That seems to be the message in Kathleen Parker’s column Sex, lies and prison. As long as the rapist is “a good son” and his victim isn’t a stranger he snatched off the street, then he isn’t a “real” rapist no matter what a jury decides. So much for the argument that rapists are “innocent until proven guilty.”
For Ms. Parker, rapists are innocent until she decides otherwise.
The moral of Gorman’s story, which can’t be proved or disproved in this limited space, is that boys and men accused of rape have little hope of reclaiming the life they once knew, regardless of whether they’re guilty or innocent.
Really? Tell that to Kobe Bryant.
And isn’t it interesting that Ms. Parker makes all accused rapists, those innocent and those guilty of rape, sound like the only ones we should be concerned about in rape cases. Rape victims are only important if something about them can be used to make them seem less than “good.”
Apparently, those of us who have been raped by “good” men or boys are only “good” if we shut up and let all “good” rapists continue on with their lives as if they’ve done nothing wrong. I bought into this destructive advice for far too long and paid a steep price for my silence.
If squashing victims’ voices means those “good” men and boys continue with the same type of rapes, Ms. Parker doesn’t care or will continue to blame the “bad” victims for the actions of “good” serial rapists.
Ms. Parker is blind to the irony that many “good” rapists pick victims who are vulnerable to attack and who are least likely to be believed if they do report. Ms. Parker’s disbelief that “good” men and boys commit “real” rapes is so strong that she sees all prior reports of rape as proof that the alleged victim must be the real perpetrator.
One minute a junior at Florida State University majoring in business/computer systems, the next a prison inmate labeled a sex offender.
Uh huh, it happened just like that. But somewhere in that minute, the accused had time to turn down a plea deal that would have kept him out of prison and given him twelve months probation. But does Ms. Parker scold him for his stupidity at not taking the deal? Nope. She continues to paint him as the only victim in this case.
With so much glossed over in this article, there is no way I can trust that Ms. Parker has accurately given readers the full picture of the events that led to this man’s conviction. With her “I only see wrongly-accused men” glasses, she can’t do anything except discount all elements in this case that counter her vision of who is a criminal and who is not.
But all is not lost for our wholesome convicted rapist. He reconnected with his high school sweetheart and got her pregnant. No marriage yet for this wholesome father and convict, but in this case Ms. Parker approves.
This backlash against the prosecution of “good” rapists will continue to grow as the minimum sentences for rape convictions go up. Of course another irony is that those behind the backlash are often those behind the push to increase minimum sentences given to “real” rapists.
For you men who would never rape any girl or woman, not even the “bad” ones, it should bother you that Ms. Parker lumps you in with “good” rapists.
Note: Also posted on my blog, http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com
Pingback: sonitus.org
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
But does Ms. Parker scold him for his stupidity at not taking the deal?
Nor should she. The guy had a lawyer whose job it was to tell him whether the plea was or wasn’t a good idea. And yes, innocent people do take these kinds of plea deals. (I’m not saying *this* guy was innocent, mind you.)
Unfortunately we tend to judge the crime by its victim. It’s part of reality, the same way more attractive people tend to get hired over less attractive counterparts and more affluent people tend to have more opportunities than the common folk. Not because they are better and what they do, but because its the luck of the draw.
The Duke rape story is no different. Had it been two black Duke basketball players and not two lily-white “lacrosse” players, I’m sure the questions regarding her “story” would have been different. Had the victim not been shakin her thang for money which is how she chose to raise her kids as well as complete her education, I’m pretty sure the story would have been different as well.
Life is about choices. Rape cases are inherently difficult subjects but it’s a fact of life that circumstances will mitigate perception. I wish it wasn’t the case but I like to live with both feet on the ground and thinking otherwise wouldn’t allow me to do that.
This comment is on a completely diffrent tangent, but how do you feel about the courts forcing a woman to take her children to see their rapist father in jail?
Samantha–need it be said it’s an abomination?
Yeah, and the myth of the nice young white guy who doesn’t rape, which of course SO protects all women. Of course it actually protects nice white boys, who can rape with impunity.
“One life goes on. The other is ruined.”
