From the New York Times:
RALEIGH, N.C., April 11 — North Carolina’s attorney general declared three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper innocent of all charges on Wednesday, ending a prosecution that provoked bitter debate over race, class and the tactics of the Durham County district attorney. […]
“We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations,” Mr. Cooper said at a news conference.
“We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred,” he added.
Mr. Cooper said he had considered but ultimately rejected the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the accuser, who continues to insist she was attacked at a team party on March 13, 2006, and asked him to go forward with the case. Mr. Cooper said his investigators had told him that the woman “may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.” He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman’s mental health history.
Mr. Cooper reserved his harshest criticism for the Durham County district attorney, Michael B. Nifong, at one point even depicting him as a “rogue prosecutor.” […]
The North Carolina chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. released a statement saying it respected and accepted the work of the attorney general’s office. Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, who had been monitoring the case for the N.A.A.C.P., echoed that theme, saying, “Based on my personal knowledge of him and high respect of him, I accept his conclusions.”
Likewise, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, one of the largest such groups in the nation, released a statement saying it was satisfied with the attorney general’s decision to drop all charges.
A few points:
1) Race, Class and The Duke False Accusation ((Whether or not the Duke accuser was attacked, it’s clear that the three particular men put on trial were falsely accused.))
(This is rewritten from a post I wrote in February.)
It’s tempting to compare the Duke case to the Long Beach Beating case and the famous Central Park Rape case of the 1980s. In all three cases, a horrible crime was reported; in all three cases, there was enormous pressure from the public for arrests and convictions; and in all three cases, police and prosecutors used biased and unfair procedures to concoct a case against a group of young people.
But let’s not overlook one enormously significant difference: The Duke players were ultimately exonerated. That doesn’t make the unjust suffering the Duke players went through all right, of course. But what we’ve seen here is that the kind of railroaded conviction of poor, black suspects that happened in the Central Park rape case, and which I strongly suspect went on in Long Beach, simply doesn’t fly when the defendants are rich and white.
I’ve seen some conservatives imply that looking at these cases shows that white institutional power — and racism — are myths. But what I see is that the system pretty much works the way it’s supposed to for white defendants, or at least for white defendants with some money; for us, the system doesn’t convict without sufficient evidence. That’s simply not true for black defendants. And that’s why comparing these cases convinces me that institutional racism is still treating non-whites like crap, and still matters, and still needs to be fought.
2) I’m still not naming names.
I’ve already had demands that I blog the name and photo of the Duke accuser, as some other bloggers have done. I’m not going to do that. ((Nor have I ever blogged the names or images of the three accused players, that I can recall.))
I certainly agree that a tremendous injustice was done to these three men by broadcasting their names and images all over the country. But publishing the name of their accuser will not undo that harm. As I argued a year ago, neither the names or faces of the accuser or of the accused should be made public in criminal cases. ((I can imagine particular circumstances in which there’s a genuine public interest in knowing the name of the accused before the trial is over — for instance, if the accused criminal is a politician. But that’s not the case in the overwhelming majority of cases.))
Obviously, some suffering is an inevitable result of being arrested. But having your names and images broadcast on network news is not inevitable; it’s a result of an irresponsible decision made by the news media. If someone is found guilty of a crime, then the harm done by deferring broadcasting their names and faces until the trial is over is minimal; but when an accused person is innocent, the harm done to them by having their names and faces made public is both avoidable and significant.
3) Why Does The “Presumption Of Innocence” Not Apply To The Accuser?
As Marcella notes, many commenters who, a year ago, were saying that it’s wrong for anyone to believe a rape accusation without a “guilty” verdict in a court of law, are now saying that the accuser made false rape allegations.
This is obviously a double-standard. If it’s wrong to conclude that someone is a rapist before he’s had a trial, then it’s also wrong to conclude that someone has made a false rape accusation before she’s had a trial.
“So the young men who hired the stripper are morally suspect, but the stripper herself is not morally suspect?”
I don’t necessarily agree that hiring a stripper is a morally suspect act.
However:
To the extent that blame needs to be apportioned, it is the person who hires the sex worker who holds that blame.
Or, more pithily: Yup.
Urph —
“needs with constantly” should be “needs without constantly”
Steven says:
Jake alludes that “…Would you consider legalizing rape to be the only way to silence victims?”
Implying that I want to legalize rape and that I want to silence victims. Untrue, again.
I don’t allude to anything in the above quoted quote. I asked you a direct question. The reason I asked you a direct question, that direct question, is because your proposal is the best way, short of legalizing rape, to silence victims of rape. So, since your proposal functions mainly to silence rape victims, I wanted to know whether you considered anything other than legalizing rape to be capable of silencing rape victims.
My comment (#68) doesn’t imply that you want to silence rape victims – it fucking says that bright as day. (Airs are really much easier to maintain if you know the definitions of the words that you are using). The followup question serves the function of directly (again, no alluding or implying contained in my comment) a) asking you if you think anything other than legalizing will function to silence rape victims while b) allowing you to claim that you don’t want to silence rape victims even though that will be the major effect of your proposal from comment #52.
You are woefully ignorant about what a straw man argument is, but if you will go back and read my comment #75, you might find that helpful. It might also be helpful if you learned the difference between an alluding to something, implying something and directly addressing something.
Just smear and volume and emotion.
I’m not sure you could follow logic if it stapled a chain to your penis and tried dragging you along. Plus, that sentence of yours is one of the classic silencing tactics. “Oh, you’re so emotional. You can’t be taken seriously.” Let me tell you something. A person can be emotional and logical and that is precisely what you’re up against. People who can understand what you write, understand the consequences of your proposal, understand the common underlying reasons that someone would propose such a thing and call you on your crap. Your statements are so outrageous, misogynist and offensive that emotions will unquestionably be raised. Yet, as we have seen, heightened emotions don’t mean a lack of logic.
Now, if you’d like to calm down and take a moment to realize that the substance of your proposal about revealing the names of accusers of unproven rape has been logically addressed, we’d be happy to debate any counterpoints you might have. Really looking at the problematic issues of your proposal and calmly offering any logical or factual counters will lead to a much more productive discussion than if you continue to wildly fling about unsubstantiated emotional accusations based an a faulty understanding of moderately common terms.
For being a stripper?
Damn.
MMOs sure have changed from my day.
;->
—Myca
Robert discussed one of Amanda’s posts, saying:
The problem with Amanda’s position isn’t where she started out, which was to take a position of presumptively believing the accuser. That’s fair enough; we have to presumptively believe somebody, or presumptively assume that everybody is lying.
I disagree. In point of fact, you don’t have to presumptively believe anyone, or presumptively assume that everyone is lying. What you can do is say, “I know that people are making conflicting claims, and I don’t know what the facts are, so I’ll suspend judgement until the facts come out.”
But no. People don’t suspend judgement. The accuser’s friends and family, and the feminists and socialists and the poverty pimps all started beating the drums about the evil white kids from Duke. The accused’s family, teammates and classmates, and the MRAs and racists and all started beating the drums about the crazy stripper. Now, I can understand the people who knew the accused or the accuser personally saying “Whatever they say, I believe it”. But why were the rest so unwilling to suspend judgement?
Mandolin nailed it:
To the feminists and socialists and MRAs and racists and poverty pimps these are not people; they are clubs to be used on each other, and the effect on them be damned. The opportunity to take a shot at their opponent far outweighs the humanity of the people involved. And if it turns out they are wrong, if the club becomes damaged or if it turns out they were fighting the wrong battle they just drop it, discard these people without a concern, and charge off to the next battle. Why wait for the facts? If we do that, we might lose an opportunity to score some points.
No apologies necessary. After all, maybe the particular people involved turned out not to have been guilty in this case, but enough of their class is guilty of something, so too bad. It’s another blow for the class struggle! Individuals don’t matter.
I exempt neither side from this. One side might be on the side of the angels in one case, but they’ll be on the side of the damned in the next. In neither case will they have the grace to feel or express any shame.
My proposal is not the best way to silence victims. It would merely make their names publicly available, just as those who are accused have their names made publicly available.
My proposal does not function to silence rape victims, it serves to allow the public to know who accuses. This is accountability. Accuse away, and if you lose then someone can go and find out who levied the charge. This is done with murder, civil suits, small claims court; almost all other legal matters allow the accusers name to be a matter of public record.
I do not wish to legalize rape.
I will not answer your last question, as it is of the version of:
“When did you stop beating your wife.”
Get to logic and cease being a manipulative
Now that you have explicitly admitted that you believe I want to silence rape victims, let me state again so that you can comprehend, given your apparent limited ability to read for content and comprehension, my position on your supposition.
I do not want to silence rape victims.
Get it? Can you read? Good.
Now stop putting words in my mouth and assigning opinions to me that I do not hold.
These techniques of The Left, Feminists, etal. are old. They are emotive, rhetorically misleading, logically fallacious, and dishonest.
I do not expect better from someone who disagrees with my opinions, as many who do have exhibited these same traits. I have seen them for decades, and when I was like you I used them as well, as they have been used to shut down and manipulate debate. Leftists, Feminists, Liberals, Pro-Abortionists have all used these techniques at one time or another.
Considering the tone of that comment, you seem incapable of reasoned discourse.
Back away from the Ad Hominems and insults and step away from the keyboard.
It is not that your argument is emotional AND logical. It is that it appeals ONLY to emotion. Look to Amanda’s statements for further proof of the concept. Emotion, outrage, and more logical fallacy than one thinks possible.
Except that the underlying reason you assume is INCORRECT.
Can you read? Your assumption is WRONG. Get it? I know the underlying reason that I would propose such a thing, you don’t, and it is *not* because I want to silence rape victims, I want the names of rape accusers available to the public.
I do not want to silence rape victims.
Can you read?
This is yet another example of the massive bias filters and outright prejudice of Feminists, The Left, and people who agree with your ideas.
You cannot argue upon merit, but MUST resort to a multitude of logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, efc.
Steven,
Let’s try this differently. If your sister (or mother, or wife, or aunt, or daughter, or girlfriend, or grandmother) were raped, and came forward, and lost her case due to any of the number of reasons why women who have been raped lose their cases, are you really sure that you would feel it was right and good that they should lose their privacy, and that the world be told that they said they were raped but a jury didn’t agree with them? Can you see how a woman who knew that if she lost her case, everyone would find out that it was her who was raped, might have the effect of discouraging women from coming forward and bringing cases against their rapists?
I’m thinking this out as I go, but here are some more of my reactions:
Writes RonF: “In neither case will they have the grace to feel or express any shame.”
I don’t actually feel they need to.
The level of political discourse in this nation is pretty abstracted. The Duke case is a good sounding ground for figuring out what people think.
