Page 151 - เพศวิถีในคำพิพากษา

√“¬ß“π°“√«‘®—¬‡√◊ËÕ߇滫‘∂’„π§”æ‘æ“°…“ 143

In short, if plaintiff reports to police directly and immediately, plaintiffûs testimony in court sounds
çreliable, strong, credible and hearing as the truthé. The immediate action of the woman implies
that it is not consensual sex. On the other hand, the longer time the woman takes to proceed with
any action on reporting the incident makes the plaintiff less credible.

Looking through another case, a woman accused a man on raping her one day after another. Several
days after the rape incident, she revealed what happened to her family. Her family asked the man
to marry her but to no avail. Later, it became a case in the court. 4

For this case, the Courtûs opinion was that it was too long a period for the plaintiff to take action
after the rape had happened and the familyûs marriage proposal was çdoubtfulé. Based on the Court
çitûs doubtful on the intention of the plaintiffé to consider this case a rape case. Therefore, the court
considers other evidences to support the claim that it was consensual sex.

Based on the Supreme Court decisions, the length of time before victim takes any action including
telling another person and report to the police is the important factor. In other words, the faster the
victim reports the incident, the more credible the testimony. On the contrary, the longer the victim
waits before reporting the incident, the less credible the testimony.

C. Victimsû Background

Past decisions also show that the court regularly uses rape victimsû personal background to
determine whether the alleged crime is rape or sex with consent. The relationship between
the victims and the suspects constitute an important element of the Courtûs decisions. Research
shows that if the plaintiff and defendant have had an intimate relationship, there is a tendency that
the court will rule it as a çsex with consenté rather than rape.

There was a case whereby the plaintiff claimed she had been raped by a man. The defendant
however claimed that it was not a rape but sex with consent. The story goes like this:

The plaintiff went with her relatives to state fair. On the way back home, she accompanied her
ex-boyfriend and later claimed that she was raped twice and the man was using knife to force her.
çÇThe plaintiff did not go back home with her relative (and the relative went back home earlier),
and there was no need for her to go with the defendant, this reflects that the plaintiff had a hidden
agenda to go home with the defendant. Based on this, itûs doubtful to believe in what the plaintiff
had testified rather the incident was a consensual sex.é 5

4
Supreme courtûs decision no. ÚÚÛ¯/Ò˘¯Ù
5
Supreme courtûs decision no. ÙÙˆı/Ò˘¯˜