Ted Talk with perp and victim

**Trigger Warning for child rape/ child sexual abuse**

I recently watched a Ted Talk which I feel would be worth watching for some of you here.

It is a talk by a survivor and her rapist some two decades after the fact.

Some caveats ~ what this man did was worse, in both my opinion and the opinion of most of society, than what the vast majority on this forum did. He was an adult. His victim was a child (albeit two or three years younger than him). He raped her when she was semi-conscious in an act that would constitute rape across most of the world. The majority of us here (including myself) are survivors as well as perpetrators. I tend to speak far more about the assault I perpetrated than the assaults I have experienced - some of which may have contributed to, though in absolutely no way excused, my own inexcusable actions. The man in the video says that he was never victimised himself. It sounds not seem to be a case of a cycle of abuse being continued.

There are problems with the video. There is no talk of legal redress. I don't know whether Iceland or Australia have statues of limitation or whether the victim would have to turn him in. But it seems like there has been no legal punishment per se. That will be an issue for a lot of people. Also, the perp is the first one who speaks, which struck me as problematic. Some would argue (and have argued) that Ted Talks should not have been giving this man a platform full stop.

**However** why I think this is a useful video to post here is because:

1.) It shows that dialogue, truthfulness and accountability can be healing. Clearly both victim and perpetrator have reached a place of relative peace.

2.) Change is possible. Yes, the perp is still a rapist, but this does not constitute the whole of his personality and being. He seems more human for having gone through this process of accountability and speaking about what he did. We are confronted with his humanness and that he is not a monster/ sub-human.

3.) The majority of people are on-side with/ more forgiving of those abusers who own up to what they did and put real effort into changing. At the end of the talk the audience all stand up and applaud. Certainly some of these people might have been only applauding the survivor, however many must have been applauding the pair of them - and everyone would realise that such applause was an endorsement of the speech. No-one heckles or tries to attack the perp. If you look at the faces of the audiences, the vast majority seem attentive, sincere and sympathetic. When faced with real human beings, not stereotypes, most people will engage.

The talk is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyPoqFcvt9w

It is titled 'Our Story of Rape and Reconciliation'.

Please only watch it if you feel in a mentally stable enough space to do so.

i think its confusing for the survivor to come at peace cause at times survivors feel emotions for their perpetrator.

i would often fantasize other acts more extreme with my perpetrator. so not sure my idea of coming at peace is a healthy idea.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly don't think the path taken by the two people in the video would work or even -should- work for everyone! It also seems to have taken hours and hours of often painful communication.

But for all that, I still found it struck a note of hope.

Yes i agree with your point that finding peace should be the goal.
i have spoken with my perpetrator n i dont have hatred for him. but i wouldnt want to be in same room as he is.
i'd be too uncomfortable.

sprock wrote: It also seems to have taken hours and hours of often painful communication.

true
Thanks for the video. it was a good example of coming to peace with your past.

For me, this talk highlights the power of more restorative forms of justice. In many cases, it is wholly appropriate for both victim and perp to be invited to engage in dialogue and talk about what is needed in order to make progress towards peace.

In many cases, the perp will want to co-operate and, if the victim is willing, there is no reason in my mind why it shouldn't be permitted. It can result in a positive re-birth for both parties, which has the further potential to positively affect wider society.

While many support the current retributive justice system, whereby we punish those who do wrong (and there may be a time and place for this kind of response), studies show that, when victim and perp are given a joint role in determining the process of restoration, significant progress is made in terms of accepting what happened, why it happened and forming a constructive path forward for both parties.

I do believe that, as long as an evidence based approach is adhered to (and profit is completely removed from the prison system), we will inevitably move further away from a punitive response to crime towards more restorative, real-world solutions. It acknowledges the point raised in this Ted talk, that the crime committed by the perp only represents a small part of their self potential. So I think it makes sense that we aim to unlock the positive potential of these people.

The ideal of this scenario is that the perp could go on to do immeasurable good, maybe even save lives, if they are given the opportunity to respond productively to what they did, with the victim's blessing.

It also makes sense that a victim would get more comfort, in the long term, knowing that their suffering was not completely in vain - that something good did come out of the bad. Granted this requires the victim look beyond their own self, but we must ask ourselves what is the most rational outcome we can achieve from the justice system, assuming crimes will continue to be committed?