Some people think: Black women are unlikely to get a fair shake in the justice system; it is important to voice support for them.
Others think: Bitches lie about rape to hurt nice boys.
Yeah, there’s bias in that breakdown. (Mine, I mean.)
It’s unfortunate that there are individuals involved. But the facts of the case have been irrelevant to the arguments — I think that’s what I’m trying to say here. Not only that they have been, and that’s bad, but that the arguments *aren’t about this case*.
They’re about hypotheticals of this case. “If a black woman is raped by socially priveleged white men, what should happen?” “If a stripper unfairly accuses some nice kids of rape, what should happen?”
We’re basically talking about a lot of hypotheticals, in these blogs in general — with occasional things that get to us on another level. Is it okay to send two teenagers to jail for child pornography, if they have been sending pornography to each other on private email accounts? If a woman posts a tech blog, is it reasonable for her to receive death threats? Etc, etc.
If we didn’t enjoy discussing those as abstract concepts, we wouldn’t be here arguing.
The other goal in the discussion of current events seems to be to create a mental picture of the shape of society, which will better affect one’s argumentation about abstract concepts. If you know that stranger pedophiles are less likely to assault children than members of their own family, you have a tool for understanding and judging legislation about pedophiles.
Fact is certainly more important, here. It’s important to know that the Duke boys were found not guilty because of a lack of evidence. However, facts are still contested — some take that to mean there’s a false conviction, others take that to mean – as I do – that there’s a potential that this woman was still raped.
I guess my point is, though, that at this level of discussion, I don’t think the individuals *can* matter. Even the people professing their desire for fairness, or to focus on the individual facts rather than the philosophies that underly their response, are propounding a philosophy.
We can engage our sympathy for individuals who are involved in these cases, but we’re engaging sympathy for a hastily constructed mental model, cobbled together on few facts. We judge their situations to the best of our abilities. However, our judgments should never substitute for a contextual assessment of what’s actually going on, by informed individuals involved in the situation.
That may be something damning about the way we talk about current events, but as long as they are stimulants for abstract political discussion, I don’t see how this is inevitable. The middle is just as guilty of abstraction as either “side” — or to use a less linear model, all the points on the spectrum are guilty, except those closest to the situation. It would certainly be desirable to find a way to protect individuals caught in this matrix.
But it seems to me that the abstraction of holistic events into a few comprehensible traits, in order to set up real-but-argumentatively-hypothetical scenarios, is part of the way politics has to work in a large country where there’s no possibility of a holistic understanding of all the events and people. I guess I’m just repeating Durkheim on some level here (IIRC, it’s been a few years).
I do not want to silence rape victims.
Then why are you making a proposal that would silence rape victims?
And, to go one step further, tell me if you understand/agree with the following points.
1) The fact that women who come forward about being raped have their privacy and identities protected by the media helps encourage women who would otherwise be to embarassed to do so to come forward.
2) Not every woman who loses her rape case has made false accusations.
3) Rape cases are incredibly difficult to prosecute, in part because they very often come down to “he said, she said.”
4) Women (and men, for that matter) often find it very embarassing to have to admit that they’ve been raped, and would be less likely to come forward if they knew everyone would know about it.
If you can agree with all of those four points, maybe you can also conclude with me that
5) Therefore, if women know that, if they lose their cases, everyone will know that they’ve been raped, they will probably be less likely to come forward for fear of losing and having their identities announced.
Can you see how your proposal would, therefore, have the effect of silencing rape victims?
It always amazes me how so many feminists (not all, but many) will bend over backwards and engage in the most tortured, convoluted logic in order to avoid assigning any blame whatsoever to those women who are actually caught making false accusations of rape, as the accuser in the Duke case almost certainly has been. Nothing, it seems, is EVER the fault of a woman, no matter what the facts are. Even in this case, as this thread has made painfully obvious, we get a vigorous defense of this pitiful woman and sympathy for her plight, and a vigorous attack on Mike Nifong as the true villian.
Mike Nifong is most certainly A villian in this case, but far from the only one. To read some of the posts here, one would think that Nifong spent his nights cruising the streets of Durham, looking for poor black women to recruit to bring false charges against rich, privileged white boys in order to advance his career, and offering all sorts of inducements to them to do so. Get a grip, please. The fact is that no one forced, coerced, persuaded, or encouraged the accuser in this case to do what she did. She went to the police, they didn’t come to her. She claimed to have been raped. She told a fabulous tale of what happened, where it happened, and who had done it. She pointed the finger of accusation, and even as the evidence contradicted her story, and even as the plausibility of her tale crumbled, she stuck to her story and continued to push for criminal charges and a trial (while at the same time, of course, changing her story so frequently and in so many fundamental ways that she destroyed any shred of credibility she once had). Even when the North Carolina AG and his staff interviewed her after Nifong had recused himself, and even after it had become clear that there was no hope of taking this case to trial and securing a conviction, she was determined to see it go to trial and for these young men to go to prison, as even the AG has admitted. In other words, she was being malicious. There’s no other explanation. When confronted with the abundant evidence that contradicted her story or made it not just unlikely, but impossible, she confabulated more and stuck to her guns. She was a liar who had been caught in a massive lie with enormous consequences, and she did everything she could to support and maintain that lie against all the odds. Seeing these young men being sentenced to lengthy prison terms was more important to her than admitting that she was mistaken, confused, hurt and angry, or that she’d made the whole thing up, and suffering the consequences such an admission would have for her reputation. What more evidence does one need of a false accusation motivated by malice?
As for it being a false accusation, rather than merely one with insufficient evidence to support it, the statement of the AG is pretty clear on that. he stated clearly that the men are INNOCENT and that they believe that NO ATTACK OCCURRED on the accuser. What more do you want? From a legal perspective, that’s awfully strong stuff, as any lawyer will tell you.
Once she made her accusation, and got the ball rolling, there were many more villians to add to the list: the police, investigators, DA staff, and most definitely Nifong himself. BUT SHE STARTED THAT BALL ROLLING. As such, she deserves a share of the blame for this fiasco, and it’s unfair to cast all the blame on Nifong (but very telling that so many here wish to do so). Thus, the accuser is definitely A villian of this story, along with Nifong and others. Not THE villian, but one of many.
Yes, yes, I know, she’s mentally ill. But her mental illness is being used as a convenient excuse to avoid prosecuting her for filing a false report and obstructing justice. The AG just wants this case to go away as quickly as possible, and has allowed his chivalry to get the better of him. “She might actually believe” the multiple, contradictory tales that she told investigators? Oh please, give me a break. If she’s that far gone, that deluded, that mentally ill, that divorced from reality, then why aren’t people calling for her children to be taken away from her and placed in foster care while she gets intensive inpatient treatment? Aren’t they in some danger being in her care? Probably because although she might have mental health issues, she’s not that crazy, and she knows she wasn’t raped. Reading between the lines, the AG’s statement boils down to this: “The accuser is a liar and a big mess, but I want this case to disappear and I think she’s been humiliated enough, so I won’t bring misdemeanor charges against her, and I’ll use the convenient excuse that she’s crazy to preclude any criticism of my decision.”
Mental health problems are the automatic excuse offered for any woman charged with criminal or highly unethical behavior. Honestly, whenever a woman is charged with something, the “she’s crazy” excuse comes out almost immediately, from both male and female defenders. It’s tiresome, it’s a cliche, but it often works. It seems to never occur to people that such assumptions are sexist to the core, and allowing so many women to evade accountability for their actions by using the “crazy” excuse just perpetuates inequality. Infantilizing women who do bad things is no way to fight for a just, equal society!
Mental health problems very rarely prevent charges from being filed against MALE defendants, BTW. Often, men who are quite clearly batsh*t insane face criminal charges and punishments as if they were stone cold sober. But it’s different for women, as we all know. Women are special.
Do I think the accuser should be criminally charged? Not necessarily. Her life is a mess and she has been publicly shamed and humiliated, and what would putting her on probation or tossing her in jail for a few months prove or accomplish? Precious little. But let’s not go to the extreme of absolving her of responsibility for this case or making excuses for her. She told lies that could have, in a different context, caused innocent men to go to prison for decades. That is not something that should be minimized or ignored in the headlong rush to heap opprobrium on Mike Nifong, although he deserves PLENTY of opprobrium!
Now that you have explicitly admitted that you believe I want to silence rape victims…
Dude, I explicitly stated (not admitted) that at comment # 68. Somehow you thought that I was alluding to it and now, at comment # 106 you finally understand that I clearly stated my position from the outset? And even then, you use the word “admit” to make it seem as if you have won some bit of this argument? Wow, that’s just sad.
Please note that I never “admitted” (as if I were hiding something) that you want to silence rape victims. I stated that your proposal does exactly that. I will, however, admit to explicitly stating that your proposal is, “… a blatant attempt to keep rape victims from coming forward…” (that quote is from comment #68 – the one that you were saying “alludes” itself – hmmm, the more I look at what you write, the more I’m convinced that you make almost no sense. Oh, well – you are an irresistible widdle twoll, so I’ll continue…)
I’m not sure that you have the ability to understand nuance and, therefore, the difference between, “When did you stop beating your wife?” and, “Would you consider legalizing rape to be the only way to silence victims?” but I’ll try to explain it in the simplest terms that I can.
There is no good answer to “When did you stop beating your wife?” Any answer implies that, at some point in the past – if not currently, you have done a horrible thing.
There are however a multitude of answers to “Would you consider legalizing rape to be the only way to silence victims?” that in no way imply that you are doing, or have ever done, a horrible thing. An example of one of those multitude of answers is, “No.” Another example of an answer to this question that in no way suggests that you are a horrible person is, “Of course not. Merely releasing the name of anybody who makes an unproven accusation of rape would serve that purpose nearly as well.”
Did that make it clear for you? I hope so. I hope this will help you to avoid using the tactics of horrible, misogynist, diversionists in the future. I hope that you will stop attempting to divert this discussion from the horrible proposal that you are making that will serve to silence rape victims. For thingssake, man, even Robert clearly stated (see his comments #76 & #90) that your proposal would have a chilling effect – and Robert will disagree with me at every opportunity.
It’s important to know that the Duke boys were found not guilty because of a lack of evidence.
No. They were not found not guilty. “Not guilty” means that there is insufficient evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused are guilty of a crime. There is still room in that to believe that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime, but for one reason or another it cannot be proved.
However, in this case, the three young men were declared innocent; a positive affirmation that they did not commit this crime. That is much different than “not guilty”.
