What does James Wallace’s early release say about the legal system’s view of male sexual assault survivors? Asks Michael Stevens.
James Wallace, the sex offender and disgraced former knight, is being released from
prison early after a Parole Board hearing. He had earlier applied for parole in September.
but it appears they weren’t satisfied that he accepted his guilt or showed insight into the harm his offending had done. He is even quoted as saying, “It would be a lie if I said I was now guilty just to get home.” Has he suddenly realised the true nature of the crimes he committed? There is no public evidence he has. He has claimed he’s too old to be a
danger to anyone. But why would you take a convicted sex offender’s word on that?
A long-serving Corrections employee told me that, as a rule, a sex offender who won’t admit their guilt and shows no remorse or understanding of what they’ve done is rarely given early release. So why has he got it?
James Wallace does have a mansion in Christchurch to restore. Is that a solid reason for an early release?!
There is a term used in criminology, “Differential Sentencing,” which means that people
committing the same or similar crimes who come from different social backgrounds get
treated differently by the courts when it comes to sentencing. For example, an unemployed 18-year-old Samoan man from South Auckland who steals a car is likely to get a harsher sentence than an 18-year-old white male who has just finished school at Christ’s College and has a university place waiting.
So is James Wallace, convicted sex offender, simply getting out early because he’s a rich
old white man whom the courts are prepared to be more lenient with? Or is it because the
courts don’t take male-on-male sexual assault that seriously?
It is disturbing to think that he might be treated more lightly for either reason.
I would imagine it is particularly difficult for those brave men who came forward and laid
complaints against him. After all the legal tricks attempted to stay out of jail, the way his legal team tried to smear victims’ reputations, and his long fight for name suppression, along with his denial of any guilt – it is hard to understand why there is even a single day shaved off his sentence.
Does society in general, and the legal system, take male-on-male sexual violence less
seriously than male-on-female assault? It is hard to know. It’s not reported as often. I suspect that many victims are too ashamed and traumatised by what has happened to come forward.
Certainly, before Homosexual Law Reform, nobody would have gone to the police. Perhaps this is a homophobic reaction left over from that time? What happens between poofs is their responsibility… a bit of a joke… just a storm in a teacup.
Those men were brave, and there are even indications that they weren’t the only ones, just the few who could do what they did. I haven’t spoken to any of them about this, but I would imagine hearing he’s getting out early would add to their trauma, not reduce it in any way. Their well-being and their lives should be considered first and foremost, not the perpetrator of the crimes.
