Why do so many people defend men accused of rape?

[Nikki Stone 1]

I have watched over many years as women who accuse men of rape are dragged though the mud, publicly accused of everything from whoring to unmitigated greed. And I have watched great sympathy offered to men in the public eye accused of rape, like Kobe Bryant. To me, it is an amazing thing that in the crime of rape, it seems that the criminal gets the benefit of the doubt, not the victim.

Now we have this Duke case, and I have deliberately kept out of the conversation because I see the same thing happening all over again. Is it so impossible to believe that white middle class fraternity boys can rape? Is it so impossible to believe that men with means and social standing can rape?

I don't get it, and never have. Evil is possible at any level of society, to rich and poor alike. Evil is possible when you are a well meaning kid who joins the army and are told to strap electrodes to some Iraqi man's genitals in Abu Ghraib.

Abu Ghraib, in fact, seems to be the only male equivalent I can think of for how rape victims get treated. The victims were "Terrorists" (so they deserved the sexual humiliation, the sado-masochistic torture). Didn't Limbaugh call it a fraternity prank? That always seemed to me to indict fraternities, not exonerate the torturers. That the Duke case involved a fraternity is interesting in that light.

Just a rant. It's a little too late to make sense, but I am sick of the desire to destroy the victims who come forward.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Nature of the beast.

I said in another thread, "we are products of a 'sex-phobic' society." People still confuse rape with sex. That is problem number one. The other problem is the "PC" tripe used. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the rampant sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia that still exists in our society.

If I am not clear on anything, I will happily expand on my thoughts.

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Actually, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks

How do all of those things that you mention interrelate?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Well, hell! i just replied to my own damn post! LOL!

See post #15! Sorry about that!

[Behind the Aegis]

15. OK...just remembered...you asked! :)

"I said in another thread, "we are products of a 'sex-phobic' society.""

I think that statement is pretty obvious. 'Sex' can be used in advertising, up to a point, but the actual discussion of the topic is verboten in most places.

"People still confuse rape with sex."

Rape is an act of violence! PERIOD! It is never about SEX! It is about power, domination, and, sometimes, humiliation, but not sex! It doesn't matter what is worn by the victim/survivor...it doesn't matter what the victim/survivor said up until the point of saying "no!"

"The other problem is the "PC" tripe used."

The very idea that someone is drunk or high should not automatically constitute rape. In most of those scenarios, the victim is always a woman. However, why is it rape when they are both drunk? Does the man (in heterosexual versions) somehow possess faculties not available to a drunk woman?

"The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the rampant sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia that still exists in our society."

The sexism (the woman is always the victim), the racism (the stereotype of the Black/other than white male having sex with a white woman), the classism (the rich/well-to-do/even middle-class as the above the law), and the homophobia (gays and lesbians cannot be victims of rape). All of these scenarios rely on one thing...power! That is what rape is power!

I can go even deeper if you'd like. Just tell me the area to focus on. If it is too big, I may have to respond later in the day or in PM, depending on what you'd prefer.

(I hope that I don't sound snotty. I served as a rape counselor and am a survivor, as well. So, I tend to have very strong and emotional responses to this topic.)

[Nikki Stone 1]

24. Actually, it's interesting to read what you have to say

The sex-phobic thing in a society that sells sex non-stop is interesting. What is actually being sold, I think, is the female body as object and not sex itself. As you say, we don't talk about sex after a certain point--at least not in polite company.

The confusion of rape with sex is something that most folks don't get, at least if you go by the vox populi as it is served up in the media. I think this goes back to not understanding sex. I'd like you to tell me more of your thoughts in this area.

As far as the involvement of alcohol and drugs, I have some problems. First, women tend to be smaller and more affected by alcohol or other substances as a result. If the guy is drinking more than she is, the equivalent to her in his own weight/height category, then an argument can be made that they are both equally incompetent. But, that's not always the case.

The power dynamic is important and it intersects with all kinds of social markers. But, in the end, it doesn't matter to me what your race or background is: if you force sex on a woman who doesn't want it, you have committed rape. Don't ask me to cry about your childhood or your place in society.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Some more thoughts...

Please don't be offended because I am pulling your paragraphs out and answering them. I just feel, to be thorough, it is the best way.

The sex-phobic thing in a society that sells sex non-stop is interesting. What is actually being sold, I think, is the female body as object and not sex itself. As you say, we don't talk about sex after a certain point--at least not in polite company.

I would say you are correct, up to a point. However, look at the current ads. Not all the bodies "for sale" are female. We have have seen an increasing "idolization" of the male body, as well. It is no longer the "hot wife" and "fat husband" combo. Men are also expected to 'look' a certain way or be ashamed of their bodies (however, that is another thread all together!). While we may still not be really open about sex, at least we don't refer to women as "being in the family way." We still have a LONG way to go, though!

The confusion of rape with sex is something that most folks don't get, at least if you go by the vox populi as it is served up in the media. I think this goes back to not understanding sex. I'd like you to tell me more of your thoughts in this area.

I heartily agree with you on this point! Look at some of the comments made by supposedly educated people; "Rape victims can't get pregnant because the "juices aren't flowing." "A husband can't "rape" his wife because that is her role." Those statements are paraphrasing of things said by US Senators! If Senators are saying such things, how can we honestly expect that the "common person" would think any differently?!

As far as the involvement of alcohol and drugs, I have some problems. First, women tend to be smaller and more affected by alcohol or other substances as a result. If the guy is drinking more than she is, the equivalent to her in his own weight/height category, then an argument can be made that they are both equally incompetent. But, that's not always the case.

You are correct about the interaction of drugs and alcohol on women versus men. However, that is not always an accurate tool. Some women are more capable of "handling" their 'booze and dope,' then some men. What then? I have worked at colleges for over 10 years. I have seen some women take their "medicine" much better than their male counterparts. In those scenarios, who is the rapist?

The power dynamic is important and it intersects with all kinds of social markers. But, in the end, it doesn't matter to me what your race or background is: if you force sex on a woman who doesn't want it, you have committed rape. Don't ask me to cry about your childhood or your place in society.

The power dynamic is important, but do you also see your own "failing?" You are seeing all victims as women, at least in this post. What about women raping men? It can happen. Do you think it would be reported? What about men raping men? It happens more than is reported...you'll have to trust me on that!

You post like an advocate. I respect that! Just remember, rape is an act of violence, no matter the victim or perpetrator.

[Nikki Stone 1]

64. Your experience as a counselor must be invaluable

Though it must also frustrate you at times. Some of us lay folk don't have the same take on things.

I am not necessarily an advocate. I just have too many friends who have been raped, several by strangers, some by family members, and it's just too goddamned common. I don't think my friends are all that unusual, except in the fact that they talk about things. All of the victims I have known have been female, but certainly men can be victims. I imagine they don't talk about it as much, and maybe not with women.



I'd like to hear more about the male experience of being raped as it is out of the realm of my experience.

Oh, and the quotes that you posted by actual US Senators are appalling. That thing about a rape victim not being able to get pregnant? Good fucking God!

[Behind the Aegis]

71. You are an advocate.

My being a counselor was very frustrating! I had to deal with survivors, who still were "victims," and blamed themselves, and I had to deal with those who saw the victims as "pretenders." There was many a time I was almost carted off to jail! Of course, that might have been because I have a big mouth and rarely back down, despite my size! :) I actually quit being an advocate because it was so stressful (so all those rape counselors still out there, you have my respect and undying appreciation).

I say you are an advocate because you are speaking out. I am sure you will agree with me, does it really matter if the victim knew the attacker or not? It doesn't! The effect is still the same.

As for the senator quotes, I have to retract that it may not have been senators, but it was spoken by those in power ((judges or congress people) I will look for the actual quotes)).

You want to know the male experience? It is no different than the female experience! It is humiliating, degrading, and bewildering. We are left wondering, "what did I do to lead them on?" "why did that happen?" "how could I have been so stupid?" "i thought he loved me?" "maybe, it was my fault. i must have sent the wrong signals." Sound familiar?

It all comes around to..rape is about violence NOT sex!

[Nikki Stone 1]

78. Doesn't a real advocate get politically active?

Maybe it's just a definition thing.

I admire you for actually being able to play the role that you did. That takes a hell of a lot of energy and nerve. I can imagine that I'd end up taking the job home with me. Did you ever lose sleep?

When you talk about the rape of men you are talking about a male rapist or a female rapist? Are those experiences different at all?

[bobbieinok]

194. within last 15 years OK state senator said men couldn't rape their wives

that this was a totally impossible concept

some years ago the students in my class (conservative christian college) got off on this topic.....one of the young women said that indeed it was possible that a husband might rape his wife.....one of the young men found that a completely new and incredible concept; he said (a conservative christian college, remember) 'but that's why people get married, to have sex' (or words to that effect)

many young women strongly contradicted him at that point.......later he talked with me, trying to understand why the young women were upset; he understood when I said something on the order of 'you'll marry someone you love, right? then if she doesn't want to have intercourse and says No, you'll stop, right, b/c you love her......if a that point the husband continues, it's rape; she said No and he continued'.......he truly seemed finally to understand why what the OK state senator said was so wrong, in the young man's terms 'so unchristian'

[wakeme2008]

2. Well the DA just got what he wanted

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/05/02/duke.lacrosse.nifong.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[Moosepoop]

5. Apparently, he got what the majority of Durham County voters wanted, too.

:)

[wakeme2008]

18. Now his next goal is to push the trial out until after the Nov elections

:(

[Moosepoop]

63. Really??? Did he tell you that himself?

Or is this just your opinion?

[BrownOak]

109. No, he's elected now

There is no Republican on the ticket in November. The election is over at this point.

It's possible that someone could launch a write-in candidacy, but that's rather hopeless in most cases.

[Karmakaze]

23. 45 percent is a majority?

I always thought you had to have over half to call it a majority. Looking at the percentages, the majority did NOT want Nifong.

[Moosepoop]

42. I stand corrected.

Nifong got more votes than either of the other candidates.

He did not have over 50% of total votes cast.

Still...

He won the primary election with the highest number of votes.

There, all better now.

[rodeodance]

99. I hope some well-meaning group of women take this woman under

their wings and help her as she goes through this process. by this i mean--whatever the outcome (it is possible she is lying but also possible she was abused and or raped). Whatever--she needs some guidance.

[LostinVA]

107. She was raped, as per the SANE's rape kit

So, regardless of who the rapists were, she was raped.

And... the countdown starts to a poster saying she wasn't, she "only" had "injuries consistent with rape." Not getting that a SANE can't say she was raped, because she was not an eyewitness...

[onenote]

136. SANE: accuser had injuries consistent with rape

There. Made your prediction come true. Of course, once again you miss the point. Its not simply that SANE can't say that the woman was raped, its that all we know is that the SANE exam found injuries "consistent" with rape. We don't know what those injuries are or whether they might also be consistent with consensual sex. It may very well turn out, after the evidence is known and the witnesses are subjected to cross examination, that the injuries not only were consistent with rape but also inconsistent with any other possible cause. But its simply wrong to suggest that when a SANE exam finds injuries consistent with rape that it is conclusive evidence of rape. Indeed, suggesting that it is the case is equivalent to suggesting that whenever a SANE exam finds injuries that might be consistent with conensual sex, it would be precluded from finding that those injuries are consistent with rape -- a result that would leave unprotected large numbers of rape victims who do not suffer traumatic physical injury in connection with being assaulted.

onenote

[Neil Lisst]

138. You are correct, Sir! (or madam, if that's the case)

Favor us with some discussion of striking the prosecution's designated expert witnesses for
(1) impairment, (2) incompetence, or (3) bias.

I did it the other day. Your turn.

[onenote]

148. until there is a trial, nothing can be fully judged

It is a fact that in any trial, the defense has the right to try to disqualify any expert witness. However, I would hasten to add that at this point I am unaware of any information that would suggest any reason for disqualifying the SANE nurse and, based on my experience, disqualification of an expert witness is not easy nor casually done. (I have no knowledge of how often, if ever, attempts are made to disqualify SANE nurses). My point here, as well as in my earlier post, is that until there is a trial none of us can "know" anything about this case with certainty. Under the circumstances, I've chosen not to form any opinion as to the truth of any allegations made by either the prosecution or the defense. Others have made different choices, forming opinions on both sides of the case. I have no problem with that, provided everyone remains clear that what they are stating is their opinion, not fact.

onenote

[TorchTheWitch]

171. In case you didn't know

The SANE doesn't just determine physical injuries. She also evalutes other things like her emotional state and other signs and symptoms consistant with a person being raped. A person who had consensual sex would not exhibit the typical signs and symptoms that a SANE is trained to detect. In this case, the SANE did find that not only were there physical symptoms consistant with rape, she also found that the accuser exhibited other signs and symptoms consistant with rape and that her emotional state was consistant with someone having had a traumatic experience.

This is the affidavit attached to the search warrant for one of the dorm rooms. On this page, a description of the SANE's report begins at the bottom...
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/8884831/detail.html?qs=;s=5;w=800

and continues on this page...
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/8884831/detail.html?qs=;s=6;w=800

On Edit... it looks like you'll have to cut and paste the whole url into your browser since if you just click on the link it takes you to the first page of the search warrant instead of the pages where the description of SANE report is. Sorry about that, sometimes DU doen't include the whole link, and I don't know how to fix that.

[BrownOak]

188. So the SANE can't say it, but you can?

Doesn't it seem a little odd that the SANE can't say she was raped but that you can based upon what the SANE has said?

The SANE can't say "she was raped" not just because she wasn't there to witness it. If that were the case, the SANE could say that "she was raped, but I can't say by whom."

This doesn't mean that I don't think the alleged victim was raped, only that until the full SANE exam is disclosed you cannot state it with certainty.

[TorchTheWitch]

214. It can be stated with personal certainty

But I guess that may depend on how much information from the SANE's report each person felt was necessary to form their own opinion with personal certainty. Posters stating "she was raped" are stating an opinion with personal certainty, not absolute certainty. No one can form an opinion with absolute certainty regarding the SANE's examination as part of it is based on expert opinion regarding signs and symptoms consistant with rape that aren't physical and that have no technical/physical way to be measured... it's expert OPINION.

Let's face it, all of us here 24/7 state opinions about BushCo. and the various things we swear up down and sideways are their doing when we don't know anything in it's entirety... not even close. Why is it important to not form an opinion with personal certainty regarding the SANE report when we don't when it comes to instances where we form opinions with personal certainty regarding BuchCo. and their deeds... or should I say "alleged" deeds seeing how according to you it's suddenly important to not form an opinion with personal certainty without information in it's entirety?

I'm not understanding why the hypocracy of believing this SANE report needs to be subject to such scrutiny when instances of forming opinions with personal certainty about BushCo. and what they've "allegedly" done aren't required to be subject to anywhere near the same scrutiny isn't being seen. In fact, anyone who would insist on this same scrutiny for BushCo. and their "alleged" deeds would immediately be leaped on and accused of being a troll.

I find it perfectly acceptable that someone form the opinion with personal certainty that the accuser was raped based on what information is available from the case documents regarding the SANE report. For that available information from the case documents, see my post in this thread #171.

[BrownOak]

239. A need for higher standards

Great points about the personal certainty and how it relates to Bush and the reports of what he may, may not, or may not yet have done. I guess would draw the distinction between the two positions lies in the ramifications of our actions. A perfect example of this would be Tom DeLay. The substantiation I would need to form with my personal certainty that he shouldn't be in the House is much more flexible than what I would need to see him convicted of a crime.

I would hope that everyone held on to the principle of the presumption of innocence and didn't abandon until careful consideration of all possible options had been explored. To me that's more critical in a criminal issue than a political issue, but then I'm not much of a political person.

So to me, when I hear the SANE report "consistent with sexual assault" that doesn't allow me to make that leap to "she was raped." To begin with, there's too much variance on what can be considered "consistent with sexual assault" even if you add in the observation that her behavior was consistent with a traumatic event. What were the nature of those injuries? What are the statistics regarding similar injuries in other rape cases? What was the behavior? My personal certainty hasn't been met because the possibilities of what that SANE report actually holds is too open-ended based on three sentences in a search warrant. The SANE Handbook tells workers not to use criminal jargon like "rape" not because they didn't witness a rape. They advise that because if you claim rape with certainty and it is shown that the injuries could possibly have resulted from some other means, then that testimony is totally compromised. What that tells you is that it is up to the DA to take that evidence and expound on it. And it's everybody's job to review it with an open mind.

[TorchTheWitch]

250. Ok, so what you're saying is...

With your example of Tom Delay, you don't personally believe that with the information available to you that he's necessarily guilty of what he's been charged with and you would take his side at this point because he's innocent until proven guilty. Because that's what it sure looks like you've been doing in the Duke rape case... pointing out that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and pointing out instances where you believe that there isn't enough information to assume that the accusor has even been raped at all much less raped by the accused.

So... Where are your posts pointing out to people that have stated that their opinion is that Tom Delay is guilty that they should give him the benefit of the doubt since you don't believe he is guilty until he's been proven to be so in a court of law? And where are your posts pointing out to people who have stated that it is their opinion that Tom Delay is guilty instnace where you believe that there isn't enough information to assume that Tom Delay is guilty?

To begin with, there's too much variance on what can be considered "consistent with sexual assault" even if you add in the observation that her behavior was consistent with a traumatic event. What were the nature of those injuries? What are the statistics regarding similar injuries in other rape cases? What was the behavior? My personal certainty hasn't been met because the possibilities of what that SANE report actually holds is too open-ended based on three sentences in a search warrant.

Ah, now this is interesting. You are not a SANE expert, and the SANE who examined the accuser is and furnished a report of her findings. You are delaying judgement regarding this report until you have examined it's details yourself in order to come to a conclusion whether or not the accuser was raped. So, you value your own non-expert opinion more highly than that of the expert. That's very interesting. Personally, when I don't know jack shit about something, I don't claim to know more than the expert does and insist on double-checking their findings. Were I to do so, I would think that it would be fair for people to claim I was an arrogant fool and they would be completely within their rights to point and laugh.

What that tells you is that it is up to the DA to take that evidence and expound on it. And it's everybody's job to review it with an open mind.

Don't you think it would be prudent to follow your own advice? You seem to want people to review evidence with an open mind, yet your mind appears to be quite closed on whether or not the SANE or you is the expert.

Now, this I find rather interesting...

To me that's more critical in a criminal issue than a political issue, but then I'm not much of a political person.

Really? Huh... if you aren't much of a political person, I find it curious that you would spend so much time on a political forum. But then, since you've disabled your profile there's really not much of anything I can use to determine what kind of person you are other then what you say in your posts. Is there a possibility that you have been posting on a political forum and were unaware of that fact? I just mention it since you may find it uncomfortable to be on a democratic political forum unaware seeing as how you aren't much of a political person and all.