It was also declared that “We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred,”. This is not a positive declaration that no attack occurred, but it’s fairly presumptive of that position. In the face of that, any assertion that an attack actually occurred is based on assumptions or beliefs, not facts.
In general, yes. But not in this case. In this case these young men were specifically pilloried, held up as insensitive privileged youth who acted in a sexist and racist and privileged fashion and then tried to cover it up. It’s true that the discussions then were extended to the more abstract level, but there was quite a bit of focus on them in particular.
It was entirely legitimate to support this woman; to make sure that she was not ignored, that she got the resources to pursue her case. I have no problem with people who said “Here’s a poor black woman who has been wronged, let’s make sure she gets the resources she needs for her day in court.” Jesse Jackson is a good example of that. But attacking the people she accused, criticizing their acts and motives, criticizing the people who said “let’s see what the facts are”, etc. was not support, was not legitimate, and in the end turned out to be simply wrong.
We are now seeing all kinds of rationalizations as to why people don’t need to apologize for that. Blaming the victim (i.e., the accused Duke players) or even denying they were victims is going on as vociferously by the left as I have seen it go on from the right when discussing rape victims. I’ve actually seen “well, they shouldn’t have been at that party”, just like you’d see “well, she shouldn’t have gotten drunk at that party.” In private communications about a given feminist or two I’ve been told “this person may sometimes be over the top, but they have integrity.” Now we’ll see.
Robert will disagree with me at every opportunity.
No I won’t.
Oops. Blast!
I think Chris (a few posts above me) nailed it.
I know this is a left-wing site, but up to this point I didn’t believe that it was a denial-of-reality-site-to-promote-our-cause.
Or something like that. At a certain point, you just have to acknowledge reality. Then you can ignore the issue (for the cause) and move on to the points specific to your movement.
I find it a bit scary that so many left-wing sites want to deny reality. I mean really scary when I think about juries and legislation and the like.
Pingback: The Debate Link
Nemo, could you back up some of your attacks with specific quotes from my post that you disagree with, and why? Where, specifically, do you think my post “denies reality”?
“Nemo, could you back up some of your attacks with specific quotes from my post that you disagree with, and why? Where, specifically, do you think my post “denies reality”?”
———————————————————————
Hello Ampersand, I think I was referring to posts that came after your headline topic. I know that you can’t answer for individual posters, but I was talking about them.
I said this earlier . Go to the archives and view the opinions when this case first became public .
Here are a few examples :
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/04/03/duke-rape-case-regarding-innocent-until-proven-guilty/
At this time, unless new evidence completely changes this case, it seems clear that a brutal pack rape happened. That deserves our moral outrage, even without a court’s verdict.
What Jerelyn doesn’t mention (and perhaps doesn’t know) is that the girl was beaten up. As the girl’s father told a TV news reporter:
The man described what his daughter looked like when she was released from a hospital. “Her face was all swollen up, her jaw. She couldn’t half walk. One of her legs was hurt.”
To me, that kind of injury doesn’t sound like the result of consensual sex for anyone but an extreme BDSMer. It sounds particularly unlikely for a stripper, who depends on her looks to feed herself and her children. (Maybe the father was lying – but it would be a very stupid lie, since the police would have taken photographs…
But at this moment, the evidence that a rape took place is pretty straightforward and convincing, whereas the evidence that a false accusation took place is… I’m not even sure what it is. “A couple of 911 calls were not perfectly consistent, therefore a false accusation has taken place!” seems to be the gist of it. That’s not convincing. That’s not anything
Rachel S Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 am
…Moreover, some of the things they are bringing up I haven’t seen anywhere–such as the argument that she was high. The security guard at Krogers is the one who suggested that, but this woman had not idea exactly what was going on. Plus, that has nothing to do with whether or not this woman was raped.
Q Grrl Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:36 am “But the DA, Mike Nifong, seems to be going out of his way to demonize the entire Duke LAX team. ”And? The entire Duke lacrosse team has shat on the community for years — turn around is fair play
evil_fizz Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:05 am But the DA, Mike Nifong, seems to be going out of his way to demonize the entire Duke LAX team.You mean the attendees of a party where a woman was gang raped? It’s not because they’re the lacrosse team. It’s because of the crime.
decon Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:23 am
It’s because of the crime.
Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that prosecutorial misconduct is acceptable when rape is alleged?
evil_fizz Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 am is that prosecutorial misconduct is acceptable when rape is alleged?I’m going to bet dollars to donuts that you have no idea what constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. It’s a legal standard, not a rhetorical flourish. And no, it’s my contention that when the authorities have probable cause to suspect that a violent crime has been committed, they can pursue the perpetrators and those who may have aided and abetted them.Try not to derail the thread 10 comments in, hm?
Q Grrl Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 am Decon: what part of the crime do you disbelieve? Barring non-consensual sex, what about the beating and strangulation?These men, specifically the lacrosse team, have proven, year after year after year, their willingness to engage in illegal and disruptive behavior, with little to no regard to the consequences. Suddenly, when the crimes escalate (or are finally reported) these men are innocent until proven guilty? Honey, they’ve been proving their guilt for years. Hell, they’ve already copped to criminal activity the night of the party, so I’m really not sure what “innocence” of theirs you’re trying to shore up.
geoduck2 Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 am What is disturbing to me is the silence. Somebody saw something at that party. But the entire team refuses to talk to the police
Charles said :
It seems to me that there are two possibilities: either everyone at the party was basically aware of what was happening and therefore chooses to remain silent rather than implicate themselves, or everyone at the party believes that someone at the party commited the rape, but that their team should be above or outside the law. I have a very hard time constructing a scenario in which every single player is remaining silent under advice of council that does not involve everyone present being aware of the rape when it happened….
They have chosen to stand with their rapist team mates rather than with the the victim and with the rest of civil society. Even if (and I don’t believe it for a second) no rape occurred and this is all the product of some bizarre conspiracy, everyone who was at that party who refuses to provide evidence to the police has chosen to stand with their rapist team mates. The choice to refuse to help the police figure out what happened has to be based in the assumption that their team mates committed rape and should get away with it. It certainly isn’t based in a rational fear that rich, white Duke students won’t get a fair trial in Durham
Thomas Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 am
So far, the inconsistencies that Merritt has pointed to don’t give me any pause. I think she went back into that party and got gang-raped, strangled, beaten and robbed just like she said. So far we know that she was sexually penetrated, that she had lost some fingernails, and that an (interested) witness says her face and bodily movements were consistent with a beating
Q Grrl Writes:
April 5th, 2006 at 11:36 am Well, fuck them all.Innocence my ass.This from the campus newspaper The Chronicle (www.dukechronicle.com)
Radfem Writes:
April 5th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I’ve had most of the shock knocked out of me by now. As awful and offensive as I think what the guy wrote was, most of me was thinking at least he was stupid enough to get caught at it and it’s out there for the world to see. Now, maybe the University will get smart and take action against the lacrosse team, but most likely, not
chaka Writes:
April 6th, 2006 at 5:26 am I wonder what Ryan’s mommy has to say about her poor baby now! He was just joking, you people can’t take a joke. What a sick little boy! Of course he would never do anythng so bad, perhaps the police or the accuser planted the e-mail too. Someone will come up with that one after while, since so many people think thiis is a grad conspriracy.
Q Grrl Writes:
April 6th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I believe in “innocent until proven guilty” both inside and outside the courtroom.
That’s because you don’t have to live with lifelong reminders that you are the rapeable one, no matter who you are, what you do, or how truthfully you live your own life. Innocent until proven guilty isn’t so much about justice in this instance: it’s a means of putting blinders on women’s judgements and self-protective instincts.
goodcharity Writes:
April 6th, 2006 at 6:37 pm Personally I think they where guilty no doubt about it.They are high class (white) boys who can afford almost anything they want and i guess they thought since they got away with most things and where decieving others as “star players” and “good boys”, anything they did wouldn’t matter.It would be the (black) exotic dancers word against thier fancy act word.
I think these and other posts would make a great teaching tool .
Q Grrl Writes:
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 am Decon: what part of the crime do you disbelieve? Barring non-consensual sex, what about the beating and strangulation?These men, specifically the lacrosse team, have proven, year after year after year, their willingness to engage in illegal and disruptive behavior, with little to no regard to the consequences. Suddenly, when the crimes escalate (or are finally reported) these men are innocent until proven guilty? Honey, they’ve been proving their guilt for years. Hell, they’ve already copped to criminal activity the night of the party, so I’m really not sure what “innocence” of theirs you’re trying to shore up.
I’d like to also add (if it gets through):
It is difficult to post when every post comes up with “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. Maybe the idea is that I will eventually give up, and that idea is pretty much on target. I don’t have much interest in writing anything intensive, or with a great deal of thought, when it will just get nixed at the blink of an eye.
Amp,
In response to your query in post #117, the impression I got from Nemo’s post was that he was referring to some of the comments posted by others on this thread, that could be construed by some to be avoiding or denying reality, rather than to anything specific that you wrote. But, I could be wrong, and hopefully Nemo will post in response to clarify!
“But, I could be wrong, and hopefully Nemo will post in response to clarify!”
—————————————————————
I’m trying to communicate, but every post is blocked with “Awaiting moderation”.
Since I can’t answer to questions about my post, I think I have to stop posting – otherwise my posts can be torn apart, with the naive question, “why doesn’t he answer??”.
If this eventually gets through – it is my last post.
Nemo, sorry about that. For some reason the spam-blocker is thinking you’re spam today, so they sit in moderation until I get to it and approve. I don’t know why it’s doing that today, but just so you know, you’re not being targeted on purpose.
Nemo, sorry about that. For some reason the spam-blocker is thinking you’re spam today, so they sit in moderation until I get to it and approve. I don’t know why it’s doing that today, but just so you know, you’re not being targeted on purpose.
—————————————————————————————-
Hello, I appreciate your concern, Ampersand. On the other hand, I have noted that every single post I have made on your board (even quasi-old ones) have always been subject to moderation. In every single case, ever since I started posting, no matter what the topic.
I guess it’s just one of those silly things that happen. I don’t have enough word-power to punch through. LOL
Yes, I will give up.
I feel they should lose their privacy just as if my brother (or father, or uncle, or son, or male friend, or male co-worker) who was accused of rape, and then the world be told that they were accused of rape but a jury hadn’t even heard the case yet.
It is called Fairness, and that is what motivates my idea. Not legalising rape, or silencing rape victims.
Why would I want a different standard for my male friends and relatives than for my female ones? What we have now is exactly that, and it needs to change.
Why should we protect the identity of women and not men? What is so morally superior about a woman who alleges rape that unlike almost any other crime, she and she alone is given the right of anonymity compared to other plaintiffs and accusers?
