Rape of a minor: “The victim needs to be heard by society”

The statute of limitations for rape of a minor must be extended. This is the conclusion of the report submitted on April 10 to the Minister of Families, Children and Women’s Rights, Laurence Rossignol. He proposes to extend the current limitation period by 10 years. Co-signed by host Flavie Flament, victim of such an assault, and magistrate Jacques Calmettes, the document thus suggests extending to 30 years the period during which a victim can file a complaint against his assailant. This duration would start from the majority of the victim.

In fact, only one in ten female victims of sexual violence ends up filing a complaint against her attacker. Data taken into account by the report, which also recommends improving support. This includes, in particular, 100% psychiatric care.

But several voices, especially in the judicial sector, have spoken out against this extension of the limitation period, which would not be effective. Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart, clinical psychologist and legal expert from 1989 to 2015, deciphers the debate for Why actor.

Is extending the limitation period necessary?

Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart : Yes it is necessary because two cases exist: when the victim has never forgotten, even an adult, and when the phenomenon of traumatic memory occurs. Suddenly, the memories come back with pain and an obligation to put things through because they are unbearable.

I have accompanied victims who have never revealed their assault and have chosen to build their professional and family life first. At a certain point, because professionally or emotionally it no longer works, there is a collapse.

Therefore, the victim absolutely needs to be heard by a shrink but also by society, because she felt thrown out of it following the events experienced in childhood. But at the time, she did not necessarily identify them. Identification is complicated for a child, in an insidious and so incongruous context. This part of his body assaulted by an adult makes no sense to him.

Listen to the interview with Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart:

What are the arguments against this proposition?

Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart : Some psychologists believe that it can be destructive for the victim again if there is no conviction. This is not true in the sense that the victim is warned that there is no proof. But to act in relation to what one has undergone is extremely therapeutic. It is to integrate again a group of belonging. And you should know that a victim is ejected from his home group. For my part, I think that, even without delay, it is very interesting that the victim can file a complaint.

But the magistrates are a little reluctant because it will be complicated to judge. In addition, a whole anti-victim movement has developed theories which have been taught to magistrates. For example, parental alienation syndrome discredits the child’s speech. It has just been banned by Minister Laurence Rossignol.

30 years after rape, does the evidence have the same weight?

Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart : Anyway, in this type of case there is hardly ever any evidence. In order to get DNA fingerprints, the person has to be caught in the act, which is never the case. Even the anatomical evidence is discussed by defense lawyers. Some present medical arguments, concerning anal fissures which are said to be caused by constipation, for example.

Or the evidence is photos or videos. It’s extraordinary when you get them. In recent years, the only cases involving minors that have gone as far as the assizes were accompanied by this type of evidence. What matters enormously is the psychological and psychiatric expertise of the victim. Because if the author does not admit, there is no proof in the majority of cases.

Is the situation of minors special?

Marie-Christine Gryson-Dejehansart : Rape of a minor is a different situation. Aggression is very difficult for a child to identify. The taking into account of his word must be protected, heard with precaution. For my part, I have 47 criteria of investigation, on the context, the speech of the child and its compatibility with his age, his intelligence… It is necessary to be extremely trained to identify the plausibility of the speech in relation to the disorder of the child. ‘child. Psychotherapists have many more elements than legal experts, but their ethics forbid them to speak. That’s a shame. They should be able to be released from this obligation, with the consent of the victim, to bring these elements before the courts.