# Does a victim of a "public" Rape case, have a responsilbility to expose themselves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624 "2003-07-24T13:57:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MaddyStrut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@MaddyStrut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaddyStrut)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/21 "2003-07-24T23:54:09Z")
I can see the point in the OP that increased visibility of rape victims may help remove some of the stigma associated with being raped, but I can’t bring myself to the conclusion that victims should be expected to come forward. I was raped. It was not a public case, but I can tell you if it had been there’s no way I’d want to come forward. And it has nothing to do with shame. Frankly, it’s because I have no desire to be a public figure–certainly not for something like that. A victim doesn’t ask to be raped, so there’s no reason she should be forced into becoming a public figure just becuase such a tragedy happened to her. I wouldn’t want to become a public figure because I don’t want strangers to recognize me as “that woman who was raped.” I wouldn’t want it to be the buzz at the watercooler at work. I don’t want my college boyfriend coming forward with his “I knew her when” plan to get publicity for himself. I don’t want people who have no business knowing or caring about my personal life to learn those details about me. I don’t want to define myself in people’s eyes as “she who was raped.” There’s a lot more to me than that incident (which occurred more than 17 years ago). ---
**Author:** ![I\_Eris\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@I\_Eris\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Eris_I)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/22 "2003-07-25T01:52:22Z")
I agree with Holmes in that rape victims coming forward, in essence putting a face to them in the public eye, might help eliminate the social stigma. The veil of secrecy mentioned no doubt gives rapists the advantage. But I disagree in that a rape victim should not be _expected_ or _forced_ to become a public figure. It might help, as it did in the civil rights movement, but it is not their _responsibility_ to do so. With the way that rape victims can be attacked in court and by the media, you can’t blame them for not coming forward… ~Eris~ ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/23 "2003-07-25T03:06:17Z")
Re the term “public”: Generally, all police and court records are public record. Even in rape and sexual assault cases, the documents are available to the public - only the name of the victim is withheld, as per exemption laws. Some factual info from the Massachusetts Press Association. State laws can vary, but this site provides a good overview: [**Access to Police and Court Records**](http://www.masspress.org/public_access_handbook/copscourts.htm) Qualifying **“privacy”** : > [@](#): > > Generally, the fact that one is a victim of a crime results in only a minimal invasion of privacy. For example, disclosure of the fact that one’s automobile has been stolen or home broken into does not reveal **“intimate details of a personal nature”** that, as **a key test of privacy** , would be exempt from disclosure. Such events are commonplace and do not reflect on the victims in a negative or embarrassing manner. Thus, in a general sense, the identities of the victims of such crimes does not rise to the level of information protected by privacy exemptions. Rape and Sexual Assault: > [@](#): > > Any mention in police records of the name of a victim of a rape or sexual assault is exempt from the mandatory disclosure provision of the Public Records Law. The Rape Shield Law provides: That (any) portion of the records of… any police department… which contains the name of the victim (of) rape or assault with intent to rape… shall be withheld from public inspection… > > It should be noted that the law specifically refers to withholding “any portion of the record” which contains the name of the victim and not the entire report. Consequently, the report itself should be available without the names of the victim(s). This would satisfy the public’s right to know details of the crime while still protecting the victim. It is important to note that the law prohibits police or court officials from releasing the name of the victim. > > The law does not address publication of the name (if obtained by lawful means) as that would constitute prior restraint. While not legally prohibited from disclosure, however, Massachusetts news organizations have historically not published the names of victims (except in cases where the victim comes forward voluntarily). ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/24 "2003-07-25T03:14:27Z")
Re the term “public”: Generally, all police and court records are public record. Even in rape and sexual assault cases, the documents are available to the public - only the name of the victim is withheld, as per exemption laws. Some factual info from the Massachusetts Press Association. State laws can vary, but this site provides a good overview: [**Access to Police and Court Records**](http://www.masspress.org/public_access_handbook/copscourts.htm) Qualifying **“privacy”** : > [@](#): > > Generally, the fact that one is a victim of a crime results in only a minimal invasion of privacy. For example, disclosure of the fact that one’s automobile has been stolen or home broken into does not reveal “intimate details of a personal nature” that, as a key test of privacy, would be exempt from disclosure. Such events are commonplace and do not reflect on the victims in a negative or embarrassing manner. Thus, in a general sense, the identities of the victims of such crimes does not rise to the level of information protected by privacy exemptions. Rape and Sexual Assault: > [@](#): > > Any mention in police records of the name of a victim of a rape or sexual assault is exempt from the mandatory disclosure provision of the Public Records Law. The Rape Shield