No such luck. This is what I mean when I say that The Left slanders and resorts to fallacy. Instead of addressing my points, you just go on in detail about your assesment that I lack the ability to see nuance.
You posted this:
No it doesn’t say it bright as day; what you did was ask a question:
Explicitly stating it (bright as day, perhaps) is this:
It appears that you do not have the ability to understand nuance.
Lastly::
As I am neither horrible, a misogynist, nor have I used diversionist tactics.
I do not want to silence rape victims, and I think the Fairness of this concept::
Is worth pursuing.
I stand by the post.
Good day and Good Bye.
Steven,
Ever hear the old saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right?” That, by your own admission, is what you are now advocating. Go back and read comment # 33 in which I agree theoretically w/ the proposition that nobody should be named.
However, rather than be satisfied that some left-wing feminist agreed with you, you went on (in typical twollish manner) to promote a policy that silences rape victims. You followed that up by spending incredible amounts of pixels ignoring the well-thought out objections to that outrageous strategy and instead being outraged that left-wing feminists should think you an odious entity for proposing a policy that will silence rape victims.
Of course, it is possible that you never felt that naming neither victim nor perpetrator is an acceptable alternative. In that case I’m wrong about your change of policy promoting. Nonetheless, it is evident, no matter how much you cry that you don’t want to do such a thing, that the policy you are currently promoting will function, mainly, to silence victims of rape. Given that that is the case, yet you continue to promote the policy of naming the victim should the allegation end up unproven (not a false accusation, merely unproven), I believe that the conclusion that you do, in fact, want to silence rape victims is both valid and likely.
So, now, instead of promoting the fair(er) policy of not naming either the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator (for which there are also well-reasoned arguments against), you continue to shill for an odious policy as if it were the only valid measure, totally ignoring your initial implied proposal (in comment #12 I see an implication that neither should be named – but I may have misinterpreted you) to name neither the victim nor the perpetrator until conviction of the latter. (Unless, of course, I’m wrong and you won’t support a policy that never names victim and only names a perpetrator after conviction).
Oh, did I forget to mention that you immediately named the alleged victim in a post that specifically and obviously is against such a thing? And you followed that up with, oh, such outrage that your action encouraged someone (me) to call you a shithead. Classic trolling.
Given that this is textbook trolling, I feel safe in referring to you as a troll without fear of engaging in an ad hom.
Steven:
You posted this:
My comment (#68) doesn’t imply that you want to silence rape victims – it fucking says that bright as day. (Airs are really much easier to maintain if you know the definitions of the words that you are using).
No it doesn’t say it bright as day; what you did was ask a question:
Would you consider legalizing rape to be the only way to silence victims?
You are either lacking in reading comprehension or lying. Here is the relevant “bright as day” passage from comment #68:
If this:
I merely call for rapists to be named, and the accused to not be.
I merely call for the proven victims to remain anonymous, and those who accuse and lose to be named.
isn’t a blatant attempt to keep rape victims from coming forward, I don’t know what is. Would you consider legalizing rape to be the only way to silence victims?
See the bit where I say that your proposal is “… a blatant attempt to keep rape victims from coming forward“? That is the direct accusation that you want to silence rape victims.
Yet more Steven:
I do not want to silence rape victims, and I think the Fairness of this concept::
If a sexual assault, rape, harassment, etc. charge is levied, the identities of BOTH Plaintiff and Defendant are withheld.
-If the defendant is acquitted then the accuser is named.
-If the defendant is found guilty, then they are named.
Is worth pursuing.
Steven, that policy functions to silence rape victims. Let me ask you one final time:
If you don’t want to silence rape victims, why are you promoting a concept that undeniably functions mainly to silence rape victims?
If you can answer that direct question without resorting to faux hurt feelings, obfuscation and diversion, I may reconsider my classification of you as a troll. Until then, you are a troll that wants to silence rape victims. (There, is that direct enough for you?)
Steven, I’m unclear on why you think that if the defendants are found not guilty, it must, of necessity, mean that the accuser lied, and has earned exposure.
Is there seriously no middle ground?
I think it’s entirely possible for a rape defendant to be honestly innocent and for the accuser to honestly believe he is guilty. No malicious intent, nothing wrong or evil on either side, just a simple mistake. This happens.
I believe that keeping the names of the defendants private until the conclusion of a trial is probably a good idea, both to avoid the later stigma of accusation and to prevent a mob mentality. I believe this because I don’t think that the accused should suffer for things that they have not been convicted of.
Similarly, I support 100% the idea of releasing the name of an accuser if she is later charged and convicted of making false accusations, but I cannot support any sort of punitive action against someone uncharged and unconvicted of any crime.
We should not be punishing people before finding out if they’re guilty. It goes against all decency.
—Myca
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Steven and others for insisting that words be used according to their definition in a medium in which the only method of communication is the written word. Steven’s entirely proper objection to my insistence was in no way diversion from the substance of the debate.
I would also like to apologize for criticizing Steven for comparing a question that was in no way similar, except for also being a question, to the classic, “When did you stop beating your wife?” This was also, clearly, not a classic anti-feminist troll tactic which attempts to create insult when there was none nor a was it a classic anti-feminist troll tactic designed to create a distraction in the hopes that he could get away with not answering the question.
I think that in general withholding the names of accused is a bad idea. I can think of a many situations where publicity is a good thing for both justice and public safety. Secret justice isn’t. However, this depends on giving people the benefit of the doubt and accepting a defendants innocence at the end of the process.
I think rape shield laws are absolutely necessary.
The only rule I think justified by this case would be one limiting the power of the prosecutors office in some way. I think that almost any other rule based on the duke case will be a mistake. This case was odd.
Well, you don’t always post from the same IP or use the same name, so that can’t be it. Maybe you should experiment with changing your email address; there might be some letter combination in your email address which is somehow setting off the spam filter.
You have valid points, Joe. In theory, both naming the accused and not naming the accused until conviction work. In reality, however, both have obvious flaws. It is a question of which is less flawed as there is a real possible danger in both methods.
Perhaps allowing the accused to decide whether to be named or not? Nah, that has the same drawback as not naming, I think. It is a tough question, though.
No. They were not found not guilty.
They were not FOUND anything. There was no trial. The prosecutor dropped all charges and stated that he believed (based on the evidence he reviewed) that they were innocent of the crimes of which they had been accused.
FFS, people, if you’re going to go on about the criminal justice system, at least act as though you’ve watched Court TV once or twice. Next somebody will be talking about the accuser as the “plaintiff” again.
Why should we protect the identity of women and not men?
Your slip is showing. Do you believe that a male rape victim should have his name published? That a female accused of rape shouldn’t?
RonF, kindly drop the “I’m up on a golden throne and the rest of you are acting out of selfishness” routine.
So we have arrived at a point where we protect the identity of an accuser only in one situation. Since most rapes happen to women this is a sexist decision by definition. So all sexism isn’t wrong, only in certain cases. I don’t like that concept at all. I have two daughters and a son. I think they deserve equal protection under the law. Separate but equal in how a law is applied does not seem like a good thing to me. The fact that some people have ancient notions about victims of sexual assault is not a convincing argument for me either. To say that the stigma of a sexual assault trumps the stigma of unfairly being branded a beast is equally specious.
But I would like to remind everyone that the idea of naming the accused was actually meant to protect them against unfounded accusations by the state. You know, taking you away in the middle of the night without anyone every knowing. So some would argue that the Duke players were being done a favor.
So if your son was raped, you’d want his name all over the papers?
And Im sorry, when the majority of women are the ones RAPED, your bitch is that protecting them afterwards is unfair to men? Because they’re the ones doing the raping, but the outcome of it is unfair to them.
Yeah. That makes sense.
Jesus jumped up christ.
I hesitate to jump in to the debate about naming/not naming rape defendants and accusers, as it has appeared to become quite nasty. I can see valid points in many of the posts arguing both sides above, invective aside. So, with trepidation, my two cents:
If rape defendants are shielded from public exposure (at least until they’re convicted) then the same privilege should be accorded to ALL defendants facing criminal charges, no matter the crime. Rape defendants should not be singled out for special treatment or protection, as that will lead to an unequal system of justice. So, it’s either anonymity for all defendants (unless/until they’re convicted) or it’s anonymity for NO defendants.
The media custom of anonymity for rape accusers should be abolished. Rape accusers (I’m deliberately using “accusers” as not all those who accuse others of rape are actual “victims” as this Duke case has amply demonstrated) should not be accorded special rights and privileges that other accusers/victims are denied. So, either we keep all those who accuse others of crimes anonymous to the public, or we name all of them. The current system is unequal and unfair. Note that child victims are NOT included in this assessment–they’d still be kept anonymous in all cases, except for murder, as per current custom).
If one decides to name or keep anonymous either criminal defendants or accusers, one should in fairness accord the same status to the other (i.e. if defendants are named, so are accusers; if defendants are kept anonymous, so are accusers).
With that said, IMO the idea of keeping people anonymous in the criminal justice system is a very bad idea. A secret court system is an invitation for abuse and it smacks of police state totalitarianism. Openness and oversight are key to having a fair, impartial, and just system. Also, it’s quite easy to think of scenarios where naming accusers and accused would further the interests of justice, and where keeping them anonymous would hinder justice. To keep the discussion focused on rape, and just to provide one example of each: Naming an accused man possibly allows other, prior victims to come forward to authorities. Naming an accuser might prompt others with information on a previous false accusation, for example, to come forward–or some other information that might be highly relevant to the case.
So, to sum up, I feel that everyone involved in criminal cases–accusers and accused–should be named in press accounts of cases. There should be no special exceptions or privileges accorded sex crimes (again, unless the alleged victim or the alleged perp is a child).
Refusing to name accusers in rape cases only makes it easier for false, erroneous, or exaggerated accusations to be made. Furthermore, the very concept undermines the legitimate drive to destigmatize rape victims. It’s pretty hard to argue that something should not be a cause for shame or stigmatization and then turn around and argue that that very thing is so uniquely horrible and traumatic and shameful that victims of it (or those who claim to be victims of it) should be kept anonymous! It’s analogous to declaring that redheads should not be ashamed to have red hair, that there’s nothing wrong with it, but that they should nevertheless always wear headgear or scarves to conceal their red hair so others won’t know. It’s internally inconsistent thinking that works at cross-purposes. The effort to destigmatize rape survivors is undermined by some of the very things done or advocated by those who supposedly wish to destigmatize rape survivors!
“Why would I want a different standard for my male friends and relatives than for my female ones? What we have now is exactly that, and it needs to change.”
That would be true if male rape victims had their names published while female rape victims did not.
Females accused of rape (or child molestation) have their names published. Male victims of rape do not.