[BrownOak]

293. OK, you asked for it...

I haven’t posted anything about Tom Delay’s criminal proceedings for a few reasons. First, I haven’t followed the case closely enough to feel qualified to comment on it. Secondly, I don’t have that much of an interest in the situation. Thirdly, this is not an environment in which to have such a discussion because the passions would likely run to high for any meaningful discourse. (I used to travel to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on business; I didn’t discuss the high regard in which I held the Israelis during my visits there.)

Ah, now this is interesting. You are not a SANE expert, and the SANE who examined the accuser is and furnished a report of her findings. You are delaying judgement regarding this report until you have examined it's details yourself in order to come to a conclusion whether or not the accuser was raped. So, you value your own non-expert opinion more highly than that of the expert. That's very interesting. Personally, when I don't know jack shit about something, I don't claim to know more than the expert does and insist on double-checking their findings. Were I to do so, I would think that it would be fair for people to claim I was an arrogant fool and they would be completely within their rights to point and laugh.

Wow, if I was more astute I would think you were calling me an arrogant fool and laughing at me. I’m not sure where I’ve given you the impression that I personally wanted to be the person to review the clinical information, but that’s not what I’m saying. If an expert steps up in front of you and says that Iraq has WMD’s, do you accept that at face value, or do you want to hear more?

If you think it arrogant of me to want to hear the details of that report and to hear the merits of both sides of the issue reviewed by more than three sentences then you’re really not going to have much respect for the 12 arrogant fools in that jury box. I’m sorry I took the time to research the SANE guidelines and realize that there are a wide range of findings that fall under the heading of “consistent with sexual assault.” I’m sorry I’m not comfortable in making the leap you want – the same leap that the SANE report doesn’t make – that leap being that the finding of the injuries being consistent with sexual assault means that the injuries are inconsistent with any other possibilities. And I’m particularly sorry that rather discuss the merits of that position you would prefer to turn to some half-assed, passive-aggressive, inferred arrogant fool insult propped up with a strawman.

While I may have a differing perspective than you do I would hope that I’ve been able to convey my point with respect to yours.

Don't you think it would be prudent to follow your own advice? You seem to want people to review evidence with an open mind, yet your mind appears to be quite closed on whether or not the SANE or you is the expert.

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert. But I’m also not ready to accept the SANE as the only expert on the issue. I’m not ready to accept consistent with one scenario as being inconsistent with any other scenario until I hear more on the issue. It’s no different than the time stamps on the photos which I wouldn’t place faith in until they’ve been reviewed by experts. (The only difference is that we know more about the photos at this point than we do about the actual contents of the SANE report.)

Really? Huh... if you aren't much of a political person, I find it curious that you would spend so much time on a political forum. But then, since you've disabled your profile there's really not much of anything I can use to determine what kind of person you are other then what you say in your posts. Is there a possibility that you have been posting on a political forum and were unaware of that fact? I just mention it since you may find it uncomfortable to be on a democratic political forum unaware seeing as how you aren't much of a political person and all.

I’m always amused by this request as it’s the second time I’ve fielded it (Marie also asked). It’s almost like people want to have a label to attach so they can instantly discredit a position rather than address it based on the content. If I told you I was the illegitimate love child of Jerry Falwell and Laura Ingraham, would that change what I’m saying? What if I was Al and Tipper’s boy? Do you really need a profile to determine what kind of person I am? You can find my posts on these threads, on some lighthearted Bush bashing because, well because that’s fun, on most health care threads, and on occasional religious or faith threads because I’m kinda lost on that last one right now and public expression spurs reflection for me. To me that is not really political so the fact that this may say it’s a political forum at the top doesn’t mean much to me.

As for me personally, I’ve voted for Republicans and for Democrats and I’m not very happy with either option any more. I’d love to vote for someone in whom I had both trust and confidence but that list is pretty damn short anymore. I think both parties have ended up pandering to the extremes and the only discernable difference is that the extremes on the right appear to be bigger assholes.

I’ve been poor and I’ve been what some would call rich. I’m somewhere in between right now. I grew up rural and am now in a small urban area. I try to raise my daughter to be respectful of those around her and have made conscious efforts to give her as much diversity in her life as we can accomplish. That small urban area referenced earlier is the Raleigh/Durham area and I like Duke both as a university and their athletic teams (primarily the basketball teams which are my principle sporting interests). My wife went to Duke and dated a lacrosse player for a little while. She would tell you he was an asshole. So would I.

My first knee jerk response when I learned of the case was that you couldn’t get these guys in prison fast enough. When it was stated to the public that the players were lying to protect their own and there had been racial abuse at the party I was ready to drive them to the big house myself. But the other information that has come out has made me more hesitant in those initial opinions and that hesitancy has also made me reexamine my initial rush to judgment.

I post here because it is the absolute perfect forum for this kind of discussion. There’s a balance in any of these cases between the presumption of innocence and the rights of the alleged victim. That balance is perversely tilted on right wing boards where the alleged victim is lying because she’s a stripper. Any semblance of the law and order principles to which they ascribe as part of their platform evaporates in this scenario because the defendants are one of their own.

On these boards it’s different - there is the inherent conflict when those who would stand for the presumption of innocence are faced with doing so for a group of defendants who would normally not generate much sympathy. It’s like the ACLU fighting for the right for Nazi’s to march through Skokie. So I read posts from people like OldLeftyLawyer and genuinely respect his position on the issue. At the same time, while the definition of “smearing the victim” takes on a variety of meanings, by and large for the most part people have been hesitant to dive all the way into the gutter.

So that’s who I am and why I’m here… that and to be the source of amusement to those who need it.

[TorchTheWitch]

296. I'm beginning to think you may in fact

be at the wrong place. Admitting one doesn't have an interest in Tom Delay's case is food for the "Oh My God, It's A Troll!" crowd. Since your profile can't be viewed I have no idea how long you've been here. Couple that with the statements you make about being non-political and uninterested in Delay's case, and that's a pretty good indication that you may indeed have stumbled into the wrong place. Look around a bit. I guarantee you'll be suspect for several reasons... Uninterested in Delay's case? Troll. Non-political? Troll. Low post count? Suspect Troll. Don't post much of anything on any more than one particular issue? Troll. Disabled profile? Suspect Troll. That's the way it is. Do I agree with it? Most of it no, and I've said so repeatedly in the past, but it's like singing to the choir. Forewarned if forearmed, and if you can't appreciate that, oh well.

Wow, if I was more astute I would think you were calling me an arrogant fool and laughing at me.

Well then, I'd have to question your level of astuteness since it's customary that when one precedes a statement with the word "Personally" they're expressing how they personally feel. If you perceive that as my calling you arrogant and a fool deserving to be laughed at than that says a lot more about you than I'd really care to know about. In future when I begin a statement with the word "Personally" I'm talking about ME. However you prefer to interpret that is your business and I'm really not interested if your interpretation differs from what is customary and what I flat out tell you.

I’m not sure where I’ve given you the impression that I personally wanted to be the person to review the clinical information, but that’s not what I’m saying.

Then I would suggest you make it clear what you are saying because it sure looks like you're saying and have been saying that you aren't going to defer to the expert until you know more... in other words, the expert has no clout with you the non-expert until someone else who may or may not be an expert comes along to challenge that expert so you can feel comfortable with refuting the expert.

If an expert steps up in front of you and says that Iraq has WMD’s, do you accept that at face value, or do you want to hear more?

Sure, if only as a matter of interest. If the expert has legitimate credentials to be considered the expert then I'm going to defer to their expertise because I'm the non-expert and am in no position to refute their findings unless another more credible expert with better credentials does, and I have no personal reason to disbelieve the original expert.

If you think it arrogant of me to want to hear the details of that report and to hear the merits of both sides of the issue reviewed by more than three sentences then you’re really not going to have much respect for the 12 arrogant fools in that jury box. I’m sorry I took the time to research the SANE guidelines and realize that there are a wide range of findings that fall under the heading of “consistent with sexual assault.” I’m sorry I’m not comfortable in making the leap you want – the same leap that the SANE report doesn’t make – that leap being that the finding of the injuries being consistent with sexual assault means that the injuries are inconsistent with any other possibilities. And I’m particularly sorry that rather discuss the merits of that position you would prefer to turn to some half-assed, passive-aggressive, inferred arrogant fool insult propped up with a strawman.

A half-assed, passive-aggressive, inferred arrogant fool insult propped up with a strawman? What is it you aren't getting here? The SANE is the expert. You aren't. A quick cliff note study isn't going to make you more credible then the expert, why bother trying? Why would you want to? Until some expert comes along that is more credible and has better credentials than the SANE expert who refutes the findings of the SANE expert regardless of the fact that they weren't there to make any credible judgement immediately following the alleged rape what is the reason for not deferring to the SANE expert? To not defer to the SANE expert until such time as her findings may be refuted by a more credible and better credentialed expert is to dismiss the SANE expert as not having value as an expert... now THAT's a leap. There's only one reason to not defer to the credible SANE expert's findings until such time that some expert comes along that is more credible and has better credentials than the SANE expert who refutes those findings and that is a personal reason all your own to not WANT to find the SANE credible and therefore conclude her findings not credible.

Look at it this way... between the two of us, I'm the expert regarding the exotic dance business. For argument's sake, it will be assumed that I'm credible regardless of how you may personally feel about that. If I tell you something about that business and you aren't willing to accept my credible expert findings until such time that some other more credible expert with better credentials comes along that refutes what I told you about that business, then for whatever personal reason you have you simply don't WANT to believe what I told you. In other words, you want to believe differently regardless of the fact that I'm the expert and you aren't for some personal reason of your own, so you will doubt my credibility, doubt my findings, and go on a fishing expedition of your own in order to try to find something that you can cling to regardless of whether or not it's credible or expert to prop up your own personal reason for disbelief. Got it?

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert. But I’m also not ready to accept the SANE as the only expert on the issue. I’m not ready to accept consistent with one scenario as being inconsistent with any other scenario until I hear more on the issue.

So, you won't except the expert findings of the SANE regardless of her credentials and credibility simply because she's the ONLY expert? You are willing to dissmiss the SANE expert as an credible expert and devalue her as a credible and credentialed expert when you who are not an expert are not in any position to judge her findings. It very well may be that the SANE expert will ALWAYS be the only expert in this case... will you then never accept her as a credible and credentialed expert simply because there just isn't any other expert that backs her up or refutes her? What possible reason could you have to not defer to her expertise simply because there is not now and may never be another expert to either back her up or refute her other then you simply just don't LIKE her findings because they just aren't what you WANT them to be? It is absulutely abundantly clear exactly why your aren't willing to accept her findings as credible and defer to her expertise. You can twist it around anyway you like, but "the evidence speaks for itself".

It’s no different than the time stamps on the photos which I wouldn’t place faith in until they’ve been reviewed by experts. (The only difference is that we know more about the photos at this point than we do about the actual contents of the SANE report.)

Oh, so you would accept ONE expert that held a position on the photos that you agree with? Don't think I won't be watching your posts when the defense leaks their expert findings on the photos. You do realize that's next in line after the latest fiasco.

I’m always amused by this request as it’s the second time I’ve fielded it (Marie also asked). It’s almost like people want to have a label to attach so they can instantly discredit a position rather than address it based on the content. If I told you I was the illegitimate love child of Jerry Falwell and Laura Ingraham, would that change what I’m saying?

The labeling that occurs here based on absurd criteria I already addressed in the beginning of this post, so enough about that.

As for instantly discrediting a position rather than address it based on content, I know you've seen plenty of that. If that's something you find disagreeable than I can't help but wonder when you see posters doing just that you don't call them on it. Of course it doesn't matter who or what one is when it comes to what they are saying. Holy cow! You mean this labeling of a person and discrediting what they say based on who or what they are BOTHERS you? Well, then where the hell were you on that last thread regarding the Duke case that I started spanking other people for labeling them and discrediting them based on who or what they are and not addressing what they say regardless of content? Where the hell were you when people were being viciously personally attacked instead of having their points addressed? Wow, it sure takes a lot of nerve to whine about something that happens to you when you don't care when it happens to others. I can't help but wonder if that may have something to do with the particular position they took... kinda goes back to the labeling thing you suddenly seemed to be so annoyed about.

And for the record I don't believe for one minute that you find it amusing because when you perceived that I did the same to you it annoyed the hell out of you. Or is it just amusing when it happens to others and not you?



On Edit... an entire section somehow released itself into the ether and had to be replaced.

[NaturalHigh]

228. Not to worry...

Jesse Jackson is already on the case.

[FredScuttle]

269. With rape apology in full bloom...

why not throw in some race baiting too, right?

[NaturalHigh]

290. I do not apologize for rapists.

They are scum and should rot in prison. I just don't believe that the defendants in this case are guilty. Nor will I apologize for thinking that Jesse Jackson is looking for some attention. Just my personal opinion, of course.

[Neil Lisst]

6. yeah, he won his race, so that's out of the way

thank goodness that is over

[KitchenWitch]

36. Can I ask you what you mean by the DA got what he wanted?

Seems an awfully snarky response to the original post.

[wakeme2008]

91. He was running against a female and a black male

and he beat them in the primary. IMHO this case is 90% political.

[Neil Lisst]

97. and the woman was beating him, and is a much better lawyer

he's a political hack, appointed

he needed this, and he rode it to victory

[dave123williams]

152. DA's tend to run for higher office....he's doing by demagoguing an

African American basketball star with a spurious rape charge.

[Marie26]

264. Why is Nifong persecuting Kobe? Why?

LOL. You do realize this thread isn't about the Kobe Bryant case... right?

[LostinVA]

299. OMG! Was Kobe at the lacrosse party, too? This is HUGH!!111

[Neil Lisst]

4. cases which draw public attention are not like most cases

They usually involve high profile defendants, and in an age when accusers of the famous are temporarily famous, that's enough to induce some of what we see.

Could the Duke players have done it? Yes, but even so, it's the totality of the evidence we look at. It does matter that she was there dancing, and it matters that the show was cut short, and it matters that they argued about money, followed by shouts and racial epithetes, followed by a phony 911 call by Kim Roberts, followed by another 911 call by Roberts trying to get the accuser out of her car.

I don't want to argue the case, but I don't see any real evidence in this case, beyond her bad ID.

If this was the case she reported 10 years ago, it wouldn't be news, because it would be a run of the mill crime, like most are.

[billyskank]

7. Surely the question should be, why do so many people attack the accuser?

After all, the answer cannot be to assume that everybody accused is guilty. That might provide "balance" but it will provide justice.

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. No, the question is about the reflex to protect an alleged criminal

One that we don't usually see in other crimes.

Attacking the accuser IS about protecting the criminal or alleged criminal. Otherwise there would be no reason to attack the accuser.

[billyskank]

20. Okay, your point is well made

I just ask you to be careful. What alerted me is where you say things like "protect an alleged criminal", and "defending the accused".

Justice naturally demands that we do protect those who are alleged to have comitted or accused of crimes.

That does not mean attacking the accuser, and you rightly point out that in the case of rape this is a reaction born out of mysoginy.

My point is that we shouldn't try to "redress the balance" by saying, "why are you defending him? He's a rapist!" when he hasn't been convicted of any crime yet. After all, not everybody who is accused is actually guilty.

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. But often the evidence is out there, and people still have that protective

response to the guy. It so reminds me of Abu Ghraib where some Americans were so unwilling to believe that the US Army was capable of atrocity that they had to label all the victims "terrorists" or call torture a "fraternity prank". It's about the desire to protect a powerful and dangerous entity doing immoral acts, as opposed to a knee-jerk response to protect the victims.

I appreciate your point about not going hell-bent in the other direction, but I am really interested in this phenomenon about defending and excusing the guilty or potentially guilty at the expense of the victim.

There is some kind of personal investment in identifying with power, even at its worst and most criminal.

[tocqueville]

11. because they feel threatened

it could happen to them, and they know it

[billyskank]

14. You think a large section of the populace are potential rapists, then?

[tocqueville]

46. yes

it"s shown that when social barriers are torn down, the "instinct" comes back. War is a good example.

[TorchTheWitch]

110. I would think so

I recall reading a recent study (which I believe I found not long ago here on DU) where the question was asked of a number of men that if they knew they would get away with it, would they rape, and 80% answered "yes". That's quite an appalling number of potential rapists. Of course, that would depend on your definition of potential, but if I knew any of those men that answered "yes" to that question, I'd steer a wide path around them.

[Spike from MN]

126. Wow, that's a pretty scary statistic.

Unfortunately, it looks like that 80% might just get their wish. Here are some stats I came across and while they are from 1999, I don't think that invalidates them to any great degree. If someone has newer stats, please feel free to post.

72% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison. <1999 NCVS>

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in those 28% of rapes that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5%—one out of twenty— of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free.

Link:
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~casv/stats.htm

From that last stat, it looks like 95% get away with it. :scared:

Torchie, they didn't happen to publish the names of the 80% did they? If they did, I'd sure like to see the list so I know who to avoid. ;)

[BrownOak]

178. Geeky question on the numbers

I don't mean to discount the significance of the issue, but when I first read those stats from the Harvard link I questioned their methodology because it didn't seem to account for any possibility for false reports. Depending upon whose figures you want to use to quantify "false reports" you can go with 2%, 8%, or any other number - but that presents a whole different set of questions.

How would someone would actually categorize something as a "false report." Clearly there are many cases where someone is raped but no suspect is ever identified or caught. How are these categorized because they are not a false report but there was never any evidentiary evaluation subject to review in such a case to reach an absolute distinction. Is it classified as a false report? Or, if all the evidence in a particular case points clearly states rape but a suspect is released on some sort of technicality, does this get flagged as a false report? When a victim misidentifies an assailant and he's found not guilty, does this get flagged as a false report? Where do those numbers come from because there has to be some element of subjectivity in arriving at that conclusion.

That calculation is important to know WRT to the Harvard numbers because they don't appear to account for any possibility that a rape could be a false allegation. Without any kind of investigation, how do you know what the percentage of actual rapes out of all allegations of rape? Of that 72% that go unreported, how many are false allegations? How was that data gathered?

I'm not saying that there isn't a huge number of sexual assaults that never result in a conviction. I just question the accuracy of that 5% figure. There are too many unknowns in that analysis to accept it at face value.

[Spike from MN]

205. Good questions BrownOak.

I've had some of the same ones regarding how a "false report" would fit in the statistics. I'll try to answer your questions but please keep in mind this is just my interpretation of it. The link to the original document on that page is broken and I haven't had the time to do a search to dig it up somewhere else but I'll do my best to answer your questions.

If someone is raped but no suspect is caught, I don't think that would be classified as a "false report." The police have a report on file and perhaps other evidence (e.g. results of the SANE, etc.) but they just never found the guy. I see that more as a "cold case", similar to a case where someone is murdered but they never found the killer. In both cases, a crime happened but they just never found the guilty party.

