Gang-Rape Victim Says She And Others Silenced by Halliburton

[Roxdog]

Gang-Rape Victim Says She And Others Silenced by Halliburton

A Houston, Texas woman, who says she was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, says 38 women have come forward through her foundation to report their own tragic stories to her, but that many cannot speak publicly due to arbitration agreements in their employment contracts. Jamie Leigh Jones is testifying on Capitol Hill this afternoon. She says she and other women are being forced to argue their cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape before secretive arbitration panels rather than in open court before a judge and jury....

How can any legal scholar assert that what is happening in this case is legal?

[Roxdog]

Gang-Rape Victim Says She And Others Silenced by Halliburton

[JaneDoe321]

It's Halliburton. Since when did legality come into play?

[Charlatan]

A Houston, Texas woman, who says she was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, says 38 women have come forward through her foundation to report their own tragic stories to her, but that many cannot speak publicly due to arbitration agreements in their employment contracts. Jamie Leigh Jones is testifying on Capitol Hill this afternoon. She says she and other women are being forced to argue their cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape before secretive arbitration panels rather than in open court before a judge and jury....

In hearing a rape case many sensitive things are said. Is it the business or the 'offender' that silences the case, or has it dismissed? Is it the male influence in the courts? Is it the reluctance of prosecution to proceed? What then leads to the dismissal of the case?

The dismissal must be the lack of evidence, or the lengthy period that the case takes up. All cases are tried by the court and lead to longer periods where the jury is subjected to petiness on both sides, as they try to either make the defendant look 'innocent' and child like, or like they were giving permission in some form or another. That said all rape cases are supposed to play to the jury, or judge, in a humane or inhumane style.

In each case there are lots of witnesses called, people that knew the people involved, as this is based on the character of both parties, are they looking for it, or are they forcing it respectively. Once a rape has occurred, it may stop the people from raping again, having the finger pointed at them by the defendant, or it could lead to the mistrust of the man when it comes to his relations with other women, so it probably won't happen again, theoretically. Most of the time the man sees something that isn't there, and once in the act of forcing sex, wishes he could turn back the scene and not get into the act, and to silence the woman is the most important thing, and that they need to proceed due to panic, that the scene must be mutual, and therefore must happen, or they could face harsh treatment in the future by the women and other people that know them, so the act must happen now, and be said to be mutual by the man, and hope the woman enjoys it, theoretically at least. This panic can mean that the man goes forward when he feels he should go back, so rapes aren't 'real'until panic ensues.

That is rape between people that know one another, and that means that it gets very technical, and as said, lots of time could be wasted. It is clear the court doesn't have time to hear the case over cases such as robbery or murder, so it is given less preferance when they look for cases to try next. So it gets pushed back, and in the running of judgements, leads to a bottleneck in the system. Think how many people are affected by rape, you have the woman and the man, and maybe another prospective victim, so the case isn't as important as other ones that could hold immediate repurcussions, such as releasing a drug addicted felon who may cause immediate harm.

In looking at the cases, they have titles of cases to consider. Murder is one they look for, and then robbery I guess, so they push the rape cases back into the later stages, but then push them back again, and then get sick of pushing them back so dismiss them outright I would say. There are many women and men that could be endeared by these cases, so making a scene would remind the courts that they are, while unimportant to the system compared with those they accept, dear to the public.

Think of the scene when people use plackards to voice themselves. None are as widespread and supported as rape cases. This all stems from men thinking they are better than the raper, and women thinking that these acts are going to occur to them, so that leaves us with people that think rape is one of the worst cases and should be tried sooner rather than later, and the courts disagree, leading to the case being dismissed.

If put under pressure from the public, the courts may respond, but it won't be due to them changing their mind indepenadently.