Former TOP 09 MP Dominik Feri was sentenced to three years in prison on Monday for the rape of two girls and one attempted rape. According to lawyer Adéla Hořejší, representative of Feri’s victims, this observed case can be a motivation for other women as well – so that they are not afraid to report similar crimes to the police.
“This process was an example of good practice: All actors in criminal proceedings treated the victims in a respectful manner and approached their experiences with all seriousness, they were really heard,” says Hořejší.
Did you expect at the beginning that everything would be investigated and end up in court?
Yes. I always believe that it will turn out well. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do my job.
Is three years imprisonment a severe punishment?
Adequate in our conditions. I would imagine it to be a bit higher myself, approximately half the rate (up to ten years). And precisely because of the discriminatory context in which the crimes were committed. The effect and intention of his behavior was to degrade the dignity of women, he created an intimidating, hostile and humiliating environment. It was about unequal access to women. The convict approaches women as tools for his own satisfaction, he considers them inferior to him. He treated them like things, his actions had a serial consumption character, with absent reflection.
Was the case harder for the victims because Mr. Feri is a well-known personality, a former politician, a social media star?
It played a significant role. He is a person with great power superiority, with great social and media influence. To stand up to someone like that means going into great uncertainty and danger. And it brings constant stress. They are brave to open up their vulnerability. And they also took it away – Mr. Feri constantly publicly humiliated them, ridiculed them, intimidated them, claimed that they were lying and the like.
Photo: ANNA BOHÁČOVÁ / MAFRA / Profimedia’, Profimedia.cz
Adéla Hořejší (left) pictured with state representative Petra Gřivnová.
However, you and the public prosecutor criticized his behavior in court. On the other hand: Why blame him, after all, in court the defendant can defend himself as he wants?
Well, that’s not entirely accurate. Yes, he can defend himself by all means – this is a basic legal principle. He can deny criminal activity, bring his evidence as part of the defense. But no one forced him to say in court that women are disturbed, disgraced, that they lie. Asking them endlessly and roundly questions aimed at the intimate area that had no potential to clarify anything. Their goal was only to upset the women and thereby influence their statements, so that he could then point out minor discrepancies that arose from it. The aggression he demonstrated in front of the court is inadmissible. A distinction must be made between the fact that it is the defendant’s right to deny guilt and the manner in which such denial is made. The jurisprudence emphasizes that it is possible to deepen the damage precisely by way of defense, for example by indifference, arrogance or displayed callousness.
Analysis:
Did Mr. Feri harm himself in the eyes of the judges?
Certainly not when it comes to the court’s considerations of guilt. The court had evidence on the table, evaluated it and made a conclusion. It was also important for the court how it perceived the statements of the victims. And the one who speaks the truth is simply persuasive. The court also perceived the personality of the convicted person. And if there is, for example, a reason to reduce the sentence. When the perpetrator somehow reflects on his actions, shows that he knows what he caused, how he interfered in the lives of the victims, apologizes, tries to make amends, these are factors that act as mitigating circumstances.
Podcast 5:59:
The term “ideal victim” was often heard in court. That is, according to many ideas, how someone exposed to violence from the outside should behave – run away, defend themselves, immediately go to the police and the like. And not suffer the violence quietly and keep it to yourself for a few years. Does this idea still survive?
Even the condemned man based his defense on myths about the victims. He said that if a woman does martial arts, she could defend herself. Or that posting stylized photos of yourself precludes intimacy issues. He tried to reinforce the impression that if the victim is not absolutely collapsed and lifeless, then the rape did not happen. The police, the public prosecutor’s office and the court did not listen to it. In this process, he also helped a lot socially: He stated very loudly that such stereotypes are inadmissible, the victims are people like all of us, they are not lifeless statues that the perpetrator can shape according to his wishes.
I also have some negative experiences in this direction, the public prosecutor in another matter for example concluded that the victim is a university student, so she is very intelligent and should have been able to handle the situation. But that is no longer usual, it is rather an excess.
But the worst stereotype is to transfer responsibility for violence to the victim. It is still a bit of a structural struggle. We do not know of such an approach for other crimes. It is also interesting from a sociological and psychological point of view, why exactly in cases of violation of sexual freedom, which mainly affects women, we need to question the interference with integrity.
As if we were to say to the robbed: Why did you even have that wallet in your backpack?
Exactly. It has long been customary to respond to reports of rape with constant questioning. Why was the victim there at all, why did she go there, why didn’t she leave. At the same time, in the case of theft, for example, it is only decided whether the perpetrator infringed property rights and how he did it, the actions of the perpetrator, not the victim, are evaluated. It doesn’t matter if the owner was still watching the car so that someone wouldn’t drive off with it, or if the car didn’t have a very distinctive color.
Photo: Renata Matějková, Seznam Zpravy
Was this process important for other rape victims as well? Does it work that when these cases are talked about publicly, some victims stop being afraid to go to the police?
It certainly does. This process was an example of good practice: All actors in the criminal procedure treated the victims in a respectful manner and approached their experiences with all seriousness, they were truly heard. I believe this approach will increase victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. So they don’t have to be afraid. This case emancipated the position of a particularly vulnerable victim in society as well. Everyone begins to better perceive their needs and perspective.
What should police sensitivity to victims look like in practice?
Seemingly small things are often enough. It is also about the way of asking questions. Or explaining to the victims what is going to happen – but it has to be an explanation that they can understand. It should not take a formal form, that they receive a paper with some list of rights that do not tell them anything.
The essence is to provide them with a sense of security and therefore control over the situation in which they find themselves. For example, it helps if they know why they are being asked some questions that can be hurtful but cannot be avoided. These are questions where they have to relive traumatic experiences. If the police officer makes it clear in advance that he will ask such a question and explains why it is important, then this is information for the victim that the police officer perceives the fragility of her situation and tries to make it easier for her.
Even such a seemingly small display of empathy can greatly reduce the burden. Moreover, it is also functional from a pragmatic point of view. If the victim feels safe, he is ready to testify in full and does not focus on getting the unpleasant situation over with. In this way, information that is important for the investigation will not be lost.