There are very few articles or opinions written on op-ed pages of newspapers about the ruined lives of rape or incest victims. There is almost always a bias in articles or opinions against victims and sympathy for possibly innocent rapists.
So what if he’s innocent?
Should he just bend over and strike a plea bargain anyways? Would the poster want to be labled a sex offender?
As a norm I see this blog as being very fairminded, I can;t say that about this post. Unless you can pull out direct physical evidence of rape I have to say it sounds like two versions of a story only two people really know. Asking the accused to plead guilty imho stinks.
Kave
Abyss2hope’s point was not that Gorman should have taken the deal – no matter what, but that it’s insanely hypocritical of Parker to constantly paint Gorman as the victim even as she uses similar examples of “stupidity” to bolster her argument that the girl who was raped wasn’t really raped: she was drunk, she went with him willingly, etc.
If Parker had stuck to the facts that supported Gorman rather than mainly focusing on portraying the rape victim as a bad girl and Gorman as a nice guy, a lot of us wouldn’t have as much of a problem with the article.
But then, Parker’s column wouldn’t have much of a point either, would it? It’s not as if she’s arguing that we change laws or set up a fund to help Gorman. She’s just using his story to write her own about how “nice boys” don’t rape – period. That’s why it’s so nausiating.
Samantha asked:
to which ginmar replied:
I wonder about this response. Where precisely is the abomination? If the man raped neither his wife nor any of their children, does the fact that he is a convicted rapist void any claim he has to a relationship with his own children? If he raped one of the children, then absolutely I can see a problem. If he raped his wife, but not one of his children, I can see the horrible irony–and I would agree it might qualify as an abomination–in forcing her to take them to see him, but why not someone else? Because I’m not sure I would agree that he should be prevented from seeing them entirely–barring other extenuating circumstances and/or the children’s expressed wish not to see him.
I remember reading a long time ago an article about a study–or the study itself, I don’t remember which–about the humanizing effect visits with their children had on violent female prisoners, and so I am wondering if that would not also hold true for male prisoners, assuming the man is not a pedophile, has not raped/sexually abused his son or daughter, and so on.
Jeffrey, I’m going to assume for a moment (probably erroneously) that you don’t know the specifics of the case that gin and Samantha were discussing: The rapist raped his wife: the mother of the children who are being forced to visit him. The victim is being forced to drive the children to the prison regularly for their visitions….this in spite of an eloquent letter from the oldest child flatly stating she wants nothing to do with her father, and all three children requiring therapy to get over the disruption in their lives their father has caused.
It is indeed an abomination.
At some point, it would be interesting, in a flaming train wrck sort of way, to see Alas take on the question of what is to be done with someone who’s really falsley accused of rape, and to talk about the issue. It’d be a dificult topic to tackle, but interesting.
It might be something like gay/bi men talking about the concept of promiscuity and AIDS. Somehting we get a lot of lies about around us, and something that most of us hate the idea of.
I’ve never known anyone who was falsley accused of raping an adult woman. I know two of my friends were accused of child abuse, one by a vindictive psycho ex, and another by a homophobic schoolteacher.
Still, I’d rather not side track this issue too much, so I’m not going to discuss it more. I jsut thought I’d see if anyone else thought it was an interesting idea, and deserved it’s own thread.
Samantha- That’s a tough question. It would depend on what sort of circumstances. I mean, eventually, one presumes he’ll get out of prison, and possibly move back in with his wife.
Would it be better, or worse for the chidren to see him. That’s the question. One best left to people who’re really know what they’re talking about. Me, I have no clue. It might help, it might hurt.
Having a single parent household *sucks*. OTOH, living with a rapist might be worse for the kids. Or he might reform. Who can say?
Kave:
Since the question of the trial and the column seems to be “Is it still a crime if a rapist stops raping after the victim does something that makes it impossible for him to claim it was consensual?”
In this case, the victim yelled, “Stop.”
From Sex, lies and prison
It’s interesting to note that Ms. Parker leaves the actions taken between entering the apartment and the yelling of “Stop” a complete blank other than to call it a sexual encounter. Yet I’m sure it was these actions that were key to this “good son’s” conviction.
