Opportunity knocks

Via Dammit Janet!

Here's an incredible catch by Luna over at Feminist Christian Socialist.

So let me get this straight: I can go to a bar, be drugged, beaten and raped by the bar owner, and he gets NO JAIL TIME in Canada. Furthermore, the judge will say it was a crime of opportunity and that the rapist is "not pathologically dangerous".

Oh yes indeedy.

The former owner of a Burnaby, B.C., pub has been handed a nine-month conditional sentence after pleading guilty to sexual assault in a case that prompted criticism of the police from the convicted man's lawyer.

Fernando Manuel Alves, 46, had faced four charges of sexual assault and one charge of administering a noxious substance.

His arrest two years ago prompted police to warn the public about drink-spiking.

Alves ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault after the other assault charges and the administering charge were dismissed following a preliminary hearing.

<SNIP>

It was revealed during the trial that in October 2006, a woman in her 30s woke up in Alves's bed, bruised and bleeding after an evening at a downtown Vancouver nightclub.

The married woman — who cannot be identified — said she had no recollection of meeting Alves the night before.

Medical testing confirmed she had had sexual intercourse and found traces of alcohol and sedatives in her system.

The woman told the court her will to live had been drained because of what happened to her and that she was unable to feel safe or to be intimate with her husband.

In sentencing, the B.C. provincial court judge said Alves was not pathologically dangerous but had committed a crime of opportunity.

The judge ordered that Alves be placed on the sex-offender registry for the next 20 years but that he not spend time in jail.

Oh isn't that special?

Now women who go to clubs, already wary of what sexual predators slip in their drinks, and who rarely remember much of what happened to them if they are drugged -- which means these crimes don't get reported -- can look forward to no justice at all.

So.

Too many martinis and you get too close to a guy? You're giving him an ''opportunity.''

Fall asleep on the mostly-empty  commuter train late at night? You're giving him an ''opportunity.''

Walk your dog through a deserted park? You're giving him an ''opportunity.''

And what enterprising rapist wouldn't seize the moment -- and everything else?

UPPITY WOMEN DATE (Aug. 19/08): Dammit Janet! continues on the case.

Louisa Russell believes at least four sexual assaults in Vancouver could have been prevented if Whistler police had adequately handled an earlier complaint involving the alleged rapist.

Russell, of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, said Fernando Manuel Alves of Burnaby, a pub owner and former vice-president of the B.C. Ball Hockey Association, was accused by a woman in Whistler in 2005 of raping her. But according to Russell the RCMP bungled the investigation and no charges were laid. She said the police interviewed the alleged victim while she was drunk, didn't get a sexual assault examiner to collect forensic evidence and didn't allow a woman's advocate to sit with the alleged victim when she gave police her testimony.

It goes on.

And on.

Unbelievable.

Comments

[Ashley]

This is absolutely outrageous and unjust! How is that a "crime of opportunity"? in my books its just a crime, and he should be serving way more time than that.

I NEVER leave my drink unattended nor do I accept drinks from anyone but if some guy ever did manage to slip something into my drink it's a really comforting thought knowing that he's barely going to get a slap on the wrist for his crime.

That's great. Thanks Canadian Justice System, you're doing a real great job.

[deBeauxOs]

The opportunity here is that Fernando Manuel Alves owned a pub, worked as a bartender and thus was able to serve up a spiked beverage to the victim of his choice without anybody giving him a second glance.

Once he had determined that there were no inconvenient friends to make sure she got home safely when she started feeling whoozy, he could walk her to his car, take her to his apartment and do whatever he wanted since obtaining consent from a drugged woman is not a problem.

I wonder why the victim in the court case woke up with bruises and bleeding. Does Alves like to rough up women? Did she put up resistance?

Oh. But wait. The judge said that Alves (allegedly a serial rapist since he was originally charged with 3 other counts) was not pathologically dangerous.

No. Just an opportunist.

[...pat.]

I hope the crown will appeal this.

[Luna]

My husband gave me a great analogy. Imagine a bartender who drugged men for the purpose of beating the crap out of them and then stealing their wallets. Do you suppose for a second the judge would call that a crime of opportunity? Heck no. He'd be doing time for sure. And if he was raping them too? Good lord, it'd be a media frenzy! This though, it's just another woman. She shouldn't have been in that bar in the first place, right? SICKENING.

[sooey]

So, I guess the judge is okay with pretty much all crime. I mean, little kids give paedophiles sexual opportunities by being little kids out playing in the park, homeowners have stuff just sitting there all day while they're at work presenting ample opportunity for buglars to steal it, cars parked on the street where car thieves can come upon them, people investing their money with financial institutions so that traders can devise elaborate pyramid sche... oh wait... I've gone too far. Nevermind.

[glenfitz]

Other than the "hissy-fit" perspective communicated by outrage---there simply is no sense of perspective here in this blog entry about this issue.

The truth is, our civilization has a darker side and can serve up numerous and perhaps limitless examples of crime, gross incompetence of the justice system, and corporate greed. If we got up in a lather about every one of those examples, we'd quickly get hissy-fitted out into an exhausted stupor.

There's no doubt about it, the world is a terrible place.

The question that should be asked regarding each and every terrible incident is whether it's an isolated example or representative of a trend. If it's representative of a trend then we have an issue worth discussing.

So, is the judge's terrible decision an isolated example of incompetence? I don't see any court records of the rapist's trial to indicate any hint of precedence. If not, than why would I go looking here for nasty examples of what can happen to people?

If I did THAT, I'd just get numbed out at the sheer volume of outrageous things that happen to people every day--and happen sometimes at the hands of the justice system.

The net is full of news that points to how bad things can happen to good people at the hands of bad or incompetent people. It's not that I lack outrage. It's just I find more meaning in reports of misdeeds that expose an issue that requires corrective action.

The question of whether the judge's decision indicates an individual versus a general example of incompetence diminishes or raises the attention given this case.

Otherwise, why would I look here for bad news? There's enough of it to keep my going for a long while.

If we want to address the welfare and human rights of people, then let's save our outrage for real issues instead of pick at terrible and random events that afflict good people.

[deBeauxOs]

Somehow glenfitz I suspect your tune would be different if this serial rapist had assaulted your sister, your daughter or your wife.

[Catboreal]

Wonder if it would be feasible for women's groups in the lower mainland to circulate this man's picture with a run down of crime to bars to keep this bastard from getting a job. Keep an eye out and if he is working in an bar/restaurant, post it on websites that review the establishment as a warning.

It's public record, so he can't claim invasion of privacy.

[Catboreal]

Yea Gods,

I should know better than to write a post before my morning coffee. Let's try this again shall we?

Once again, with a little more clarity:

Would it be feasible for women's groups in the lower mainland to circulate posters and fliers to bars to notify them of this man's crime and to keep him from getting a job in these establishments? As well, groups could also keep an eye out and post warnings to bar/restaurant review sites that are frequented by visitors trying to scope out the night life.

In other words, deny him the opportunity of doing it again.

[fern hill]

Dr. Dawg wants to know who this judge is. So do I and many others. Why is his/her name not being revealed?

Antonia, can you help?

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/contempt-of-court.html