« Why am I supposed to be excited about Pelosi? | Main | Today in 1979 ... »

January 05, 2007

Just a FYI - is rape treated differently than other crime?

As I occassionally lurk on the leftist-feminist sites, I've lately noticed a storm dealing with the subject of rape (No, not the debacle of the Duke rape-hoax. It seems to have completely dropped off their radar, after the sustained ballyhooing of how "this is what you get from white boys of priviledge in the misogynist, racist Patriarchy".) If a writer isn't 100% and uncritically "sex-positive" then they must be a rape apologist.

Leaving aside for a moment what really constituties "rape apology" (and reitterating for a moment that the difference between rape and love-making is consent and if consent is not there, then rape has taken place), a followup post contains this

The law discriminates against rape victims in a manner which would not be tolerated by victims of any other crime. In the following example, a holdup victim is asked questions similar in form to those usually asked a victim of rape.

“Mr. Smith, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of 16th and Locust?”
“Yes.”
“Did you struggle with the robber?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“He was armed.”
“Then you made a conscious decision to comply with his demands rather than to resist?”
“Yes.”

The list of hypothetical questions that the writer finds "unacceptable" continues.

It's possible the writer actually believes that similar questions are not asked of other crimes.

Let me at least disabuse people of such "accepted wisdom".

When victims of autotheft are interviewed, they will be asked at the top of the interview if they know the suspect and if they gave permission to the suspect to have the car. They will also be asked if the car was locked or whether the keys were in the car.

When victims of credit card theft/identity theft are interviewed, they will be asked at the top of the interview if they know the suspect and if they gave permission to the suspect to use their card/information.

When victims of residential burlargy are interviewed, they will be asked at the top of the interview if they know the suspect and if they gave permission to the suspect to enter their home and remove the property. They'll also be asked about unlocked windows and doors.

This is standard questioning. It is gathering of all relevant facts concerning the case. The deputy district attorney will need the answers to such questions because those are the things the defense will bring up -- beit autotheft, armed robberty or rape.

Such questioning doesn't constitute judging the victim. The writer does veer at the end of the hypothetical questions into statements that are the province of defense attorneys, not law enforcement officers.

Rape is a horrendous enough crime on its own without making it a political fetish of authenticity.

Technorati: ,

Posted by Darleen at January 5, 2007 12:46 PM

Comments

Yes it is. In other crimes, the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, in rape, the guys automatically guilty, and even in cases like the Duke Nifong false rape claim, if anyone should bring up the very common problem of false rape claims, they are attacked by every feminist on the planet.

42% to 50% of all rape claims are false and malicious, but this fact is hidden very well by feminist who call themselves "Victim Advocate Groups".

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 5, 2007 08:37 PM

“Ms. Feminist, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of 16th and Locust?”
“No.”

“Ms. Feminist, did you struggle with your boyfriend who you’ve been having sex with five times a day for ten years?”
“No.”

“Why not?”
“It was routine, so I didn’t want to make waves.”

“Then you made a conscious decision to have sex with im as usual?”
“Yes, but since I really wasn’t I the mood, it was rape.”

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 5, 2007 08:42 PM

“Ms. Feminist, you were you drunk beyond the ability to consent to sex?”
“No.”

“Ms. Feminist, did the boy you just met force you to drink or have sex?”
“No.”

“Ms. Feminist, how did you wake him up to have sex with you?”
“I undressed him while he was sleeping and started giving him a blow job.”

“Ms. Feminist, did he have sex with you?”
“Yes because I begged him.”

“Ms. Feminist, did you brag to all your friends you had sex with him?”
“Yes because he’s so hot!”

“Ms. Feminist, you’re claiming now that he raped you, why?”
“Yes because I feel like a one night stand and I want my reputation back.”

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 5, 2007 08:49 PM

“Ms. Feminist, did you approach the boy in your yoga class?”
“yes.”

“Ms. Feminist, did you invite him over to your house to have sex?”
“yes.”

“Ms. Feminist, were you in any way impaired in judgment?”
“no.”

“Ms. Feminist, did he have sex with you?”
“Yes it was the most incredible sex I ever had in my life!”

“Ms. Feminist, you’re claiming now that he raped you, why?”

“Yes because I’m not one who gets that horny and just have sex before the guy buys me dinner. He must have hypnotized me into being that horny.”

