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

[margin]

Nembrethil

However,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.

No, I’m not. But why is lying brought up every time a woman says she was raped? Is it brought up with mugging victims? Bank robbery victims? Only rape victims are routinely accused of this. I’ve never said that women don’t lie, but I find it disturbing that Bricker is hell bent on proving that she lied, to the point of confusing ‘unfounded’ which means unproven or not enough evidence to prosecute—to mean something entirely more vicious. It’s interesting that you didn’t call him on that.

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.

Show me, please, any indication that this actually happened. Anything’s possible, but what we’ve been presented with is a a limited series of events. By dismissing what the victim said, and offering an alternative explanation, doesn’t that amount to saying she’s not telling the truth? The belief that women cry rape for revenge, as I’ve said, is historic

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, like him, are making assumptions. Why, exactly, does this possibility exist in this case, when there’s already a proven liar in it? And I made the assumption that Bricker is jumping from truth to lie because he is. There’s a huge amount of ground between truth and lie. In rape cases, and discussions of this nature, nothing more charitable than ‘lie’ is ever brought up.

Also, do you mind using my correct name here? What is the deal with that?

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?

Answer my question. Do you leave open the possiblity that mugging victims and so on are liars? Do you actively offer alternative suggestions for what really happened? Do you devote a lot of effort to the possibility that mugging and burglary victims might be lying? Honestly, do you? If you’re not assuming and actively promoting the idea that lying is a possibility in those crimes, then there it would seem to indicate that rape is a special case, where standards are applied to rape victims not applied to other victims.

[Fixed quote tag. – MEB]

[Bricker]

As it happens, I was a defense lawyer - a public defender, no less.

And I do take umbrage at your rude language… it’s not suited to this forum.

I did address the “context” and “history” arguments you made, by calling them irrelevant. Which they are, to the question of whether or not you make room for the possibility that the accuser is lying.

Nor is the widespread police acceptance of feminism relevant to that question. In contrast, the cites I provided above were extremely relevant, however, in that they showed actual cases in which rape accusers lied, then admitted they lied.

As nearly as I can discern, your “feminism” argument seems to be that because there has been such a historical epidemic of blame and shame towards legitimate rape victims, it is inappropriate to question the veracity of a woman who claims to have been raped.

I agree that, historically, rape victims have not been treated well by society, and even by law enforcement. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that jurisdictions did away with the requirement that a rape victim must have been of previously chaste character, and enacted shield laws that made the victim’s past sexual history generally irrelevant. I don’t discount all those facts.

But I do sharply disagree with the conclusion you appear to have drawn from those facts: that questioning a rape victim’s veracity today cannot be done without harming women everywhere. Some women do lie about being raped. And if women are willing to lie to have an excuse for being late to work, out of a fear of pregnancy, as an act of revenge, or any of the other reasons cited by my article above, then it’s certainly not outside the bounds of comprehension that a woman would lie to secure a hefty legal settlement from a wealthy man.

The truth matters greatly to me as an individual. If I am acting as a lawyer, then my job is to vigorously defend my client within the bounds of the law and the canons of ethics. In either event, it’s not relevant to this discussion, which is MAKING ROOM for the POSSIBILITY that the victim here is lying - and which you, despite mountains of evidence showing that sometimes rape victims lie, and the common-sense proposition that sometimes people lie, are unwilling to accept here.

So - get a clue. Get a clue as to the meaning of ‘debate’ - which does not include foul language or personal insult, at least as far as this fourm goes – and get a clue as to the meaning of ‘possibility’, which seems to continue to elude you.

• Rick

[holmes]

*Originally posted by margin *
**
Answer my question. Do you leave open the possiblity that mugging victims and so on are liars? Do you actively offer alternative suggestions for what really happened? Do you devote a lot of effort to the possibility that mugging and burglary victims might be lying? Honestly, do you? If you’re not assuming and actively promoting the idea that lying is a possibility in those crimes, then there it would seem to indicate that rape is a special case, where standards are applied to rape victims not applied to other victims. **

I’ll ask that…depends. If I like this case, there’s a lot of money or revenge to be gained publicly Then yes, i question the motives of the accuser…that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to believe them or that they’re lying, however it would be unrealistic not to take any high profile case, without a grain of salt.

Examples of my questioning other types of crimes would be anypublic case in which a white person accuses a black person of car-jacking and killing either the white person’s spouse and or children.

A mugging victim who is carrying a large sum of money, who ‘happens’ to get mugged. As opposed to Joe Sixpack who is just minding his business.