If someone is released on a technicality, I still don't think they would classify it as a "false report", especially if, as you stated, all the evidence in the case clearly points to the fact that a rape occurred. As an analogy, if a bank is robbed and they catch the person but s/he gets off on a technicality, that probably wouldn't be classified as a "false report" because the bank had indeed been robbed. The suspect just didn't get charged. I would assume the same would hold try in a rape case but I could certainly be wrong on that.

As for misidentifications, I think there is a difference between a "misidentification" and a "false report" and I would hope that the statistics would differentiate between the two. I see a misidentification as "Jane Doe was raped. John Doe raped her. Jane misidentifies Jack Doe as the rapist." Jack is not guilty and that is proven in court. (Let's say the DNA didn't match or whatever.) Jack goes free (as he most definitely should) but what happens to Jane's case after that? Is it left open? Using the bank robber analogy again, if a robber is misidentified and found not guilty in court, is the case still left open so they can continue to look for the actual robber? I would assume so and I would hope the same would be true in a rape case.

A "false report" I see as something like: "Jane Doe and John Doe have consensual sex. Jane gets ticked at John and files a false report." No rape ever occurred. I'm not sure where something like that would fall in the stats I posted but my guess is that they would be included somewhere in here:

    If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

    If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

I think they just didn't specify which percentages were false reports and which fell into other categories. They also don't specify what percentage of cases were dropped because the victim decided s/he just couldn't go through the ordeal of a trial. That's another stat I'd actually like to see. (Note: for that stat I am making the following assumptions: the victim was raped, they catch the perp, all the DNA evidence points to the perp as being the guilty party but the victim backs down rather than be put through a trial.)

I don't know where they got the figure that 72% of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported but if it's unreported, is it considered a false allegation since no report was ever filed? Does it classify as a "false allegation" if, say, one woman says to another "John Doe raped me" when no rape ever occurred? I guess I would consider something like that to be a "lie" or "vicious rumor" or whatever but it becomes a "false allegation" when the woman files a report with the police.

Thanks for the questions. Again, all of the above is just my interpretation. I have seen various stats here and there but I don't believe I have ever come across the results of a comprehensive study that addresses all the complexities of the issue and answers all of your questions. If someone knows of such a link, please feel free to post it.

[BrownOak]

235. I'm guessing that they used these figures

from the National Crime Victimization Survey which are repeated here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf

You end up with 366K average annual estimated assaults and 116K average annual reported assaults, which comes out to 32%. That's close enough to the 28% figure they used. Those numbers from the survey are self-reported so there is no check to verify the veracity of the claim, although one wonders what anyone would have to gain from a false claim of rape in a blind survey. However, it would be naive to assume there wasn't some skewing of those numbers - to what percentage would be impossible to determine.

That still leaves the rest of that chain of logic that would need a bit more explanation. Still, it would take some pretty serious changes to the numbers to get to a figure that wasn't disgusting. Even if you assume that every non-reported rape is a false allegation - which is an absurdly high 72% - you still end up with just 16% of actual rapes resulting in jail time. Or if you assume that every rape that was both not reported or didn't result in an arrest was a false report, you still end up with a jail time rate of rate of just 32%. Taking it to even more ridiculous extremes, say the only time a rape allegation is not false is if it is reported, there's an arrest, and there's a prosecution... even then you're still looking at just 40% of those assailants spending time behind bars.

I guess if you were really going to delve into this it would be important to note the conviction rate of rape against other felony charges. I'm also curious to figure out where that 69% see jail time figure comes from. How does anyone get a felony rape conviction and get to use a Get Out of Jail Free card?

[LostinVA]

300. And the ones that do, serve less time that some kid found with pot

Disgusting. Rape should be life imprisonment without parole -- regardless of the age of the victims. It's a violent crime committed by sociopaths.

[Nikki Stone 1]

16. But rape could also happen to anyone

A woman is far more likely to be raped than a man to be falsely accused in a police report. Many more women are victims of rape, (including child rape, called "incest") than actually report it.

So why the instant response to protect the guy?

[billyskank]

21. Simple. Chauvinism.

But you knew that already.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Good point!

While a woman is more likely to be raped (1 in 4), a man also stands a chance of rape (1 in 10). However, a woman is more likely to report a rape than is a male victim. As bad as treatment of female reporters is, the treatment of male victims can be just as brutal, if not more so. Not to say that either is acceptable treatment of a victim.

BTW..."child rape" is not interchangeable with "incest." While it is true that most child victimization is done by relatives (almost 60%), it is important to keep those terms separate.

[Nikki Stone 1]

26. If a father sodomizes his child, I call that child rape, not incest

Even if the monster is a relative. I hate the term incest when what is really being discussed is rape.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. In the "case" you present...it is both!

However, there are cases of incest that have nothing to do with rape, as they are consensual acts. Interestingly enough, the only "universal" taboo tends to be incest, consensual or not.

[bobbieinok]

196. at what age does incest become consensual????

[Behind the Aegis]

208. Depends on the parties involved.

[LostinVA]

108. I kjnow... like saying child molestation when it is RAPE

[Neil Lisst]

50. because our system is designed to avoid sending the innocent to jail

It doesn't always work, largely because of bias and prejudice of the type seen here daily, but that is the goal.

It's only one of the most fundamental rights and building blocks of our country.

[ShortnFiery]

144. I concur ...

There are valid - documented cases of women who have FALSELY accused their ex-husband of child molestation for the sole purpose of obtaining FULL custody. As long as the accuser has other possible hidden agendas, male or female, the investigation should be thoughtfully conducted.

I know some folks here are really "on a mission" so to speak for IMO a "Nancy Grace" mentality = the accused is most ALWAYS guilty - especially if it's a man accused of a sex crime. But I disagree.

I'm genuinely disconcerted about all that us women have had to VALIDLY endure from the sexist patriarchy, but in the good old USA, EVERYONE should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. :hi:

[Neil Lisst]

146. and I concur in your concurrence

I don't know what that (I concur in your concurrence) means, but it sounds like something they say on the floor of congress, eh?

[ShortnFiery]

149. Yes, it has that smooth sounding appeal ...

Like I really do agree, like bunches even! :rofl:

[Marie26]

115. You've got it. nt

[SeattleGirl]

8. Me too, Nikki, me too

Unfortunately, it still comes down to the virgin vs. whore image of women in this country. A very sad statement of the way things are. It is to weep.

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. It also comes down to protecting men, especially ones of means

The victim is actually expendable. The virgin/whore thing is one of the weapons used to destroy her in order to PROTECT the alleged rapist.

The rules protecting women (like keeping her name out of the papers) are very recent reforms due to the pressure of the feminist movement and the rise of women's political power. But there is still such a strong desire to protect the rapist from the results of his own actions. That is what never fails to amaze me. It's more important to protect a man's image or his self image--as a nice guy--than to protect the woman (or man in some cases) who actually gets brutalized.

[SeattleGirl]

19. What you said is so true, Nikki

I'm so tired of the "poor man, he just couldn't keep it in his pants because of the wanton whore who tempted him" argument. Oy! I have a daugher, and believe me, I schooled her plenty about rape, domestic violence, etc.

But you know what? Parents of BOYS have to do their part. It's not just up to the girls. The boys are responsible too, and I will take on anyone who says different.

And, I don't care what you think of me for saying this. It's not just up to the girls to stop things. It's up to the boys, too, to not start them.

[Mythsaje]

29. That argument has never flown for me...

As if guys can't control themselves? It's demeaning, and very medieval.

[SeattleGirl]

43. No kidding. Not to mention, a great way to let guys off the hook.

I have a nephew who's just over 2 years old. I was visiting a few months ago, and caught a conversation between my nephew and my BIL. My BIL was telling my nephew that when he got older, daddy was going to tell him a few things, and that one of those things was that he had to be careful about certain things, just like girls did. I coulda kissed him, but I didn't want to interrupt that wonderful "learning" moment. THAT is what we need more of!

[Caoimhe]

185. Yes I feel the same

Poor guys, don't you know us gals have dick magnets inbedded in our vaginas? Men cannot help but stick their dicks in us with permission or not. sigh

[B Calm]

9. Seeing how we were all raped in 2000 by the Supreme Court,

you would think there would be more compassion for the victim!

[marions ghost]

102. Right

Maybe liberal men might be able to make the connection if you put it in those terms. We were raped in 2000 and we've been abused ever since. A victim mentality has set in, rendering us even more powerless, and the Big Daddy Rethuglicans are still in the driver's seat wreaking havoc--so how does it FEEL? How does it feel to be at the mercy of sadistic narcissists at the highest levels of government? How does it feel to have our snivelling media turn the other way with downcast eyes, in a similar betrayal of trust? The invasion of our social/political boundaries can feel almost physical, and in fact does affect our physical well-being. It's not a big stretch to imagine the extended suffering of a rape victim.

Macrocosm to microcosm. It's all related.

[Mythsaje]

13. According to the way our legal system works

it's the accused who's ENTITLED to the benefit of the doubt. The accuser, through the agency of the State, is forced to prove her case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sucks, but that's the way of it. The fact that so many people seem to want to try these cases in the press these days doesn't change that.

There will be some who are instantly sure they're guilty (frat-boy jocks? Rapists? Who'd a-thunk it?).

There will be some who don't trust her word. (Stripper? Isn't being a stripper about playing guys for money? What's her angle?)

In addition, these kinds of threads always devolve into flamefests. It's rarely a pretty sight.

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. I'm not talking about the legal rubric of "innocent until proven guilty"

I am talking about the knee-jerk response to defend alleged rapists, even to the point of ignoring the evidence that points to guilt. I am talking about the public discourse that demonizes and destroys a real victim, sometimes aided and abetted by shady defense attorneys. I am talking about the public's assumption that the victim must be lying. It's the social beliefs and assumptions I am after, not the legalities, which can often turn on obscure technical issues, regardless of the actual guilt of the accused.

[Mythsaje]

39. The defense's JOB is to do anything within his or her means

to defend the client, as long as it doesn't violate the law or a certain standard of ethics. Now we can argue whether trying to blame the victim is ethical (I don't think it is--I don't understand the whole "she was asking for it" meme, myself. Never have, never will) but the fact remains that until it's ruled unethical, it's a viable ploy.

I think some people go out of their way not to prejudge something like this. It's easy to say that we don't do it for other crimes, but "we" is a loaded term. I don't take anything at face value, and usually don't come to any kind of conclusion until after the case has finished its run before the media.

Unless I'm THERE, either at the scene or in the courtroom seeing the evidence first-hand, I'm reluctant to trust anything I'm being told. Particularly by the media these days.

I'm very likely to assume these guys did what they're accused of, simply because I don't like frat-boy jocks. I know I'm prejudiced this way so I deliberately withhold judgement.

And I've known some strippers in my life as well. Had some for neighbors a time or two, and the mother of my children danced for a short time as well. She wasn't suited for it. It's a dirty business all the way around.

Does this mean I think she's lying? Or that she somehow deserved it? Nope. It's POSSIBLE she's lying, but unless she's planning to follow up with some sort of civil suit, I'm not sure what her motive would be. And I don't care WHAT a woman does for a living...or what she wears, or where she goes, or what kind of sex life she has. This doesn't affect whether or not she can be raped. The biggest "slut" on the planet (I put the word in quotations because I don't particularly like the term--I think it's simply stupid to label women negatively for something society seems to cheer men for doing) can be raped just as easily as the most prim and proper soccer mom.

[Caution]

86. In other words you are talking about the media? And the Defense lawyers?

I think you'll find that in most cases people side with the victims, but in sensationalized cases, where the defense and the media work their damnedest to destroy the vicitm in whatever way possible, some men (and some women) have their opinions swayed (for right or wrong).

I know for a fact that I have *never* sided with an accused rapist. After an acquaintence was acquitted of rape when the "vicitm" came forward and admitted to fabricating the incident I was appalled. Even in the face of this I still make the assumption that the accuser has a case (though I won't make an assumption of guilt).

I know that rape is a divisive issue, but seriously, if you think that anything other than a very vocal minority of easily manipulated people "side with the accused" you need to look more closely at the issue. Hell take the Duke Lacrosse team threads here. If you read them closely you'll find that those behaving in the manner you suggest are very few in number and pop up over and over again in the threads, whereas the VAST majority of DU'ers have been either silent on the issue (as have I) or have spoken out in favor of the vicitm and in disgust at the manner in which the media has vilified her.

[MrScorpio]

25. I never have...

and I never will

I detest rapists.

The victims should be protected. They have too much to worry about now, than to be raped by the system all over again.

And they should always reassured that they, the victim, is never at fault.

Keep fighting

[SeattleGirl]

27. Victims should be protected, absolutely

Unfortunatley, even though there have been improvements to the system, there is still a societal judgement against women who are charging rape against a man.

But thanks, MrS, for your POV. And thanks for speaking out. I hope that more men like you will take a cue from you and do the same. Women need each other in this fight, but we also need men who are willing and able to see past the fucking sterotypes of this society to help people see the reality of things.

I appreciate your input.

[MessiahRp]

30. Also and this is not always the case

but there's a lot of cases out there that can end up being suspect. Revenge of a scorned lover, etc. Rape is not always as black and white as it appears.

Take my friend for instance. He was 19 at an underage drinking party. He went into a bedroom and passed out and woke up with a 15 year old girl starting to give him a BJ. She got him in her mouth when he became concious of his surroundings (he was drunk) and he stopped her immediately. She wrote about it in her journal, wrote letters to him that she never sent and her Mom found them and pressed charges. He got charged with 2nd degree sexual assault (had to plea to 3rd degree) and had to sign up on that degrading sex offender's list. Now he can't get jobs anywhere because of it and everything he does will be tainted by this.

The girl? She thought the whole thing was funny and laughed about it while it was happening with friends and then as we found out she was taking part in high school orgies at the same time while her parents were pressing the DA to get my friend claiming "he took the innocence of their child".

Most cases are viable, credible cases but there is certainly enough doubt out there to not automatically believe the accuser. And it is innocent until proven guilty.

Once they get convicted nobody believes them anymore. And the news follows them around like jackals hoping to sensationalize anything they do (even if like in my friend's case, he really didn't do anything).

Rp

[ScreamingMeemie]

33. And I was date raped by the biological father of my eldest daughter.

And he didn't do anything either. I mean, I asked for it by dating him, right?

What I am saying is that everyone has a story that defends their POV.

I could look at what you have posted and get on a high horse and say your friend made his first mistake by being at an underage drinking party. But we're going to say All kids do this. Perhaps this is one of the many reasons are parents warned us against them.

What the child did was wrong though, and her parents should be looking into conseling for her.

[MessiahRp]

34. I never said women ask for it...

I just said there are some suspect cases out there, which is a legitimate point.

The girl won counseling paid for by my friend as part of the plea agreement. He paid $4,000 towards it, she attended once.

Rp

[ScreamingMeemie]

40. You miss my point completely. Everyone has a story that supports

their point of view. Because of what happened to your friend, should all rape cases immediately become suspect?

[LostinVA]

117. Per his post, yes

He states because of his friend's statutory rape case, the alleged victims shouldn't automatically be believed.

He proved the OP's point.

[pnwmom]

183. Every rape case should be suspect in the same way that every criminal

case should be suspect. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard in every criminal case.

[LostinVA]

114. There are not alot of cases

The FBI cites 2%, and also says about 37% of rape cases aren't reported.

What happened to your friend was bad, but statutory rape charges and false accusations, etc., aren't the same thing as what the OP is talking about. If she wasn't a minor, nothing would have happened to your friend.

What you said starting with "... there is certainly enough doubt out there..." proves the OP's point: no, there isn't enough doubt out there. And, as she also said, this isn't about the legal stance of innocence until proven guilty.

You proved her point exactly. Because of a statutory rape case with your friend, you're stating the victim should automatically be doubted.

[MessiahRp]

120. Innocent until Proven Guilty is not just a legal stance

If we accept every accusation made towards someone than there will never be anyone found innocent no matter what the court decides. Thinking people are guilty automatically is wrong.

It is completely fair to have equal doubt about the accuser as there is towards the accused. Otherwise the bias is completely unfair towards the accused and we are encroaching on the legal aspect of innocent until proven guilty because the public in general has been told to assume they are guilty automatically (and jury pools come from those slanted members of the public).

Legally the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In reality it should not be any different. Being accused of rape is one of the worst things to be accused of and even if it is not true the label can not be shaken.

For something that serious and life changing equal doubt is the fair way to approach.

Rp

[LostinVA]

301. Sorry, don't agree with your stance on the accuser re: rape cases

And, you addressed nothing about the difference between statutory rape and rape.

[onenote]

139. let's see a link to that famous 2% figure

I think the number is small,probably under 10 percent. But the 2% figure has been discredited numerous times in threads on this subject. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2234396#2238491

By the way, just so its clear -- I have formed no opinion as to either the truthfulness of the accuser or the guilt/innocence of the accused. I prefer to wait for the evidence to be presented in court and subjected to cross examination. However, I do think that certain statements that are repeatedly made as "fact" are not "fact" and thus deserve to be challenged.

onenote

[Yupster]

143. Just a quick note Messiah

Twenty years from now your friend may volunteer to be assistant coach of his kid's Little League team. About the third day of practice, the head coach will give him a form so the police can do a background check on him.

He'll look down at his feet, mumble thanks and walk away quickly. Next practice he'll tell the head coach that his job schedule is really getting tough and he won't be able to make many games so he won't be able to help coach anymore.

Seen it happen already.

You're right that this will follow him his whole life and turn up again and again.

[Neil Lisst]

31. Why do so many people disrespect the rights of the accused?

Any woman can file charges, and she's taken as telling the truth until the accused proves he didn't do it. Any man accused is taken as guilty until he proves otherwise.

[Nikki Stone 1]

35. The accused has all kinds of rights, including the right to an attorney

And the right to confront his accuser in court, no matter how devastated she might be by what he has done.

And if he is innocent, he has the right to sue for false arrest and the right to go after someone who accused him falsely.

No one is disrespecting his rights. That's not what this post is about. It is about the knee-jerk PROTECTIVE response that many people have toward an alleged rapist even before they know the facts of the case and especially when the alleged rapists are males of power and privilege.

[Neil Lisst]

44. It's not a knee jerk reaction.

It's a presumption that exists because it's a bedrock of our system.

We are not talking about most cases, we are talking about the specific high visibility cases where there are good, sane reasons to doubt the accuser. It's disingenuous to attack those who doubt some accusers and characterize them as being overly protective. There is a criminal case and a man could lose his freedom for life. It all rides on the thin ID evidence she provided. This isn't being reflexive, it's being realistic.