Law provides: That (any) portion of the records of… any police department… which contains the name of the victim (of) rape or assault with intent to rape… shall be withheld from public inspection… > > It should be noted that the law specifically refers to withholding “any portion of the record” which contains the name of the victim and not the entire report. Consequently, the report itself should be available without the names of the victim(s). This would satisfy the public’s right to know details of the crime while still protecting the victim. It is important to note that the law prohibits police or court officials from releasing the name of the victim. > > The law does not address publication of the name (if obtained by lawful means) as that would constitute prior restraint. While not legally prohibited from disclosure, however, Massachusetts news organizations have historically not published the names of victims (except in cases where the victim comes forward voluntarily). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/25 "2003-07-25T03:32:29Z")
I did post earlier that I disagree there’s any responsibility for rape victims to come forward, I do see **Holmes** ’s point. Although I’d disagree that it protects rapists or creates the stigma (the stigma existed beforehand). That part strikes me as blaming the victim. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/26 "2003-07-25T13:26:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*I did post earlier that I disagree there’s any responsibility for rape victims to come forward, I do see **Holmes** ’s point. Although I’d disagree that it protects rapists or creates the stigma (the stigma existed beforehand). That part strikes me as blaming the victim. \*\* Back up a sec, I’m not saying that all rape victims should show themselves on national tv, although I think that would be a good thing. What I’m referring to, is in cases when the privacy of the victim is already gone, wouldn’t be for the greater good to stand up and show the public, that she’s not a “bad” girl or “that” kind of girl, but their daughter, or sister or girl next door. I wonder, if the public could see her, would the hate letters, to an unknown “bad” girl stop? Now about this blaming thing: First of all the stigma lives off of silence and shame, do we agree on that? Rapist count on silence and shame to protect them from arrest, do we agree on that? If yes to both…then I fail to see, why you can’t see that as long as we treat rape victims with a wall of silence, we enable rapists to trive in an environment that protects them. It does matter when the stigma started, what matters is what we as a society and individuals do to feed it or stop it. I don’t see how I’m blaming victims…I am suggesting however, that in order for society to change, the victims are going to have to be the ones to change it. Let’s try this: For most of the history of the US, African-Americans were terrorized by the Klan. The reason why many African-Americans didn’t even attempt legal protection, was because the knew that either they would be ignored or worst the Klan would find out and punish them for even attempting to. Now, I say to Mrs. Smith, “Your son, has just been lynched. The national press is here, it would help the movement if you come forward and give a statement and let the American people see you.” She’s says, “No, I have another son and I don’t what him hurt.” I say, “Yes, that’s a real possibly… however once the cameras go, you will be at mercy of the Klan anyway. They won’t reward you for your silence, in fact your silence makes them stronger.” “At least now you have a chance to save another person from the same fate, as your first son. The Klan lives off of terror, if they scare you away now when the light of the world are on you, what do you think will happen to the next person who crosses them, in the dark?” Am I blaming her? Does she have a responsibility? As you know lots of average people risked much to bring about change in the US, not just the Dr. Kings and Malcolm X’s, but lots of people like “Mrs. Smith”. Let me ask another? If a rape victim can identify her rapist, and choses not to, is she responsible in any way for the next person he rapes? Not legally, but morally? Does ones desire to be left alone, does ones real personal pain, release them from preventing others from the same fate? ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/27 "2003-07-25T14:04:59Z")
Holmes, that’s really not a good analogy. Rape is unique amongst crimes, in the passion it arouses, for vengance, and for blaming the victim. Fighting racism enabled liberal white people to feel heroic, and keep it at one remove from themselves. Sexism, as exemplified by the desire to label the victim liar and so on, strikes everyone at home. [/quote] 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. [/quote] Your accusation against her is one of lying. This is not a neutral term. You’re also ignoring the fact that Mr. Bryant has in fact been caught lying. And now I have a question for you: do you get so wound up over poor accused muggers, robbers, and thieves? White-collar embezzlers and so on? > [@](#): > > 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. Would it indeed? If the defense attorney used sexist tactics, and got his victory by sexist means, would that be okay? And if the victim settled, out of terror, because she doesn’t have the money, would that also be successful? Rape doesn’t have a high conviction rate. Do you believe all those so acquitted are innocent of the crime? Are all those victims liars? You’re sanctioning suing a victim. Yeah, I’m sure that will do WONDERS for all the women out there who’ve been raped. And of course, I’m sure you’ll be right there, beating the drum for the rights of the poor white collar criminals, too. > [@](#): > > At present, I make room for either possibilty. Not exactly. We’ve got one person in this case, who’s admitted telling lies. Now, who would that be again? > [@](#): > > And now I ask you again: do you also make room for the victim being a liar? Do you not listen? I already answered this. I have no reason to believe the victim is lying. Interesting that that was what you jumped to, though. Is she mistaken, confused, or anything that lies between telling the truth and lying? Nope, the premise is lying. And that says a great deal. ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/28 "2003-07-25T16:29:23Z")
