Does a victim of a "public" Rape case, have a responsilbility to expose themselves?

Great Debates
1

Not to hijack the Kobe thread again…I wonder if the victims of a “public” rape trial have a responsibility to show themselves. I know all the reasons they don’t: shame, fear, humiliation. However I wonder if that very expectation, that they should feel humiliated, they** should** feel ashamed doesn’t allow the crime of rape to go unpunished so often.

Reports say that a good number of rapes go unreported, a good number don’t make it to trial, the main reason it appears is shame. Shame that I think ‘we’ feed, by allowing rape victims a shield, because we don’t want them hurt any further.

Now of course that shield was placed, because victims of Rape often got torn apart on the stand by lawyers looking for any means to destroy their credibility and so we created a law to protect them, because we couldn’t control the lawyers.

However doesn’t that have the side effect of creating a subset of victim class? One that by its very nature of shame and silence, creates a breeding ground for sexual predators? Predators who count on silence and shame, to allow them to continue without fear of capture?

The idea of the shield was to prevent them from being “raped” a second time. And I think that’s a good thing…but as society has evolved is it time for the shield to evolve too? Couldn’t the Judge tell the jury what’s relevant or not? Couldn’t the Prosecution make objections? Do we really need a law, which effectively places the burden of proof on the defendant sometimes?

I mean part of the sigma of rape is based on our out-dated ideas of women as being “chattel”, whose virtue if spoiled, renders her worthless. We have evolved to some extent beyond that and I realize that, that sigma does still remain…how do we remove it?

By shining a light on it.

I wonder if this young woman had given a brief press conference, stating who she is, why she went to Kobe’s room and what happened…at lot of speculation about her and her past would be reduced. I would have liked to see her, to look in her eyes and hear her say all she wants is justice. Not money, not fame, not attention…just her day in court.

She can’t hide from this, its too big and sooner or later, her life will be exposed for all to see. I would have preferred it come from her. Further I think, she would have been an example, to other women, that they too can stand up and not be ashamed…

2

Society, frankly, hasn’t evolved as far as you think it has. Until it has, it’s society’s responsibility, not the victim’s, to erase the stigma of rape.

Basically, this makes it womens’ responsibility, and specifically rape victims, to do something about the stigma. Frankly, there’s something disturbing about that attitude. Society put this stigma on rape victims. Society doesn’t want to change. It almost seems to invited the corollary that, well, if there continues to be a stigma, that it’s rape victims’ fault for not doing more.

And something else, too. If society and various people in it really want to do something about this stigma, they can stop jeering at women who protest some of the root causes that produce the stigma. Bashing rape victims is a symptom of far more serious problems in society, and there’s another side to the victim-bashing: the attacker-idealizing. “Oh, he doesn’t have to rape. He doesn’t need to rape.” And so on.

Really, I think before we get started on this topic, there’s two books that everyone really should read: “Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes” by Helen Benedict. More than a book about press coverage, it’s a book about language and bias. Also, “A Woman Scorned” by, I believe, Peggy Reeves Sanday. It covers and analyzes many cases of acquaintance rape, and explores why these ‘without-a-gun’ cases tend to produce the most vicious anti-woman rhetoric.

3

Right, but how does society evolve unless it “sees” the victim? The civil rights movement was as much about showing America the face of African-Americans as it was having laws enacted.

I think more was accomplished by showing dogs and hoses put on small children on the six o’clock news, than any law would have done. The leaders of the movement understood that and took their lumps for the greater good.

Now was it African-Americans fault that society mistreated them? No, but they understood that as long as they stayed invisible, nothing would change. They had as much responsibility to change society as those who weren’t victims.

I’m simply asking if by encouraging the secret shame of the rape victim, do we in fact create an environment for more rapes? As the rapist can be pretty confident that his victim won’t report him, because that shame is strong and reliable?

4

As long as we focus on the rape victim, instead of the behavior of the people who support alleged rapists or convicted rapists with sexist tactics and attitudes, we do in fact create an environment that encourages more rapes.

If a rape victim wants to come forward, that’s up to her. Her behavior just doesn’t matter. But when people cover rapes on the sports pages, and refer to a rape victim as a ‘trick’, a ‘booty call’, and don’t get called on it, then that has an effect. THAT’S what creates the rape stigma.

Tackle that. You’re going at it ass-backward by going after victims. Go after the people who perpetuate this crap.

Answer that. It seems pretty obvious that people who go around spouting sexist crap about rape victims are a huge problem, but you’ve yet to address that. You want to, oh, I don’t know, what’s the phrase I’m looking for? You want to make the victims to do something so that will change society. You’re placing the onus on rape victims. Do you not see why that’s bothersome?

5

I agree in a way with the OP.

I was trying to get inside the head of a rapist. Why would I do it? Maybe because it’s such a power trip: look how that woman is demeaned, look how ashamed she is, look how her life is ruined - because of something I did ! Little old me ! All the validation I need I can get just by looking at her crying her eyes out on the Montel Williams show.

