ?ABCA ?52, ?57 ?Alta ?LR ?(3d) ?235. ? ?R. ?v. ?Gabriel ?(1999), ?137 ?CCC ?(3d) ?1, ?26 ?CR ?(5th) ?364 ?(Ont ?SC). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gladue, ?[1999] ?1 ?SCR ?688, ?171 ?DLR ?(4th) ?385. ? ?R. ?v. ?Ipeelee, ?2012 ?SCC ?13, ?[2012] ?1 ?SCR ?433. ? ?R. ?v. ?J.A., ?2011 ?SCC ?28, ?[2011] ?SCR ?440. ? ?R. ?v. ?M.(C.A.), ?[1996] ?1 ?SCR ?500, ?105 ?CCC ?(3d) ?327. ? ?R. ?v. ?M.(M.L.), ?[1994] ?2 ?SCR ?3, ?89 ?CCC ?(3d) ?96. ? ?R. ?v. ?Mills, ?[1999] ?3 ?SCR ?330, ?169 ?DLR ?(4th) ?193. ? ?R. ?v. ?O?Connor, ?[1995] ?4 ?SCR ?411, ?130 ?DLR ?(4th) ?235. ? ?R. ?v. ?Osolin, ?[1993] ?4 ?SCR ?595, ?109 ?DLR ?(4th) ?478. ? ?R. ?v. ?Park, ?[1995] ?2 ?SCR ?836, ?99 ?CCC ?(3d) ?1. ? ?R. ?v. ?Profit, ?[1993] ?3 ?SCR ?637, ?85 ?CCC ?(3d) ?232. ? ?R. ?v. ?Sazant, ?2004 ?SCC ?77, ?[2004] ?3 ?SCR ?635. ? ?R. ?v. ?Seaboyer; ?R. ?v. ?Gayme, ?[1991] ?2 ?SCR ?577, ?1991 ?CarswellOnt ?109. ? ? ? 219 ?R. ?v. ?Stender, ?2005 ?SCC ?36, ?[2005] ?1 ?SCR ?914. ? ?R. ?v. ?Stone, ?[1999] ?2 ?SCR ?290, ?173 ?DLR ?(4th) ?66. ? ?Rex ?v. ?Fiola ?(1918), ?29 ?CCC ?125, ?41 ?D.L.R. ?73 ?(Q ?Ct ?SP). ? ?Rex ?v. ?Stonehouse ?and ?Pasquale, ?[1928] ?1 ?WWR ?161, ?39 ?BCR ?279 ?(BCCA). ? ? The ?Case ?Sample ?R. ?v. ?A.J.L., ?2012 ?BCPC ?420 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Alasti, ?2011 ?BCSC ?824 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Alkenbrack, ?2011 ?BCPC ?424 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Allard, ?2011 ?BCSC ?915 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Allen, ?2012 ?BCSC ?215 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?rev?d ?2012 ?BCCA ?377. ? ?R. ?v. ?Allen, ?2012 ?BCCA ?377 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?rev?g ?2012 ?BCSC ?215. ? ?R. ?v. ?A.S.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?412 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?A.T.R., ?2011 ?BCPC ?283 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Billyboy, ?2011 ?BCSC ?366 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?B.L., ?2011 ?BCPC ?254 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Boden, ?2012 ?BCPC ?331 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?C.K.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?482 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?DaPonte, ?2012 ?BCSC ?52 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Dariani, ?2011 ?BCCA ?143 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?D.B.D., ?2012 ?BCPC ?324 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?D.B.V., ?2011 ?BCSC ?1350 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?D.C.E., ?2012 ?BCPC ?491 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Elbasani, ?2012 ?BCPC ?211 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? 220 ? ?R. ?v. ?E.M., ?2011 ?BCPC ?91 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?F.A.B., ?2012 ?BCPC ?362 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gonzales, ?2011 ?BCPC ?353 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gonzalez-??Hernandez, ?2011 ?BCSC ?1039 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Greenhalgh, ?2011 ?BCSC ?511 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff?d ?2012 ?BCCA ?236. ? ?R. ?v. ?Greenhalgh, ?2012 ?BCCA ?236 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff??g ?2011 ?BCSC ?511. ? ?R. ?v. ?Hamade, ?2012 ?BCPC ?80 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?H.A.S., ?2012 ?BCPC ?283 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?HPH, ?2012 ?BPCP ?261 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?J.L.C., ?2012 ?BCSC ?623 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?2011 ?BCSC ?345 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Klassen, ?2012 ?BCCA ?405 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?K.L.L., ?2012 ?BCPC ?273 