We could have a topic which asked why those who support accusers always take their accusations as true, but that topic would get locked because it's not PC here on this board.

[Nikki Stone 1]

57. Yet, this "bedrock of our system" is often ignored in discussions of

other types of crime. I don't hear a lot of support for Kenneth Lay's rights, for example. We assume, probably correctly, that Mr. Lay is guilty of the crimes surrounding the fall of Enron and the devastation of its employees. But I have yet to see the kind of rallying around Kenneth Lay that I see around accused rapists. One could argue that Kenneth Lay is innocent until proven guilty and that maybe the wool was pulled over his eyes too. (I don't happen to believe this, but it is a potential argument.) And certainly, Kenneth Lay could lose some years of his life in incarceration.

Yet Lay, who has never literally raped anyone, is not the object of knee-jerk protectiveness. Yet, men of his power and privilege--or even of less power and privilege--seem entitled to an instant protection and defense by a great many in the general public. That's what I am trying to get to. You and I would agree that Kenneth Lay has rights and that there is chance that he might not be guilty. But you are not going to strenuously defend him in the way you are defending men accused of rape. THAT is what is interesting to me.

[Neil Lisst]

61. I don't see the comparison

We're talking about rape, a crime that has gotten hundreds of innocent men sent away wrongly, all because a witness said they did it.

I'm not going to spend any time trying to explain the difference in a case like Lay's and a rape case like Duke's.

[Nikki Stone 1]

69. Innocent men and women get sent away for many different crimes

How about the guys on death row for murder who ended up there because they had bad defense attorneys? How about the young women whose boyfriends were making drug deals and got arrested for just waiting in the car, getting more time than the boyfriend because they had less information to sell?

Why you single out rape is interesting to me.

The Lay case was put there so you could see the inconsistency of your own argumentation. If your passion were about the law, then you would jump to a defense of any accused person with equal fervor: a murderer, a drug dealer, a person who sat in the car, etc. Even Kenneth Lay, who is being tried on criminal charges and could serve time.

The fact is, you are not passionate about the law but about defending accused rapists. I find that really fascinating. There is some strong identification that you are making and I am trying to figure out what it is. Perhaps there is a personal experience in there somewhere, I don't know. But it is your kind of response that interests me, which is why I have been engaging you in conversation.

[Moosepoop]

75. I think some of the answer may be in post #44.

"There is a criminal case and a man could lose his freedom for life."

Aren't there currently two men charged with this rape?
Why the concern for, apparently, only one of them?

Perhaps the strong identification being exhibited is to one of the players themselves?

Just wondering.

[Neil Lisst]

79. I am passionate about the law.

That's why I became a lawyer. I simply don't agree with your perspective of it.

You have a simple approach. Anyone who disagrees with you is somehow supporting rapists and hurting victims. That's not my view, and never will be.

[Nikki Stone 1]

85. I'll explain it one more time

I am not looking at the mechanics of the law. I am looking at what I consider to be a knee-jerk protective response toward accused rapists that I don't see across other crimes in the mind of the general public.

Despite the legalities of a given case, rape cases (and other crimes against women) that become public often get tried in the court of public opinion. Women who dare to accuse anyone can be vilified once the case reaches the public square. This kind of treatment actually makes it difficult for women to come forward and file charges. It is these kinds of social attitudes that are my concern here, not the machinery of the law, although social attitudes certainly impinge on the law.

To say my attitude is simplistic is missing the point: I am questioning an attitude that is simplistic. I am questioning that knee-jerk reaction to defend the accused on the part of people who are NOT defense attorneys, who are usually law and order types, or at least middle of the road. Why the reaction?

And if you notice, I am not being gender specific. There are many women who assume that any other woman who cries rape is lying and that the alleged rapist must be protected.

[Neil Lisst]

87. I'll explain it one more time, too.

Your entire basis is a conclusion you make - something is "knee jerk."

Well, it's not knee jerk simply because you think it is.

Please don't try to explain it again. I know how to read and I have high reading comprehension. We disagree. End of issue.

[Nikki Stone 1]

90. And I'll explain again

It is very much a knee-jerk reaction on the part of a lot of people. There are some folks who have kept out of the Duke threads entirely--I am one of them, until tonight. Those who will wait for the verdict and not argue the case are wisest I think.

But some reactions on this board have just been a real surprise to me. That's why I asked the question in the OP.

I am curious about the motivations behind the reaction. It has nothing to do with reading level or intelligence.

[Neil Lisst]

95. Please try reading my post, instead of trying to explain yours again.

I assure you, I understand you.

Have you ever heard the term "agree to disagree?"

No amount of your attempting to "explain" it will alter my position. And no amount of repetition by you will make daddy buy this puppy.

[ShortnFiery]

147. Yeah, it's sad because there's covert sexism in the workplace

every day. We should, instead, focus on empowering both men and women to respect their bodies and person to behave in a sexually responsible manner. From the ground up, we must teach our daughters to be more assertive and our son's to respect the position of women in all areas of life. That's (multi-modal approach) is the only way we can minimize such predjudices, discrimination and/or physical assaults.

[bettyellen]

155. the motivation is seeing the woman as an alkie scam artist less than

human being who is being disrespectful by getting between this duke player and the sorority sister, who will be his rightful partner some day.
Bad stripper is getting the player to misspend his parents money so she can buy drugs. haven't you listened to anything neill's been saying? sheesh.

[TorchTheWitch]

243. You're Absolutely Right!

Those evil strippers troll the streets and break into unsuspecting citizens' homes and force those men at gunpoint to call the agency and hire them because statistically speaking men simply have zero interest in strippers at all and would never on their own initiative call an agency for a stripper to come perform for them and actually willing pay for that service! What man would ever conceive of the idea of hiring a stripper and paying for her services?

It's so obvious that they've been forced to do this against their will. Maybe they were brainwashed. But it's more logical that it's a set up by their wives and girlfriends who just slipped them a date-rape drug and forced them to hire those evil strippers while they were under the influence and not responsible for what happened to them when these wives and girlfriends forced their fingers to dial the phone and made them speak into it to hire those strippers! They were under the influence of a date-rape drug! How could they be responsible for making those calls and hiring those strippers! UGH!

It's just ridiculous that anyone believes that those men could possibly have hired and paid for those strippers because for some crazy reason they wanted to! The people here saying that are only saying it because they just don't believe in the rule of law, and they're trying to convince us that we should just throw the law and the courts right out the window because they have a secret agenda to make this country an unapologetic dictatorship! THAT'S what it boils down to! But we're smart enough to see through them, and dammit, we need to clean house here! Those people blaming men for willingly hiring and paying for strippers are trolling here for that "other" site! They're freepers trying to put one over on us! It's a freeper invasion I tell you!

Freepers! FREEPERS! OMG!!! THE FREEPERS ARE INVADING!!! RUN AND HIDE!!! HURRY WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE!!! SAVE YOURSELF!!! SAVE YOURSELF!!! RUN AND HIDE!!! RUN AND HIDE!!!

OMG! *puff, pant* I'm so scared!

Hold me!

:sarcasm:

[bettyellen]

244. of course she forced them to hire her--- i bet her stripper friends ganged

up and forced those sorority sisters to stay in their house.
poor sisters! they wanted nothing better than to go to this party and give lap dances and show their tits to drooling idiot jocks who were 12 hours into their keg,
as they belch in approval the gals will all make out with each other and then let the guys chase them around with ball gags and coke bottles. obviously these guys didn't need to pay for strippers, they could just charm some college girls with a little broomstick humour.

[TorchTheWitch]

258. Damn right they did!

Like those strippers would let those sorority sisters cut in on all the fun? Pfffftttttt... come on, we're talking about ball gags and coke bottles here! Even though strippers are all so stupid they can't even buckle their own stilts... er... stripper shoes... they aren't so dumb that they don't know how badly those sorority sisters are just DYING for a broomsticking! Skip the KY jelly and just ram the sucker to the hilt they'd say! Damn evil greedy strippers trying to hog up all those belching, farting, drooling neanderthal frat boys all to themselves, dag nabit!

[katinmn]

280. I didn't know you were a lawyer

I thought you were a cartoonist. :-) Darn good one, too.

Are you currently practicing law?

[Neil Lisst]

287. shhh! you'll just get them started!

I'm comfortably past my time of raising kids and working too much. I do maintain a practice, but much different than in my younger years. An active trial practice ruins your weekends. For every time you actually go to trial when scheduled, there's at least one you don't go, after getting everything ready.

I could tell I was reaching that point where I was simply lacked the patience to explain law to judges I felt didn't know much but were wired into the Republican party appropriately to get appointed.

Litigation is for people under 50. It's hard on the body, and it takes a lot out of you. Imagine fighting a big company and its team of lawyers in a dozen courts over 3-4 years, wading through half a million pages of documents, and finally slaying the beast. It's very rewarding, but I have left that behind. I advise a small group of business people who have worldwide interests, and when they have litigation in other nations, I hire the attorneys in those nations and direct their actions.

They have ongoing issues I'm working on in Romania, Russia, and UK right now. I do half my work at night between 10 PM and 3 AM.

[bobbieinok]

199. 100s of innocent men sent away wrongly.......any source(s) for that number

I'm not trying to attack you.....but I would like to know how you arrived at this number

I assume there are false accusations of rape. However, having come of age in the 60s and having been in the women's movement, I was completely appalled to learn/read how so many women who brought charges of rape were ridiculed by the cops, the lawyers, the press. (From what I have read at DU, I am fortunate that I was never raped and have never been informed by a friend or relative that she was raped. Therefore, I was totally freaked out from what I learned about the treatment of women who said they had been raped.)

[Marie26]

127. That poor Libby

I'm just appalled by all the people who are going around saying Libby leaked Valerie Wilson's name to the press - and he hasn't even been convicted yet! It's just AN INDICTMENT! And we know a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. I bet that Fitzgerald is just doing this so he can get that federal judge position. Though I'm not a prosecutor, I think he's done an awful job of prosecuting this case & should be replaced. The defense team is saying Libby just "forgot" she was a classified CIA agent because he was so occupied, and I believe that 100%. Think of how busy he must be! And really, where's the proof Libby gave her name to the press at all? I don't see it. We shouldn't make any judgments on this case, but I personally think Valerie Wilson told the press herself for the publicity & book deals. Now she'll be famous & poor Libby will take the blame. And worse, some of those who are presuming Libby's guilt are the same ones who've been so vigorously saying "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the Duke case. I would expect better from them.

[treestar]

229. In all fairness, those are much more complex issues

And it is less onerous on the defendant than to be presumed a "rapist." Here, the defendant is presumed to be a what? Illegal leaker of government information.

Doesn't hit the gut the same way.

[TorchTheWitch]

262. Oh hell yeah!

Damn straight! What's the big deal? All that Libby guy did was leak some government info that outed a deep cover CIA agent which destroyed her whole network and probably got people tortured and killed in other countries and set back the search for under the radar dirty bomb nukes all over the world for maybe only 20 or 30 years! Hell, that's not a hill of beans compared to a couple of spoiled arrogant frat boys being presumed rapists!

For crying out loud fucking up the search for errant nukes just doesn't hit the gut the same way as those poor frat boys being thought of as rapists!

Damn! People really need to get their priorities in order around here!

Holy cow! What is this, some kind or progressive or librul forum or something? Sheeeesh!

:sarcasm:

[FredScuttle]

271. Speak for your damn self

n/t

[LostinVA]

236. Bingo n/t

[billyskank]

37. It's a deeply polarising issue

the chauvinists automatically leap to the defence of the accused no matter what the evidence against him is, whilst others side with the accuser in solidarity against the chauvinists, sometimes even if the charges are false.

It must be incredibly hard to achieve justice in such an atmosphere. :(

[Neil Lisst]

45. I agree.

there are far too many female chauvinists who believe the woman no matter how unlikely her story is to be true

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. And there are far too many men who will play down the issue of rape

and the horrific way our current justice system and the media handle it, without ever giving any thought to the damage they cause to women who's lives have been destroyed. But, that's okay.

[Neil Lisst]

53. But that's not an issue here. We all recognize rape is a serious problem.

But we don't throw the constitution out the window because it's a rape case.

[ScreamingMeemie]

77. Obviously, we all don't. No one that I have seen is even coming close

to suggesting we "throw the constitution out the window". But, many are encouraging turning the victim into the accused. I'm sorry, that doesn't wash with me.

[Neil Lisst]

80. That's what laws designed to keep the accuser private do.

They're repugnant to the constitution.

[TorchTheWitch]

265. How 'bout those laws

They work so well that this woman's photos have been plastered all over the national media and her name, birthday, and all kinds of other highly personal information has already been circulating all over. Well, gee wiz, wonder which side it was that leaked all that information out there.

Ooooo yeah, some rape shield laws we got. It's perfectly reasonable to not be allowed to taint a jury with information from a defendant's past that doesn't have any connection to the case, but it's just a-okay to taint a jury with every single bit of highly personal information about the accuser's sex habits, drinking habits, drug habits, criminal past, whether or not she's been raped before and every damn little thing they can dream up to make her out to be some lying, drunken, drug addled psycho greedy whore who "should have known better" and/or "deserved it". NONE of that has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not a woman is raped and has no damn business being splattered all over the media and thrown around in court. Yet, our laws say it's perfectly relevant when it clearly is not.

Try to introduce that crap regarding an accuser who was mugged, beaten and robbed on his wallet in court and the judge would think you were a nutball because none of that has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the accuser was mugged, beaten and robbed of his wallet, and the very idea of trying to trash him personally would be laughed out of court. Yet, it's standard operating procedure for accuser's alleging they've been raped.

I would think someone who claims to be so passionate about the law would have addressed this obviously biased phenomenon in our justice system.

[NaturalHigh]

289. The accused players' pictures and names...

have been plastered all over the national media, but I have yet to see the accuser's name anywhere except on a few websites. I also read that a Chicago radio host released her name, but that's nowhere near the exposure that the accused have gotten. I have yet to see a picture of her that was not digitally distorted to hide her face.

The accused are the ones who have been the victims of a witch-hunt here, not the accuser. She has been coddled by the Durham County DA from the very beginning.

[TorchTheWitch]

298. You're kidding

The accuser hasn't been the subject of a witch-hunt? You mean that "drunken, drug addled, criminal, mentally deficient, lying whore who should have known better and deserved it"? Is that the one? :eyes:

The DA is coddling her? Huh, who would have thought that it was the man's job to to prosecute an alleged rape case when there's evidence that suggests a rape has been committed. Damn me, I just better go re-read the laws again because I just could have sworn he was ethically bound to prosecute a case when there's evidence that crime has been committed and the accuser wants to go forward. :eyes:

I think you better go back and read the rape shield laws. We have laws for a damn good reason as to why it is import to keep the identity of an alleged rape victim hidden until trial. My guess is that it has something to do with that astounding number of rape victims that aren't willing to come forward for fear of being vilified and for fear of their personal safety should there identity be revealed. You go ahead and look that up, I'll wait. :eyes:

Well sure, the arrested alleged rapists' identities have been all over the media since NO alleged criminals have laws to protect their identities, and I sure don't hear you crying all over place about all those alleged drug dealers, muggers, burglers, kidnappers, arsonists and murders identities being plasted all over the media. Now, why is that? :eyes:

Well shoot, rape shield law be damned. After all, with that radio host spewing her identity over the public airwaves and all those websites handing out her identity to any one in the world that cares to look surely can't be more than few hundred thousand people at this point. Bah, what's a few hundred thousand people compared to NOBODY that isn't directly connected with the case. :eyes:

And those photos. Well gee wiz, they blanked out her face, so what's the big deal. Surely nobody has ever been identified by people when their faces aren't visable to them. Hell, all those times that I recognized people from the back or with their head turned away or with their face blocked by something I just must have been mistaken even though they turned out to the very people I thought I recognized. Damn, must have been pure luck... I should have bet money on it. :eyes:

Ya'll come back when you have something legitimate to contribute, mmmkay?

[LostinVA]

121. Spot on, Mrs. G!

[Nikki Stone 1]

49. Actually, there are far too many people who blame the victim in rape cases

The blind supporters of female innocence are actually few in number if you really listen carefully.

[Neil Lisst]

54. I hear a lot of people claim that, but I don't hear a lot of it

Maybe someone who calls in to one of the news shows on TV or radio might say it, but I seldom hear anyone "blame the victim."

Questioning the veracity of the victim is not "blaming the victim."

[Nikki Stone 1]

66. Questioning the veracity of the victim is an interesting problem in itself

You report your car stolen, you don't usually get the 10th degree from either the cops or the general public (if they find out) about your veracity. You could be lying. You could want the insurance money for some reason. But, in general, people assume you are telling the truth unless something is really unusual about the case.

But, in a case of rape, the victim not only has to report the crime but satisfy some standard of "veracity"? Even if there is physical evidence of force and penetration? Like the general public has to deem her enough of a victim to proceed with the case?

This always boggles my mind.

[Neil Lisst]

68. well, no system is perfect, and no victim wants to be questioned

but they all get questioned.

[Nikki Stone 1]

70. It is not the questioning of the victim by the police, especially now

with protections in place, that is the problem.

I am actually looking at the reaction of the public and the knee-jerk emotional response that some people have to protecting the rapist or alleged rapist at the expense of the victim. This has to do more with internalized values and identifications than it has to do with the actual facts of a given case. (Often, we don't have those facts.)

I am interested in the strenuous defense given to the accused rapist by many people. Especially by people who might otherwise have a "lock'm up and throw away the key" response to a drug dealer, convenience store robber or gang member. Why is it suddenly "not so fast, he may not have done it" when it's rape?

That is the issue I am trying to explore here.

[Neil Lisst]

72. well, that wouldn't be me

I always assume the accused is innocent, and that the police and DA are probably lying to make some aspect of their case.

Some cases like Enron I make up my mind that the accused is guilty, but only after it's obvious.

I think we have about 4 times as many in prison as we should have. Prove to me someone committed a rape, free of any issues of consent, and I'll lock their ass up a long time.

[Nikki Stone 1]

83. Interesting. So you would come to a strenuous defense of a gang member?

Or other accused? That would make sense if you had a strong distrust of the cops or the DA.

I actually understand that motivation, provided it is consistent across crimes. Big city police forces are famous (or infamous) for trampling on the rights of certain accused. And in cases where the accused came from groups traditionally harassed by the cops, like African-Americans, Latinos, etc. I would agree with your suspicion. I learned from my students in LA just how unjust cops could be.

I have a harder time when the defendants are well-heeled and white. This doesn't mean there might not be political motivations. I just believe that the police and DA have more of a tendency to be careful in these cases.

[Neil Lisst]

84. our criminal justice system is a mess, and it tramples rights of poor

Black, poor, male defendant? He's going to jail for something some Duke Puke will get Treatment and Deferred Adjudication.