Any case where the spouse is “out of town” and the other spouse is murdered by an “unknown” black or hispanic man.

Ok margin, I have answered your questions and given examples. How about you?

Is there in your mind any way to prove the innocence of a man accused of “date rape”? If so, how?

[margin]

This statement:

I agree that, historically, rape victims have not been treated well by society, and even by law enforcement. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that jurisdictions did away with the requirement that a rape victim must have been of previously chaste character, and enacted shield laws that made the victim’s past sexual history generally irrelevant. I don’t discount all those facts.

minimizes the prevalence, venom, and continued existance of sexism in the legal field.

What you discount with this statement is that it’s still a valid concern. I’m arguing why, absent any evidence, you cannot assume both the victim and the alleged attacker both are telling the truth. I’ve seen no evidence presented in this case which indicates the victim is lying, and I refuse to treat rape victims in any way differently than I do other victims of crime. If you’re not out there expressing tremendous sympathy toward those unfairly-accused muggers, then get off it.

that questioning a rape victim’s veracity today cannot be done without harming women everywhere

One could actually make the point if this is done as it is in this case, absent any reason to believe such a thing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. With Nembrethil suggeesting alternative scenarios that are far-fetched to say the least, and based on nothing but speculation, one could say that fighting this stereotype that women lie is in fact necessary. According to Still Unequal by Lorraine Dusky, injustice to women, and sexist attitudes remain rampant in the justice system. Laws were passed, as you indicate. However, laws must be enforced to be effective, and Dusky and various other reserchers have found that this is not being done with any consistancy. This book, incidentally, takes on the frequent use of the term ‘unfounded’ to cast doubts at rape victims, and is five years later than at least one of the studies you cited. I’m assuming of course, that you would read everything on the subject of rape, historic or otherwise.

[cole_burner]

I don’t think Bricker is assuming anyone is either telling the truth or lying. He is just pointing out that there are possibilites that range from lies all the way to truth. You don’t accept the possibility that she is lying. He accepts all the possibilities, from lies to truth.

I don’t get why you’re talking about studies, unless you have a study that shows that women never lie, then you have to admit it’s possible that this woman is lying. Why can’t you just do that, it would make your other points be coming from a reasonable person and not a loony. What does the fact that women are “still unequal” have to do with the possibility that this one woman is lying?

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by margin *
… minimizes the prevalence, venom, and continued existance of sexism in the legal field.

Maybe the legal world is rife with sexism, and maybe it’s a veritable playground of egalitarianism. What relevance does that have to the point?

What you discount with this statement is that it’s still a valid concern. I’m arguing why, absent any evidence, you cannot assume both the victim and the alleged attacker both are telling the truth.

Who says I can’t? I’m happy to assume the victim and the attacker are both telling the truth. In fact, my working assumption right now is exactly that.

What relevance does that have to the point?

I’ve seen no evidence presented in this case which indicates the victim is lying, and I refuse to treat rape victims in any way differently than I do other victims of crime. If you’re not out there expressing tremendous sympathy toward those unfairly-accused muggers, then get off it.

But I am. You show me the victim of any crime in which the purported criminal is wealthy, and I’m automatically going to raise the POSSIBILITY that the criminal charge is false and motivated by a desire for pecuniary gain. Rape, mugging, assault, even negligent driving. I make room for the possibility in all such cases.

I guess that means I can “be on it,” rather than “getting off it,” eh?

One could actually make the point if this is done as it is in this case, absent any reason to believe such a thing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. With Nembrethil suggeesting alternative scenarios that are far-fetched to say the least, and based on nothing but speculation, one could say that fighting this stereotype that women lie is in fact necessary.

Sorry. I don’t agree. And if you think than an effective way to fight a stereotype is denying self-evident possibilities, then I’d say you’re in for a long haul of unpersuasive typing.

According to Still Unequal by Lorraine Dusky, injustice to women, and sexist attitudes remain rampant in the justice system. Laws were passed, as you indicate. However, laws must be enforced to be effective, and Dusky and various other reserchers have found that this is not being done with any consistancy. This book, incidentally, takes on the frequent use of the term ‘unfounded’ to cast doubts at rape victims, and is five years later than at least one of the studies you cited. I’m assuming of course, that you would read everything on the subject of rape, historic or otherwise.

So what? Of what possible relevance is the assertion that sexism is rampant? How does that affect the possibility that this woman is lying? It’s clear how it affects your inability to accept the possibility – it seems you feel that to admit the possibility is to harm the movement. That’s misguided and just plain wrong.