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Kontzamanis, ?2011 ?BCCA ?269 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff?g ?R. ?v. ?P.P.K., ?2010 ?BCSC ?460. ? ?R. ?v. ?L. ?et ?al., ?2012 ?BCPC ?503 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Lindstrom, ?2012 ?BCPC ?354 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Malik, ?2012 ?BCSC ?502 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Munt, ?2012 ?BCCA ?228 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Nelson, ?2012 ?BCPC ?348 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Nguyen, ?2012 ?BCPC ?97 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?P.M.A., ?2012 ?BCPC ?159 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Pratt, ?2011 ?BCPC ?382 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? ? 221 ?R. ?v. ?Preuschoff, ?2012 ?BCPC ?73 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Rao ?and ?MacFadden, ?2012 ?BCSC ?929 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Reis, ?2011 ?BCSC ?319 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.L.W., ?2011 ?BCSC ?1363 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.M.D., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1889 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.N.A., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1527 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.V.C., ?2012 ?BCPC ?502 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.W.V., ?2011 ?BCPC ?471 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?rev?d ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?2012 ?BCCA ? ? ? 290. ? ?R. ?v. ?Semchuk, ?2011 ?BCSC ?1553 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?S.D.D., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1406 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?S.D.R., ?2012 ?BCPC ?414 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Singh, ?2012 ?BCSC ?466 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?S.S.E., ?2012 ?BCSC ?1223 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?S.W.N., ?2012 ?BCPC ?436 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?T.B.M., ?2012 ?BCSC ?286 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?T.G.D., ?2012 ?BCPC ?397 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?T.J.H., ?2012 ?BCPC ?115 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Visscher, ?2012 ?BCCA ?290 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?rev?g ?R. ?v. ?R.W.V., ?2011 ?BCPC ?471. ? ?R. ?v. ?W., ?2011 ?BCPC ?462 ?(available ?on ?CanLII) ?), ?aff?d ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?2012 ?BCCA ?454. ? ?R. ?v. ?Wheeler, ?2011 ?BCCA ?248 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Williams, ?2011 ?BCCA ?194 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? ? 222 ?R. ?v. ?Worthington, ?2012 ?BCCA ?454 ?(available ?on ?CanLII), ?aff?g ?R. ?v. ?W., ?2011 ?BCPC ?462. ? ?R. ?v. ?Wright, ?2011 ?BCPC ?350 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? ?R. ?v. ?W.S., ?2012 ?BCPC ?310 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Yusuf, ?2011 ?BCSC ?626 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ?R. ?v. ?Zuvun, ?2012 ?BCPC ?523 ?(available ?on ?CanLII). ? ? The ?1970s ?Case ?Sample ?R. ?v. ?A.A.J., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?747 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Alexcee, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?693 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Andrews, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?1023 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?B.A.K., ?[1979] ?1 ?WWR ?197, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?No ?1048 ?(QL) ?(SC). ? ?R. ?v. ?B.F.D., ?[1976] ?BCJ ?78 ?(QL) ?