Look at Rush! Martha Stewart, Tommy Chong, and Lil Kim do time, but this Nazi gas bag walks and doesn't even have to plead guilty.

All police lie to make cases, and all prosecutors lie and cheat to win.

Imagine a world in which we focused on the real crimes of violence, like rape, instead of busting poor white folks for meth or poor black folks for crack or poor hispanic folks for weed.

I want the violent identified, and removed from the rest of us. Anyone else has to really screw up to get sent away. If I were in charge.

[Nikki Stone 1]

89. I don't disagree with any of what you say in this last post, Now apply

it to the Duke case. You don't think those white boys will walk? You think some whites aren't, under their polite attitudes, figuring a minority girl for a "slut"?

[Neil Lisst]

96. Do I think some of them might be capable of rape in this instance?

Yes, I think some of them may be capable of rape, but I see no evidence they raped her, at least not any that appears to be good evidence.

Do I think they did in this case? No.

I don't find any of the accuser's story believable.

Do I think they figured her for a slut? They figured her for a dancer who works out of an escort service and puts on an $800 show with another dancer. Does that mean anyone raped her? No.

[Catrina]

267. Could you link to some posts that 'strenuously defend the accused'?

I'm asking because I haven't seen a single person do that. I haven't been in most of these threads though, so I could have missed it. Thanks in advance ::-):

[Caoimhe]

187. Oh come on nikki (sarcasm)

these sluts are everywhere. You know, the skanky n***** whores who strip and fellate these upstanding young white boys so they can support their drug habits. They are all lying bitches who deserve to be trashed, have their past paraded out in the press, they ENJOY having cold metal objects shoved up their vaginas and being swabbed for DNA. These whores are just working the system, and bitches like me and you, we are just female chauvinists when we come out and say we don't think it's right to villify these evil sluts because, well we all know that most women lie about sex! (/sarcasm)

It's amazing how prevalent these misconceptions and misogynistic ideas are, even among our fellow progressives. One thing is ALMOST always true, one click on the profile of someone villifying the alleged victim (slutbag) .. and the world MALE stands out like a beacon.

[LostinVA]

222. Either that or DISABLED

But I've also noticed the "male" in about 99% of the cases....

[bettyellen]

159. what about claiming you know she was drinking all day

(when you actually couldn't know) when witnesses actually state it was the the lacrosse players who were partying for 11-12 hours.
what utter bullshit you spew.
my fave has to be blaming strippers because men spend their money on them.
you're from the thinking with your penis school, obviously.

[LostinVA]

123. Exactly -- we're defending her smearing in the press and on

DU threads. Calling her a liar, a scam artists, a prostitute, a skank who deserved it by flaunting herself, whose pimp told her to do it, who "raped" herself with a dildo to set up the "boys," etc. Crazy, crazy stuff. THAT'S what we're reacting against. You got it, Nikki.

I can't even imagine how rape survivors on DU feel, seeing this shit on a progressive board. And, frankly, I'm honestly surprised most of it is being allowed (ie date rape isn't really rape, just horny guys wanting to get off).

[TorchTheWitch]

266. Amen and Amen!

"Calling her a liar, a scam artists, a prostitute, a skank who deserved it..."

Oh hell, he's accused ME right here in DU again and again of being a liar, drunk, drug addict, unbalanced, skank that probably screws my customers for money and it's MY fault that those customers come to club and spend money on me. If he can justify doing that to a fellow DUer it hardly surprises me that that he would do the same to the accuser in this case. And hell, I've never been raped or accused anyone of it! You've seen it with your own eyes and so have a boatload of other people.

And you're right, it's unbelievable that that kind of excrement is allowed here when it has no place on a progressive forum. Even the freeper posts on this issue haven't been nearly as disgusting as some of the ones that have been allowed to stand here. Have people suddenly forgotten about the existance of the Alert button?

You go girl!

:applause:

[Marie26]

275. I'm so sorry you had

to hear all that. No one deserves that kind of verbal abuse, least of all on a supposedly "progressive" forum. :hug: Thanks for all your insightful posts on this issue. Yes, alert (and ignore) are definitely our friends right now.

[laheina]

51. There are far too many extreme viewpoints on both sides

of issues like these. There is a lot of social baggage here that goes far beyond the legal system. To frame it only in those terms isn't really looking at the full scope of the problem.

[Behind the Aegis]

52. However...

...this may be because the way women are treated in our society. Because, in all honesty, a woman who reports rape, is more than likely to have been a victim than being a liar. Yet, women who report such an act of violence go through a much worse process than others of violent crime. Seriously, when do hear of someone reporting a home burglary getting the "third degree?" What about a man walking into a police station saying he has just been mugged? Do you think they ask him..."were you flaunting money? did you pick a fight? are you trying to avoid a bad situation?"

[Neil Lisst]

58. we hold these truths ...

1. More women are raped than there are reported rapes.

2. Most reported rapes really happened.

3. A Minority of reported rapes are false.

Agree so far?

4. Because rape is unlike most crimes, in that it can be made falsely with devastating consequences to the male accused, it is the nuclear weapon if any woman chooses to use it, and has has close physical contact with the man recently. It's not a burglary, or an armed robbery, or jaywalking.

5. Item 4 above means when high value targets treat women from the lower social and economic strata poorly, some of those women whip out the nuclear option to get even and/or get paid.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. I am not sure I get your point.

One thru three we are in agreement. However, I will take issue with number four...

4. Because rape is unlike most crimes, in that it can be made falsely with devastating consequences to the male accused, it is the nuclear weapon if any woman chooses to use it, and has has close physical contact with the man recently. It's not a burglary, or an armed robbery, or jaywalking.

Embezzlement charges can guarantee you will not work in finance businesses, even if the charges are unfounded. Face it, any false charge can be damning!

Finally, your #5 smacks of paranoia. What it does rely on is classism. Also, it shines suspect on a group that makes up less than 10% of all reported rape cases.

[Neil Lisst]

65. There are some false allegations. How many is up to discussion.

I think it's considerably larger than you do, but even if it's the low number you think, that's still a lot of innocent men accused.

Women use false allegations to get something they want, typically back at the accused for some real or imagined slight and indignity.

There are defenses to rape, and "I didn't do it" will always be one of them. Whether one chooses to believe an accused is largely determined by where one starts. I presume innocence. You may not.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Numbers....

False allegations, of any type, are devastating. It makes one wonder, how many other crimes are plagued with the same numbers?

Whereas I also presume innocence, it makes me wonder, how often do you presume "lying?"

[Neil Lisst]

76. I don't think other crimes are as likely to be made falsely because

... it's a power issue for the women who use it. If we look at the Duke case without passion, it appears they had a big argument about the length of the show and the proper number to settle on, followed by namecalling, followed by a payback call to 911 from Kim Roberts.

These circumstances should automatically ask one to scrutinize the accuser more closely, because an event has occurred which might cause her to launch this nuclear device.

[TorchTheWitch]

273. Huh?

"I don't think other crimes are as likely to be made falsely because it's a power issue for the women who use it."

Hmmm... so you are more inclined to side with the defendant in most cases even though a very small percentage of deliberate false accusations ever make it past the SANE because it is a power issue for the women who use it,

Yet, you are not inclined to side with the accuser in most cases even though EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY RAPE EVER COMMITTED is a power issue for the men who use it.

In a nutshell, you're inclined to side with the very small percentage.

Okey dokey.

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

153. "Most reported rapes really happened."

Then put a call into Nancy Grace and let's go Vigilante and lynch those guilty bastards. :sarcasm:

These threads always devolve into our personal biases. IMO, not EVER productive.

But hell, I'm one of the idiots arguing points. :( :grr:

[Neil Lisst]

156. over 50%, of those charged with rape are guilty

It's also a fact that many who are accused are not guilty.

These two statements are not in conflict, and they don't decide the Duke case.

[ShortnFiery]

163. Hey then let's rest this ole' case counselor?

But remember, this ole' scientist will note "correlation does NOT prove causation." :hi:

[Neil Lisst]

166. true dat. It just means there's no perfect justice, but we have to try.

[ShortnFiery]

168. Now, your final statement - I can "buy into" :-) eom

[Nikki Stone 1]

47. The polarization is not based on the actual facts, though, but on beliefs

that we have deep in our psyches about what cases like this mean. Very few people have all the facts in any given case and not everything is released to the media. People fill in the gaps with their own biases, knee-jerk responses and experiences. In the end, the specifics of the case become far less important than arguing with each other over our own preconceptions. That is why things become so polarized so quickly.

What amazes me is how quickly many people rally around an accused rapist and have instant doubts about the accuser/victim. That's the response I am trying to examine here.

[billyskank]

55. I think perhaps there should be a media gag on all rape cases

from the moment the accusation is made, right until the accused is either convicted or acquitted.

[Nikki Stone 1]

59. I can see why you'd say that.

Sometimes, I really agree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

284. I don't see what you're seeing

In other threads, I've seen:
1) a man who tells a lie to get in a woman's pants is a rapist
2) all liberals should agree that women don't make up rape allegations, and all the studies that show surprisingly high rates of false allegation are bogus.
3) the fact that DNA tests came back negative should not hinder prosecution, the whole one-to-one correlation between a specific suspect and a conviction is overrated
4) all men are rapists at heart, some suppress it better than others.
5) this predisposition causes all men to rally round the rapi... err... I mean the "accused" rapist
6) the guys who've been thrown in jail and had their pictures all over newsweek and the internet are being protected, while the accuser, who was described as falling down drunk less than an hour after the alleged crime, and who's father says has a history of making up rape allegations and who has been promised free tuition by Jesse Jackson, and who's identity is being withheld, is being smeared and further victimized.
7) the prosecutor, who just got reelected by throwing a rich kid in jail, despite the fact that copious exculpatory evidence exists proving he didn't do it, is part of a patriarchal system that smears and blames the victim while protecting the accused.

The specifics of the case trouble me. What troubles me worse is the conclusions that are drawn.

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that is fundamental to our system, but as has been observed elsewhere in this thread, it's problematic in the case of rape because it is often an exercise in sorting through contradictory claims to determine which seems most plausible. If one is to presume that the accused is innocent, it's hard to simultaneously assume that the accuser is candid, factual and credible.

[Neil Lisst]

288. uh oh, you've done it now!

can I loan you my flak jacket?

[lumberjack_jeff]

292. Thanks, got one already

Although it's a little tattered. It's a good thing that I'm handy with needle and thread. :)

[mikehiggins]

56. Ironically, I more or less assumed the rape took place

and I'm a middle aged (almost senior) white guy to boot. Well-to-do white kids in what is more or less a "fraternity" environment? A black woman dancing for money? Hardly a scenario crying out for the innocence of the alleged perpetrators.

The lacrosse kids might not have thought of what happened as being rape, but that doesn't mean squat in my book, or the law. Even if they paid the girl money they had no right to force/coerce her into sex, anymore than a guy has a right to sex if he buys a girl dinner.

On the other hand, to convict these guys there will have to be some pretty good evidence that what was alleged to have happened really did happen, and that remains for a jury to decide.

My point is that not everyone subscribes to the idea that a rape claim is automatically dubious.

[Nikki Stone 1]

74. Yes, I think you and I are on the same page here

I have mostly stayed out of the discussions of the Duke case, partly because they are flamebait threads and partly because we really don't know all the facts.

Like you, I believe that the rape took place, and like you, I believe that a careful case has to be built. I am hoping that whatever the outcome, it matches the situation that actually occurred.

On the other hand, the Duke case and others like it give me a real opportunity to see what people's belief systems are, since that is really what they are fighting over in these threads. It amazes me that there is such a strong protective feeling for alleged rapists. I am trying to figure out what that is all about.

[marions ghost]

104. With regard to the question you are asking:

"It amazes me that there is such a strong protective feeling for alleged rapists. I am trying to figure out what that is all about."

--Looking at this thread, there has not been much attempt to deal with your question. Most people who are exhibiting a defense of alleged rapists here, would not acknowledge any "protective feeling" towards them since that would be socially unacceptable.

I don't know how you'd get people really talking about this unless you approach it from a more objective social/psychological perspective. If you use the Duke Rape case as a talking point, it will just boil down to a stalemate between the victim advocates and the defenders of the Rule of Law.

I think changing attitudes towards rape has a lot to do with how we raise children in this society. There is a protection of male dominance from the time a male child is born. There is an unspoken fear of a male child being gay if he does not exhibit enough aggression. The socialization of boys is very twisted and I think needlessly stressful to them. Then there's the bigger picture of what function adult males play in society and what roles are expected. Our society highly values aggression, domination, competition -- is it any wonder that plays out in the literal & physical sense all too often? We encourage predatory relationships in general.

As for girls I think we are more familiar with the issues there--the subtle teaching that girls must defer to boys, that girls are born to be assistants only, basically that girls are inferior. Really when you look at it closely who would WANT to be female --even in our society, which is a long way from burkas but still very backward. Even girls have a negative opinion of their role and options. And the way females have been treated in cases of sexual assault is a prime example of how these attitudes
are reinforced at every level.

It's a big problem.

[ComerPerro]

140. Hell, I'm certain that rape took place

Maybe I'm biased because I know a lot of rich (or at least very well off) fraternity guys, I know how they act, and I've seen them when they're drunk.

I find it very easy to believe that some rich white fratboys would rape a black stripper while drunk at a party...

[Karmakaze]

60. What about men accused of rape?

You don't think they are "dragged through the mud"?

The FBI reports that between 2 and 3 percent of rape accusations are false. Taken on figures for rape that suggests maybe two or three THOUSAND men are falsely accused of rape each year in the US. Add to that the number of men accused but not convicted, or wrongfully convicted of rape (some figures suggest up to 30% of rape convictions may in fact be wrong and post conviction DNA testing has proven that many men are indeed innocent of the crime for which they were convicted)

So if up to one in three men accused of rape are the victims of a false allegation or misidentification of the real offender, you can sort of understand why many would be rather sceptical of any rape accusation.

Having said all that, I agree that the way many rape victims are treated is disgusting - no one asks for nor deserves rape and the media and lawyers should not be allowed to ever suggest such "mitigating circumstances". Even if it means laws should be changed, how the victim is dressed or how they acted should have no bearing on the case and as such should be inadmissable. Previous sexual history should also be inadmissable - except if it involved an allegation of rape that was subsequently PROVEN to be false (not mistaken but intentionally false).

While I abhor the "desire to destroy the victims who come forward", I also abhor the desire to destroy the accused who has not been convicted. For example in the Duke case, the accused have been punished by having their team season cancelled. No one has been convicted, and in fact at the time the season was cancelled no one had even been charged with a crime. Yet they were punished based merely on the accusation. That is just as wrong as the alledged victim in this case being dragged through the mud. If it turns out that the rape didnt occur, how can those mens reputations be restored? If it turns out the rape did occur, the pain caused by dragging the alledged victim through the mud can never be erased.

I just don't know how to balance these two views without enforcing media supression of all rape cases until after conviction or acquittal. But then that would go against the principle of justice being seen to be done. I really don't know.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

248. What about men falsely accused of other crimes?

Today's New York Times had an article about a man who was executed for murder by arson, even though he was innocent. (It was in Texas, no surprise.)

Any false accusation of a crime can ruin a person's life (or even take it, as in this case. But a few posters on this board seem to be especially eager to defend accused rapists to the point of vilifying the accuser. File that under "Things that make you say 'Hmmm.'"

[TorchTheWitch]

279. About those figures

"The FBI reports that between 2 and 3 percent of rape accusations are false."

Is this 2 to 3 percentage based on false accusations deliberately made or a combination of deliberate and mistaken identity?

Of that 2 to 3 percentage, how many of those false accusations make it past the SANE? (assuming the 2 to 3 percentage is based on false accusations deliberately made).

I'd be interested to see a more detailed assessment of these figures. Do you have a link?

I find it very interesting that there are those people who will side with that 2 to 3 percentage (which may actually be less if that number combines false accusations with mistaken identity accusations) to the point of vilifying the accuser. Yes, 2 to 3 percent may very well translate to thousands of innocent accused persons, but the revealing part of this is the 2 to 3 percent.

So, there are many people here who are so concerned about the people that make up that VERY small percentage of 2 to 3 percent that they will side with the accused in MOST if not ALL rape accusations and ignore the 97 to 98 percent that are NOT false.

I'm curious if that has anything to do with the majority of that 2 to 3 percent being men and the majority of that 97 to 98 percent being women.

[ixion]

67. I empathize with your concerns... there are tragic sub elements to any

rape case that will inevitably lead to what you describe above.

First off, our system of law works on an 'innocent until proven guilty', which means that the rape victim is the plaintiff (aggressor, as far as the case is concerned) and the person accused of the act is the defendant (on defense).

Secondly, lacking DNA evidence, it immediately becomes a he said/she said type of situation, where we rely on things like ATM records and witnesses. But one of the first thing any trial lawyer is going to do in this situation is to try and discredit the accuser. That's not just in these types of cases, but in ANY case where it boils down to one persons word over another's.

I know that may sound cold, but I still feel it's a better alternative to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Just my two cents.

[TorchTheWitch]

281. It's not he said/she said

A he said/she said case is one in which there is no physical evidence of any kind and no witness testimony other than the accused and the accuser. This is not one of those cases. The fact that there is so much other evidence and testimony that needs to be sifted through is what makes this a complicated case.

Rape cases have been tried for centuries without DNA evidence and they certainly haven't all been based on he said/she said. DNA is not the only form of evidence... never has been and never will be.

[mmonk]

81. Speaking as someone who doesn't defend men accused

of rape, I still go by the principle of innocent until proven guilty even when the accused is a man accused of rape. I remain silent until the evidence is in and take defense attorneys as well as prosecutors with a grain of salt until then.

[Nobody]

82. This is why so many victims don't come forward

How many more women have been raped that we don't know about?

How many more women will be raped because the rapist was never brought to justice?

I can think of only one thing to do about this until society changes to admit that consunsual sex and ONLY consensual sex is OK for women.

[hexola]

88. Why are so many people on DU looking for a fight? (nt)

[NavyDavy]

92. because some come just to start fights(trolls, plants, etc........)

and some just wanta heated debate

[Nikki Stone 1]

94. And nice threads get ignored.

For the record, I had insomnia tonight and will probably regret this thread in the morning. :)

[TorchTheWitch]

282. Wooo, welcome to my world

I should be a an interesting case study in persons with insomnia... a medical oddity I am in that regard.

[chookie]

101. Why the issue is "polarizing"

There has been a lot of emotional outpouring on this subject, but not much reasoned discussion.

People jump to conclusions and make inappropriate generalizations about other posters because, well, they didn't really bother to read the post but react reflexively to hot button issues.