Current case: Bryant. The victim/accuser is not named. [Someone tracked down who they thought was the accuser… and got it wrong.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/25/bryant.misidentified.ap/index.html) Meanwhile, the image/story has spread online. The wrong person is being seriously dragged through the mud… and harrassed… and her life is seriously upside down. IMAGINE if she had been the victim? Talk about DOUBLE trauma! This women has ended up with her head (from school pictures) pasted on pictures of naked women, and distributed online. With her name. Her location. Address. Phone number. Jeebus. This is why we keep victims anonymous and protected. We’re still rather primitive, aren’t we? It’s mostly about the fear of retaliation, along with the stigma. And trust me, retaliation IS a big problem out there ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/29 "2003-07-25T16:32:08Z")
From the article quoted above: > [@](#): > > Early on, there were two pictures, one of the woman’s dance team and another with her standing next to a young man at a dress-up event. Also posted was the name, address, phone number and e-mail of the alleged victim in the Bryant case. > > Since then, some Web sites have altered photos to put the wrong woman’s face on nude bodies, she said, and others have attached text calling her every combination of profanity imaginable. I’m personally glad we offer rape/assault victims protection. Look at what happens if a name leaks out into the wild… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/30 "2003-07-25T17:09:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > Your accusation against her is one of lying. This is not a neutral term. You’re also ignoring the fact that Mr. Bryant has in fact been caught lying. I never accused her of lying. I said I MAKE ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY that she is lying. You say: > [@](#): > > Do you not listen? I already answered this. I have no reason to believe the victim is lying. Interesting that that was what you jumped to, though. Is she mistaken, confused, or anything that lies between telling the truth and lying? Nope, the premise is lying. And that says a great deal. I pointed out that Mr. Bryant’s version, if believed, is evidence. If you believe there is absolutely no evidence of her lying, then you’re wrong. Pure and simple. Two people are telling different stories. A reasonable inference is that one of them is lying. Now, I certainly admit that there are other reasonable inferences - perhaps, as you suggest, there is mistake or confusion involved, such that each person believes they are telling the truth. I make room for that possibility. Perhaps it is Mr. Bryant who is lying – that’s a very reasonable inference, especially since, as you point out, he has already lied (or at least been deliberately deceptive) once in this case. I make room for that possibility as well. But I do not exclude the possiblity that the accuser is lying. It is possible. Mr. Bryant is wealthy, and a criminal conviction would go a long way towards securing her success in a follow-on civil suit. She has some financial motive to lie. That doesn’t mean she’s lying, nor does it mean I am accusing her of lying. But it does mean that I MAKE ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY. This is the neutral and fair-minded approach to the situation. You, on the other hand, do not make room for the possibility that she is lying. You refuse to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. I won’t speculate on the reasons for this analytical blindness on your part, because I have no way of knowing them. But blindness it is. The simpel fact of the matter is that it’s possible she’s lying. I don’t say it’s a certainty, or even a likelihood. But to deny its possibility is to deny self-evident - indeed, definitional - facts. > [@](#): > > And now I have a question for you: do you get so wound up over poor accused muggers, robbers, and thieves? White-collar embezzlers and so on? Of what relevance is that to this discussion? I’m not particularly “wound up” about any case, to include the Bryant case. But if you were to present an alleged mugger and mugging victim, I would MAKE ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY that the victim was lying, and make room for the possibility that the mugger’s denials were lies as well. _In reply to my comment that I’d regard a successful libel suit by Bryant against his accuser as good evidence that she lied, you said:_ > [@](#): > > Would it indeed? If the defense attorney used sexist tactics, and got his victory by sexist means, would that be okay? And if the victim settled, out of terror, because she doesn’t have the money, would that also be successful? Rape doesn’t have a high conviction rate. Do you believe all those so acquitted are innocent of the crime? Are all those victims liars? You’re sanctioning suing a victim. Yeah, I’m sure that will do WONDERS for all the women out there who’ve been raped. And of course, I’m sure you’ll be right there, beating the drum for the rights of the poor white collar criminals, too. You reply above is frothing with illogic. I clearly stated that I would NOT regard an acquittal as evidence of the victim lying - only a successful civil libel suit. When you say, “If the _defense attorney_ used sexist tactics…” you are referring to the criminal trial - the defense attorney would be representing Mr. Bryant. In the civil trial, Mr. Bryant’s attorney would be the _plaintiff’s_ attorney, and the accuser’s would be the defense attorney. This question has no relevance to the hypothetical civil trial I mentioned. Your next sentence