Whats unfair isnt who gets their name published, its who keeps being the victims of rape.
Oh, and another thing I should have added to my last post: It seems to me that the biggest problem lies not in naming people or shielding their identities, but in the way the media covers so many of these stories. It’s often grossly irresponsible and prejudicial. Less hysteria, less fearmongering, less sensationalism, less trial by media, less presumed guilty until proven innocent, less wild speculation, less “if it bleeds it leads”, less voyeurism–all would help in these matters tremendously. Too often the media and the public see news from the criminal justice system as salacious entertainment and competitive sport and forget that the lives and reputations of real people are st stake. Naming rape defendants, for example, would be less of an issue if the media were to keep coverage fair, impartial, objective, responsible, minimal, and sober. Alas, that often doesn’t happen, and early coverage of the Duke case is a perfect example (the print media do a better job than broadcast media, but of course most people get their news from the broadcast media!)
It seems to me that the biggest problem is that rape is still rampant.
We’re talking about different things, so your retort is a non sequitir.
Much of this entire arguement wouldnt even be necessary if we actually started addressing the real problem. Rape. It would be a bit difficult for some people to continue claiming its unfair because the majority of rapists are male so they get their names published more often. Of course, they ignore the fact that females get their names published when accused of rape, but evidently their problem lies with the ratio and who gets named because of it. I’d rather fight the source of the whole problem than slap bandaides on it. Many of the side issues would clear up pretty quick.
Oh and just an aside
I dont really find it unfair that my rapist had his name in the newspapers while I was taking sitz baths to keep the swelling around the stitches down, because he ripped me open from the vagina to anus. Im not inclined to believe HE got the short end of the stick in the fairness game.
Since most rapes happen to women this is a sexist decision by definition.
Are you really sure you want to agree that disparate impact without discriminatory intent is sexism?
But I would like to remind everyone that the idea of naming the accused was actually meant to protect them against unfounded accusations by the state.
You are confusing the Constitutional right to face one’s accuser in court with individual decisions made by newspapers, television stations, and bloggers not to publish the names of alleged victims of sex crimes.
You’re just bound and determined to whine about how women have it all, aren’t you?
I’m not sure there’s much point in discussing this anywhere, but I feel obligated to try.
There are many reasons to believe that the accuser did not lie when making her statements. She claimed the assault lasted half an hour, but her partner insists she wasn’t in the house nearly that long. Why the inconsistency?
Why did she flee the house, leaving behind valuables? Was this to establish cover for her lies?
Why were there so many inconsistencies? One sign of a well planned lie is that it is very consistent, more consistent than one would expect.
Why did she make claims that a few minutes thought would tell a person could get her in trouble? e.g., she’d claimed to have been penetrated by men not wearing a condom; couldn’t she have guessed that a rape exam would likely disprove that, if it had been part of a made up story?
Why did she appear drugged, yet respond shortly after a police officer started questioning her?
Add in one other fact: she reported having been gang-raped in a previous incident. No action was taken because the report was old and there wasn’t sufficient evidence for the police to investigate.
What happened? Well, something happened in the house to make her panic; if she had been gang-raped previously, she could well have had a traumatic flashback. During such an episode, she could easily lose track of time, panic, and be confused as to what was a recent memory, and what was part of the flashback to the gang rape she’d suffered years before.
It is entirely possible that she reported the truth as best as she was able.
There are many people who are eager to punish her; what they may end up punishing her for is the crime of having been raped, and suffering consequent PTSD.
If this hypothesis of mine is correct – and I confess I’m not a professional doctor or psychologist, but I am an educated layperson – the fault should lay more strongly on Nifong, for not letting the evidence he could gather dictate his actions.
Ouch! I’m getting sympathy pains in places I don’t even have. :-(
I agree that your rapist didn’t get the short end of the stick.
But we’re not talking about your rapist, or even rapists in general, but a wider group of people which includes some rapists, as well as some people who are actually innocent. It’s the innocent ones we’re concerned about, but it’s not always possible to distinguish them from the rapists.
The Duke case is an exceptional one in that we can. The defendants were innocent, and yes, they did get the short end of the stick.
“But we’re not talking about your rapist, or even rapists in general, but a wider group of people which includes some rapists, as well as some people who are actually innocent.”
Which includes mine. This isnt a hypothetical. So Im applying the idea its unfair to him as well.
” It’s the innocent ones we’re concerned about”
Well, without trying to sound snarky, I dont feel all that concern ya’ll have. Or does my innocence not count?
What does your innocence have to do with this case? As far as I know you have no connection to the Duke case. Or are you saying that every accused male, especially some perceived privileged one, is automatically guilty because you were a victim? Or that because you were a victim you have special incite into the facts of this case that AG and his investigative staff missed? Look women are just as capable of lying as men. It can both be true that women are raped and some women lie about it. Latter might be less frequent, but it certainly occurs.
When an accusation is made should the system be set up to try to pin it on someone regardless of the evidence? Do you really want to abandon the principle that it is “Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer?”
Lots of crimes go unsolved. If you commit the perfect murder you will get away with it. It’s sad. It sucks. But in this new world of mass media presumed innocence of the accused is more important then it ever was.
To believe “Women Don’t Lie” about rape is nonsense, but I understand it happens with much greater frequency today than it did in my generation when rape was virtually “unreported” . If fact, it went so “unreported” that there are no statistics available on rape in that era (1960’s).
The Duke Three-ers, certainly not lily white with stellar reputations, are INNOCENT of all 3 charges.
pheeno (“quoting me”):
I can understand you applying the idea in that way. (I guess it’s a bit like the way I and others apply to ourselves a lot of negative ideas about “men” expressed by feminists.) But I’m not sure what there is to do about that.
It’s my fault, I suppose, for saying “we” without being clear about who I meant. “We” doesn’t include Steven, for example, whose silly suggestion that rape complainants be named when a defendant is acquitted certainly shows no concern for innocent rape victims.
Pardon me if I retreat to “I” at this point, and leave it to others to show their own concern.
I haven’t shown much concern for you specifically, because, to my recollection, I’ve never discussed your rape before. I’m also cautious about expressing concern toward individual survivors on Alas or in other places where I’m regarded as adversarial to them, mistaken though that view is. I’d rather not have my genuine concern dismissed as insincere, so I tend not to express it.
As evidence of my concern more generally, I would point to this comment in which I said:
I stand by that. The only change in my position since then is that at that time I would only say that the defendents had “looking increasingly actually innocent with each new revelation“. Now I say they are actually innocent. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to call her guilty. It’s possible, even likely, that she’s mentally disturbed to the point of not being responsible for her own actions, but that aside, she’s still entitled to be presumed innocent unless and until found guilty of something.
I hope that clarifies my position.
but I understand it happens with much greater frequency today than it did in my generation when rape was virtually “unreported”
These young girls today, why, they’ll lie about rape at the drop of a hat! Back when I was young, if you wanted to lie about rape, you had to walk five miles uphill in the snow!
FormerlyLarry, I believe pheeno’s point was that the people screaming OMG THE POOR ACCUSED don’t seem to have similar concerns for rape victims. By the way, “presumption of innocence” is a legal term applying to criminal proceedings; it’s not a law that says it’s a thoughtcrime to believe somebody has committed a crime before they plead guilty or are convicted.
I’d note, without blaming the three accused men or suggested they ‘asked for’ or ‘deserved’ what happened to them, that part of the reason people were so willing to believe the accuser were the circumstances of the party. When the two strippers left, partygoers shouted racist insults after them. One of the fraternity residents sent a now-infamous email about how he’d like to skin and kill a stripper. Given those circumstances on top of Nifong’s misconduct, it is unsurprising that people gave the accuser credence.
Yes, one or more of the party-goers and a stripper may have exchanged insults (just going from memory of the 60 min interview). Do we absolutely know for sure who that was? I somewhat recall the email thing, but I don’t remember if he was one of the 3 accused.
I am not sure that I would want to be tainted by everything that other people say for every party I attend, do you? There is such a tendency to broad brush these things by just throwing everyone into convenient groups. We have the party goers, the lacrosse team, the jocks, the privileged white males, the rich, the males. These people are individuals accountable for their own actions.
Pheeno,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you MEANT to write was: “when the majority of those who are raped are women”; the idea that the majority of women suffer rape is ludicrous, but I wouldn’t put it past some of the more deluded extremist feminists in the rape cult of victimhood to insist on such a preposterous notion.
You’re also mischaracterizing the debate in this thread over naming/not naming rape accusers and accused. You’re assuming (wrongly) that all women who accuse men of rape are being truthful and are actual rape victims, and thus that all men who are accused of rape are guilty. The actual crux of the debate, however, was that given the social and cultural climate surrounding sex crimes, is it really fair to defendants to drag their names throught the mud and tarnish them with intensive media coverage of their alleged crimes, only to eventually find some of them not guilty? A not guilty verdict does not mean that the man is able to go back to his former life as if nothing happened–he’ll always be tarnished with the accusation and its after-effects. Thus, the idea is to protect possibly innocent defendants from such an outcome by shielding them from exposure unless and until they are duly convicted of their crimes in courts of law. If they are convicted, then the point would be no longer applicable. Also, there are plenty of reasonable scenarios that would speak against the justice of keeping accusers anonymous as the press currently does, as I outlined in a previous post. It’s unfair to characterize this as a debate that says current practice is gender discriminatory–that’s not really the point.
Also:
You’re assuming that the vast majority of sexual assault victims are women. That proposition is dubious, at best. In recent years, the US has averaged between 80-90,000 official rape reports to law enforcement authorities annually, according to the Dept of Justice. Of course, not all those reports are truthful and accurate, but no one on any side of this debate knows precisely what percentage are false, so we won’t even get into that. Also, not all those official reports are from women, although the overwhelming majority are. And of course the number of official reports understates the number of true rapes, since many go unreported. Again, no one on any side of the debate knows precisely what percentage of rapes go unreported, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s 2/3 to 3/4 of all actual rapes. For purposes of illustration ONLY, let’s go with the high figure of annual police reports (90,000) and let’s further assume that all those reports came from women and all were truthful accounts of actual rapes, and that 3/4 of actual annual rapes go unreported, and furthermore that all the unreported rapes are also suffered by women. Even though I think it’s pretty clear that those assumptions are seriously OVERSTATING the actual annual incidence of rape in this country, we’ll go with them as part of this little thought experiment. That gives us approximately 360,000 women being raped annually in the US. OK, with me so far? Academic studies have estimated that approximately 290,000 males are victims of sexual assault in the US every year in jails and prisons alone (See the group Stop Prisoner Rape for more details). One can argue that those findings are exaggerated, but then of course so is our hypothetical 360,000 annual female victims of rape. The point is that while it may be valid to argue that the majority of sexual assault victims are women, they don’t comprise a large majority, and it’s quite likely that the numbers of men and women who experience sexual assault every year in the US are quite similar. In that respect, sexual assault is just as much a men’s issue as a women’s issue, but not in the traditional way that most people think.