I have never been raped (touch wood, and thank Og) so I cannot comment on how I would react. I’d like to think that I would be strong enough to say “Fuck you. You did this horrible thing to me, and I survived, and you shouldn’t be allowed to make me suffer any more. I’m bigger than that. I won’t give you the satisfaction of knowing that you’ve ruined my life. Some asshole who forced himself on me is not more important than everything else I’ve got going for me.”

I am inspired by women who do say this after a rape. One remarkable story is Jane Doe - AKA the Balcony Rapist case. She refused to play The Victim and it was not easy. Her very attitude - “I have done nothing wrong here” - led to additional character assaults.

But I cannot expect a woman to do this. There’s a good chance that if I was raped I would also suffer greatly and feel very ashamed, blame myself, and so on, no matter how much my “rational” self would tell me that those responses aren’t the best.

I think in this case society does need to change the attitude towards rape victims. But this is much easier said than done.

A rape victim has to go through quite a lot more than the incident itself. She is often forced to submit to degrading and physically intensive tests just after the fact (just look at how much women dislike Pap smears - and that is in a tightly controlled situation, with a doctor the woman is familiar with, and it’s over momentarily), often by insensitive and potentially cruel police forces.

Police officer: “Did he hurt you?”
Rape victim: “He RAPED me.”
Police officer: “I know, but did he hurt you?”

She then has her past life, psychiatric history, sexual history, etc etc put up for scrutiny by ambitious lawyers and an often cruel public (note Kobe’s accusor). People who know her may judge her, male partners may see her as “unclean” - no matter how much their rational minds tell them not to. She may understandably have trust issues - depending on the particular circumstances of the case, she may be reluctant to date men she doesn’t know well, or she may be terrified to sleep in her own house at night.

So basically, with everything stacked so much against the victim - things which are largely beyond her control - it seems unlikely that society’s construction of “The Rape Victim” isn’t going to go away any time soon.

6

I have this take on this subject:

Rape victims especially, but any victim, can have his/her name withheld as a matter of sympathy/courtesy. Not so the alleged attacker.
Note: alleged attacker.

What happens too often, however, is that the attacker’s name is splashed all over the front pages and then no matter what happens thereafter, he/she will have that stigma attached to them (“Aw, he’s the rapist who got away on a techicality”)
I propose that ANYBODY who is accused of ANY crime, ANYWHERE have their name withheld until he or she is PROVEN guilty.

7

Ooh, secret trials, I want to live in that country!

8

Presumption of innocence.

By describing her as a rape victim implies that Kobe is guilty. If you want to identify flaws in our society its that reporters can go out on the street and ask people, “Do you think he’s guilty?”

If she was raped, that was horrible, and she should not have to be raped a second time by the media. That’s the point of keeping her identity concealed.

What’s wrong with the above statement is that we begin the trial by assuming that she was raped, which assumes that Kobe is guilty.

Homles, you make a good point, but I think the timing is wrong. Both of the identities should have been concealed until a verdict. If she was a victim of rape, then AFTER the trial she may have a responsibility to society as you imply, but certainly not before.

If Kobe is found not guilty, than HE becomes the victim. Its entirely possible that this girl is out for money, fame, and/or revenge. So under this assumption, Kobe’s identity should be just as important as her’s.

9

Uh, no. If Kobe is found not guilty that just means they couldn’t prove the case. He hasn’t been victimized. And the rape victim believes she was raped. She’ll believe she was raped, no matter what gets proven in court or not----or perhaps I should say, what gets listened to in court. Presumption of innocence for the defendant doesn’t require that we deny the victim feels violated.

10

margin:

Do you make room for the possibility that this woman fabricated the charge, and that Mr. Bryant is factually innocent?

11

Why should I? Is there any evidence of it? There’s a long history of accusing rape victims of lying, going as far back as the Bible and the story of Potiphar’s wife. We should be as least as concerned about the victim’s presumption of innocence as we are about that of the accused. If we’re going to hurl accusations at her, perhaps we should grant her a defense lawyer as well.

12

Sure, there’s evidence of it: Mr. Bryant’s denial of wrongdoing.

In this case, I would presume that Mr. Bryant is innocent during his trial, and demand that the government overcome that presumption with evidence of his guilt.

Were his accuser to be tried for any charges that might arise out of false accusations, I would presume her innocence during her trial, and demand that the government overcome that presumption with evidence of her guilt.

You seem to have made up your mind, however, that Mr. Bryant is guilty.

  • Rick
13

Both of the identities should have been concealed until a verdict.

This goes back to the ‘secret trials’ problem (did you read Fear Itself’s post?).

The Kobe Bryant case is an exception, because he’s a public figure. How many rape cases are subject to this amount of advance scrutiny and speculation?