Some posters, like Neil Lisst, have been addressing very small details of specific cases i.e. points of evidence that have been reported by the press and how they can be interpreted -- not sweeping generalizations about rape, rapists, etc. And yet he and others who address only small details of the matter are accused of condoning rape and supporting criminals -- a claim that has no basis in reality.

No one who has participated in these discussions has condoned rape. Neither has anyone explictly claimed that women bring it on themselves. No one has claimed that it is okay to rape certain classes of women. No one has claimed that it is okay for accusers to be dragged through the mud. No one has claimed that it is impossible for elite young white men to rape. No one has opined that rapists should not be punished. No one has said that victims should be denied social support. No one has said that accusers should never be believed. No one has claimed that rape cases should be decided in the media.

In reality, perspectives on rape as a crime are not polarized at DU. We all agree on the big issues.

Where we do disagree about are specific details of specific crimes and how they can be interpreted as points of evidence -- the small issues.

[Neil Lisst]

125. thank you

I view the case from several perspectives, depending on which thinking "cap" I put on.

I try to see the case first as a case, where there is a line of evidence. It may be subject to attack or change, but we have some fairly compelling evidence to exonerate Seligman. Unless someone else was using his phone from 12:04 AM on, it's going to be almost impossible to get him for anything but looking like the guy she thought it was.

Recall a small detail - that Seligman is who she picked, but she thought he should have a moustache. He didn't have one, and no player on the team had one.

I think it's at least 50% probability the ID gets tossed. It was an ID that made NOT identifying an impossibility. Pick Seligman out of 6 guys his size and hair color, then you'll an ID that is worthy.

I think there was something that happened, maybe minor assault both ways, but not a rape.

[michael_1166]

93. Is it so impossible to believe that SOME women DO lie

if they want to destroy a man? They know that accusing a man of rape is THE way to destroy him and use it accordingly.

Like you said: Evil is possible at any level of society. Yes, even women can be evil. Some men can be evil, just like some women. It's the job of the courts finding out who tells the truth and who tells lies.

[Neil Lisst]

129. some women don't think victims lie

So what you're saying is ... women can be evil, just like men, and do terrible things, like accuse wrongly a man?

You're right, and it happens thousands of times a year in the USA.

[michael_1166]

142. Yes that's what I'm saying.

[sendero]

98. This is a tough one..

... I personally get tired of people who start taking "sides" in a case like this, based on nothing more than press releases from the DA and the defense. The factoids both sides offer have no legal standing, they are not sworn testimony, they are spin. They might be factual and yet completely misleading. I try to ignore this stuff, it is useless.

So, I will wait for the trial. I will hope the jury makes the same decision I would have made given what they are told. That is all we can hope for.

That said, I do understand why men sometimes have this reaction. Rape is a pretty unique crime. It is one of the few where you can go to jail for a long time based on little more than a claim.

If you think there are never false accusations of rape, you are dreaming. You could rightly say, well, that's rare. So? If you risk getting sent to jail for 20 years for nothing, the rarity of such events is of little consolation.

Since so many rape cases are based on little in the way of physical evidence and a lot on the claim of the plaintiff, one can hardly be surprised that folks seek to impugn the character of the "star witness". This case seems to be no different. Doens't look like there is going to be much in the way of physical evidence, other than the fact that the victim was subject to some kind of abuse. As totally biased as I inherently am against coddled college athletes and rich kids, it would take more than that for me to not have a reasonable doubt. But again, the real test is the trial, where real evidence and not spun claims will have to be presented.

[Rabrrrrrr]

100. STUPID FUCKING QUESTION. Unless a jury finds one guilty, one is innocent.

I am willing to stand to the defense of all people accused of any crime (except the criminals leading our government right now; but even for them, I want proper trials following the law).

Why do I stand to the defense of all who are accused?

Because I am a liberal, and I believe IN MY HEART AND SOUL that an accusation is ABOUT A JAGILLION BILLION FROTILLION MILES away from "proof of guilt".

Let me ask this question: Why are supposed liberals, especially so-called "feminists" and "believers in the bill of rights" and "workers for social justice" so goddamn ready to cut the balls off and throw in jail forever until he lies a dessicated, ruined piece of shit, without trial, due process, jury by peers, or even any semblance of human rights, any guy who is accused of rape? Huh? Can someone answer to that bullshit? No, they can't. At least, not in a way that doesn't come across like Nazi reasoning.

[marions ghost]

105. OK OK

calm down ...please.

Nobody is talking about any accused rapist not having trials, due process, etc etc

The problem historically has been that the accuser has been treated so badly that his/her rights have been violated. The fact that rape victims still believe they can never win should be proof of that.

So a correction is due, but OBVIOUSLY not at the expense of the accused's rights.

I think you know that's not what this is about.

--So why do you think that men and women see this issue so differently???

[Rabrrrrrr]

112. Why do they see it differently? Probably emotions -

rape is a crime that, at least according to those who report, occurs far more often to women. Far, far more often to women than men.

Add to that the long history of rape being considered either a basically irrelevant crime or a crime that the woman "caused" somehow, and I'm not surprised that women go so crazy when it comes up. Much as African Americans might be much more sensitive to issues of race in America, and so forth, those who are mostly affected by a certain kind of crime are, understandably, more prone to be emotionally tied to it and/or more prone to be vocal or upset or whatever about it.

My "go apeshit" issues are child abuse, drunk driving, and homophobia.

But even so, I believe in due process.

And this is not to say that women are more emotional and less rational than men - only to say that the particular issue of rape is probably a far more emotional issue for women than men, and women might react more strongly in the assumed guilt of the accused realm than men will.

[Marie26]

119. What I think is interesting

is that many people who defend the accusers will accuse women of being over-emotional, illogical, etc. But when confronted w/facts that doesn't fit their postion - they're the ones who go apeshit. I would say this is a sensitive issue on all sides, & all sides can over-react.

[marions ghost]

131. your 'go apeshit' issues

child abuse, drunk driving, homophobia -- also relate to the problem of rape. All of those issues have to do with excess aggression, uncontrolled anger and hostility, and addiction to either a substance or a abusive behavior pattern.

--Child abuse is all about dominance, aggression and victimization.
--Drunk driving is a hostile anti-social act.
--Homophobia is a deep fear behind all sorts of strange ideas about what it is to be a "real man," including the idea that real men must dominate women in every sense.

Actually I disagree that rape is a more emotional issue for women than men--judging from the very emotional responses from men in any of these discussions. And liberal men should get the connection between the abuses we face from our own government and the emotions felt by any victim of rape or assault. Men who have been merely assaulted (not even raped) suddenly make the connection all too well. And that realization is not unemotional.

Men who contain these emotional responses JUST to the physical act of rape are unwilling to admit how powerless we all are, and how emotions enter into every decision we make. You seem to understand the intellectual WHY women and African Americans might feel the way they do, but you are unwilling to SHARE that feeling. However if you've ever been assaulted, abused, exploited, double-crossed in a serious way--you CAN understand how it feels. Part of the reason why men want to see this as a "woman's problem" is that they want to distance from the sense of vulnerability that it involves. They do not want to think they could be a victim of such a crime. And yet all of us are victims or potential victims of all sorts of predators and abusers, not only in the physical sense.

[smirkymonkey]

257. However, I notice it was mostly men who reacted emotionally

once the dirt came out about Abu Graib and especially over Lynndie England, a woman who was caught on camera sexually humiliating male prisoners. I was shocked to see such violent reactions, not that the crime wasn't heinous, but there are much worse things happening to people in the world, yet I have never seen such an outpouring of hatred and anger toward one individual. I think the emotional reaction comes from anyone who sees themselves as a helpless victim, regardless of gender.

[meisje]

103. Because not all of us make decisions based on EMOTIONS, I require FACTS

[NaturalHigh]

106. Well, to begin with...

everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I realize that's a concept that doesn't work for the skip the trial, hang the bastards crowd, but it's the way our criminal justice system works.

Second, referring to the Duke case, it is obvious that the stripper's story has problems, and anyone with her history of criminal behavior and questionable claims has a problem with credibility. It's a question of believing dozens of guys or two strippers with fairly obvious ulterior motives.

[marions ghost]

118. ridiculous hyperbole

...nobody's talking about skipping the trial (far from it). Or doing away with the justice system. You're just trying to fan the flames.

Are you unable to discuss WHY we have this problem? Why we have this breakdown between the way men and women view rape--or what kind of breakdown is it? Does it alwasy follow gender lines? Are there women who have sons who believe that women are the problem when it comes to sexual conduct? Why does the historical evidence show that rape victims so often do not get justice?

Forget the Duke case for just a minute and look at the bigger questions. There must be SOME kind of social problem, or we wouldn't have over a 100 posts everytime the word rape is mentioned. Can you bring anything NEW to it instead of braying that Justice Must Be Done. Everybody here is concerned with "justice." That goes without saying.

[NaturalHigh]

211. It is hardly hyperbole.

Let's face it; most people have already made up their minds about the Duke case. I'm sure you already know what my opinion is. I think two lying strippers made up this story to get back at a bunch of kids who acted like assholes to them. In addition, I think the strippers are looking for a payoff, either in a civil suit or as a settlement.

There are plenty of other people here who believe that the lacrosse players are guilty as hell. Never mind the lack of evidence in their favor. They are perfectly satisfied that these guys should go to jail and that anyone who was there and wouldn't talk to the police is guilty of a crime as well.

There are also plenty of subjects that are off-limits as far as the pro-stripper crowd are concerned. As far as they are concerned, nobody should ever mention suing the strippers for slander and the DA for malicious prosecution. Oh no, that would not do to have someone fighting back against false rape allegations. Of course, it also goes without saying that the stripper who made the rape accusation should never be named, even though the lacrosse players are named every day in media across the country.

These are some of the issues that cause us to have the polarization problem that you and others have talked about. Anyone who believes the claims of the accuser flames anyone who dares to question those claims and then uses the phrase "smearing the victim" to justify their flames.

[marions ghost]

218. so what

if people have made up their minds. People will do that. :shrug:

Now that we have discussed specifics of the Duke case backwards and forwards (as far as possible on limited knowledge of it) can we use the case to discuss some of the societal issues about rape?

Don't we have serious problems with rape in our society, judging from every possible statistical evaluation? Would you be more concerned about it if you had a daughter, or son for that matter? Do you think children can be brought up in better ways to prevent rapes and rape allegations?

So where did this problem come from? And how is it perpetuated? And how can we do something effective about it, instead of leaving it to the legal system to duke it out, which apparently doesn't change anything?

[NaturalHigh]

221. I was speaking to the original post...

which was "Why do so many people defend men accused of rape?" I think I tried to point out some of the issues attached to that subject.

In another thread, I posted that "I honestly believe that many in the 'pro-stripper' crowd do not believe that the lacrosse players are entitled to a defense." That is the attitude which I believe was expressed in the original post, which is very sad.

Of course rape is always wrong and is a heinous crime. Personally, I'm for extremely harsh sentences for anyone convicted of rape. As for ways to reduce rape in society, I am not qualified to come up with a plan for that.

[marions ghost]

227. OK well

can you name ANY other crime other than sexual abuse and assault where people get so hepped up and emotional, whether defending the accused or the accuser? So might there be some underlying issues there? And maybe reducing rape in society might be more than just leaving it to the legal system, which tends to reflect society rather than changing it? The question the OP asked "Why do so many people defend men accused of rape?" is not so much addressed to the workings of the legal system. The OP was addressing that question to us--the Court of Public Opinion. And it is public opinion that shapes the policies and laws which bring changes.

[NaturalHigh]

232. My opinion is that men accused of rape...

are entitled to a defense, just as anyone else is. That doesn't seem to be the opinion of the original poster, and that is the issue to which I posted my opinion. Particularly, in cases like the Duke fiasco, where many of us believe that the accuser is obviously lying, the accused is entitled to be defended in the court of public opinion as well as the legal system.

You are correct - public opinion shapes the policies and laws which bring changes. In rape cases, as much as any other cases, we should all feel free to express our opinions, even if those opinions are not the "correct" ones as determined by the PC police.

It is not a crime or even a sin to not automatically believe a woman who accuses a man of rape.

[Neil Lisst]

277. dupe

dupe

[mondo joe]

111. Haven't seen it. I have seen a defense of the accused in the same

sense that Dems typically maintain the presumption of innocence and trial by jury.

[Marie26]

113. How do you feel

about allegations that the woman is making it all up, is a gold-digger, druggie, prostitute, etc? Doesn't that also go against a presumption of her innocence here? (Who isn't even the alleged criminal). Isn't that also jumping to conclusions?

[mondo joe]

116. Same way. Anything is possible, and I don't have much of an

opinion either way. I might when evidence comes out in trial, but I don't now.

But even if I did have an opinion I'd know it was just my opinion and the only opinion thhat really matters is that of the jury.

[NashVegas]

122. Because We Like Our Alpha Males

If rape is an act of domination, how better to prove one's self as an "alpha" than to dominate another being. In cases of rape, particularly those where a female victim is known to have "loose morals," he's showing her her proper place in society.

If you're remotely familiar with soap operas, you're well-versed already in a recurring theme in those shows, which has only recently been changing: in most cases where rape is a featured storyline, the victim is almost always a "wild woman" who ignores the social rules. She may have had multiple lovers and been cheating on men; she may have been a prostitute; she may have simply been a 'bitch.' Through her shame and pain of being raped, she's suddenly redeemed into one of the show's heroines.

In addition, the alpha men are our leaders; our providers. The provider must be protected - that's how it works in any dysfunctional family.


Sucks.

[marions ghost]

137. yes, until we change our "stories"

by which we pattern behavior...we will not change that behavior. We will always be doing damage control instead of prevention. Imagine the soap opera that has a "nice" (make her Republican and Christian) white woman who gets raped for no particular reason at all. Let her just make a mistake like trusting someone she shouldn't have trusted. Now that would be revolutionary.

I agree that we are caught up in the macro version of a dysfunctional family where the Alpha Male rules and that's the way it always has been and always will be. Or will it?

How can we tame the Alpha Male?

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

128. didn't there used to be a principle--

"innocent until proven guilty"?

I would never defend rape or a rapist. I also am appalled by the attacks on rape victims AFTER a rape.

But so far, this case is an incredible amount of noise, obfuscation, hand waving and accusation on all sides.

Can't we let the justice system at least work through the case and reach a conclusion? We may then debate whether or not Justice was done, but at least our debate would be based on something other than grandstanding by the involved parties and the special interests who have adopted them amplified by a sensationalist media.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

130. I'm happy people defend men accused of rape

I want them to be defended until they are proven guilty for one simple reason: I would like to do my best to insure that every person behind bars is there because they are guilty. In reality, that seems impossible, but up until they land there I want to make sure that every possible avenue has been investigaated so that we don't put innocent people in jail.

That said, when these high profile cases appear in the news, I am amazed at some of the comments made by people concerning the alleged victims.

I was reading a story in LBN the other day where a poster claimed a woman was a golddigger because she sued for sexual harrassment on the job and had sued for it in the past. She was 53 years old. The poster's only evidence that she was a golddigger was the fact that she had a prior case. Imagine that! A 53 year old woman having been sexually harrassed more than once over the course of her time in the workforce!

[TahitiNut]

132. Ahhh... sweet sanity.

Agreed. :thumbsup: :loveya: :hug:

[LostinVA]

201. The OP is not talking about the accused being innocent

until proven guilty... she's asking why so many people often assume the accuser in rape cases is guilty until proven innocent... she's accused of lying just because. I agree with her.

[porphyrian]

133. Perspective

A man accused of rape isn't necessarily a rapist. There are probably far more rapists who aren't accused of rape at all than there are men who are falsely accused of rape. Men tend to empathize with those who are accused of rape, not because men accept, condone or otherwise excuse rape, but because most men don't rape, think rape is always wrong, and are aware of how horrible it would be to have a charge that serious brought against you when it wasn't true. This does not in any way diminish the horror of being raped, nor does it excuse or condone rape. People have very strong feelings surrounding this issue, and they are often quick to adapt an "us and them" mentality, putting anyone who doesn't mirror exactly their own position into the "them" category.

[marions ghost]

154. good points

leads me to questions re. your statement, "there are probably far more rapists who aren't accused of rape at all than there are men who are falsely accused of rape."

Wouldn't men's (somewhat irrational but no less real) fear of false accusations be heightened by a greater accusation rate (and prosecution success rate) -- therefore is this blocking women's efforts to gain more "justice" in the case of rape and sexual assault/harrassment? Despite all the rhetoric, are we working at cross-purposes because of deep-rooted psychological barriers?

What rape-prevention efforts would men support as being appropraite (and avoid labelling all men as potential rapists), beyond the limits of the justice system? How do men propose to help the problem (rather than just passively relying on the justice system to sort it out)--which as we can see from this case, can only reinforce the stereotypes and deepen the divide.

How do we get beyond this? What are REAL solutions? How do we slow down this neanderthal predatory behavior, which I think, most of us can see, is rampant in our society and permeates the justice system and the government itself? Isn't the problem of physical rape related to what's going on in Iraq (and I don't mean only Abu Ghraib)...have we not been serially abused by our own government, led into an insane war of aggression, while the 'white collar' Alpha Males raid the coffers at home? It's ALL inappropriate predatory behavior...isn't it? And does that start with condoning male physical aggression in any form?
And how do we stop that without dealing with our basic fears and conditioning?

[porphyrian]

242. Hmm, let give those a shot.

Re: Mens' fears blocking women's efforts
Most men are not rapists and believe rape is wrong. Most men will not be afraid of rapists being accused of rape. What would make men in general more fearful, thus more likely to work against women on this, would be an increase of false accusations of rape, which would go up proportionately with more accusations being made. I'm not trying to negotiate on behalf of men here or anything, but I would say that if everyone keeps honest and sticks to busting the bad guys, there would be no conflict at all.

Re: Rape prevention
Preventing rape is going to have to come from understanding rape better. This can only come from greater openess and honesty between us. Most men would like to see this stop as well. I'm generalizing again here, but most men are problem solvers, even if we're lazy. Chances are, most men have no idea how many women have been raped, by who, or how common it really is simply because we don't really talk about it. So, my first suggestion would be open and continued conversation on the subject, like we're having now.

The next step would be to understand what makes someone rape another. I think there's been some study of prison rape, but I don't think there is much data on other kinds. Can we talk to rapists to find out? Can we trust what they say? I don't know.

I also believe that victims of rape should receive free mental health care for as long as they need it afterwards. Something to keep in mind once we reclaim Congress...

Re: Further questions
We're getting beyond this. It's slow and difficult and frustrating, just like any other hard problem. But, you're willing to do something about it - you're here talking and trying to work things out. I'm throwing in my two cents, for what they're worth. It's a matter of perspective. On the scale of continental drift, we're bookin' right along.