On my reference to stupidity, Mickle has it right. People like Ms. Parker call victims stupid for getting into situations where they are raped (or even murdered) yet refuse to use the S-word for any men accused of rape. No: “Hey, dufus, you wouldn’t be sitting in prison if you hadn’t brought that girl back to your apartment. Where was your common sense?”
Josh Jasper:
I don’t know if Alas has ever posted on this subject, but I have on my blog as recently as yesterday, though not from the angle you are suggesting.
Here’s a link to my first post on this subject:
abyss2hope: Ethical Interrogations and Rape Victim
There are all sorts of things to discuss about plea deals, bad counsel, the burden upon the state to prove guilt…but as far as I’m concerned, the part of this post that interests me is Kathleen Parker, and her determination to find the worst in everything that even tangentially involves feminism or non-religiousness or non-right-wing conservatism.
Last Father’s Day, she used the occasion to rail about how mean we are to fathers and men in general, how totally and completely (and maliciously) we have trashed what she believes to be traditional masculinity. You’d think that once in a while, she’d pause and mark an occasion with a report of something she found encouraging, or something she remembers fondly.
No, no, and no. It must suck to be her. Her brain seems filled with ugly nightmares, her veins with acid. Sometimes chronic dyspepsia can be funny, but her complaints must always target her specially designated enemies, which almost always include me and mine. I wish she’d just go sit with Coulter, Malkin, Schlesinger, Schlafly, et al., and pray for a new age to dawn, one in which all their dreams come true and they no longer have the right to speak in public, or write stuff, or, like, go outside.
Ain’t it a drag to always be protecting them from the world they say they want?
She’s just using his story to write her own about how “nice boys” don’t rape – period.
Exactly. She’s jockeying to be the latest anti-feminist “It Girl”, but she doesn’t have the socioeconomic cachet for that. She tends to limit herself to whining about how American men are being castrated by having expectations of civilized behavior thrust on them.
I mean, eventually, one presumes he’ll get out of prison, and possibly move back in with his wife.
He’s not married to the woman he raped.
Aspazia at Mad Melancholic Feminista, whose feminist principles and “cred” deserve our greatest respect — read her blog in general, not just these posts — has represented a student at her university who she feels was the victim of a false accusation, moreover a false accusation prompted by an unfair process at her college which denied the male student any semblance of due process.
Go visit Mad Melancholic Feminista
Her posts are relevant to the question of college codes and also, in a way, to the question of ethical interrogations (this time an interrogation by college authorities).
In a way her case represents the reductio ad absurdum of a mechanical and inhumane application of college consent codes deriving from the famous Antioch Code — codes which require consent to be verbal. Although there is nothing wrong with verbal consent — and there are lots of cases where it is a VERY good idea (by which I mean ethically required) based on the dynamic of the interaction — most of us can point to many situations where the interactions were completely consensual based on an enthusiastic participation or mutual desire concept of consent, and yet strictly verbal consent was not obtained.
What seems to have happened is that the college authorities got the man by himself — with no legal or other advice or support — to admit that in the particular case he did not obtain VERBAL consent; and then on that basis the college authorities simply “convicted” the guy.
Now, it is possible — though aspazia is someone I would trust completely on such a point — that there were gray issues of consent regarding the particular interaction. But my point is that the college procedure seems to have investigated the verbality of consent as a way of ignoring or foretalling any more detailed consideration of the case under their purview.
That may be following the letter of the law, but it is not justice.
Sorry, I’m new at creating links — I don’t know if anyone can fix my posting above so that the last several paragraphs aren’t links.
Thanks — already fixed! But I also wanted to reference aspazia’s current posting
Go visit Mad Melancholic Feminista.
There are very few articles or opinions written on op-ed pages of newspapers about the ruined lives of rape or incest victims.
Well, victims in the U.S.
odanu,
Indeed I did not know the details of the case you describe, and you are right: it is an abomination.
If Parker had stuck to the facts that supported Gorman rather than mainly focusing on portraying the rape victim as a bad girl and Gorman as a nice guy, a lot of us wouldn’t have as much of a problem with the article.
Man, this is so funny. The guys of MensActivism.com recently labeled Parker a feminist, because she supposedly does not recognize the possibility that the Duke’s players may be innocent.