You could say that Kobe is a victim of his own fame (if you must). If he was Kobe Bryant the bus driver, how many people would be aware of these charges? Or care about the identity of either the accused or the accuser?

But I can’t see a way of overcoming that problem without allowing the bigger problem of secret trials, or condoning preferential treatment for special people accused of crimes.

14

Bricker, don’t presume to tell me what I’m thinking.

 So, let me get this straight---Mr. Bryant's denial of guilt is enough to label the victim a liar? Not exactly.  A mere finding of 'not guilty' does not mean that he is factually innocent. All it means is that the prosecutor failed to make his case.
15

I don’t really see the connection. Exposing victims of rape to further pain, i.e. making something public that they don’t want to be public, strikes me as further damage, not an effort at destigmatizing rape.

Two other things to consider: 1) the girl is a minor. 2) Even bigger: I think she’d be in real danger because she’s accusing a public figure. People know who she is and where she lives. (I’ve never been anywhere near Vail, and it took me about two minutes of internet searching to find out her name.) I’ve read she’s getting death threats as is.

16

Not at all.

I asked you if you made room for the possibility that the victim was lying. You replied, “Why should I? Is there any evidence of it?”

It’s not an unfair inference to draw from your response that you have NOT made room for the possibility that the victim is lying; that you are convinced she’s not.

Now, if that inference is incorrect, I certainly invite you to amplify your point.

Notice how now, though, you’re changing some of the terms around. I asked if you made room for the POSSIBILITY that the victim was lying. You said there was no evidence that she was lying. I replied that there was evidence: Mr. Bryant’s denial of guilt. You responded by asking, rhetorically, if Mr. Bryant’s denial was enough to label the victim a liar.

Somehow, we seem to have gone from the POSSIBILITY that the victim is lying to LABELLING her a liar, a process which suggests quite a bit more certainty.

To answer your rhetorical question: no, Mr. Bryant’s denial is not enough to decide that he is telling the truth and she is lying. But equally, given his denial, her accusation is not enough to decide that she is telling the truth and he is lying. I believe either case is possible. This is why we have trials: to place the evidence before a neutral finder of fact and let them reach a conclusion.

I certainly agree that a mere finding of “not guilty” does not speak volumes about what happened. But if that “not guilty,” were followed by a successful libel suit by Mr. Bryant against his accuser, where the burden of proof is on him to show she lied, then I’d regard the victim as a proven liar.

At present, I make room for either possibilty.

And now I ask you again: do you also make room for the victim being a liar?

  • Rick
17

I think you’d be wrong to do so. It’s true that a jury returns a verdict of “not guilty,” not innocent, because it’s a matter of reasonable doubt. However, libel suits are different as well.
First of all, they are civil suits, which means that the jury is supposed to reach a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonably doubt.
Also, libel isn’t just a matter of lying. It has to be proved that the defendant(s) lied, and did so intentionally, to harm the plaintiff. In America, that’s extremely difficult - intentionally so - which is why you don’t often see celebrities successfully sue tabloids. They rarely try because it’s so hard to prove intent.

18

Thank you for the education in the law. I do appreciate it.

But if I may, it seems you are proving my case for me. I said, “If that ‘not guilty,’ were followed by a successful libel suit by Mr. Bryant against his accuser, where the burden of proof is on him to show she lied, then I’d regard the victim as a proven liar.”

You said I’d be wrong to do so, but then go on to document how difficult a libel case is to win. It seems to me that if Mr. Bryant won a libel case against his accuser, then he would have shown, by preponderance of the evidence, the elements of libel: that the defendant lied, that the lie injured Mr. Bryant, and, because Mr. Bryant is a public figure, the additional New York Times v. Sullivan standard that: “… the statement was made with `actual malice’ – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not…”

In other words, I would be CORRECT to assume, if Mr Brayant were a successful plaintiff in a libel lawsuit against his accuser, that his accuser had been proven a liar, by preponderance of the evidence.

Right?

  • Rick
19

Yeah, I realize the second part doesn’t contradict what you said. The meat of what I was getting at is actually in the middle of the post: it’s a different standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt strikes me as being MUCH more exacting than just a preponderance.
I’m not a lawyer, but in the case of a preponderance of evidence, I don’t think you (as a jury member) would even have to agree that the woman was lying. Your responsibility might be only to judge which side had a majority of the evidence at hand.

20

I’m afraid I must disagree, Marley23.

The standard for libel for a public figure was ennunciated, as I mentioned above, in the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. When a public figure is involved, he must show that the statements that damaged him were made either with knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard for their falsity.

Given this, a jury could not possibly find in favor of the plaintiff unless they concluded by preponderance of the evidence that the accuser lied, or was reckless in her disregard for finding out the truth. And since the source of the woman’s story is her own experience, the “reckless” prong doesn’t have much meaning: she uniquely KNOWS whether the events happened as she described them. For a jury to find for Mr. Bryant in a libel case, they would HAVE to conclude that the woman lied.

  • Rick