Again, that’s a serious mischracterization of the arguments of those who advocate shielding the identities of rape defendants unless/until they’re convicted of their alleged crimes. Gender imbalances and proportion have nothing to do with it (or shouldn’t). It’s a question of unfairly tarnishing and stigmatizing someone who may actually be innocent of the charges.
I don’t doubt you when you say you are a rape survivor, and I’m not going to accuse you of exaggerating your ordeal in order to score emotional points in a debate that is already highly emotionalized. I DO find your statement rather curious, however. Are we to assume that your rapist took a knife or other weapon and sliced you open from your vagina to your anus? If so, you have my deepest sympathies, as that is horrific. If not, how exactly was such a severe injury caused? The perineum isn’t tiny, it’s a significant stretch from vagina to anus (or in my case, from scrotum to anus). That stretch is not made of tissue paper, but of skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle. Thus, for the perineum to tear along its entire length would require an attack of rather savage violence, and if it didn’t involve a knife or other sharp cutting implement, it must have involved the rapist biting and tearing with his teeth and hands along that entire stretch of tissue, while you did…what, exactly? Certainly an erect penis thrusting into one of your perineal orifices would not cause such an injury, no matter how big it was, how unlubricated and unwilling you were, and how much you fought back. Most women don’t even suffer the “ripping open” of their entire perineum from vagina to anus during childbirth, let alone during penile intercourse, even if it was nonconsensual. So, further clarification of your ordeal would be most welcome.
Longhairedweirdo, with all due respect your last post was one long rationalization of the accuser’s behavior, and a perfect example of how some feminists engage in the most tortured pretzel logic and verbal gymnastics to avoid blaming a woman for anything, even for what appears almost certainly to be a false rape accusation, probably motivated by malice. To review:
1) The accuser’s other alleged gang rape by three men in 1996 was investigated at the time, but the evidence was weak, to put it mildly, and she refused to cooperate with investigators, so no charges were brought. Her own father has gone public with his contention that she lied then, and fabricated the attack.
2) The accuser was not just a stripper–evidence and testimony gathered during the investigation revealed that she was a prostitute as well, and had performed hardcore sexual acts with and for clients the same day she stripped at the lacrosse party. The fact that the semen of SIX MEN was found in her vagina and on her underwear (and of course none of the six matched the DNA of any of the lacrosse players) should be an eye-opener, but of course that’s something that her feminist defenders always wish to sweep under the rug.
3) The accuser was a drug abuser and a drinker and was by all accounts intoxicated the night of the party. In fact, the testimony of the lacrosse players was that one reason they got so upset with her and cut the performance short, and thus one reason she was only at the house for a short period of time, was precisely because she was so intoxicated that she could barely walk, let alone do what they had paid her to do, that is strip and dance.
4) The accuser first made her claim of rape when she was approached by a police officer who’d been called because she was passed out in her friend’s car in a supermarket parking lot. The accuser has a prior arrest record and was on probation at the time, and perhaps saw an opportunity to play victim and avoid trouble herself, by making accusations about the loutish white Duke boys from the night before. Who knows? It’s certainly a more plausible scenario than what she eventually alleged, and what you postulated in your post!
5) Once she made the accusation, she was taken in for a rape kit, medical exam, and questioning by officers, and she had to give them a story, so she did.
6) That initial story pretty quickly fell apart under examination, so she changed it. Then that story also became untenable, so she changed it again. She changed her story multiple times and in very fundamental ways over the course of months, and each time it was because the evidence wasn’t supporting what she’d said before, and also due to fault memory. Not faulty memory of actual events, but faulty recollection of previous lies she’d told. As it’s often been pointed out, it’s easy to tell a lie, but it’s very difficult to maintain that lie into the future without contradicting yourself, without inconsistencies, without consciously or unconsciously changing details. That’s why most liars (at least those who lie about big things) are eventually unmasked.
7) This is why your question about why her well-planned lie wasn’t perfectyl consistent was off-base: Her lie wasn’t well-planned or thought out in detail in advance, it was a quick spur of the moment thing, that she had to flesh out the details of later. When pressed for details, she had to concoct some, and then when those details were shown to be problematic, she kept revising them. She did this for months, her last major “revision” being in December when she told Nifong that on second thought she probably wasn’t ever penetrated by a penis, which led him to drop the rape charges but keep the others.
8) At any point in this process, once it became clear that the evidence was greatly at odds with her story(ies), the accuser could have backed away from her allegation, admitted that it was a fabrication, said she was so intoxicated that she was deeply confused and maybe imagining things that didn’t happen or couldn’t remember key details well enough to press ahead, or just refused to cooperate any further with the DA and refused to testify at trial, which would have meant the end of the case. She did none of those things, even though she had many outs. Thus it’s pretty clear to me that her motivations were primarily malicious and self-protective and not due to being so mentally ill that she was completely divorced from reality and truly believed she’d been savagely raped, choked, and beaten when nothing of the sort really happened. As I said in a previous post, if she’s truly that mentally disturbed, she shouldn’t be raising children, and the fact that no one is calling for her to be treated at an inpatient psych facility is telling. The Attorney General’s reliance on her mental illness as an excuse for not charging her with filing a false report is merely his euphemistic and chivalrous way of saying that although she lied, she’s so messy and has suffered enough from this process that he didn’t see any need to kick her while she’s down by filing misdemeanor charges against her. What would that accomplish? Nothing. It would merely prolong a case that he desperately wants to GO AWAY as quickly as possible, as it’s been a huge embarrassment to his state.
I can’t state wiht 100% certainty that the accuser lied and did so out of malice, and of course she hasn’t been convicted of such in a court of law, but I think the evidence that she did is pretty convincing. Feminists who insist on defending her and making excuses for her are only doing themselves and their cause a huge disservice, and giving ammunition to those who argue that much of feminist rape theory and policy is coming from a position of dogmatic ideological rigidity and religious faith than from evidence, fact, logic, and reason.
georgia tech rape victim,
Your first point is correct, and kudos to you for saying so! You’re also right to think that false allegations ARE more frequent than they were decades ago, for a variety of reasons, and there’s evidence that supports such a contention. However, I take issue with your assertion that rape was virtually unreported as late as the 1960s. That’s simply untrue. There were tens of thousands of annual rape reports made in the 1960s, and plenty of research was done on rape at the time, although the statistics got better and the research more detailed in the 1970s. Incidentally, stats show that many more offical rape reports were filed with authorities annually in the 1970s than are now–the annual number averaged around 100,000 or more for the nation in the 1970s, whereas now it’s hovering closer to 80,000 annually. The US population now is much larger than it was in the 1970s, so that means that either far fewer rape victims are reporting their assaults than did in the 1970s, or that the per capita rape rate in the US over the last 30 years has plummeted. The first possibility frankly defies common sense, given the destigmatization of rape victims, the development of a huge support network, the increasing pressure to report assaults, the implementation of numerous victim-friendly laws, and the cultural changes that have occurred over those three decades. So, it’s virtually certain to be because rape has become much less common than it was 30 years ago. And that’s extremely encouraging and positive news!
One other thing to chew on, in re rape being almost unreported in past decades: For most of the 20th century, most states that had the death penalty allowed executions for rape convictions. More men were executed in US history for rape than for murder, and of course a disproportionate number of them were black and in the South. I’m sure they’d be quite surprised to learn that rape was almost never reported prior to the 1970s!
mythago,
That’s a really harsh and unfair characterization of the point they’re making. It’s entirely possible to be both very caring and concerned with rape victims, and also to be concerned about the potential effects that a rape accusation might have on an innocent man. In fact, I think decency requires such an attitude!
Chris:
I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you why your list of reasons why the accuser should never have been believed in the first place is ridiculous and vile, but I really wanted to tell you that this passage:
strikes me as being beyond the pale.
I never said the accuser should never have been believed in the first place, so stop putting words in my mouth. I merely listed some reasons why her credibility was eventually and justifiably called into question, and provided a plausible narrative for how her false allegation was first made and then took shape. She lied over and over and over again–that, or she’s so deeply mentally ill that she shouldn’t be raising children and should probably be treated in an inpatient facility. Those are the only two realistic scenarios here–honest and mentally stable people don’t just accidentally imagine or get confused about a brutal, violent gang rape! If no attack occurred but she honestly believes that she was a victim of a violent gang rape, then she needs intensive psychiatric help, and I’ve heard no one suggest that she’s receiving it, or that she should receive it. Thus, malicious falsehood is the only reasonable fallback position. Her credibility about the alleged attack at the lacrosse party was about zero, for many reasons, most of which I didn’t take the time to list. Those who continue to rush to her defense and make excuses for her are suffering from serious reality-denial, most likely caused by their dogmatic belief in feminist rape orthodoxy. That’s their (your) problem, not mine. It is a pity, though, that so many on the feminist left have had their minds so clouded by dogmatic theory that they’re unable to recognize reality when it’s staring them in the face, and continue to reject common sense for the comforting embrace of myths.
As for being beyond the pale, that’s your opinion, and I validate that. I personally think it’s a legitimate question. I didn’t bring the topic up, she did, and in a very emotional way to drive home a point she was making. I only sought clarification. For an injury like that to occur, the only conceivable way I can envision is for it to have been a deliberate act of mutilation by a rapist wielding a weapon–and if that were the case, as I said she has my deepest sympathies, as such a thing is horrible to even contemplate. But barring such a savage attack, I’m quite bewildered as to how such an injury could occur during a “normal” rape (i.e. one with forced, nonconsensual penile penetration of the vagina or rectum). I confess to finding it highly unlikely, as the penis is not a sharp, cutting instrument. If you disagree with that assessment, might I suggest taking an anatomy class or two?
Chris,
While you are skilled in maintaining a nominally polite tone, you are a repugnant troll of the first order. You drip condescension and thinly veiled contempt and abuse with every word you write.
Furthermore, Charles, NOBODY deserves to be automatically believed or disbelieved immediately upon making an accusation. All they deserve is to be taken seriously and for their allegation to be investigated thoroughly, rigorously, and in an unbiased fashion that seeks justice and truth as its only acceptable end result. There’s a huge difference between that approach, and reflexively believing someone as soon as they make an allegation. Can you see it and understand it?