does. You ask, “And if the victim settled, out of terror, because she doesn’t have the money, would that also be successful?” If her settlement included an admission of liability, then yes, I would consider her a proven liar. The standards to win a libel case when the libelled figure is a public one are high (see _Times v. Sullivan_.) I’d regard her inability to win, and a fearful settlement, as evidence that she fabricated the accusations. Your next sentences inexplicably return to the criminal trial, asking “Rape doesn’t have a high conviction rate. Do you believe all those so acquitted are innocent of the crime? Are all those victims liars?” Once again, I will patiently point out that a mere criminal acquittal doesn’t sway me into believing the victim lied. I am sure that many acquitted rapists were factually guilty, and many of their victims were telling the truth. But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with my hypothetical libel trial. Your next sentences return again to the civil trial: “You’re sanctioning suing a victim. Yeah, I’m sure that will do WONDERS for all the women out there who’ve been raped. And of course, I’m sure you’ll be right there, beating the drum for the rights of the poor white collar criminals, too.” This proposition reflects the peculiar blindness you seem to be suffering. If Mr. Bryant is innocent and falsely accused, he should absolutely sue his accuser. If he’s innocent and she deliberately fabricated the charges, then she has injured him, and he has every right to seek redress. It may not “do wonders” for actual rape victims, who may be discouraged from pursuing their own claims. But the fault, in this hypothetical, would lie not with Mr. Bryant, the innocent victim of lies, but with his lying accuser; she would have set in motion the events that harm future real rape victims. Finally, you mention white collar criminals. I am completely baffled as to the relevance that has to this discussion. It’s rare on this board to find a poster so completely confused by logical debate as **margin** appears to be. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/31 "2003-07-25T21:15:57Z")
There was once a serial rapist active here in Topeka. After the third(not the second) attack the newspaper put out an article about it, giving an MO and the general area where the rapist was operating. There were still three more rapes, then whoever was doing it quit/died/ was arrested for something else. Hopefully one of the latter two. The police gave out no names of victims, thanks heavens, but if they had acted after #2 established a pattern, the 3-6 might never have occurred. And victim #3 was approached by the police with photos of possible attackers. She identified one, but the cops never did anything about it. Turns out one of the OTHER pictures was of a guy suspected of a murder, and they wondered if they could pin something else on him, or ID him that way. She figured that out when the one guy’s picture was in the next day’s paper, accused of first degree murder. No wonder so many victims don’t come forward. #3 would have though. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/32 "2003-07-25T21:54:30Z")
> [@](#): > > why you can’t see that as long as we treat rape victims with a wall of silence, we enable rapists to trive in an environment that protects them. Rape victims aren’t FORCED to keep silent. Their identities are kept anonymous unless they choose to come forward publicly. I think that’s completely fair. Publicity would seem to especially protect public figures from accusations. > [@](#): > > Both women are 19, have the same first name and attended Eagle County High School. While the young woman in the Bryant case was a cheerleader, the other woman was on the school’s dance squad. This kind of stuff gives her identity away to anyone who’s interested in posting it. And it also doesn’t say that the woman has never been correctly identified;it says something that we’d already heard: that there’s also a girl who has been wrongly named as the accuser. There are posts about that in the original thread. The girl’s real name has, at the very least, been given out on nationally syndicated radio, which could mean that other, accurate info about her is out there. ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/33 "2003-07-26T13:49:37Z")
When convicted, the dirtball’s private part should be firmly nailed to a bench in a barn. Then barn should be lit on fire. When the fire has fully engulfed the barn; The victim gets to toss the jerk a sharp knife and yell “Cut or die dirtball”. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/34 "2003-07-26T14:15:20Z")
YOu know, Bricker, you need to stop patting yourself on the back for your logic. You still have not adequately answered MY question: why you jumped to the possiblity of lying? Why is Mr. Bryant’s word so valueable to you, and of such ‘evidenciary’ value when he’s been caught lying? And spare me your lectures. > [@](#): > > I pointed out that Mr. Bryant’s version, if believed, is evidence. p/quote] > > And I pointed out he’s already lied once. Furthermore, if you believe every arrested person that says they’re innocent, whoo! Here’s a bridge. Let’s talk reality, here, okay? You want to make this all abstract, but I’m perfectly free to look at some guy who’s already admitted what he once denied and think that that affects his credibility. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you believe there is absolutely no evidence of her lying, then you’re wrong. Pure and simple. Two people are telling different stories. A reasonable inference is that one of them is lying. Now, I certainly admit that there are other reasonable inferences - perhaps, as you suggest, there is mistake or confusion involved, such that each person believes they are telling the truth. I make room for that possibility. Perhaps it is Mr. Bryant who is lying – that’s a very reasonable inference, especially since, as you point out, he has already lied (or at least been deliberately deceptive) once in this case. I make room for that possibility as well. > > You say you make room for it, but you don’t in any effective way, not really. That was very incidental languge. Mr. Bryant’s lie simply is not first and foremost in your consideration of this case. No, you evidently believe him, and therefore she MUST be lying. This is where your abstractions reveal their limitations. Many men who rape do not consider themselves to be rapists—OJ Simpson probably doesn’t believe himself to be a wife beater. If he then claims that he’s not—is he correct? Or is he yanking people along with him who want to believe that delusion? > > > [@](#): > > > > But I do not exclude the possiblity that the accuser is lying. It is possible. Mr. Bryant is wealthy, and a criminal conviction would go a long way towards securing her success in a follow-on civil suit. She has some financial motive to lie. That doesn’t mean she’s lying, nor does it mean I am accusing her of lying. But it does mean that I MAKE ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY. > > No other crime victim is subject to this sort of theorizing. Period. Only rape victims are routinely second-guessed and doubted. Once again, you focus on one case, and thereby ignore the larger implications that surround this case and your insistance that there’s a possiblity the victim is lying. > > quote]This is the neutral and fair-minded approach to the situation. You, on the other hand, do not make room for the possibility that she is lying. You refuse to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. ``` Yeah, anything's possible. It's possible Kobe could be pregnant. It's not what I'd call really likely. Only one person in this case has lied. Why should I turn around and give him the benefit of the doubt, when he's already abandoned his right to it? I know he's a liar already. What I don't have is any reason to assume that she's lying. And the fact that Bryant says otherwise---which you seem hung up to a very odd degree---simply isn't proof. ``` I don’t assume there’s a possibility mugging victims are lying. I don’t assume that there’s a possibility that anybody is lying. But in a rape case, the word ‘lie’ is exceptionally loaded with history used to discredit women, dating from at least the tme of the Bible, with the story of Potiphar’s wife. There’s no reason to think that this victim is lying----but there are a great many reasons to be skeptical of people who want to prove she’s lying. Lying is deliberate and malicious. In some instances, it’s a crime. You’re the one accusing someone of, in effect, committing perjury, and all you’ve got is Bryant’s doubtful credibility. > [@](#): > > I won’t speculate on the reasons for this analytical blindness on your part, because I have no way of knowing them. But blindness it is. The simpel fact of the matter is that it’s possible she’s lying. I don’t say it’s a certainty, or even a likelihood. But to deny its possibility is to deny self-evident - indeed, definitional - facts. Uh, Bricker, you’re not exactly one to talk here, because you’re devoting a razor’s edge of attention to one case, and ignoring the context in which it sits. If you look only at the Bryant case and ignore the history that precedes it, of course you’ll look perfectly logical. Looking at your attitude in the context of many other people who have historically dismissed rape victims as lying, though, your reasoning takes on a different cast. I notice you haven’t addressed the harassment the victim’s been going through----or the way some innocent woman has been harassed, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/35 "2003-07-26T15:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > You still have not adequately answered MY question: why you jumped to the possiblity of lying? Why is Mr. Bryant’s word so valueable to you, and of such ‘evidenciary’ value when he’s been caught lying? And spare me your lectures. You apparently _need_ lectures, although I grant they they have, as yet, not made the slightest impression upon you. But I retain hope. How have I “jumped” to the possibility of lying? I have never treated the possibility of her lying as anything more than a possiblity. I have never once expressed a personal opinion about the truth. My opinion is completely irrelevant. However, since you seem to be inexplicably calmed by irrelevancies: I think it’s highly unlikely Mr. Bryant is telling the truth, and highly likely his accuser is telling the truth. In my experience in the criminal justice system, I have deal with dozens of accused rapists and more victims; I do not believe I ever encountered a phony victim. In general, when a woman submits herself to the painful process of “being a rape victim” it’s because it happened, and she wants to get closure. So my opinion is that Bryant’s accuser is more likely than not to be telling the truth. BUT: I MAKE ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT SHE IS NOT. Because to do otherwise would be to ignore the laws of reality and the universe, not to mention the criminal justice process. > [@](#): > > You say you make room for it, but you don’t in any effective way, not really. That was very incidental languge. Mr. Bryant’s lie simply is not first and foremost in your consideration of this case. No, you evidently believe him, and therefore she MUST be lying. This is where your abstractions reveal their limitations. I trust that my explanation above has effectively disabused you of this bizarre notion. > [@](#): > > Many men who rape do not consider themselves to be rapists—OJ Simpson probably doesn’t believe himself to be a wife beater. If he then claims that he’s not—is he correct? Or is he yanking people along with him who want to believe that delusion? Why you’re asking, “Is he correct?” when the question we’re debating has always been, “Is it possible?” baffles me. Stop twisting the question into “What IS the truth?” and then assigning it to me. That is a strawman construction; it’s not my argument. > [@](#): > > No other crime victim is subject to this sort of theorizing. Period. Only rape victims are routinely second-guessed and doubted. Once again, you focus on one case, and thereby ignore the larger implications that surround this case and your insistance that there’s a possiblity the victim is lying. That is, quite simply, absolutely untrue. If I were defending a street robbery, I would absolutely use the tactic of suggesting the victim was lying, if there were any circumstances that might cause a jury to buy it. Victim’s identifications of their assailants are routinely questioned, and in argument characterized as wrong. You know nothing about criminal defense. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > This is the neutral and fair-minded approach to the situation. You, on the other hand, do not make room for the possibility that she is lying. You refuse to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. > > Yeah, anything’s possible. It’s possible Kobe could be pregnant. It’s not what I’d call really likely. Only one person in this case has lied. Why should I turn around and give him the benefit of the doubt, when he’s already abandoned his right to it? I know he’s a liar already. What I don’t have is any reason to assume that she’s lying. And the fact that Bryant says otherwise—which you seem hung up to a very odd degree—simply isn’t proof. If you place the possibility of Bryant’s pregnancy along the same lines as the victim lying, you are merely confirming your delusion. You say there’s no motive for her to lie? What about a financial one? As I said before, and as you’ve failed to address, Mr. Bryant is wealthy. Perhaps Mr. Bryant broke off a consensual affair, and the victim, furious, decided to make him pay. She cries rape, gets a criminal conviction, and then a fat civil lawsuit. There’s a motive. I don’t claim it’s true. But it is possible – and meaningfully possible, not possible in the same realm as Kobe Bryant being pregnant. > [@](#): > > I don’t assume there’s a possibility mugging victims are lying. I don’t assume that there’s a possibility that anybody is lying. Really? Would it surprise you to learn that I once dealt with a phony street robbery case - a case where the victim made up the crime? > [@](#): > > But in a rape case, the word ‘lie’ is exceptionally loaded with history used to discredit women, dating from at least the tme of the Bible, with the story of Potiphar’s wife. There’s no reason to think that this victim is lying----but there are a great many reasons to be skeptical of people who want to prove she’s lying. Lying is deliberate and malicious. In some instances, it’s a crime. You’re the one accusing someone of, in effect, committing perjury, and all you’ve got is Bryant’s doubtful credibility. Are you suggesting we never mention the actual, real, possibility, however slim, that a rape victim is lying, because historically this accusation was grossly overused against rape victims? Bwahahahha. And then some. That’s hardly a useful approach. Nor is it fair or, dare I say, Constitutional, to punish today’s accused for the sins of yesterday’s society. Forget it - you need a better platform than that. > [@](#): > > Uh, Bricker, you’re not exactly one to talk here, because you’re devoting a razor’s edge of attention to one case, and ignoring the context in which it sits. If you look only at the Bryant case and ignore the history that precedes it, of course you’ll look perfectly logical. Looking at your attitude in the context of many other people who have historically dismissed rape victims as lying, though, your reasoning takes on a different cast. I notice you haven’t addressed the harassment the victim’s been going through----or the way some innocent woman has been harassed, too. Same song, second verse. You’re suggesting that I should never consider the possibility that a rape victim is lying because of historical context. Bwahahahaha. Again. And the harrassment that the woman has been subjected to has little relevance as to whether or not she’s lying. At best, we may draw the inference that she’s more likely to be telling the truth, because otherwise, why would she subject herself to such a hostile environment? But if her motive is to ultimately gain millions through a lawsuit, she may well decide that the harrassment is sufficient. So that’s not a clincher argument, is it? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![I\_Eris\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@I\_Eris\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Eris_I)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/36 "2003-07-28T01:30:56Z")
_raises hand_ Ummm… Jumping into the Becker/Margin debate here… I’m a 21 year old female. I’ve been a victim of sexual assault myself. Not rape, but unwanted advances which easily could’ve gone that way. But because Bryant is a public figure and worth alot of money, even _I_ make room for the possibility that the victim is lying. I am not taking Bryant’s side, “jumping” on the victim, etc. I personally don’t believe she is lying, but I don’t discount the possibility either. I think this is all that Bricker was trying to say. There are many possibilites here: misidentification of attacker, confusion, memory problems, outright lying, etc. These are all just possibilities. We don’t have all the facts yet, so we can’t rule _anything_ out. Margin, I don’t think Bricker was “jumping” to the conclusion of lying. He just mentioned that it is a possibility. And it is. You seem to be very offended by Bricker’s posts, but from where I’m sitting, he didn’t mean any harm and I don’t see a problem. To me, the fact that either or both the accuser and the accused could be lying should always be considered until proven otherwise. ~Eris~ ---
