The lead story in both Melbourne papers today was the conviction of Geoff Clark, former head of the ATSIC, of leading two pack rapes against Carol Stingel over thirty years ago.

But is conviction the right word? Rather than a criminal trial, Clark faced a jury in an action in torts, where the standard of proof is less and the role of justice is to compensate, rather than penalise.

The effect of this for women is being overshadowed by the role of the media, particularly The Age, in bringing Clark to justice as the newspaper unusually published stories about women who claimed they had been raped by the aboriginal leader. Certainly it is not unheard of for public, particularly political figures to have parts of their private life investigated. However mainstream media has traditionally been hesitant to accuse anyone of criminal charges before formal investigation by the police.

The four women who had accused Clark were never able to charge him criminally. After The Age report, the allegations were formally investigated, but never amounted to trials due to lack of evidence. Not surprising considering the length of time the women had claimed they were assaulted and the statute of limitations.

Clark today claimed that he was personally being prosecuted by the media. While not excusing Clark’s actions, there’s something to be said about only Clark being held accountable; Stingel claimed Clark had been the leader of the two pack rapes. Where were the other men? Furthermore, Stingel had been raped afterwards by other men, one resulting in a pregnancy. Were these allegations investigated, or only the ones committed by Clark? No one is discussing how yesterday’s ruling is linked to the bigger issues of sexual violence in the Aboriginal community.

And while The Age basked in the delight of yesterdays ruling, other, more important issues than the role of the media have being overlooked. Most importantly for women seems to be the use of civil court in making men accountable for rape. Certainly Stingel’s claims would have been difficult to prove considering they took place in the 1970s. In this way, civil proceedings seem, at least, some way of gaining retribution.

To me, it seems like another way that violence against women is pushed out of criminal courts. Like years of domestic violence prosecution, violence against women appears like a “soft crime”, certainly nothing worthy of punishment. Stingel was awarded $20 000, which represent the post-traumatic trauma she suffered from the rape, rather than the price of the actual violence she endured. Odd? More painful is the fact that the jury decided against awarding punitive damages, damages that are awarded in civil cases rarely but for detestable and intended actions which warrant punishment.

Doesn’t sound like justice to me.