Had the police, investigators, and prosecutors followed my approach, this case would have been over long ago with far less harm done to all concerned. But no, they followed your approach (and, by extension, the approach of too many feminists) of BELIEVING…the faith-based approach to rape allegations, that radical feminism has fought so hard to inculcate in all of us, and look where it got them. Shamed, disgraced, humiliated, made to look like fools. As, of course, they were. It’s a pity, really. I’m sure they’re nice enough folks, but when you embrace BELIEF and reject logic, facts, evidence, and reason, you’re setting yourself up for a mighty fall.
Chris, your response to Pheeno was disgusting and abusive. You are an asshat. I hope the other posters recognize you for the evil troll you are and cease responding to you.
Charles,
Oh please, take a Valium already! Why am I a repugnant troll? Because I state the obvious about the Duke lacrosse accuser? Because I’m not rushing to make excuses for her inexcusable behavior? Because I question some of the more loopy assumptions and beliefs of some on this site? Because I ask for clarification or explanation of improbable stories?
We all know that “troll” is defined as: Someone who disagrees with me and won’t kiss my ass, and who makes arguments that I have difficulty refuting.
There are plenty of commenters here who make all sorts of nasty and disparaging remarks about others–calling them stupid, insensitive, rape apologists (one of my faves **Sigh**), and on and on and on. Mr. Jake Squid even had the decency to refer to a commenter with whom he was debating a point a “shithead” further up this thread! It’s impossible not to notice that the only commenters who are ever criticized for their tone or choice of words on this blog are those who have minority viewpoints here. Very telling. So Jake Squid calls someone with a legitimate point a “shithead” and no one says a thing, but I get to be a “repugnant troll” for making logical arguments, for pointing out the flaws in others’ arguments, and for calling a troubled liar…a troubled liar! LOL
As for “dripping condescension and thinly-veiled contempt” I’d say that describes many, many comments that I’ve read on this blog over time, from many different people–but again, only those with minority viewpoints, or those who are critical of the prevailing orthodoxy at the site, are ever criticized for it. And I fail to see how it describes my posts on this thread, or how they’re any worse than any number of others. Oh, yeah, I remember now–because I disagree with some elements of the group-think here!
For clarification, (I wont even bother pointing out the shit that sentence alone tells me about your character)
He didnt use a knife, he used a pistol. After he used fingers and his dick. He then made me list off reasons I wasnt worth a bullet, with the pistol still inside me.
Speaking of giving birth, since you feel entitled to intimate details, I ripped open then as well.
Wanna know when my next period is?
mousehounde,
I’m so NOT evil it’s not even funny. I’m about as harmless as they come. But if someone insists on beating others over the head with an emotional non sequitir argument based on a highly implausible story, you’d better be prepared to be questioned on it, and have reasonable answers ready.
“Because I state the obvious about the Duke lacrosse accuser? Because I’m not rushing to make excuses for her inexcusable behavior?”
Wow, you really need to call the AG and tell him the secret info only you are privvy to! He seems to have decided upon a rather justifable excuse for her behavior.
“I don’t doubt you when you say you are a rape survivor, and I’m not going to accuse you of exaggerating your ordeal in order to score emotional points in a debate that is already highly emotionalized. ”
“But if someone insists on beating others over the head with an emotional non sequitir argument based on a highly implausible story, you’d better be prepared to be questioned on it, and have reasonable answers ready. ”
Thats pretty funny.
Chris, for what it’s worth, based on what you wrote to pheeno, i think you’re either a troll or a twisted jerk. I hope you’re just a troll, that would be less odious.
Chris,
You are hereby banned from this site. Please desist from posting here.
[yes, I do have that authority.]
pheeno,
No I don’t want to know about your period, and I don’t feel “entitled to intimate details.” I seem to recall that you offered unsolicited graphic intimate details earlier all on your own, to use as an emotional bludgeon in a debate. I only questioned what you meant, as you didn’t provide full details, and made it sound as if he did all that damage with his penis (I’ve heard many women over the years use the phrase “he ripped me open” in much more casual and euphemistic senses that did NOT refer to rape, and they were not talking about the savage tearing of their entire perineum). The fact that you offered the additional detail of being stitched up along your entire perineum caused my jaw to drop in shock, as I couldn’t imagine such an injury being caused by a “normal” rape (i.e. forced penile penetration that does not involve deliberate mutilation, etc.) I didn’t know whether you were exaggerating for effect and emotional wallop (as many, many, MANY people are wont to do on the Internet) or if you had suffered a more savage mutilation attack involving a knife or what have you.
I should have kept my questions to myself, and I apologize for asking you about it.
What you suffered is a horrible, revolting thing. I hope the man who did it to you is locked away and will be for a long, long time.
With pleasure! I have better things to do with my time than debate with ideologues. But FWIW…many of you could take a good long look in the mirror when it comes to impolite and condescending and contemptuous commentary…but I doubt that you will. Smug self-righteousness is so much easier.
Pheeno, I’m so sorry that that happened to you.
Thank you.
What he didnt get was my point. Which was, whenever rape victims hear ” but the accused might be innocent so they shouldnt have their names published” the implication is that their possible innocence is more important than our definite innocence.
Oh and my secondary point
All these issues, including should the accused be named, should we protect the accuser ect, all of these are brought to you by your local, friendly neighborhood rapist.
Focusing on stopping rapists and changing a culture that promotes rape would render many of the arguements moot.
Most issues regarding due process rights of victims and accused wouldn’t be issues if there weren’t crime. Is debate of due process rights and procedure an offensive distraction from the stopping of violent crime?
I have to say that was either it was very inappropriate morbid curiosity or downright mean. Its also too bad for the topic because the guy made some good points and now they will be lost.
” Is debate of due process rights and procedure an offensive distraction from the stopping of violent crime? ”
When it gets used to distract from the source of the problem in an attempt to lay blame (again) at the feet of the rape victims or those who would strive to protect them, yes.
There’s a very real need to conceal the identities of accused precisely because of the work by groups like the Innocence Project and articles like this.
There’s no inconsistency between saying that 98% of rape accusations are true, and less than 98% of the accused are guilty of the crimes. Unless the accused is known to the victim (which is the case entirely too often — all three of the men who raped me as a teen were known to me), or the accused went from committing the offense directly into police custody (which seldom happens with rape), there’s always the potential for an incorrect ID. From that point, unless the accused has a solid alibi, or there is DNA evidence that excludes the accused, an incorrect ID can result in a conviction.
pheeno writes:
Amein v’amein!
“I seem to recall that you offered unsolicited graphic intimate details earlier all on your own, to use as an emotional bludgeon in a debate. ”
Speaking of your rape = emotional bludgeon
Attacking rape victims = not emotional bludgeon
…
You’re a repugnant troll because of your disgusting fantasy about pheeno’s injuries. Either you’re totally clueless about appropriately responding to a survivor’s disclosure, or you were intentionally being as offensive, hurtful, and abusive as you could. Either way, there’s no place you in any civil discussion.
How is it that typos become visible the instant you click ‘submit’? That should be “…there’s no place for you…”
By “attempt to lay blame,” do you mean debate that asserts conclusions like “she shouldn’t have been there” and “she was asking for it,” or do you also mean debate about due process that countenances possibilities like “some victims may be mistaken” or “some persons may lie, though rarely.”
Some arguments for due process probably entertain the latter two possibilities as a basis for having required procedure and defendant rights (though certainly not the only basis). Does entertaining that basis as grounds for certain legal or judicial policy constitute victim blaming on face? Or does emphasis on those possibilities have to reach a threshhold to constitute victim blaming and obfuscation?
In addition to Charles’ banning of Chris — which I fully approve of — I’ve also banned Steven, since I felt he was adding more heat than light to the conversation.
By “attempt to lay blame,” do you mean debate that asserts conclusions like “she shouldn’t have been there” and “she was asking for it,” or do you also mean debate about due process that countenances possibilities like “some victims may be mistaken” or “some persons may lie, though rarely.”
Neither. I mean those on this blog who are engaging in “debate” soley for the purposes of making the victims to blame for any bad press the accused might recieve.
Re rape shield laws, an explanation for those who dislike them:
Rape is one of the most difficult crimes to prove in court. Absent evidence of violence, even strangers seem to have the ability to claim consent. In the vast majority of other crimes, there evidence tends to be more one-sided; it supports the accused or the accuser.* In rape, the best and most obvious evidence (sex) can be claimed by the accused under the veil of consent.
THAT means that “non-violent rape”** is one of the crimes where the likelihood of proving ACTUAL GUILT is extraordinarily low.
Y’all with me so far?
Now: A woman who brings a rape assault charge to the police is–almost always–exposed to a much higher level of privacy violation than the accused. This may seem odd. But the criminal laws prevent going into9 detail of the defendant’s personal history. So while the questions “who did you sleep with earlier that week?” or “earlier that month?” or “in your life?” etc are probably relevant, we can’t ask the DEFENDANT those questions, under the laws of evidence.
We can (absent rape shield laws), however, ask the ACCUSER those questions. And we did. in fact, for decades (if not centuries) it was common practice to force women to relive and repeat their entire sexual life (under oath) on the stand. Do they watch porn? masturbate? Did they have an affair? Did they (shudder) “”sleep around?”. It was pretty much the old “slut defense”: provs she’s a “slut” and you win the case for the accused.
It shouldn’t take a feminist to realize that this sucks. If a woman has just suffered rape trauma, asking her to do that on the stand may be too much for her. In fact, a lot of old data I’ve read in the past suggests that many women who were, unquestionably, raped, would STILL refuse to testify. The experience was so unpleasant they would just not do it at all. And, of course, we all (hopefully) know that a woman’s PRIOR sexual history with someone ELSE doesn’t necessarily have a lot of bearing on what she does with someone NOW.
In fact, because the rape itself can still be discussed (even under most rape shield laws AFAIK) some folks believe that this is still a problem, even now. It’s a catch-22: the more horrible the experience for the woman (and therefore, the “more guilty” the defendant) the less likely she is to want to discuss it or testify about it in graphic detail on the stand.
Anyway. Both pre- and post-rape shield laws, accusers had/have a choice. They can go to court and face an unpleasant experience, or not. If they DO go to court, the unpleasantness is the “negative” and the chance of seeing the accused convicted is the “positive.”
There’s not a whole lot we can do to change the “positive” aspects and make it easier to convict actual rapists. We’re limited by the Constitution in some cases, and by other factors as well.
However, we can reduce the “negative” aspects through rape shield laws. We do that by limiting the scope of the unpleasantness the accused has to endure. So her prior sexual history is generally inadmissible.
that’s the good part.