Real Solutions: Build trust between men and women so we're not at odds while solving the problem of rape. This can be done in part through honesty and openness when discussing our thoughts on rape.

Re: Inappropriate Predatory Behavior
I believe there is a complexity to rape and its causes that can be lost when lumping it together with other predatory behavior. They may all be pickles, but there's a considerable difference between a Kosher dill and kim chee. Related? Yes, but significantly different in some respects.

Like rape, inappropriate predation is a complex issue, likely having both physical and psychological elements. I'm not sure what goes into making someone become a predator, but I don't think it's as simple as one type of gonads. It will also require more study to resolve.

Re: Fears and conditioning
We are all the walking wounded. Keeping this in mind when communicating with others, something I'm guilty of neglecting to do, is a good way to keep conversation basically civil, and practicing it can help you spot your own defensive responses. Conditioning is a whole additional barrel of worms, which we can suffice to say for now is a complex issue that deserves its own discussion.

[Neil Lisst]

134. Why do so many people defend women accused of child abuse?

because, they're presumed innocent, and some of us don't feel they should lose their kids just because they hook, or do drugs, or maybe don't live a perfect life.

Some of us have a mindset, and it empathizes with the accused first, because we know there's plenty of time to mete out punishment once guilt is established.

[porphyrian]

283. Well said. No need to try people before the trial. - n/t

[FlaGranny]

135. The only way to answer your

question is to say "Remember Richard Jewell." Although not about rape, Richard Jewel was publicly convicted before trial. He was ruined and publicly humiliated. Anyone who defended him was not defending people who set off bombs in public places. People are NOT defending rapists. They are defending our system of justice. PERIOD.

It seems certain crimes and alleged crimes automatically set off some people into the belief that because someone is accused, they are guilty. Not so. Yet, these same people will decry the imprisonment and executions of people later found innocent by DNA evidence - people that juries were convinced, beyond all reasonable doubt, were guilty of murder or rape.

Edit: It's a damn shame there isn't some kind of futuristic machine an accused could sit in that could determine, beyond a doubt, innocence or guilt.

[marions ghost]

141. it might be productive here

to separate out the arguments about the effectiveness of the justice system (which is so blatantly unfair to many different kinds of victims) and the social conditions which produce the attitudes about rape that we see mirrored here.

What can we do socially to prevent rape? (not just expect the legal system to solve it)

How could our basic relationships between men and women change for the better (and might this debate be one example)?

How can we raise children of both sexes differently?

Have we let the Alpha Males get their way all too long?

How does the problem of rape relate to other social problems?

-----------------------

--There are underlying questions which the Duke rape case will not solve, no matter how it turns out for the accused and accuser. I'm talking real changes and prevention rather than damage control, which is how I see legal battles over it. While legal battles may set some precedents in how to conduct future trials, they usually do not get down to the root social and psychological issues.

The OP's question seems to ask those of us who are typically at loggerheads on this issue to go beyond the particulars of the case (which has been discussed at length here at DU) and discuss the question in a broader sense.

[FlaGranny]

164. In my humble opinion,

the problems of rape and violence are social issues that need to be addressed, but they really have little to do with our system of judging guilt or innocence.

I have seen people over and over again take offense and accuse someone of defending "the rapist." They are not defending the rapist. They are defending the "accused" from being convicted without trial. I have seen zero posts that claim a rapist is justified in raping. I have seen many posts stating that there is a chance an accused could be innocent. An accusation does not prove a person is guilty. Because I personally know two VERY innocent people who had been accused, this issue is important to me. In both cases, I was an actual witness to siutations that were proof of the two persons' innocence. In one case, the accused rapist was imprisoned for more than a year before trial. The victim misidentified him as the rapist and the prosecutor was blind to other evidence proving, beyond a doubt, his innocence. In the other case, the accuser realized the police had the wrong person before he was jailed (thank God).

[Neil Lisst]

145. Amen. If they did it, 30 years sounds about right.

But let's make damn sure they did it.

[bobbieinok]

206. and the Kennedy cousin accused of rape (what was his name?)

many people immediately assumed his guilt or innocence b/c of their view of the Kennedys

that trial and the media treatment and the public opinion of guilt or innocence might be an interesting case with which to investigate the issue of rape accusations/trials in our society

[dave123williams]

150. To answer your question...

People, men generally, tend to treat the charge with caution....because it's so very easy to accuse someone of it, without it being true. Just ask Kobe.

That claim, true or not, has the immediate effect of ruining the person accused. Kobe lost something like $40mm in endorsements, even though he was the 'black guy accused of raping the white woman in whiteville', when not a word of it was true.

You're making a series of bad assumptions, like 'To me, it is an amazing thing that in the crime of rape, it seems that the criminal gets the benefit of the doubt, not the victim.'. I would remind you that Kobe Bryant was tried and aquited.

He's no criminal, yet you refer to him as one. The girl who falsely accused him, you refer to as the 'victim'.

Interesting.

[Celebration]

151. my knee jerk response

Was to believe the accusor.......I was incensed!! Of course these snotty Duke athletes did it to this poor girl trying to earn a few bucks to attend college. So what if she was an exotic dancer.

Then,uh, well, let's just say I have changed my mind (and everyone here knows what has come out in the case).

Of course, I could change it again.

Just saying that my knee jerk response was to believe the woman, but at this point my reflective, intellectual response is to have a LOT of reasonable doubt.

[marions ghost]

158. No matter how it turns out

either way... will it change anybody's attitudes about rape? Or will it just be another in a list of such battles that reinforce all the stereotypes on both sides?

I'm just skeptical of the potential of this legal case to change anything at all, either way.

Will the changes being made in the Duke policies have MORE of a chance to change anything? At least in a microcosm, or as an example for other universites? Will that help with prevention of opportunities for rapes on campus? (Which beyond this case in particular is a serious bad problem).

[autorank]

157. Nikki I support you 100%. This has to be said. Here's the answer.

Fact: 20% high school girls report being raped prior to high school.

Fact: by the age of 18, 25-33% of women report being sexually abused through forced contact by a male which can include rape or other forced sexual contact.

Given these facts, there are a lot of perpetrators out there who need to defend themselves and others.


(The figures I gave have been confirmed over time by multiple sources. Given the shocking percentage
of our daughters who are victimized, you have to wonder why this isn't a bigger issue.)

[myrna minx]

165. Just think of all of the people who do not

report their rapes. I am one of those unreported cases. There are many rapists who are walking around free because woman/girls are afraid to report it. Gee, I wonder why woman are afraid to report the crime. Could it be that the women are made into pariahs because they reported a crime? Rape victims who come forward are whistleblowers about something that has gone unreported for centuries. "Taking" a woman use to be an entitlement, but now it is considered a crime. I guess many believe that rape should stay a secret and go unreported. Curse these woman for reporting a crime. Confound them.

Those that believe rape allegation is a delicious way for a woman to make money have never been though the legal system. Why on earth would a woman want to have her sexual history, reputation and livelihood dragged into open court for the world to see and judge to make money. I have a better idea, put a finger into a bowl of Wendy's chili and sue sue sue. I know nothing about the finger woman's sexual history,job or mental problems, yet a woman is raped and we need to know if she's crazy, a stripper or a slut, you know, a loose, fallen woman.

[autorank]

184. You're right on unreported cases, I am sure and also barriers to

reporting. Most people are reluctant to describe bad experiences, some are not. Most people are
reluctant to make accusations, some are not. A very few make allegations to gain attention or
financial advantage. They are in the distinct minority. When the vast majority of women who are
reluctant to report negative experiences and reluctant to level charges get tarred with the brush
of the very few who are ill motivated, a great injustice is done.

[Caoimhe]

189. All of us wimmin

enjoy getting in those stirrups so much, though. Don't you?

I think if I were looking for a quick buck, it sure as hell wouldn't be this way!

[LostinVA]

200. You are exactly right -- there are perps that need to justify what they di

Or their friends did, especially in rape cases, or cases were the evidence isn't strong enough for the DA to proceed with the case... even if the guy is guilty. Hell, even a poster here on DU a week or so ago went on and on about how date rape isn't rape, it's SEX... just some horny dude who wants to get some... not a big deal.

Someone told me on here recently when there was a poll about DU women being raped and sexually assaulted: the odds are good that with all the assaulted women on DU, they must be a few rapists on here as well.... and remember, sociopaths don't think their misdeeds are wrong.

[autorank]

294. Sociopaths make it all about their needs...

They're like "activist narcissists."

"just some horny dude who wants to get some" That right and so is this, "just some horney dude who can't get some" but figures out a way to justify his inadequacy.

I can't believe someone said this here. Was he banned?

[originalpckelly]

160. We should all be ashamed...

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." --Eward R. Murrow

Both sides have convicted someone before there due day in court. The accusers supports have convicted the young men on the lacrosse team. The defendants supporters have convicted the alleged victim of making false claims.

We should not even be discussing this. It isn't any of our damn business in the first place.

How is justice supposed to be carried out when it is being picked at from every angle.

This isn't news, everyday at least one person is raped in the USA. Its an awful truth.

Where are we for all of those women?

No, we all are using this case for entertainment. The news networks are using it to make money.

We should be ashamed.

[marions ghost]

162. you can go ahead and be ashamed

I am glad that people are discussing it. Because how else do you get people talking about something they would rather hide in the deepest recesses of their brain, preferably quarantined? Whether we are mothers of sons (who might be accused), fathers of daughters (who might be accusers), or in the even more vulnerable zone of relationships and dating ourselves, or just simply concerned about physical safely anywhere--these are vital issues WORTHY of discussion in public forums, the town square, the backyard fence. But it is a topic that makes everyone VE-RY uncomfortable. Cases like this give people a chance to focus on it and to face the issues.

What we should be ashamed about is that we DON'T talk about it enough. This isn't really an issue about whether justice will be done, so much as it's about what we really don't want to see, in ourselves and our society. "Due process of law" while great in theory...and we should uphold it...will not solve these problems in the end.

[Ksec]

161. Because they are charged, not convicted

Thats America. Love it or leave it. Innocent until proven guilty.

Why do women always assume guilt?

[marions ghost]

174. OK well

Why do women always assume guilt? or so it seems to you -- good question, from the male perspective. In direct counterpoint to the OP's question, which I take as your point. But still a good question also--so why?

Do they do so in large numbers or is that perception real?
Does lack of faith how it's handled in the legal system have anything to do with it?
Have you ever asked your girlfriend, wife, mother, sister, aunt this question?
Does knowing a victim of rape increase the assumption of guilt in others (we all know victims of rape while few of us know any falsely accused)?
Do other factors in a woman's life lead her to think that rape is a very real possibility?

So anyway--why do you think women always assume guilt?

[Ksec]

217. Id say its because men are hated

and the same sex as the rapist. Therefore were all guilty in your eyes.

[ContraBass Black]

167. Because we ourselves have not seen irrefutable evidence

That the accused is guilty, just as we defend victims until we see irrefutable evidence that they are lying.

[Autonomy]

169. People don't defend rapists who have no value to society

but they ignore the facts of the case when it's someone "important", like Kobe Bryant.

That makes rape a really odd animal in the crimimal spectrum: the seriousness of the crime is dependent on the perpetrator.

[marions ghost]

177. GOOD point

how many alleged rapists perceived as 'low status' have anyone defending them. ZERO. What about those who might be falsely accused? Doesn't matter.

But let it be someone who has clout or celebrity or money, and they will draw crowds of defenders.

But I think this does apply to crimes other than rape too. It's a double standard system.

[Autonomy]

193. I agree it applies to other crimes

but perhaps to a lesser degree.

Rape is a crime that tends to cross socio-economic boundaries like few other crimes. Murder and insider trading, for examples, are less often found crossing those lines. But rape seems to be an equal opportunity offense. Just pondering what that means about society boggles my mind.

Remember we're talking, here, about unsolicited "defenders", and not just the ability to pay for a team of good lawyers.

Some criminals, merely by "virtue" of who they are, tend to polarize society into supporters and opposers. Rush Limbaugh set conservatives versus liberals. OJ Simpson polarized the nation largely along racial lines. But the rape phenomenon is different. There doesn't have to be a polarization. Support tends to be one-sided, with the exception of the accuser's friends and family, depending totally on who the defendant is.

Sexual politics is a deep-seated, very animalistic creature. I think, if we studied it deeply, we'd find that there is an assumption of sexual privilege for the wealthy and dominant in society. I think we're dealing with a vestige of the "cave man" psyche when it comes to rape.

[marions ghost]

202. So in the case of rape

"support tends to be one-sided...depending on who the defendant is..."

So if the defendant in a rape is high status (for whatever reason) you are saying that MOST sideline observers will side with him, but not so if the defendant is lower status? And this is a significant difference? And are the observers who support the defendant both male and female?

And what if the accuser in this case had been 'high status' and the accused 'high status' (make them the same race), then would the male still have the advantage, or does that equalize it?

Trying to get to your "assumption of sexual privilege for the wealthy and dominant" ... as opposed to the simple assumption of sexual dominance of the male over the female. So what you are getting at is that just as we accord all sorts of rights and privileges to those of status (not to mention the ones they grab for themselves), we are also according them a right to sexual behavior that we would frown on in those of lower status. And these ideas may have carried over from the past -- even when such behavior is now defined as a serious crime?

And that may explain a bit of the perplexing question of why people seem to align with the accused when the accused is high status. Obviously I tend to agree that this is a very important component of this case and fuelling a lot of the fire. Something very deep in the collective psyche is what is being protected at all cost.

[Autonomy]

241. My lack of data to back up my claims

has become glaring at this point. Everything I've said so far is 'my suspicion' or 'a suggestion that', a hypothesis with which I would begin to write the book-length study that this question surely deserves.

But for now, I cannot back any of it up. You seem to have the basic premise down, though.

Your question on the socio-economic status of the victim is a good one. I'm not sure we see cases too often where the attacker is of reasonably high status, but the victim is much higher. Usually, it seems, the victim is relatively powerless, economically speaking. With the exception of the 'random predator' types. But again, I am speaking from observation only, and the question deserves academic standards beyond what I am prepared to provide.

[marions ghost]

246. right LOL

the book-length study needs to be done. I doubt that it has been. But you've raised some interesting points about sexual privilege as apart of being privileged in general. It's a key to understanding this I feel. There is some kind of slippage going on --a clashing of the old mores vs. the new definitions of rape as a crime. If it is proven in this case that the players did the crime and they must pay, then it would help put the lie to that old sexual privilege thing...but if people feel they "got off"--then it reinforces the sexual privilege thing. It seems that's an important component here.

[Autonomy]

247. I'm considering taking a "hobby" research project...

Haven't found the topic yet. Maybe this is it.

[marions ghost]

249. judging by the interest

I'd say go for it. The time is right. :thumbsup:

[bloom]

253. male and female/black and white issues

1. This is a poll conducted by the local station WTVD. The poll includes a random sample of 500, and here is a brief quote from the write up on the poll:

Males were slightly more likely than females to believe the rape occurred. An overwhelming number of black respondents - - 72 percent - - believed that a rape occurred, while just 27 percent of whites agreed. Fifty-six percent of whites did not believe the rape accusation, with only 15 percent of blacks agreeing.


http://www.rachelstavern.com/blog_comment.asp?bi=362&m=4&y=2006&d=1&s=

[Autonomy]

263. Wondering what your point is... nt

[porphyrian]

291. Institutionalized racism, classism and sexism.

There's more or less of each depending on where you are, but they're all proven biases of the system. Before we can all have justice, this must be fixed.

[Vinnie From Indy]

170. Your post headline is a bit hyperbolic and off target

EVERY person in America has the right to be defended in a court of law.

you write,

"And I have watched great sympathy offered to men in the public eye accused of rape, like Kobe Bryant."

If I am not mistaken, Kobe was acquitted of the charge of rape. I, for one, did not sit on the jury and do not know the minute details of the case. Do you feel as though Kobe was guilty and why? Does the fact that 12 men and women on a jury in Colorado acquitted him make any difference to you and does that fact entitle HIM to a bit of sympathy?

You are correct, your "rant" is a bit incoherent and lacks any factual basis for your sweeping claims.

[LSdemocrat]

172. For some: people are innocent until proven guilty

Just because someone's been accused of something (by a victim, police, DA, etc.), doesn't mean they deserve to be dragged through the mud.

Now this certainly doesn't explain the need for some to drag the victim through the mud, which I don't at all understand.

[LostinVA]

198. That's not what the OP is saying

She's asking why is the accuser in rape cases often assumed as being guilty until proven innocent? Because, they often are... even here on DU.

[LSdemocrat]

254. Both questions were asked. I answered one. I can't answer the other.

I really find the question about the accuser more troubling, and I don't have an answer to it.

[Neil Lisst]

173. Why do people call OJ, Kobe and Michael Jackson "guilty?"

They were tried, two were acquitted, and one was exonerated by dismissal of all charges.

[ContraBass Black]

180. Because, of course, those damned famous people did it

Since they can get away with anything.

[Neil Lisst]

259. I hope you're not serious.

are you?

[ContraBass Black]

295. No.

[undergroundpanther]

175. People

Identify with abusers too much. THey like the power.
In order to deny responsibility for their sexual violence, men have constructed an entire mythology, which tries to put the blame on women.
http://www.rcne.com/Myths.htm
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/12/case-of-sleeping-rapist.html

Powerlessness and being victimized scares people.

Because once you face trauma you cannot tell yourself the world is safe or it cannot happen to me ever again or that you can control your life circumstances so easily,you realize you can be helpless and sometimes your will will not be heard in fact it will be overridden.
People want to tell themselves the world is safe,they can succeed and can control their lives.This is part of how people cope with their lives. IT works until something happens that destroys that worldview.
To imagine we could have done more is more tolerable than total helplessness.
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/hard.html

Rape changes a person forever,a raped person like any traumatized person has their worldview turned upside down forever,they are never secure as they were about their lives in this world as they were before the trauma..Rape is also a kind of thievery,a thievery of a victims sense of self on some levels. I wish the penalty for rape was so costly to the rapist it would not be worth it to even attempt rape.Rape would equal suicide.

[bloom]

216. I think there is a lot to that.

People not wanting to identify with helplessness.

This book, Learned Optimism has some interesting things about learned helplessness.

---


It's weird seeing media people - (like in the article I linked to in the post below this) pretty much cluelessly take the side of the accused rapist - presumably without thinking about it.

It seems to me - that with most cases - robbery/murder/etc. the accused criminal is almost immediately painted as UNsympathetic. And if there was a reason that people had been sympathetic to the person (in our local paper there had been a newspaper columnist who was accused of bank robbery) - that sympathy is removed.

There was a local story with one person wrote in to stand up for an accused murderer. "He couldn't have done it". Nothing like the response you would see over rape.