(SC). ? ?R. ?v. ?Bodde, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?278 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Bourgeois, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?221 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Bruce, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?743 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Brunner, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?574 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Capot-??Blanc, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?272 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Clark, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?823 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Commodore, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?664 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Conboy, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?837 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Coulombe, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?339 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Crockett, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?742 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Cudmore, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?646 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Dawson, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?61 ?(QL)(CA). ? ? 223 ? ?R. ?v. ?D.P.S., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?871 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?D.W.P., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?735 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Edelman, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?84 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?E.J.B., ?[1978] ?BCJ ?672 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Fraser, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?801 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gallagher, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?448 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Giesbrecht, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?No ?1158 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gillespie, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?601 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Graf, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?209 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Gravestock, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?666 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?G.S., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?153 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Hill, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?980 ?(QL) ?(SC). ? ?R. ?v. ?Hood, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?234 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Johns, ?[1979) ?BCJ ?757 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Kane, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?759 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?LeBlanc, ?[1976] ?BCJ ?580 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?McGowan, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?1930 ?(QL)(CoC). ? ?R. ?v. ?Miner, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?533 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Moulton, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?186 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Murray, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?818 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Palmer, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?758 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Papple, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?437 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Puglas, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?807 ?(QL)(CA). ? ? 224 ? ?R. ?v. ?Rai, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?196 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?R.D., ?[1975] ?BCJ ?113 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Rodgers, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?670 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Rosa, ?[1978] ?BCJ ?477 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Screeton, ?[1976] ?BC ?839 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Turner, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?879 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Uhrmann, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?101 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?V.A., ?[1977] ?BCJ ?717 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Wade, ?[1977] ?BCJ ?729 ?(QL)(CA). ? ?R. ?v. ?Ware, ?[1979] ?BCJ ?158 ?(QL)(CA). ? ? SECONDARY ?SOURCES: ?MONOGRAPHS ?Backhouse, ?Constance. ?Petticoats ?and ?Prejudice: ?Women ?and ?Law ?in ?Nineteenth ?Century ?Canada ?(Toronto: ?Published ?for ?Osgoode ?Society ?by ?Women?s ?Press, ?1991). ? ?Backhouse, ?Constance. ?Carnal ?Crimes: ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law ?in ?Canada, ?1900-??1975 ?(Toronto: ?Published ?for ?the ?Osgoode ?Society ?for ?Canadian ?Legal ?History ?by ?Irwin ?Law, ?2008). ? ?Boyle, ?Christine. ?Sexual ?Assault ?(Toronto: ?Carswell, ?1984). ? ?Brownmiller, ?Susan. ?Against ?Our ?Will: ?Men, ?Women ?and ?Rape ?(New ?York: ?Fawcett ?Books, ?1975). ? ?Clark, ?Lorenne ?M ?G ?& ?Debra ?J ?Lewis. ?Rape: ?The ?Price ?of ?Coercive ?Sexuality ?(Toronto: ?The ?Women?s ?Press, ?1977). ? ?Crankshaw, ?James. ?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). ? ? ? 225 ?Drysdale, ?Janet ?Lynn. ?Rape ?and ?the ?Law ?in ?Ontario, ?1892-??1930 ?(LL.M., ?York ?University, ?1988) ?[unpublished]. ? ?Ehrlich, ?Susan. ?Representing ?Rape: ?Language ?and ?Sexual ?Consent ?(New ?York: ?Routledge, ?2001). ? ?Ericson, ?Richard, ?Patricia ?Baranek ?& ?Janet ?Chan. ?Representing ?Order: ?Crime, ?Law ?and ?Justice ?in ?the ?News ?Media ?(Toronto: ?University ?of ?Toronto ?Press, ?1991). ? ?Hunt, ?Alan. ?Foucault ?and ?Law: ?Towards ?a ?Sociology ?of ?Law ?as ?Governance ?(London: ?Pluto ?Press, ?1994). ? ?Leyton-??Brown, ?Kenneth ?B. ?The ?Practice ?of ?Execution ?in ?Canada ?(Vancouver: ?UBC ?Press, ?2010). ? ?MacKinnon, ?Catharine. ?Feminism ?Unmodified: ?Discourses ?on ?Life ?and ?Law ?(London: ?Harvard ?University ?Press, ?1987). ? ?Mann, ?J. ?Dixon. ?Forensic ?Medicine ?and ?Toxicology, ?2d ?ed ?(London: ?Charles ?Griffing, ?1898). ? ?Manson, ?Allan. ?The ?Law ?of ?Sentencing, ?Essentials ?of ?Canadian ?Law ?(Toronto: ?Irwin ?Law, ?2001). ? ?Ramazanoglu, ?Caroline ?& ?Janet ?Holland. ?Feminist ?Methodology: ?Challenges ?and ?Choices ?(London: ?Sage, ?2002). ? ?Raphael, ?Jody. ?Rape ?Is ?Rape: ?How ?Denial, ?Distortion, ?and ?Victim ?Blaming ?Are ?Fueling ?a ?Hidden ?Acquaintance ?Rape ?Crisis ?(Chicago: ?Chicago ?Review ?Press, ?2013). ? ?Ruby, ?Clayton ?C, ?Gerald ?J ?Chan ?& ?Nader ?R ?Hasan. ?Sentencing, ?8th ?ed ?(Markham, ?Ont: ?LexisNexis ?Canada, ?2012). ? ?Smart, ?Carol. ?Feminism ?and ?the ?Power ?of ?Law, ?Sociology ?of ?Law ?and ?Crime ?(London: ?Routledge, ?2002). ? ?Strange, ?Carolyn. ?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). ? ?Temkin, ?Jennifer ?& ?Barbara ?Krah?. ?Sexual ?Assault ?and ?the ?Justice ?Gap: ?A ?Question ?of ?Attitude ?(Oxford ?and ?Portland, ?Oregon: ?Hart ?Publishing, ?2008). ? ?Wigmore, ?J.A. ?Evidence ?in ?Trials ?at ?Common ?Law, ?rev ?ed ?(1970). ? ? ? ? 226 ?SECONDARY ?SOURCES: ?ARTICLES ?Abrams, ?Kathryn. ??Sex ?Wars ?Redux: ?Agency ?and ?Coercion ?in ?Feminist ?Legal ?Theory? ?(1995) ?95 ?Colum ?L ?Rev ?304. ? ?Backhouse, ?Constance. ??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. ? ?Backhouse, ?Constance. ??