Now: There are two pretty obvious problems with rape shield laws which it’s also important to acknowledge:
1) Rape shield laws increase the absolute number of false convictions by increasing the number of false accusations that go to court. If the percentage of would-be false accusers who get convictions remains constant, then anything that makes it easier for people to accuse others is going to increase the absolute number of accusers–and, thus, the absolute number of false convictions.
2) Rape shield laws increase the number of false convictions by withholding potentially relevant evidence. this is because our evidentiary rules aren’t perfect. Sometimes we exclude things that are relevant. And because rape shield laws selectively exclude testimony that could only be helpful to the accused defendant, they are–at some point–going to hurt someone’s case.
Are these ‘real’ problems? Sure. I find it distasteful when folks refuse to acknowledge these problems. I think it’s better to admit them and say rape shield laws are still a good idea notwithstanding those costs. We have to look at both sides of the argument. If rape shield laws can vastly increase the %age of convictions for real rapists, then a small % increase in false convictions may be worth it. I’ll admit there are aspects of rape shield laws that make me uncomfortable (I’m biased towards all criminal defendants), but overall I think they’re doing their job.
After all, we don’t expect our criminal justice system to be “perfect” anywhere ELSE. We try to balance the desire to convict folks who are actually guilty with the risks of convicting innocent people. And I don’t see rape shield laws moving far away from that standard. One things seems to be true: They seems to have made it a LOT more possible for someone who was raped to get justice. And isn’t that a good thing?
* I use “accused” and “accuser” instead of “victim” and “rapist” intentionally. FWIW, if more feminists used this tactic, I suspect it would do a lot to get MRAs off our case. Personally, I think that the percentage of wrongly-accused defendants is higher than the percentage of maliciously-accusing complainants. But there’s the same result: The vast majority of accusers are victims–but not all, and the vast majority of accused are rapists–but certainly not all.
** (by “non-violent rape” I mean “rape that doesn’t involve physical violence to the victim that shows up in scars, bruising, or other objectively verifiable evidence”–all rape is inherently violent and I’m happy to use a better term if anyone wants to suggest one. And I’m only making this distinction because of its relevance in the judicial process, not because one kind of rape is “better” or “worse.”)
Sailerman,
Good post. You should probably make that a post of its own on your blog, as well.
The one thing I’d suggest adding is that judges do have the ability to admit evidence contrary to rape sheild laws, if the judge decides the evidence is genuinely relevant.
Non violent rape is far better than the “normal rape “Chris used.
Yeah, so the prosecutor botches the case and that means we get to name names all over the place? There’s no case against those three guys, so that means she was never assaulted? And also, all those multiple reports about them yelling racist slurs at folks walking by – those didn’t happen either?
I love the mental health thing. It makes me feel so good about possible outcomes if I ever – gods forbid – need to file a complaint in the US. Also, people who take medication – totally asking for it, right? Cuz that’s what I’m reading between the lines.
The NC Attorney General did not just say there was insufficient evidence to convict the 3 defendants, he expressed his office’s opinion that they were innocent and that there was “no credible evidence” that an assault took place at all.
That being said, this case is so atypical of most rape cases that it may not be wise to use it as a basis for changing policies about revealing the name of the accused or not disclosing the name of the accuser.
Nemo, if you want to find some people disconnected from reality, check out the link behind the poster of #81.
They were not FOUND anything. There was no trial. The prosecutor dropped all charges and stated that he believed (based on the evidence he reviewed) that they were innocent of the crimes of which they had been accused.
Myca, although I used the word in this paragraph, I was quoting the original poster; I’m well aware of the legal implications of the word and I didn’t use it myself to define the legal status of these young men.
I think you mean Mythago.
Though you did use it to imply that my characterization that the boys weren’t guilty of the crimes was incorrect.
Let’s please, pretty please not call them “boys.” They are men.
Once you are 18 you are a man in the eyes of the law.
That’s a pet peeve of mine about this case.
“Let’s please, pretty please not call them “boys.” They are men.
Once you are 18 you are a man in the eyes of the law.”
Sorry. I try to correct that when I notice it, but I’ve read it so much it got into the bottom of my brain… Will try to do better.
Myca, mandolin, sorry about the name mixup. Sometimes I throw mythago in there too. I apparently have a problem with the letter “m”.
Longhairedlarry:
“Why did she flee the house, leaving behind valuables? Was this to establish cover for her lies?”
My frat house used to host parties a lot. It was not unusual for at least one drunk/stoned female guest who had done nothing more than drink and dance (fully clothed) all night to leave a purse behind. It’s consistent with her stories, but it’s also consistent with a lot of other things.
To all:
I would not advocate changing rape shield laws based on a case like this. However, if after charges are dropped in a rape case the prosecutor believes that charges of filing a false police report or otherwise deliberately lying about the rape accusation are sustainable, the accuser’s name should then be released just like anyone else who is charged with a crime.
I think there are some lessons that people should take away from this case. Even though a rape case may exhibit characteristics that fit into your world view of disparity between races, genders or economic classes, and even if there are other activities going on that you may disapprove of (such as hiring and enjoying the services of a stripper), the actual facts may well differ. “Always believe a woman who accuses a man of rape” is just not sustainable. That doesn’t mean that disparities in power don’t exist. It doesn’t mean that an accuser shouldn’t be supported in getting her day in court. It doesn’t mean that you yourself shouldn’t be involved in the mission of helping such people. But be open to the fact that every day people do things against what you think is their own best interests, and that includes making accusations of rape. You can help someone without judging either them or the people they are accusing.
I think Jesus had a few things to say about that. I have found, upon reflection, that when you read Scripture a lot of the things said in there aren’t just things that pertain to a specific religous doctrine; very often, they are sound practical advice.
Les, while there have been some very high-profile cases where people get away with crimes because of some kind of mental or emotional disease or problem, in point of fact very few defendants escape prosecution or punishment for that reason.
Sailorman:
But our criminal justice system is supposed to be designed to put the interests of the defendant above the interests of the accusers; to make its top priority to ensure that no person loses their liberty unjustly. A small increase in false convictions is no small matter, and whether the increase of convictions for real rapists makes that justifiable is highly debatable.
This is the heart of many arguments about rape law; the idea advanced by many rape victim advocates that, since “non-violent” rape is so hard to prove, we should relax the standards for conviction. Getting the guilty into jail is more important in rape’s case than in other crimes, and that convictions of the innocent is somehow less horrible or important. I think the meme of “if a woman claims she’s been raped, believe her” is advanced in part to lessen this; to make it seem as though this isn’t much of a risk because all accused are guilty anyway. This case shows us different.
“But be open to the fact that every day people do things against what you think is their own best interests, and that includes making accusations of rape. You can help someone without judging either them or the people they are accusing.”
I think there’s a lot of confusion about what it means to believe women when they say they were raped. Maybe it’s not a clear concept.
I believe women when they say they were raped.
I believe women when they say they were robbed.
I believe women when they say they went to the grocery store this morning.
I believe women when they say they recently got a haircut.
Sometimes women turn out to be lying, and that’s sad and shocking. But just because a man once lied about being robbed doesn’t mean that all other men are viewed with suspicion when they say they were robbed. The police should check for evidence that the robbery occured, but I, as a private citizen and internet layabout, am not obliged to do likewise.
I am allowed to believe people, being not a court of law. Sometimes I wish I were a court of law, but I would probably get annoyed and bored, not to mention getting sick of not being able to move around and being perpetually full of juries and judges and lawyers.
I’m further allowed to do this, because I don’t hold other things to the standard of evidence that is required by a court of law. I don’t demand that my fiance show me the quart of milk and the receipt before I believe him that he bought milk. Nor do I demand that my father prove he was robbed at knife point when he was seventeen.
Nor did I demand, when I was eighteen, that my mother prove her story to me when she lends me a wide leather belt for a costume and sighed, “That’s the belt I was wearing when I was raped.” I don’t need to see the church where it happened. I don’t need to heft the gun that was held to her head. I don’t need the man’s DNA.
That doesn’t mean there’s no ambiguity around individual circumstances. It means that while our culture views rape charges with inherent suspicion, I do my best not to treat a description of rape differently than I would a description of any other kind of crime.
O.K., mandolin, that I can go along with.
I think someone else may have discussed this on this or on a related thread, but there still seems to be some confusion about what rape shield laws are.
Rape shield laws are laws adopted in most states in the U.S. (and possibly in other jurisdictions) that restricts the defense from examining the accuser on her past sexual history. There are some exceptions to this restriction, which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The rape shield laws have nothing to do with what the news media may disclose. Most news organizations in the U.S. have a policy of not disclosing the name of the accuser. Many also have a policy of not revealing the name of the accused until he has been indicted. However, to the best of my knowledge, at least in the U.S., these are voluntary policies, and the news organizations under no legal prohibition from publishing this information if they choose to do so.
RonF writes:
I don’t know anyone (… which doesn’t mean they don’t exist …) who wants to convict more innocent people just because rape is so hard to prove.
The problem is that “rape” is inherently hard to prove in many instances because it isn’t like robbery, fraud, arson, etc. There might be physical evidence that sexual intercourse occurred, but there’s generally no physical evidence that consent did or didn’t occur.
The legal question comes down to consent — did she or didn’t she? If she did, it’s not rape, and if she didn’t, it is. What this means is that rape trials historically have been nothing more than a trial of the accuser, because she has to prove that she didn’t consent.
This is unlike all manner of crimes in which physical evidence DOES exist. Unless I ransack your house, I could (but I’d be laughed out of court …) claim that you told me to stop by and take your VCR for my party. Or that you offered to lend me your car, so I stopped by to take your car. Or, gee, you forgot your purse on the subway, and I was just rummaging through it to call you up and return it, but, gee, I just got distracted. Go figure.
Someone on this thread, and it may even have been you, RonF (I confess I’m too lazy to go through all the comments to find it), has already pointed out that generalizing from this case is probably a bad idea.
Julie HOC has also pointed out that it’s possible at the same time to say you believe a woman was raped and to support her as a rape survivor and to say to the accused rapist “I will presume that you’re innocent unless and until you’re convicted.” It’s not easy, but it’s doable. For the reasons I gave in my comment #92, I think that absent strong evidence to the contrary, we should believe a woman who claims rape simply because, even with rape-shield laws and anonymity policies, the deck is still stacked against her.
It’s also been mentioned that if the rapist is unknown to the victim, a rape may very well have taken place and the rapist misidentified.
I can think of at least one well-known case where the rape survivor went public, I think even before her trial, because she felt that all the anonymity tended to reinforce the idea that she might have done something wrong. I admire her, but I don’t know that I would do it in her place, and I sure don’t think every rape survivor should be forced into the limelight.