Note: This is a real case that a 19 year old boy was suspended from college because the 22 year old woman claimed she doesn’t usually get horny.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 5, 2007 09:00 PM

Crystal Gail Mangum, who isn’t a rape victim, claimed in graphic detail that she was gang raped vaginally, orally, and anally by three men in a bathroom - medical and police evidence never supported such a claim, yet Mike Nifong rail roaded three innocent boys, destroyed their reputations, and dragged this case out for almost a year. Ms. Mangum swore under oath months ago that she was 100% sure that two of the boys raped her and 90% sure that the other one raped her. Crystal destroyed the lives of innocent boys and Mike Nifong had a great part in the propogation of this rape lie. They both deserve prison time.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 6, 2007 09:28 AM

Nice Guy,

I realize you're being passionate here and you're saying some things that must be said ... but can you please source that "42% to 50% of all rape claims are false and malicious"... because IMO from what I've read you're putting a spin on with the "false & malicious" claim.

"Unfounded" or "not enough evidence to file" does NOT mean "malicious".

I've seen enough turndowns to understand this.

Posted by: Darleen at January 6, 2007 10:53 AM

False rape claim are the most under reported crime! About 50% of all rape claims are false, and this percentage goes up in divorce cases where child custody is involved.

I agree "Unfounded" or "Not enough evidence to file (as in the Duke case) does not mean "malicious"(as in the Duke case).

"Malicious" is when a woman claims an innocent man raped her because she wants money, attention, sympathy, to get out of cheating on her husband or boyfriend, or for revenge.

As in the "tailhook case when a bride had sex with three men only weeks before her wedding, but then claimed she was raped to hide her sexual escapade from her fiance.

Here are some sources:

• According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States are later deemed 'unfounded,' meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime.
• Howard County Police classified one out of every four rape allegations as unfounded in 1990-91.
• The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers says around 600 teachers a year are falsely accused - a trebling since the 1989 Children's Act.
• Citing a recent USA Today article, discussing the miracle of DNA and FBI studies of sexual assault suspects, DNA testing exonerated about 30% to 35% of the more than 4,000 sexual assault suspects on whom the FBI had conducted DNA testing over the past three years.
• Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40% of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994).
• 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over 25% of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test or after they had failed it, that no rape occurred.
• 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.
• Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about 50% simply did not happen."
• Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with "scary frequency." As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver's ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that "any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly 50% of all reported rape claims are false.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 6, 2007 07:35 PM

Ick, the post was alright (I do have some nitpick: I happen to know for a fact that you don't ask what a person was wearing when the mugging happened or if you had a history for philonthropy), but I can see your critisms.

But you have this "nice guy" on here spouting some clearly misgynistic bullshit and don't say "boo" against him and your credibility goes below Protein wisdom.

Posted by: Antigone at January 7, 2007 08:37 AM

Antigone

I let a lot of commenters, both sides, stand on their own.

NG own's his own misogyny, but I always try to challenge claimed facts rather than mere opinion...that's why I brought up the sourcing of stats.

No, no law enforcement interviewer asks what a mugger victim wears (but a defense attorney may)...but I wasn't as much challenging the list of questions but attempting to show that, indeed, asking questions about context (were the keys in the car? did you consent to the sex?) is not about "attacking" the victim.

Posted by: Darleen at January 7, 2007 09:52 AM

NG

Feel free to comment back. Some of your free-association dialogues can be arguably interpretted as misogynist (ie the blanket claim that "feminists" perpetuate false/malicious rape charges via victim advocacy).

My office has a unit that helps victims and witnesses navigate the court system. They certainly don't attempt to ratchet up testimony.

Posted by: Darleen at January 7, 2007 09:57 AM

Misogyny, in the feminist dictionary, defines anyone (man or woman) who dares to question or treat a woman as a responsible adult. Feminists, and those frequent in claiming “misogyny” prefer that women be treated as frail, naïve, and helpless people incapable of speaking for themselves. This myth has gotten laws like “rape shields” and many women guilty of murder and other crimes “off” because feminist have been very proficient in marketing women as frail, naïve, and helpless.

The term “misogyny” has been used to shut down arguments, debates, and discussions for it’s hard to have any conversation while a person r group is claiming to be a victim; thus many men in the past would just let these “proclaimers of misogyny” have there tantrums thinking that most people, including politicians, are reasonable and fair minded would recognize this false cry of victimhood to be what it is, a manipulative maneuver to stop discussion. Unfortunately most people don’t pay that close attention and most politician are easily bullied by “victims advocacy groups” that sing this same mantra.

Don’t get all in Darleen’s face about having an open discussion. I am more than capable of defending myself and my position. Most feminist blogs like “Marcella Chesters” who claims to be a rape victim and uses this claim as subtley as a sledge hammer to quiet anyone who doesn’t sing to her chorus, likewise to “Ampersand” and “Rachel” of Alas a Blog.

Recently feminist blogs have fallen silent as they’re having a more difficult time spinning the “Nifong Rape Claim” into the victimization of women. Most women who formerly followed these blogs, like those mentioned above, have been shocked and ashamed to call themselves feminist.