Tell that to Kobe Bryant
It seems you are tryin’ to dismiss Gorman’s case by using Bryant’s.
And isn’t it interesting that Ms. Parker makes all accused rapists, those innocent and those guilty of rape, sound like the only ones we should be concerned about in rape cases
Sorry, but where did you get this impression? The article is about a man who is clearly innocent and is payin’ for another person’s cruelty. There was no mention of cases involving true rape victims and really vicious men.
Ms. Parker is blind to the irony that many “good” rapists pick victims who are vulnerable to attack and who are least likely to be believed if they do report
The fact that you can call someone else “blind” is an irony in itself.
Apparently, those of us who have been raped by “good” men or boys are only “good” if we shut up and let all “good” rapists continue on with their lives as if they’ve done nothing wrong
Sorry again, but did you really read the article you are criticizing? The “good” “victim” was told to shut up while her “rapist” had a happy life in prison?
Ms. Parker’s disbelief that “good” men and boys commit “real” rapes is so strong that she sees all prior reports of rape as proof that the alleged victim must be the real perpetrator.
Now I’m sure you did’nt understand it. Is it really hard to see that the article is about FALSE rape accusations, about INNOCENT men (the victims who are usually dismissed when it comes to this kind of process) being punished for crimes they did not commit.
It seems you believe that any person who calls for attention to false rape accusations is automatically claiming that all of the victims are liars and all of the accused men are innocent. That is not how it works: the fact the a person looked at one side does not mean he/she is dismissing the other. Actually, the one who is being partial and biased is you.
But somewhere in that minute, the accused had time to turn down a plea deal that would have kept him out of prison and given him twelve months probation
If he was really innocent, do you think he would be satisfied with a plea deal which would not recognize him as innocent?
But does Ms. Parker scold him for his stupidity at not taking the deal? Nope. She continues to paint him as the only victim in this case.
This commentary is flagrantly misandrist.
The guy was innocent and actually believed he would be recognized as such, what a dumbass. And the girl, she is a victim too, of course! The guy did not accept the plea deal, and that hurt the girl so much…
I agree with the guy who said this blog is usually – or at leat superficially – reasonable, and this post is the great exception. I do have some sympathy toward some of the bloggers, such as Ampersand, though I do not agree with anything said by most of the people here. But this Abyss2hope person crossed the line.
By the way, I’m not an English-speaker, so please be patient with my text.
Parker’s point is that the girl was having consensual sex with this guy, and he did not go on when the girl told him to stop.
Parker did not say those things happened to Gorman because this girl was evil. It is the opposite. What happened to Gorman shows us the bad acts perpatrated by “Chastity”.
P. did not focus on the girl’s character. She just showed us facts contained in the lawsuit process data and then, after considering those facts, jumped to conclusions about Gorman and Chastity (which she – unnecessarily – did only in the end of the article.).
From the article:
Um…ok.
Abyss2hope:
Sorry, but I feel you mischaracterized KP’s treatment of the case. She wanted to point out that every once in a while, there are cases where gal’s have been proven to lie and have questionable character and intentions when claiming rape.
I was wondering when someone would trip up on this one.
Kobe Bryant is a perfect example of an accused rapist who was convicted by the public before the facts were allowed to bear out. He admitted to the public that he had extramarital sex in an attempt to repair some damage to the relationship with his wife. Rather than continue to drag the case out in public, he decided to settle with the gal and not comment on it.
Many have assumed by these actions that Kobe is a rapist because he chose not to prove his innocence.
Those who have any interest in the real facts of the case should take the time to read both Kobe’s and the accused versions of the events of that night:
Kobe’s version – in an interview conducted with police the following day:
Kobe’s interview
The gal’s version, as reported by the interviewing officer:
Accuser’s story
Regardless if you have interest in Kobe’s case, this is an interesting read because it presents two very consistent stories. There is not too much in this he said/she said which they do not agree upon.
Let’s see what they both agree happened:
1) Kobe arrives with body guards to hotel and accuser walks them around the property. During the tour, she and Kobe banter a bit and she offers to come to his room to show him “where the bears play” – referring to a place on the hill he can watch from his room.