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. ? ?Balfour, ?Gillian ?& ?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. ? ?Bartlett, ?Katharine ?T. ??Feminist ?Legal ?Methods? ?(1990) ?103:4 ?Harv ?L ?Rev ?829. ? ?Bavelas, ?Janet ?& ?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. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine. ??The ?Sexual ?Assault ?of ?Intoxicated ?Women? ?(2010) ?22:2 ?CJWL ?435. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine. ??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 ?Interdisciplinary ?Journal ?665. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine. ??A ?Victim-??Centred ?Evaluation ?of ?the ?Federal ?Sex ?Offender ?Registry? ?(2012) ?37:2 ?Queen?s ?LJ ?437. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine ?& ?Isabel ?Grant. ??Hearing ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complaints ?of ?Women ?with ?Mental ?Disabilities: ?Consent, ?Capacity, ?and ?Mistaken ?Belief? ?(2007) ?52 ?McGill ?LJ ?243. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine ?& ?Isabel ?Grant. ??Hearing ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complaints ?of ?Women ?with ?Mental ?Disabilities: ?Evidentiary ?and ?Procedural ?Issues? ?(2007) ?52 ?McGill ?LJ ?515. ? ?Benedet, ?Janine ?& ?Isabel ?Grant. ??A ?Situational ?Approach ?to ?Incapacity ?and ?Mental ?Disability ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law? ?(2011) ?43 ?Ottawa ?L ?Rev ?1. ? ?Coates, ?Linda. ??Causal ?Attributions ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments? ?(1997) ?16 ?Journal ?of ?Language ?and ?Social ?Psychology ?278. ? ? 227 ? ?Coates, ?Linda, ?Janet ?Beavin ?Bavelas ?& ?James ?Gibson. ??Anomalous ?Language ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Trial ?Judgments? ?(1994) ?5:2 ?Discourse ?& ?Society ?189. ? ?Coates, ?Linda ?& ?Allan ?Wade. ??Telling ?it ?like ?it ?isn?t: ?obscuring ?perpetrator ?responsibility ?for ?violent ?crime? ?(2004) ?15:5 ?Discourse ?& ?Society ?3. ? ?Comack, ?Elizabeth ?& ?Tracey ?Peter. ??How ?the ?Criminal ?Justice ?System ?Responds ?to ?Sexual ?Assault ?Survivors: ?The ?Slippage ?between ?Responsibilization ?and ?Blaming ?the ?Victim? ?(2005) ?17 ?CJWL ?283. ? ?Craig, ?Elaine. ??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. ? ?Craig, ?Elaine. ??The ?Relevance ?of ?Delayed ?Disclosure ?to ?Complainant ?Credibility ?in ?Cases ?of ?Sexual ?Offence? ?(2010) ?36 ?Queen?s ?LJ ?551. ? ?Crenshaw, ?Kimberle. ??Race, ?Gender, ?and ?Sexual ?Harassment? ?(1991) ?65 ?S ?Cal ?L ?Rev ?1467. ? ?Cunliffe, ?Emma. ??(This ?Is ?Not ?a) ?Story: ?Using ?Court ?Records ?to ?Explore ?Judicial ?Narratives ?in ?R ?v ?Kathleen ?Folbigg? ?(2007) ?27 ?Austl ?Feminist ?LJ ?71. ? ?Cunliffe, ?Emma ?& ?Angela ?Cameron. ??Writing ?the ?Circle: ?Judicially ?Convened ?Sentencing ?Circles ?and ?the ?Textual ?Organization ?of ?Criminal ?Justice? ?(2007) ?19 ?CJWL ?2. ? ?Derosa, ?Katie. ??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. ? ?Dinovitzer, ?Ronit. ??The ?Myth ?of ?Rapists ?and ?Other ?Normal ?Men: ?The ?Impact ?of ?Psychiatric ?Considerations ?on ?the ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ?Offenders? ?(1997) ?12 ?CJLS ?147. ? ?Dobinson, ?Ian ?& ?Francis ?Johns. ??Qualitative ?Legal ?Research? ?in ?Mike ?McConville ?& ?Wing ?Hong ?Chui, ?eds, ?Research ?Methods ?for ?Law ?(Edinburgh: ?Edinburgh ?University ?Press, ?2007) ?16. ? ?Du ?Mont, ?Janice. ??Charging ?and ?Sentencing ?in ?Sexual ?Assault ?Cases: ?An ?Exploratory ?Examination? ?(2003) ?15 ?CJWL ?305. ? ?Du ?Mont, ?Janice, ?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. ? ? ? 228 ?Epstein, ?Lee ?& ?Gary ?King. ??The ?Rules ?of ?Inference? ?(2002) ?69:1 ?U ?Chicago ?L ?Rev ?1. ? ?Gotell, ?Lise. ??When ?Privacy ?is ?Not ?Enough: ?Sexual ?Assault ?Complainants, ?Sexual ?History ?Evidence ?and ?the ?Disclosure ?of ?Personal ?Records? ?