]Fixed quote tag. – MEB]

• Rick

[Gaudere]

margin:

Fuck off, Bricker. You sound like any defense lawyer defending a rapist. What a condescending little fuckwad you are.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Whoa. Margin, “fuck off” and calling names is NOT ALLOWED in the forum. If you absolutely must, you may start a thread to insult Bricker in the BBQ pit, but posts like yours are absolutely unacceptable here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[cole_burner]

By the way, here I tell the story of how I was falsely accused by a woman of rape and she later admitted she was lying. I didn’t get a chance to ask her what role feminism played in her trying to ruin my life and have me sent to jail for years and years. Maybe I should have tried for a historical context of understanding the feminist framework of her lying to have me arrested, I’ll do that next time. :rolleyes:

[Jackmannii]

holmes, I just want to say: your thread title is marvelous.

Top Ten material.

[margin]

If we treated rape cases like any other crime, history would not be relevant. Nor would placing one case in the context of other cases. Given that the OP seemed to think that rape victims have some duty to correct the rape stigma and that society is just to sit back and observe, history and context are relevant. **Allowing society to be passive means that if rape stigma continues, guess what—it gets blamed on women not working vigorously enough to abolish it. It doesn’t get blamed on people who either passively or actively promote it. **

This isn’t the first time a rape victim has gotten bashed. Is Bricker seriously denying that it happens? Because this quote:

I agree that, historically, rape victims have not been treated well by society, and even by law enforcement. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that jurisdictions did away with the requirement that a rape victim must have been of previously chaste character, and enacted shield laws that made the victim’s past sexual history generally irrelevant. I don’t discount all those facts.

indicates that Bricker thinks that this victim bashing is a thing of the past. It’s not, as any of the speculation about this victim makes clear. If I have to maintain the supposition that Kobe Bryant is innocent till proven guilty, then I expect the same for the victim. Bricker wants me to admit the possibility that she could be lying. This is just not a big issue. Please show me debates about how mugging victims and victims of other crimes are routinely accused of lying. I’m totally serious. Has any other crime victim been dismissed with, “A dude scorned?” Or maybe this…

“Rape is a charge that is easy to be made, but hard to be proved, though the accused be ever so innocent”?

And this quote:

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.

Correct me here, please. If you can get the jury to buy it means just that: if you can get them to believe it, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

[margin]

Sigh. Some not any.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by margin *
This isn’t the first time a rape victim has gotten bashed. Is Bricker seriously denying that it happens? Because this quote:

I agree that, historically, rape victims have not been treated well by society, and even by law enforcement. It wasn’t too terribly long ago that jurisdictions did away with the requirement that a rape victim must have been of previously chaste character, and enacted shield laws that made the victim’s past sexual history generally irrelevant. I don’t discount all those facts.

 indicates that Bricker thinks that this victim bashing is a thing of the past. It's not, as any of the speculation about this victim makes clear. If I have to maintain the supposition that Kobe Bryant is innocent till proven guilty, then I expect the same for the victim. 

I can only conclude that you suffer from some sort of reading comprehension problem, margin, since I have explicitly said many times in this thread that I make room for the possibility that the victim is an innocent victim. Haven’t I?

From my post dated 7-24-03, 2:45 PM:

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.

From my post dated 7-24-03, 4:39 PM:

At present, I make room for either possibilty.

*From my post dated 7-25-03, 1:09 PM *:

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.

From my post dated 7-26-03, 11:53 AM:

So my opinion is that Bryant’s accuser is more likely than not to be telling the truth.

You expect the same for the victim? I have given it, several times over, for the victim. How about YOU now give it for the accused?

Bricker wants me to admit the possibility that she could be lying. This is just not a big issue.

In what way is it not a big issue? Do you mean that it’s not important? Do you mean it’s so unlikely that it doesn’t bear mentioning, like a discussion about flipping a coin a thousand times and getting heads every time? I assure you that a false accusation of rape is a big issue. I assure you – AND HAVE PROVIDED CITES ABOVE - that it happens. You have provided nothing expect unsupported rhetoric - not even an admission that the plainly possible is, in fact, possible.

Please show me debates about how mugging victims and victims of other crimes are routinely accused of lying. I’m totally serious.

Again, I question your reading comprehension. Maybe if I phrase it as a quiz, that would help. So… have I made any post in this thread that showed you where a victim of another type of crime might be questioned as to the truth of their allegation? Have I?

Correct me here, please. If you can get the jury to buy it means just that: if you can get them to believe it, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

Sure, that’s absolutely true - for purposes of criminal defense.

What of it?

• Rick