2) After Kobe and body guards seperate and go to their respective rooms, accuser shows up to Kobe’s room and shows him where the bears play. There is open flirting on both sides.
3) Kobe and accuser sit on the couch – Kobe asks her about a tatoo and she mentions she has another one in a more intimate place he can’t see.
4) Kobe and accuser begin to kiss and fondle each other. Accuser mentions she’s excited to be there and can’t believe she’s getting attention from Kobe.
5) After a while of kissing and heavy petting, Kobe mentions the second tatoo. Accuser gets up, bends over a chair, and lifts up her skirt.
From there that’s where the stories part until the end.
Kobe says he pulled down her panties and they had sex for a while until he was about to finish then he pulled out.
She claims that he forced himself on her and she left.
They both agree that she brought a stack of envelopes with her to get autographs and after they had sex, he said he’d sign them the following day, when she planned to return.
Now, many out there use the fact that Kobe admitted to having sex and the fact that the gal never publicly recanted her story as the only facts necessary to conclude Kobe raped her.
Sorry, not buying it.
The accuser’s mother is a prominent attorney who works with the prosecutors office. While trying to maintain an office of prominence in a small town, her selaciously promiscuous daughter is starting to embarrass her. After hearing tales of her daughter trying to chase down some rap singer to have sex with, she learns that her daughter had sex with Kobe Bryant.
I’m not saying that Kobe didn’t force himself on her, but I will say that the facts of the case, his testimony and her lack of testimony indicate his side is a bit more accurate.
I’m actually really puzzled by the “reasoning” of KP’s article. (If there is, in fact, any.)
KP brings up the woman’s drinking and possible drug habit as factors tending to suggest the man was not guilty of rape. She specifically states the woman was drinking prior to returning to the man’s room.
While KP seems to think the drinking supports a not guilty verdict, plain reading of Florida’ statute for sexual battery suggests otherwise. The law recoginzies that consent is not possible when one is mentally incapaciated, which is describe thus:
(c) “Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.
If , as KP implies, the woman had a drinking and drug problem, one is likely to believe she was drunk at the time of the incident. KP indicates the woman was, in fact, drinking before the incident, this might suggest the woman was drunk. If victim was, drunk at the time of the incident, then it was rape according to the Florida statute.
KP’s article doesn’t give us many other details. However, based on the contents, I would suspect the jury was shown evidence the victim was very drunk. (For all we know, both the prosecusion and the defense emphasized the alcohol.)
Based on the evidence provided the jury probably believed she was very, verydrunk. They convicted based on a literal reading of the law which indicates that, not withstanding the accused’s status as a business student at FSU, if she was plastered, there was no consent and the sex act was rape.
What I said:
She portrayed Chastity as a not very nice person, but she didn’t use her character to make Gorman look innocent. That is what I said. For this purpose she used the known facts about this case, and then, as I’ve already said, she unnecessarily portrayed C. negatively.
Rafael XXX
Could you post any fact or facts provided by Parker suggest Gorman is innocent? I’ve read the Parker’s article and don’t see any.
How the hell is “she was drunk” not using the victim’s “bad behavior” to prove Gorman’s innocence? While the hell would Parker mention it otherwise? It’s not as if the fact that she was drunk proves him innocent – quite the opposite. And Parker never addresses that this fact is bad news for Gorman, despite her portrayal of Gorman as innocent. So why would she mention it in an article almost completely devoid of actual facts about the case – and in the midst of all kinds of other “bad” things about the victim – other than to rely on the standard “slut” defense?
(I’m also curious, is the victim’s name publicly known? One wouldn’t think it would be, but Parker keeps using a first name.)
Can you quote from the column to demonstrate what you mean? I read it & I don’t see what known facts of this case she used to make Gorman look innocent.
Here are the facts of the case that she used:
She was drinking (does not make Gorman look innocent)
She contradicted herself (does not make Gorman look innocent)
She went to his place willingly (does not make Gorman look innocent)
Here are the ways in which she makes her case by trashing the victim:
Refers to her as, “the ‘victim.'” The quotes around the word communicates loads about what Parker’s column will be.