It's odd how rapists are given special consideration (esp. when people previously thought of them as powerful) - while rape victims are given less.

This article was great about making the distinction "Why Natalee Holloway Is Lucky She Is Not Around to Make Accusations"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=205781

[bloom]

176. I saw this blurb in a paper today - sympathy for the rapist...

That's how I read it.

After tragedy, Ledyard man accused of rape

A year and a half after losing his fiancee in a car accident, a Ledyard man faces the possibility of jail time if convicted on rape charges in connection with the alleged assault of his best friend's wife.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

-------------

What's up with all the concern that the poor victim of tragedy will now have to go to jail (if convicted...) blah, blah, blah.

Where is the sympathy for the rape victim? It's nuts.


So my answer to your question "Why do so many people defend men accused of rape?" - one reason is the pervasive rape encouraging attitudes in society as broadcast by the media, pornography and all sorts of things.

"In other words, rape has been normalized, a trend which is reflected in ever more lenient prosecution and sentencing procedures."

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?no=288787&rel_no=1

I think it's ridiculous.

[Orrex]

179. A few thoughts. Warning: this is a damned long reply

Rape has only recently been taken seriously as the horrible crime that it is. Several episodes of M*A*S*H*, for example, make light of rape as a sort of ass-pinching non-crime, and 20th century pop culture abounds with images of women being "comically" forced to submit to men's desires.

Our culture maintains a pathological notion that rape is somehow romantic or an act of uncontrolled passion. Television still uses rape as a plot device, often involving an attack on an attractive female lead in an effort to boost ratings through titilation. And, more often than not, the victim snaps right back into shape in time for next week's episode. The depth and intensity of the trauma are glossed-over just so that we can see the pretty star restrained, hair disheveled, and clothing torn. This is symptomatic of our culture's utter failure to recognize that rape is not sex.

If a man is beaten to pulpy corpse with a baseball bat, no one says "his attackers were motivated by sex," even if, in the process, his genitals are smashed along with the rest of him. It's considered simply a brutal murder or assault. Perhaps elements of our society hear "sex" when they hear the term "sexual assault," while in fact they should be hearing "assault."

Part of the problem may be that rape itself is a spectrum phenomenon, so that rape as a whole lends itself poorly to the easy encapsulation so loved by media. Actual physical violence need not take place; coercion and manipulation can yield a rape, as can the use of drugs or alcohol. Because the category is so wide, it may be difficult for some people to reconcile

Media portrayals are also a problem. Because they make great headlines, rapes based largely on he-said/she-said testimony get a lot of play, especially if they involve a celebrity or an attractive victim or attacker. But these may be the most insidious of all, because I think they are taken as representative of rape in general rather than as examples of one kind of rape.

The men you describe (ie., those who sympathize with an alleged attacker) might be thinking of a case in which Jane says Joe raped her while Joe says that it was consensual. If there's no supporting evidence (eg., signs of struggle, physical injury, other eyewitnesses, etc.) then it might (very unfairly) seem like nothing more than her morning-after regret. Perhaps (some) men look at such a case and think "that could have been me/I feel bad for that guy." And if, as above, these kinds of rape are seen as representative, then the same "I feel bad for that guy" vibe may surface.

A crime like assault or murder or theft doesn't enjoy that same spectrum of interpretation: "He only murdered her a little" or "She was asking to be murderered" or "she didn't say no when he stole her money" just don't ring true. Yet somehow rape is afforded this wide range of interpretations.

While in college I heard of a case in which a woman charged a man with rape. In her claim, she argued that he didn't coerce her, but she feared possible reprisals if she didn't submit. I recall nothing else about the case, but the line of reasoning really struck me. It's horrible that a person can be driven to submit to something simply because of fear of potential violence. That's how Winston Smith realized that he loved Big Brother.

Incidentally, I reject the meme that we were "raped in 2000," tempting though it may be to hang the label of "nation rapist" around Dubya's neck. By and large, Gore's loss forces none of us to endure the intense, long-lasting, and deeply personal trauma incurred by actual rape. Let us say instead that we were robbed in 2000 and in 2004. Trivializing rape for the sake of a sensational "gotcha" headline only serves to perpetuate the problem IMO.

[myrna minx]

182. Thank you so much for this post.

Many posts on this thread have made me sick to my stomach so I really appreciate your sage words.

[Orrex]

186. You're very welcome--it's an emotionally charged topic, that's for sure.

:hi:

[marions ghost]

190. thanks

for making several insightful points that go beyond the restricted legal arena. And for outlining some of the ways that typical views about rape are reinforced and perpetuated. Also your point that rape is a very complex crime to prove, dependent on our conflicting perceptions of it and the variety of conditions under which it occurs. I disagree only slightly in that I do think the abuses we have suffered under Bushco equate to exploitation that is psychologically damaging and oppressive--a victimization akin to rape in the profound loss of trust and process of grieving that follows. It's a gang-on-humankind crime that everyone can relate to. But I certainly do not mean to trivialize rape victims in saying that.

But to the questions about what if anything we can do? (rhetorical--I don't expect you to answer)

Are things getting better or worse for rape victims, or staying the same?

How do we begin to address the problems contructively, since it seems (I would say) that we have been swimming upstream and things are no better for our children re this problem than they were for us?

Is it up to schools--high school and universities to deal with this more forcefully?

Why is leaving it to the legal system obviously not working, not changing anything?

----Anyway thanks for your comments...which ring very true to me in painting a picture of what IS. Now what do we do about it?

[Orrex]

203. Good questions--I'll take a swing at them

These are thoughts-in-progress, so I can't promise brilliance!

Are things getting better or worse for rape victims, or staying the same?

The fact that rape is the butt of fewer jokes gives me hope that things are improving on some level. But my fear is that things are "improving" in the same way that racial equality is "improving." That is, we seldom use the word "nigger" in polite conversation anymore, but subtle and not-so-subtle racism is still rampant in our culture.

But any sincere discussion helps to throw light on the darkness, so as long as people speak/write honestly about it, I'm optimistic that things can improve.

How do we begin to address the problems contructively?

Perhaps education would help to separate "rape" from "sex" and thereby allow us to treat it as a crime of assault. The fact that something broadly approximating sex can be employed as a weapon certainly shouldn't soften the perception of the crime.

One also hopes that the stigma currently applied to the victim might be reduced through education (though who knows how?). The old "she asked for it" mentality persists (even here on DU) despite its patently offensive nature. If the victim hasn't actually initiated the criminal act against herself, then she bears no mitigating responsibility for it. It is no crime to wear a nice outfit or to have long hair. It's not even (generally) a crime to be an exotic dancer. Any claims to the contrary seek to make the woman an accomplice. Unless we make it a crime to be a woman, then any non-criminal behavior by the victim is irrelevant to the attacker's guilt and should have no bearing on sentencing.

Heavier penalities might be in order, too, at least as severe as the penalties for "ordinary" assault. Rape victims should never have to seek civil redress because the criminal system has failed.

Is it up to schools--high school and universities to deal with this more forcefully?

If high schools offer any sort of course in "how to avoid committing a crime," then a discussion of rape should certainly take place. If no such course exists, then schools should establish clear policies regaring assault. But care must also be taken, because healthy and consensual sexual interaction should not be punished by the same policy that punishes assault (and I suspect that certain victorian school boards would attempt to do exactly that).

A college student convicted of rape should be expelled and all credits earned-to-date should be cancelled. Any scholarships or grants should likewise be forefeited. Both of these are in addition to any criminal penalties applied to the attacker.

Why is leaving it to the legal system obviously not working, not changing anything?

Simply put, it's because women are still chattel.


Like I said, these are hardly ironclad answers, and I'm open to changes of view on pretty much everything I've written here.

Thanks for the kind words and the dialogue.

[lukasahero]

215. Warning: that was a damn insightful reply

Thank you, Orrex, for taking the time to think this through and write down your thoughts. Just wanted to say that. Thanks.

[Orrex]

220. Aw, shucks.

Anything I can contribute to the discussion is the least I can do.

[pnwmom]

181. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the bedrock of our judicial system.

It's not just a slogan.

[Lerkfish]

191. but the OP's point is that rape is viewed differently on that axiom.

instead of the accused being "innocent until proven guilty", the accuser is automatically considered guilty of false accustation until proven innocent, by some.
In other words, the alleged victim is held to a higher litmus of "assumed innocent" than is the accused.


its a very good question, and one I've asked in previous threads. In the case of burglary, for example, the accused is never automatically assumed to have been falsely accused. If it turns out to be so, its a surprising twist.
If the alleged victim is shown to have falsely accused (a rare, but actual occurrence), its heralded with high fives and "I told you so's!"

the question is simple, direct and valid: why is this particular crime the reverse perception of all other crimes?

the obvious answer is uncomfortable. but that doesn't mean we should not address it.

It must be any or a combination of all of the following:

those who have this reverse perception on rape accusations either:

1. don't think rape is all the serious
2. think women deserve it
3. don't think rape is prevalent enough to side with the victim
4. Think false accusations are more prevalent than rapes.
5. prefer to think affluent college athletes are easy to take advantage of by golddigging strippers.
6. prefer to think strippers deserve to be raped
7. think hiring a stripper for a drunken party with men outnumbering the dancers is a prudent thing
8. think its ok for white men to rape black women
9. Don't think its rape if the alleged victim is of a lower economic status or has an unrelated criminal record.
10. Think its high time feminazis stop trying to be too uppity and get put in their place

I applaud those who think the accused is innocent until proven guilty, however, unless those people extend the SAME COURTESY to the accuser, I see it as hypocritical.

[Pacifist Patriot]

192. Agreed.

[novalib]

195. WELL SAID!

Very well said!

[LostinVA]

197. Great post!

[Orrex]

209. Regarding #7

those who have this reverse perception on rape accusations either:

7. think hiring a stripper for a drunken party with men outnumbering the dancers is a prudent thing

The sad thing is that the stripper should ideally face no more danger in that situation than if the men had hired a magician or a balloon sculptor. The fact that a stripper actually does face greater danger should be seen as a stinging indictment of men rather than as a justification for any "what did she expect" attitude toward strippers.

I know that you're absolutely not asserting the latter, but your excellent post brought it to my mind.

Any variation of "she was asking for it" should be strongly rejected unless someone can explain to me how a woman might coerce a man into coercing her into submitting to an assault. It's tantamount to suggesting that she's "worked her womanly wiles" against the poor man's will and, in fact, seeks to make the attacker a victim in his own right.

For that matter, the very idea that the attacker somehow couldn't control himself in the presence of a woman is an insult to men, too. "I couldn't stop myself from stealing his wallet--he was so wealthy that he was asking to be robbed." That statement is as absurd in the context of a rape as in the context of robbery.

[Lerkfish]

212. good point.

[Jigarotta]

210. ahhh, finely spoken and thank you. nt

[myrna minx]

213. Thank you so much.

I greatly appreciate this post.

[TorchTheWitch]

238. Agreed, Well Said

Except for that point Orrex mentioned about #7. Other than that, spot on.

Thank you.

[Odin2005]

204. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Many here must think that giving a person accused of rape his due process rights is sexist, apprently. :eyes:

[bloom]

207. If accused rapists are given more consideration/benefit of the doubt

than accused robbers and accused murderers it is (sexist).

[treestar]

231. That is in the nature of the charge in date rape cases

An accusation easily made and hard to prove.

It just is. We can't get around the fact that it is an easy accusation. Yet the burden of proof is still there. It is no different from any other crime but that one of the elements that has to be proved is lack of consent. So the issue exists no matter what. It is just part of the case.

[LostinVA]

223. No one here has said that n/t

[Evoman]

219. See...I can understand

with the people who want to give people their due process, and who maintain that the Duke players or other alleged rapists should a) get a fair trial and b)get the benefit of the doubt as the accused.

But the shit on DU goes way past that. I've seen people here BLAMING the alleged victim. I've seen people say that women need to be more careful and implying they are asking to be raped. And frankly, this shit...in addition with some of the ant-gay and anti-atheist thoughts of read here, is disconcerting me.

I am neither a women, nor am I gay. But I can understand why either group would be taken aback by some of the views expressed on here that go way past reason or respectful disagreement, to just plain chauvinism and bigotry.

Evoman

[LostinVA]

224. Thank you sincerely -- I mean that

We need more REAL men on these threads saying what you've just said. I really mean the thanks -- for your great post and for your support.

Thanks for getting it...

[Evoman]

226. It doesn't take any special abilities to see the truth

The fact is, if the typical man would open his eyes and use reason to see through all the bullshit we were taught as kids, he would be able to see the truth.....that women are treated abhorrently in our society.

Until women have equal standing with men in this world, and even after that, I will ALWAY support you.

[LostinVA]

233. You're right, it doesn't take any special abilities

And, I guess in a way, thanking you shows how screwed up the system is... and, it also doesn't depend on political affiliation. My VERY conservative Dad is aghast at what's going on with the Duke case, and told off a friend of his of 35 years at lunch the other day. The guy basically said strippers can't be raped, and who cares if she was. My Dad went nutso, told the guy off and walked out.

So... thank you for being one of the good guys...

[marions ghost]

240. And thank your dad

for being one of the good guys.

We need more men who will take a stand against knee-jerk neanderthal thinking like this. If these guys could only see the benefits to them too, maybe they could discontinue the pathetic kind of 'male bonding' that happens at the expense of women. I realize that sounds very idealistic as this behavior is ingrained practically from birth, but the more men object to it the more others will think about it.

[LostinVA]

252. My Dad has no sisters, is REALLY conservative

but is extremely pro equal rights for women. Is it because he has daughters and granddaughters? Lots of guys do who are Neanderthals. My Dad is not a Liberal, trust me... we butt heads all the times. But, he's not sexist, he's not homophobic... why the hell isn't he a Dem?!

[treestar]

225. Accused being the operative word, why is a rape charge not like

any other and why must an accusation be enough.

An accusation is enough = a witch hunt.

[4_TN_TITANS]

230. I'm in no way attempting to discredit the women....

but of all the women I have known well enough to discuss sex lives, every single one of them considered the 'first time' to be a rape, not a mutual endeavor.
Maybe there are that many aggressive men out there, maybe that's why I've never had a virgin, maybe women sometimes use sex for retribution?

just sayin'...

(reaching for firefighter turnout gear and SCBA) :hide:

[LostinVA]

234. What the heck are you talking about?

I don't think the guy who "took" my virginity raped me. It wasn't exactly a hugely fun event, but it was mutual, consensual, and in NO WAY was it sexual assault (and, it wasn't his fault it wasn't a fun event -- he was considerate -- it's just biology). I don't know of one woman who would say that! Any woman who would say that must have eben raped, then.

How does being the first guy a woman sleeps with have to do with sex for retribution? What the heck does that even mean?

[bloom]

237. Some probably get their news from FOX

"Duke Lacrosse Defendants Acquitted By FOX News"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1094582&mesg_id=1094582

[Radical Activist]

245. They are afraid of being accused.

Either justly or unjustly. Men are either afraid because they've engaged in an act of rape, or been in a situation where they could have been easily accused of rape.

Or they're afraid of how easy it can be to destroy a persons life with a false accusation. Maybe they're afraid of being accused by a woman who decides she doesn't want to take responsibility for her own choices or has a grudge.

It comes down to fear of being put in the same situation, whether or not they deserve to be.

[LittleClarkie]

251. I don't want to see either side attacked before their day in court

She's not a drunken slut, and they are innocent til proven guilty. Rape is a heavy label to hang on someone. Best off making sure it belongs there.

I'm disheartened by how people have reacted to both sides.

[NaturalHigh]

255. Both sides have not been treated equally in this case.

The players' names have been plastered all over the media. Their faces, and those of their teammates, were printed on posters that identified them as rape suspects long before any charges were brought.

In the meantime, the accuser's name is kept secret, except for a few websites and a radio show. Pictures of her that were taken at the party are digitally distorted to hide her face.

I'm disheartened that some people actually believe the system is rigged against the accuser.

[LittleClarkie]

256. But that's no reason to smear the woman in question.

That's what I don't want to see here. Not the media. Here. We don't know if they are rapists, and we don't know if she's a liar. Yet.

[NaturalHigh]

260. I see your point.

People have strong opinions in this case, and I frankly made up my mind some time back. If you are on the fence regarding the guilt or innocence of everyone involved in this case, I can see how you would consider a lot of the posts on both sides as smears.

Everyone involved is innocent until a court of law says otherwise, but as a lot of other posters (mainly those who believe the accuser) have pointed out, that doesn't keep any of us from making up our own minds based on what we have seen and heard.

[LittleClarkie]

261. Indeed, but some have gone a step further

Calling strippers prostitutes and saying they're drunk most of the day and can't get real jobs and such.

It's been sort of heinous.

[FredScuttle]

274. Poor darlings.

One could say the players have been figuratively dragged into a bathroom, stripped and violated in every orifice.

Yeah, the system is to blame.

[NaturalHigh]

285. If they prove to be innocent...

then yes, they have been violated, and they should seek remedy in civil court.

[hiaasenrocks]

268. Some people might be "defending" them, while others

like myself, are simply saying, Let's wait for the facts/trial/etc. before we declare them guilty.

And even holding that position, I have been accused of being "insensitive" and, yes, a "freeper."

Ah well. I'll stick to my principles and not let emotion dictate my view. I'll wait for the facts.

Since you're suprised that "the criminal gets the benefit of the doubt," perhaps you should review how our system works.

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FredScuttle]

272. So, call the Swami

I'm sure he has some sentient advice for you

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yollam]

286. I seldom comment on rape threads...

...but I will say that there is a percentage of rape cases where the accuser was lying.

There is also the fact that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

And some people are just as guilty of automatically assuming that the accused is automatically guilty because, well, because the accuser was a woman.

I don't doubt that the Duke boys were guilty. If they were, I hope they get the book thrown at them. I have no idea about the details of the Kobe case because I try not to follow celebrity tabloid stories.


But I do remember the case of the woman who got into BED NAKED with the monosyllabic brute, Mike Tyson, engaged in all kinds of consensual foreplay with him and then at some point muttered "no" and made a huge rape case out of it. Does no mean no? Sure, and Tyson should have let up, but shouldn't the victim's utter lack of judgment and goading behavior in that case be considered at all? I sure as hell wouldn't get into bed naked with that monster and expect to get out with my...er... dignity intact.


Your rant does make sense. If those Duke boys were guilty, nobody should be rushing to their defense, and the fact that the girl was a stripper doesn't make her any less of a victim. But rape cases are not always cut-and-dried, and people on both sides of them seem prone to let their own biases affect their views on individual cases.

[LisaL]

297. Defendants have a right to a fair trial. It's in the constitution, no?

Defendants are also presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Do you have a problem with that?

[Moderator]

302. Locking....

This thread has become divisive and
inflammatory.