Women who grew up in my generation are more educated and independent and are not easily fooled by a group of “feminists” claiming to represent their issues.

We grew up in an era where male bashing was at its height, where female professionals openly claimed that women were “better” in almost every way compared to men, and where women demanded equal rights, but for women only. These same feminist deny men the same equal rights. [Note: “Equal rights” has a different definition in the feminist dictionary as well].

Like many men who grew up in the height of radical feminism and who have witness modern-day feminist stray from the noble goals of “equal rights” and “equal opportunity”, I will not be silent anymore, and I welcome an open debate. For now I have to drop my daughter at soccer and I coach my son’s T-ball team. If you intend to spin me into a monster – good luck because I’m ready.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 7, 2007 12:29 PM

Antigone suggests that a defense attorney may ask a rape accuser what she was wearing. Perhaps Antigone didn’t here of Rape Shield laws that protect much information of the accuser, but does it really matter?

Even if the “accuser” is a stripper/prostitute who was wearing the most slutty of out-fit (as in the “Nifong Rape Case”), she would be probably dressed like a nun during the trial.

Even if the stripper/prostitute claims that she makes lass than a part-timer at McDonalds and has a “substance abuse” problem, on probation for grand larceny, and had two bastard children being raised by her parents, feminist would try to “spin” that she’s a “single mom” desperately trying to earn money to raise her kids (as in the Nifong Rape Case ).

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 7, 2007 04:33 PM

NG

On the whole, Rape Shield laws are necessary to keep prejudicial information out of the courtroom. A defense attorney can, and will, bring motions or argue in chambers whether the information s/he wants to bring before a jury is relevant to the proceedings.

Attire and other factors like whether or not one is a "proper" parent may have nothing to do with whether or not consent was given for sex.

Even prostitutes can be raped.

Remember, prejudicial information can be excluded in a number of instances and isn't confined to rape cases.

Posted by: Darleen at January 7, 2007 05:26 PM

Darlene,

The rape shield laws have been put into place in 1972 for the reasons you've mentioned above. Society was a different place back then. It was scandalous for a woman to have a baby out of wed lock, or get divorced, or willingly enter an affair.

Today’s climate has changed drastically and rape shield laws have gone beyond just protecting irrelevant information.

A few examples, Rape shield laws in some states:

1. Hides if a woman routinely claims to be raped when a guy doesn't stay in a relationship.

2. Hides information of medical exams that prove the woman had consensual sex (clock exam).

3. Hides if a rape accuser made several false rape claims in the past.

4. Does not require coo berating evidence; thus the accused can be convicted on her word alone. If this is the case then why even have a trial to hide a witch hunt?

5. If it comes down to her word against his, stereotypes and rape laws and on the accuser's side. Anything negative about the accuser's credibility could be hidden, but everything about him, no matter how insignificant or irrelevant, could be used against him. How is this justice?

6. Society immediately assumes the accused is guilty as is written in state and federal laws describing the "accuser" as the "victim". There is prejudice in the case from the beginning.

7. If her identity is protected, then so should his! With almost 50% of rape claims being false, it's the men who need rape shields.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 8, 2007 09:04 AM

Nice to see Darleen's blog is still attracting its proper clientele, the dregs of angry reactionary America. "Nice" guy. As in "compassionate" conservative or "clean" air act.

The only scary thing about this gruesome fool is that he admitted to having a daughter. Poor kid.

Posted by: Boo at January 9, 2007 03:28 AM

Regarding Ms. Cathy N. Davidson’s 01/05/07 article News&Observer, as much as she may want people to believe her justifications for throwing young inexperienced students to a mob of opportunistic political groups that descended onto Duke to catch a piece of the media pie, the simple fact is that she had a choice to stand for justice or to join the mob, and her choice was wrong!

Students 18 and 19 may be legally "adults", but they’re still students. Ms. Davidson and 87 other faculty members representing Duke decided to join the mob while Duke's president showed himself impotent as a leader. Duke's faculty should know better! As a parent, I would never trust a school who so quickly throws their own students to the whims of a ranting mob.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 9, 2007 09:11 AM

Regarding the Duke88 and likewise, people should be objective when facing irrational behaviors that bait a reaction. Such baiting should be ignored and discussion resumed.

The Duke88 represented Duke University poorly - not as poor as Mike Nifong represents the DA's office, or Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton represents blacks, but poor enough to warrant serious questioning of quality of character.

People assume that a university’s faculty is educated and represents knowledge and learning, but for them to behave in such an ignorant reactionary manner shows poorly on both their character and profession.

In situations as the Nifong-Rape Scandal, it’s the person’s character being tested, for education is acquired, but quality of character is innate; thus the Duke88 and likewise comes from poor stock.

Posted by: Nice Guy at January 9, 2007 09:30 AM