Highlights the change in the victim’s story as if that is the most important issue in the case.
Implies that because the victim was drinking & had been making out with Gorman that there couldn’t have been a rape because, you know, if you make out with somebody you have consented to all sexual activity that the other person wishes to have.
Notes the prior rape claim by the victim (who decided not to pursue it because, “…she wasn’t sure it was a rape because she was drunk.” Lucia has correctly pointed out the mistaken logic on the victim’s part in that decision. Also, because you decided you couldn’t be sure you were raped on another occasion makes all subsequent claims of being raped invalid is Parker’s point.
Notes that the victim then stayed with her friend who encouraged her to report the crime for months. Implies a sexual relationship (without providing any evidence of such) which is supposed to lead us to the conclusion that… what? There couldn’t have been a rape because she then had a sexual relationship with somebody who hadn’t raped her?
Bleah. I find Parker repulsive and uninformed. But, hey! that’s just me.
Jake Squid,
Actually, she went even further to intimate that the ‘victim’ (as you pointed out) consented to sex then recanted the consent, thus intimating that the ‘victim’ (again, her words) was guilty of giving consent in the first place.
To pervert an isolated case in an effort to innuend gross generalizations is a naked attempt of subverting the rights of women to report cases where clearly the rights to their bodies have been invaded by the pervasively evil male intent.
azbballfan,
I did write:
Implies that because the victim was drinking & had been making out with Gorman that there couldn’t have been a rape because, you know, if you make out with somebody you have consented to all sexual activity that the other person wishes to have.
Which I think is pretty much your first paragraph of comment #29. It seems clear that the victim consented to a number of activities. I wouldn’t call her “guilty of giving consent,” though. I would say that just because you consent, it doesn’t mean that consent cannot be withdrawn. Giving consent doesn’t invalidate withdrawing consent at some later point.
With all due respect,
Jake Squid
Gals? She’s silent so she’s the one who lied? God, you really haven’t read anything about rape, have you? And, yeah, and the victim is ‘promiscuous’ and ‘salacious’? Why, gee, do you think that means she’s a loose woman? And what would that imply?
I have to agree with Rafael XXX and azbballfan. I think you misunderstood Parker’s column. She did not at any point say that good sons and good boys are always innocent, or define real rape the way you did. The fact is that some women do lie about rape; some men are innocent; and it is a fact that even if shown to be innocent, men do carry the accusation with them.
I also do not think this was a case of rape. Not because she willingly went to his apartment, but because he stopped when she said stop. We say stop means stop, no means no – he got that loud and clear. Regret is not rape.
There’s a lot of unfairness when it comes to rape accusations, trials, and acquitals. I know a lot of times (as we’ve seen in recent cases involving video-tapes) that the victim is the guilty one, the accused is the victim, and it sucks. But Parker’s column, her point, was definitely mistaken here.
Rapheal XXX:
Sorry, this man is not clearly innocent. If he were, one of two juries would have found him not guilty. That didn’t happen. There is nothing In KP’s article that proves that the sex itself was consensual up to the point this woman yelled, “Stop.”
Maybe Ms. Parker should write a column about all the risky things this man did that led to this false rape allegation and how other men can avoid his fate. Maybe he shouldn’t have been drinking in a bar and taken a woman he barely knew home to have sex. Men can certainly avoid false rape charges if they stop hiring strippers, avoid excessive intoxication, have a buddy system, and avoid going out on dates with women. No one can charge you with date rape if you stop dating, that’s for sure.
These are just a few helpful suggestions for men everywhere. Life is about choices after all and you have to take responsibility for your choices.
Rafeal XXX:
Really? If you feel I crossed the line by pointing out that KP didn’t scold the man for his stupidity then you agree that KP, and others like her, cross that very same line when they scold rape victims for their stupidity.
If I have that right, then we actually agree since I didn’t call this man stupid for not taking the plea deal.
If this is Parker’s point, why didn’t she write about a man who has been shown to be innocent, yet carried the accusation with him for the rest of his life?
Instead, she selected a man who was charged, tried and convicted. Her column indicates sex took place and provides some evidence the woman was drinking and possibly heavily. This strongly suggests the conviction was entirely justified under Florida law.
