Note: the following story mentions sexual assault.
Did the dog ever eat your homework? Who hasn’t claimed a flat tyre as an excuse for being late? Or maybe a sudden illness for that day off work? How about a broken ATM that couldn’t dispense the money to buy the planned wedding anniversary present?
Excuses have been around forever, and we’ve probably all been guilty of employing one at some point. But when do excuses become offensive? And should we be pushing back against them, particularly when they are delivered in court or in politics?
This week is a sterling example. Here are three cases, all from courts, all plucked from one day’s news.
Case one An alcoholic father with a dreadful and violent history rapes his daughter while his partner sleeps next to him. She was not yet 10, and the offence was discovered only when a teacher overheard a conversation. He pleaded guilty.
That’s where this story should end. But it doesn’t. The court was told of extenuating circumstances, which sounds like a synonym for “excuse”. He was only schooled to Year 10. Shouldn’t he know, by age 15, that rape is wrong? And why is that relevant? His primary difficulty, the court was told, was alcohol. That is not true. His primary difficulty was the fact that he saw fit — drunk or sober, it doesn’t matter — to rape his little girl.
And so it goes. He had a good employment history, and when he worked he was a “productive member of the community’’. In his spare time, however, he rapes his daughter? Apparently it was the excessive drinking that led to the offence. No. No, no, no. And yes, he got three years’ jail — but with parole set for 12 months.
Case two A woman is forced to jump from a moving car after her ex-boyfriend grabs her head and threatens to kill them both. The poor man apparently just couldn’t accept that the relationship was over. That’s why he was stalking her, driving past her house, making hundreds of phone calls and saying he would bury her if she dated anyone else.
Just imagine her fear when, while driving a speeding car, he decided that if they couldn’t be together “we are going out together’’. She jumped. She jumped from the moving car. He didn’t deny any of that — and pleaded guilty to a swag of domestic violence-type offences.
But then the excuses flowed. He was a contributing member of society. He pleaded guilty early. He came from a good background. He had even previously worked — until he lost his job as a result of drug use.
Case three In the same court, another man avoided jail after pleading guilty to raping his little sister. The court heard how he was unsophisticated and naive, how he was homeschooled, and how he was introduced to child exploitation by an older man he had met online.
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. They are allowed as part of a defence, but the problem is that they are — too often — lessening how we see bad behaviour. And it’s particularly the case in domestic violence prosecutions. He only wanted to contact her. He couldn’t accept the relationship was over. They been together for a decade. Blah. Blah. Blah.
In politics, too, our leaders routinely have a reason why they are not doing something, why they are breaking an election promise, and why they are ignoring a community push for change.
The establishment of a federal commission of inquiry is a perfect case in point, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison can weave words and obfuscate as much as he likes. But it was promised, and it hasn’t happened.
The same goes for election promise after election promise. And at some point, explanations become excuses, and our expectations fall with them. Perhaps the onus needs to be more on us to refuse to accept them. A rapist is a rapist, irrespective of his negligent background. A tax dodger is a tax dodger, even if his wife left him. And in politics a broken promise is still a broken promise.
If we ask for more, and set the bar higher, who knows? It might even lead to better behaviour.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.
Survivors of abuse can find support by calling Bravehearts at 1800 272 831 or the Blue Knot Foundation at 1300 657 380. The Kids Helpline is 1800 55 1800.
For counselling, advice and support for men in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania who have anger, relationship or parenting issues, call the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491. Men in WA can contact the Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline on 1800 000 599.
I completely understand Ms King’s outrage at the men, but is this the same ‘Madonna King’ who wrote an article excusing Gladys Berejiklian’s pork-barrelling and corruption? Who said, “Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt, and consider that Berejiklian is guilty of falling for a crafty fool, and keeping it a secret. Isn’t it possible, then, that her main crime is bad judgment?” That sounds like an ‘excuse’ to me! I know that sisterhood is powerful, but Ms King’s lauding of beloved Saint Gladys means I’m taking today’s article with huge piles of salt. ‘Excuses are bad, unless I’m offering them for someone I like’ seems to be the subtext.
I still cannot get over NSW Transport buying some trains that would not fit through certain tunnels. Apparently ‘Gold Star Gladys’ was the relevant Minister at the time (but that may be a rumour)
I’m glad you reminded me. Madonna is right to say we should stop accepting excuses for bad behaviour, but especially from elected officials. I have always thought that when Gladys was recorded saying “I don’t need to know that” when listening to a person (partner or not) describing a dodgy deal, she crossed the integrity line.
Rape is most definitely not “bad judgement” It’s quite some time since the law discounted what a victim wore or drank made it in any way some sort of excuse for rape to occur.