(2006) ?43 ?Alta ?L ?Rev ?743. ? ?Gotell, ?Lise. ??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. ? ?Gotell, ?Lise. ??Rethinking ?Affirmative ?Consent ?in ?Canadian ?Sexual ?Assault ?Law: ?Neoliberal ?Sexual ?Subjects ?and ?Risky ?Women? ?(2008) ?41 ?Akron ?L ?Rev ?865. ? ?Gotell, ?Lise. ??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. ? ?Grillo, ?Trina. ??Anti-??Essentialism ?and ?Intersectionality: ?Tools ?to ?Dismantle ?the ?Master?s ?House? ?(1995) ?10 ?Berkeley ?Women?s ?LJ ?16. ? ?Harris, ?Angela ?P. ??Race ?and ?Essentialism ?in ?Feminist ?Legal ?Theory? ?(1989) ?42 ?Stan ?L ?Rev ?581. ? ?Hutchinson, ?Terry ?& ?Nigel ?Duncan. ??Defining ?and ?Describing ?What ?We ?Do: ?Doctrinal ?Legal ?Research? ?(2012) ?17 ?Deakin ?Law ?Review ?83. ? ?Ip, ?Stephanie. ??Man ?charged ?with ?confinement, ?sexual ?assault; ?Investigation ?continues?, ?The ?Province ?(25 ?July ?2013) ?A15. ? ?Jackson, ?Michael. ??The ?Sentencing ?of ?Dangerous ?and ?Habitual ?Offenders ?in ?Canada? ?(1997) ?9:5 ?Federal ?Sentencing ?Reporter ?256. ? ?Johnson, ?Holly. ??Contrasting ?Views ?of ?the ?Role ?of ?Alcohol ?in ?Cases ?of ?Wife ?Assault? ?(2001) ?16:1 ?J ?Interpers ?Violence ?54. ? ?Johnson, ?Holly. ??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. ? ?L?Heureux-??Dub?, ?The ?Honourable ?Claire. ??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. ? ? ? 229 ?Lindberg, ?Tracey, ?Priscilla ?Campeau ?& ?Maria ?Campbell. ??Indigenous ?Women ?and ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada? ?in ?Elizabeth ?Sheehy, ?ed, ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?Law, ?Legal ?Practice ?and ?Women?s ?Activism ?(Ottawa: ?University ?of ?Ottawa ?Press, ?2012) ?87. ? ?MacFarlane, ?QC, ?Bruce ?A. ??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: ?. ? ?MacKinnon, ?Catharine ?A. ??Difference ?and ?Dominance: ?On ?Sex ?Discrimination? ?in ?Feminism ?Unmodified: ?Discourses ?on ?Life ?and ?Law ?(Cambridge, ?Mass: ?Harvard ?University ?Press, ?1987) ?32. ? ?MacKinnon, ?Catharine ?A. ??Reflections ?on ?Sex ?Equality ?Under ?Law? ?(1990) ?100 ?Yale ?LJ ?1281. ? ?MacKinnon, ?Catharine ?A. ??A ?Sex ?Equality ?Approach ?to ?Sexual ?Assault? ?(2003) ?989:1 ?Annals ?of ?the ?New ?York ?Academy ?of ?Sciences ?265. ? ?MacKinnon, ?Catharine ?A. ??Trafficking, ?Prostitution, ?and ?Inequality? ?(2011) ?46:2 ?Harv ?CR-??CLL ?Rev ?271. ? ?Marshall, ?Patricia. ??Sexual ?Assault, ?the ?Charter ?and ?Sentencing ?Reform? ?(1988) ?63 ?CR-??ART ?216. ? ?Martin, ?Dianne ?L. ??Retribution ?Revisited: ?A ?Reconsideration ?of ?Feminist ?Criminal ?Law ?Reform ?Strategies? ?(1998) ?36 ?Osgoode ?Hall ?L ?J ?151. ? ?McIntyre, ?Sheila. ??Tracking ?and ?Resisting ?Backlash ?Against ?Equality ?Gains ?in ?Sexual ?Offence ?Law? ?(2000) ?20:3 ?Canadian ?Woman ?Studies ?72. ? ?Mohr, ?Renate ?M. ??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. ? ?Nahanee, ?Teressa. ??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. ? ?Pether, ?Penelope. ??Critical ?Discourse ?Analysis, ?Rape ?Law ?and ?the ?Jury ?Instruction ?Simplification ?Project? ?(1999) ?24 ?S ?Ill ?U ?LJ ?53. ? ? ? 230 ?Petruk, ?Tim. ??Highway ?of ?Tears ?probe: ?Did ?this ?man ?kill ?again ?and ?again ?in ?Kamloops??, ?Kamloops ?This ?Week ?(26 ?September ?2012) ?1. ? ?Razack, ?Sherene ?H. ??Gendered ?Racial ?Violence ?and ?Spatialized ?Justice: ?The ?Murder ?of ?Pamela ?George? ?(2000) ?15 ?CJLS ?91. ? ?Robertson, ?Stephen. ??What?s ?Law ?Got ?to ?Do ?with ?It? ?Legal ?Records ?and ?Sexual ?Histories? ?(2005) ?14:1 ?Journal ?of ?the ?History ?of ?Sexuality ?161. ? ?Ruparelia, ?Rakhi. ??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. ? ?Savarese, ?Josephine ?L. ??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. ? ?Seymour, ?Andrew ?& ?