**Author:** ![Nimbrethil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nimbrethil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nimbrethil)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/37 "2003-07-28T13:05:52Z")
Jumping in on this debate, I’d have to agree with Eris and Bricker… Nobody is denying that there is a very long history of accusing rape victims of being liars, and raping them all over again via harrassment–as with what happened to the girl who was wrongly named as the alleged victim. However, Ginmar, surely you aren’t suggesting that just because of that, we assume, from here on out, that women would _never_ lie about rape? Ever? That’s a stretch. It’s entirely possible that Kobe was having an affair that he attempted to break off, and this is the girl’s means of revenge. I’m not saying this is what happened, or even a likelihood. But it would be foolish to deny that this is a possibility. That Kobe lied about sleeping with her in the first place doesn’t necessarily stand as evidence that he is also lying about being a rapist. If he were trying to protect his wife, I could certainly see him trying to get away with not admitting to his adultery. The one lie is not a necessary conclusion of the other. Sorry, but being an adulterer is not in the same vein as being a rapist. Ginmar: From reading your exchange with him, it seems to be that you are hellbent on believing that anyone who suggests that it’s just possible the alleged victim is in fact the liar, is biased in favor of the rapist. Case in point: you made the assumption that Bricker had gone straight to the conclusion that Bryant is telling the truth and that the girl is lying. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly made statements that indicate your belief that the girl is telling the truth and that Bryant is lying. It’s not a wild assumption for me to conclude that you believe her innocence and his guilt is a foregone conclusion STRICTLY BECAUSE SHE HAS MADE THE ACCUSATION. "Would it indeed? If the defense attorney used sexist tactics, and got his victory by sexist means, would that be okay? And if the victim settled, out of terror, because she doesn’t have the money, would that also be successful? Rape doesn’t have a high conviction rate. Do you believe all those so acquitted are innocent of the crime? Are all those victims liars? \You’re sanctioning suing a victim.\ Yeah, I’m sure that will do WONDERS for all the women out there who’ve been raped. And of course, I’m sure you’ll be right there, beating the drum for the rights of the poor white collar criminals, too. " Since I know you’re one to pay particular attention to the language people use when discussing rape, I just thought I’d point out a telltale instance of the language you use. By suggesting that Bricker is sanctioning suing a victim, you indicate very strongly that you already are convinced of this girl’s innocence and Bryant’s guilt. However, Bricker’s scenario would apply to the girl as a proven LIAR, not a victim. Seems to me that you’re not willing to even consider the possibility that the alleged rapist just isn’t. Honest question: why do you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that women _are_ capable of lying about rape? Yes, rape is the ultimate vehicle of revenge against a woman. No question there. However, it can also be the ultimate vehicle of revenge against a man. Why be blind to this fact? ---
**Author:** ![pencilpusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d6d6ee/32.png) [@pencilpusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pencilpusher)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/38 "2003-07-28T14:53:08Z")
Anyone in the public eye (sports figures, political figures, ect) should KNOW that EVERYTHING they do will be scrutinized by the media. People that dig ditches know that they are given at least a little bit of privacy if they are accused of a crime such as rape because to the general public they are unimportant. I think that if Kobe did rape this young lady then he SHOULD be hung by the balls in public. The accuser should have the right to privacy because there is always some asshole fucknut that thinks it’s funny to harass the accuser of a sexual crime. You don’t see the victim of a robbery being harassed like the victims of a sexual crime. They aren’t called derogatory names because they were robbed. Unfortunately this happens all too FREQUENTLY to rape victims. There are WAY too many immature people in this world and until they learn a smidgen of respect for others we will continue to have rapists getting away with rape because of the crime not being reported. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/39 "2003-08-01T16:36:37Z")
I see margin has apparently abandoned any attempt to justify the position her or she staked out earlier. This is wise – although it would surely be nice to see, now and again, a post that said something like, “I was wrong.” In any event, I happened to be reading an article that was published in the Washington Post on June 27, 1992, starting on page B1 and written by Stephen Buckley. It’s available from the Post’s archive section online, but it’s not free. The title of the article: “UNFOUNDED REPORTS OF RAPE CONFOUND AREA POLICE INVESTIGATORS.” The article discusses several rape cases that were characterized as “unfounded” over the previous year by police investigators. Among the reports: > [@](#): > > In Howard County, one of the few Washington area jurisdictions to make its investgative files readily accessible to the public, police records suggest a variety of possible reasons for unfounded claims. Some women said they wanted to exact revenge on former boyfriends, while others told police they were trying to hide sexual relationships from their parents or husbands, according to records. > > In one case, a mildly autistic 19-year-old told police she was attacked on an outdoor basketball court, saying a man with a six-inch steak knife grabbed her from behind, threw her down and raped her, according to a police report. > > She provided a detailed description of the man, including his “lavender or pink shirt,” curly hair and blue jeans. > > But gradually her account unraveled. Investigators found no physical evidence of a sexual assault. And inconsistencies emerged in the teenager’s story. Sixteen days after reporting the attack, the woman told police she had made up the story. According