If Parker’s point is that guilty men who are charged, tried and convicted of rape carry the accusation (and for that matter, the prison record) with them, I think most would concede that point. Is that news?
And? So men have to deal with the fall-out of our rape culture. No biggie. Yet, instead of men forming support groups, educational forums, alternative sex-ed approaches, etc., they blame women for the trickle down side effects of other men’s proclivities toward rape.
Don’t like false accusations? Change the rape culture.
I have a real problem with this statement from Rafael:
The thing is that in the eyes of many rapists, they *are* innocent. In their minds, they haven’t done anything wrong. Many men who have raped – especially ones who have raped friends, spouses, acquaintances, family members, colleagues and dates – assume their actions were justified and that sex was consensual simply because they *believe* it to be so. They genuinely do not view the action they committed as rape. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that she wanted it or deserved it. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that’s it’s not rape unless she physically resists in a violent manner and screams her objection at the top of her lungs. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that consent to kissing or consent to foreplay or consent to visit his residence or the consumption of alcohol/drugs automatically implies consent to sex. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that if she consented to sex in the past, with him and/or anyone else, then that consent never expires. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that because a woman accepts money for taking off her clothes in front of men, her consent to sex is implied is implied. And on and on and on.
The point I’m trying to make here is that just because a man claims innocence, or even honestly and truly believes himself to be innocent with every last fibre of his soul doesn’t make it so. An accused rapist’s willingness to accept a plea agreement has no factual bearing on whether or not he actually committed the crime. And given that rape is the absolute easiest crime to get away with simply by claiming “I didn’t do it!” and that prosecuted rapes result in convictions in only a a tiny minority of cases, and also that the burden to prove the rape actually happened lies with the prosecution and by extension the victim, I find it far more likely that both the guilty and the innocent accused rapists would prefer to take their chances at trial than accept a guaranteed jail sentence — especially if they have smart and capable defense attorneys on their side.
I just read the Kathleen Parker articles from May 2006 and felt that I must comment on the facts of the case discussed in this blog. I served as the foreperson on the Rich Gorman trial. While the facts were by no means as “cut and dried” as you would like when you sit on a jury, there can be no doubt at the end of the day all jurors believed beyond a reasonable doubt the Rich Gorman did not have the consent of “Chastity” to engage in the act of sexual intercourse. While some jurors had issues with the time span of the sexual intercourse that was presented at trial, at the end of the day, if you believe that no consent for sexual intercourse was given, then it didn’t matter if the act was 15 seconds or 15 minutes, according to Florida law. I’m sorry that Mr. Gorman chose not to take the probation plea, because that penalty may very well be more reasonable than the one that he received. However, it was not the job of the jury to determine the length of his sentence. That is for legislators, prosecutors and judges to decide. While I may wonder whether the punishment was “just”, I will never wonder about whether the verdict we rendered, based on the evidence that we saw, was the correct decision.
from my blog on WIMN Online, http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?p=159
Parker Does Duke (again)
Posted by Lucinda Marshall
May 18th, 2006
Please believe me when I say that as a general rule I never cover the same topic twice in one day, especially when the topic is Kathleen Parker covering a spurious topic multiple times. That said, an observant reader points out to me that the champion of white rape suspects did it again. In yet another column on the Duke rape case, Parker once again offers the boys will be boys line of reasoning,
“Most damning of the pretrial publicity that resulted in a hasty end to the lacrosse season and suspension of one of the players from school was an e-mail clearly intended as a joke, albeit a dumb one. The e-mail said that strippers would be hired, but there wouldn’t be any sex. Instead they would be skinned while he pleasured himself.
Few would disagree that the e-mail was disgusting, but it was also … in context … a reference to the cult movie American Psycho, in which a demented Wall Street banker kills people (men and women) after toying with them in dramatic scenarios that may be dreams. Although the film is not for everyone, apparently some Duke faculty consider it important enough to include it in at least three Duke courses. Students can check it out from the Duke library.”
Sigh. Since when is context (let alone the ability to check a movie out from a library) an excuse for terroristic and threatening statements?
For another excellent analysis of Parker’s absurd line of reasoning, check out ALAS (a blog).