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. ? ?Sheehy, ?Elizabeth. ??Evidence ?Law ?and ?Credibility ?Testing ?of ?Women: ?A ?Comment ?on ?the ?E ?Case? ?(2002) ?2 ?Queensland ?U ?Tech ?L ?& ?Just ?J ?157. ? ?Sheehy, ?Elizabeth. ??Editorial? ?(2011) ?23:1 ?CJWL ?iii. ? ?Smart, ?Carol. ??The ?Woman ?of ?Legal ?Discourse? ?(1992) ?1:1 ?Soc ?& ?Leg ?Stud ?29. ? ?Snider, ?Laureen. ??Feminism, ?Punishment ?and ?the ?Potential ?of ?Empowerment? ?(1994) ?9 ?CJLS ?75. ? ?Topping, ?C ?W. ??The ?Death ?Penalty ?in ?Canada? ?(1952) ?284 ?Annals ?of ?the ?American ?Academy ?of ?Political ?and ?Social ?Science ?147. ? ?Vandervort, ?Lucinda. ??Affirmative ?Sexual ?Consent ?in ?Canadian ?Law, ?Jurisprudence, ?and ?Legal ?Theory? ?(2012) ?23 ?Colum ?J ?Gender ?& ?L ?395. ? ?Warshaw, ?Robin. ??The ?Aftereffects ?of ?Acquaintance ?Rape? ?in ?I ?Never ?Called ?it ?Rape: ?the ?Ms ?Report ?on ?Recognizing, ?Fighting, ?and ?Surviving ?Date ?and ?Acquaintance ?Rape, ?1st ?HarperPerennial ?ed ?(New ?York: ?HarperPerennial, ?1994) ?65. ? ?Wonders, ?Nancy ?A. ??Determinate ?Sentencing: ?A ?Feminist ?and ?Postmodern ?Story? ?(1996) ?13 ?Just ?Q ?611. ? ?Wright, ?Joanne. ??Consent ?and ?Sexual ?Violence ?in ?Canadian ?Public ?Discourse: ?Reflections ?on ?Ewanchuk? ?(2001) ?16 ?CJLS ?173. ? ? 231 ? ?Yodanis, ?Carrie ?L. ??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. ? ??Exactly ?what ?the ?judge ?said ?to ?the ?convicted ?sex ?offender?, ?The ?Vancouver ?Sun ?(1 ?December ?1989) ?A17. ? ??Warning ?issued ?over ?sex ?offender?, ?Calgary ?Herald ?(12 ?June ?2007) ?B7. ? ??Man ?charged ?with ?assaulting ?woman?, ?Edmonton ?Journal ?(22 ?January ?2009) ?B4. ? ??Two ?Alberta ?men ?charged ?with ?child ?prostitution?, ?Kamloops ?Daily ?News ?(23 ?February ?2013) ?A7. ? ? OTHER ?MATERIALS ?Barnett, ?Laura ?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). ? ?Brennan, ?Shannon ?& ?Andrea ?Taylor-??Butts. ?Sexual ?Assault ?in ?Canada: ?2004 ?and ?2007, ?Canadian ?Centre ?for ?Justice ?Statistics ?Profile ?Series ?85F0033M ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2008). ? ?Goldsberry, ?Nancy. ?Rape ?in ?British ?Columbia: ?A ?Report ?to ?the ?Ministry ?of ?the ?Attorney-??General ?(Victoria, ?BC: ?Ministry ?of ?the ?Attorney-??General, ?1979). ? ?House ?of ?Commons ?Debates, ?1st ?Sess, ?30th ?Parl, ?Vol. ?9 ?(19 ?November ?1975) ?at ?9252 ?(Bill ?Jarvis). ? ?Johnson, ?Holly. ?Measuring ?Violence ?Against ?Women: ?Statistical ?Trends ?2006, ?Statistics ?Canada ?85-??570-??XIE ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2006). ? ?Pasquali, ?Paula ?E. ?No ?Rhyme ?or ?Reason: ?The ?Sentencing ?of ?Sexual ?Assault ?(Ottawa: ?Canadian ?Research ?Institute ?for ?the ?Advancement ?of ?Women, ?1995). ? ?Research ?Section, ?Justice ?Canada, ?A ?Review ?of ?the ?Sexual ?Assault ?Case ?Law ?1985-??1988, ?Sexual ?Assault ?Legislation ?in ?Canada: ?An ?Evaluation ?(Report ?No ?6) ?(Ottawa: ?Justice ?Canada, ?1992). ? ?Sinha, ?Marie. ?Measuring ?Violence ?Against ?Women: ?Statistical ?Trends, ?Statistics ?Canada ?85-??002-??X ?(Minister ?of ?Industry, ?2013). ? ? 232 ? ?Canadian ?Oxford ?Dictionary, ?2nd ?ed ?(Canada: ?Oxford ?University ?Press, ?2004). ? ?The ?Oxford ?English ?Dictionary ?Online ?(Oxford ?University ?Press, ?2013). ? ? WEBPAGES ?Constance ?Backhouse, ?online: ? ? ?INCITE! ?Women ?of ?Color ?Against ?Violence, ?online: ?. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"""@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "2014-05"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0077774"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Law"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"@en ; ns0:rightsURI "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Succumbing to the siren song : rape myths in sexual offender sentencing in B.C."@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/46119"@en .