to the police report, she said she had feared she was pregnant as a result of her first sexual encounter. Police declined to charge the woman because of her mental impairment. And… > [@](#): > > Several other cases involved interracial accusations, often against fictitious men. > > In May 1990, for example, a 23-year-old black woman said a white man had abducted her from a supermarket parking lot in Silver Spring, raped her at gunpoint and told her, “You black girls think you’re pretty. . . . Tell all of your black girlfriends that they’re not pretty.” > > Yet she later told police she had come home during the wee hours and needed an excuse for her angry parents. She said she slashed her thigh with a razor blade and a bottle cap “to make the rape more believable,” the police report said. And… > [@](#): > > a 19-year-old Laurel woman accused her ex-boyfriend of climbing through her bedroom window and raping her. After mutual friends told police that she still regularly saw the young man behind her parents’ backs and after she missed three appointments for a polygraph examination, police labeled the case unfounded. In that case, the woman still maintained she was raped, but said that she didn’t want her attacker to go to jail because he was the father of her son, before the alleged attack. In most cases in the article, though, the women admitted and recanted the false accusations: > [@](#): > > Kathryn Hargis Tucci, a Laurel woman who was 19 at the time, filed a sexual assault complaint against a former boyfriend, who served 13 months in jail for the offense. Later, Tucci recanted, and was tried for filing a false report. An Anne Arundel County judge sentenced her to community service in a rape crisis center. > > Tucci said in an interview with a Washington Post reporter that several traumatic incidents preceded her false report. “I’ve buried those bones a long time ago,” she said. “I had several deaths in my family that year.” She declined to elaborate further. And… > [@](#): > > In 1990, six Howard women were arrested on charges of filing false rape reports, and one was prosecuted, a 29-year-old who said a newspaper delivery man had raped her at gunpoint. Later the woman said she had lied because she needed an excuse for having been late to work, according to police. > > A year earlier, the same woman had been charged with filing a false rape report in Anne Arundel County; in the Howard case, a judge ordered her to get psychiatric help. I had earlier drawn analogies between flase rape reports and false mugging reports. This is of interest: > [@](#): > > In the Maryland counties of Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Prince George’s, as well as the Virginia counties of Loudoun and Prince William, police said the percentage of unfounded rape reports was comparable to unfounded claims about crimes such as burglary, auto theft and robbery. > > However, in two relatively small jurisdictions, Howard County and the City of Alexandria, police said the percentage of unfounded rape claims was significantly higher than other types of unfounded reports. > > In Howard, police said 11 of 35 rape reports in 1991 were unfounded, compared with 25 false claims in a total 2,053 reported burglaries, robberies and auto thefts. Alexandria police said 10 of 53 reported rapes in 1991 were unfounded, compared with 147 false claims in a total 2,948 reported burglaries, robberies and auto thefts. > > Officials from departments whose rates of unfounded reports are significantly higher than the national average say they can only speculate on why they see so many false claims. > > In Prince George’s, for example, police said 248 of 826 allegations of rape in 1990-91 were unfounded. Maj. James Ross, the former head of the department’s criminal investigations division, said he thinks Prince George’s percentage of false reports is due at least in part to frequent cases of sex-for-drugs transactions gone sour. > > “Sometimes a woman will have sex with the guy, and then he doesn’t give her the drugs,” Ross said. “Then she’ll call us and say she’s been raped.” None of the above is, of course, relevant to the issue of the truthfulness of Mr. Bryant’s accuser. The only known liar in the Bryant affair thus far is Bryant himself. But it is relevant to the question of MAKING ROOM FOR THE POSSIBILITY of a false accusation. If **margin** ever dares return, perhaps a bit of ignorance can be eradicated. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624/40 "2003-08-01T17:20:38Z")
> [@](#): > > This is wise – although it would surely be nice to see, now and again, a post that said something like, “I was wrong.” Fuck off, Bricker. You sound like any defense lawyer defending a rapist. What a condescending little fuckwad you are. Let’s recap, shall we? A lot of very fancy verbiage has been deployed to try and label this victim in a very stereotypical way. You tapdance around it, but you’re just speculating. You’ve got no proof. She “might” be in it for financial gain. She ‘might’ do this. She ‘might’ do that. There’s no might about the fact that Bryant lied, though. The only ignorance here is yours. I see you did not address any of the issues I brought up—the history of the belief that women lied, the context in which every rape case happens—but, oh, yes, I do see how you’ve mis-used the word ‘unfounded.’ How nice. Unfounded does not mean lying. Again, all you’re quoting is the unsupported opinins of other people who evidently share your bias. Cops aren’t exactly known for much acceptance of feminism. Oh, and this: > [@](#): > > If I were defending a street robbery, I would absolutely use the tactic of suggesting the victim was lying, if there were any circumstances that might cause a jury to buy it. Are you a defense lawyer? Because you’ve just indicated that truth doesn’t matter to you, \* as long as you—in your own words----can get the jury to buy it. [/quote] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-victim-of-a-public-rape-case-have-a-responsilbility-to-expose-themselves/190624.md?page=3)