Sexism is rampant in Australia – over my 80 year lifespan this has always been so.
I admire the courage of young women like Grace Tame, Saxon Mullins, Chanel Contos and Brittany Higgins.
I deplore the obfuscation of the present PM and the federal government and the continuing failure of the courts to support women who have been subjected to appalling offences.
I share Madonna’s outrage.
I watch the Smirko clown doing an imitation of a creepy priest of my childhood and my skin crawls.
The genuine outrage is there in Madonna King’s comments. Not confected outrage, which we see too much of these days. Real outrage. And she is right. But these “excuses” only work if the courts listens to them. Unfortunately, they do. And they shouldn’t. I doubt that many teachers accept “the dog ate my homework” excuse, and neither should the courts accept these carefully crafted excuses trotted out for appalling crimes.
I have a dalmatian, male, all 40kg and smiles and spots.
He likes books, well chewed.
The cover is elegantly displayed at the bottom of the stairs, the rest gets slobbery and messy.
Evidence, rather than excuses!
See if you can get a look at the previous crimes committed by one of the men implicated in the Daniel Morcombe case, he had already raped a boy aged 2 and a1/2 in the NT. He was not convicted of the Daniel Morcombe crime and served little time.The good news is, he is in Queensland and thanks to Michael Lavarche (Professor of Law Griffith University), the legislation that keeps him and a lot of others, under serious supervision has withstood the High Court’s gaze.
There is no ‘unfortunately’ about it. If you want to see what a court system looks like without pleas in mitigation, go and see what happens in the US. What Ms King is referring to are not ‘excuses’. They are a vital part of the sentencing process. Like all good tabloid journalists, Ms King has cherry picked what ‘facts’ to support her argument (I’m dignifying this pile of c*** by calling it an ‘argument’, but anyway). If you want to understand what goes on in the courtroom, and why pleas in mitigation are important, here is a guide to sentencing that you can read. It is easy to read and understand. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/A_Quick_Guide_to_Sentencing_2021_0.pdf
Love the Tom Red/ Private Media. Decisions to make while selecting a tie.
Has anyone noted that when Smirko, “the man of god” get challenged by a woman, he grasps his hand together above his belt, he sighs as if dealing with a 3 year old’s tantrum, assumes a condescending facial expression and tone of voice, then expresses “concern” for the woman’s well being. His fall back position is aggressive denial of any problem!
Please remember, the press conference outside Bunker Kirribilli whereby he denied having read or even seen a series of documents and a post Humous accusation of rape committed by the then first law officer in Australia, Christian Porter?
What did Smirko say, “No I have not read it”, “I asked Christian about the allegation and he denied it!”
“I believe him!”
And that was supposed to be then end of the matter, the “Canberra Bubble” disappeared out of Smirko’s lexicon.
Nice observation of his body language.
I tend to obsessed with the way his jaw juts forward when he is about to lie instead of answer a question – as when the Rodent’s bouncing shoulders were a red flag.
NB this is distinct from the usual sign of his normal lies, when his lips move.
And support! He offers support. Support like the woman’s tired and emotional and really doesn’t know what she’s doing. He did it to Bridget Archer just this week .
And providing Michalia Cash as support?
The hands deep in the pockets of his trousers, playing pocket billiards!
Call me crazy but I think the literal job of a defence lawyer during a court case is to offer up excuses for the defendant. They have a duty to try to mitigate sentencing. It’s very strange to link low level criminal court cases with the actions of the most corrupt government in Australian history.
Madonna King: Gladys didn’t do anything wrong, but these individual normal people sure did. This piece joins a growing list of work by Madonna King that wouldn’t look out of place in the Daily Tele.
I agree. Why is this article deemed appropriate for publication in Crikey?
I think Gladys did a lot wrong.
Firstly she couldn’t differentiate our money from the Liberal Party money.
Secondly, she seemed to think that spending OUR money on winning Wagga Wagga, a safe seat was acceptable behaviour.
What do they teach them at the Commonwealth Bank these days?
It doesn’t matter what sort of seat Wagga is, it’s still porkbarrelling and it’s still corrupt conduct.
I don’t think the rape victims in the cases cited would consider them low level.
My son came home from RAAF training with a pithy saying – excuses are like a***e holes- everyone has one and they all stink.
She should just go back there. Murdochland, that is. My reply to klewso is apt here too.
They aren’t even excuses. Madonna knows this too, she’s been around the courts; they are extenuating circumstances. Which the judge takes into consideration when determining the sentence of the guilty party. Not whether or not they are guilty, but how serious the punishment should be.