Would you consider it rape if the genders were reversed?
In other words, if it was the male who ignored the female’s requests to stop, and held her by force just long enough to finish, would that be rape?
Finishing isn’t relevant. I see nothing about the law that has anything to do with gender. A woman can rape a man, even though it’s rare. It’s still rape and nothing about the law is changed. If it is rape when done to a woman, it’s rape when done to a man. Where’s the gender bias here?
So do you, or do you not, consider that scenario to be rape? I never said there was a gender bias in the law.
No, it’s pandering to feminism, so there is no mischaracterization.
I will concede you that point, but it comes from the same mindset that subscribes to the policy of protecting the identity of an alleged victim. When only in the allegation stage, why is it that the accuser’s identity is protected, when the accused’s identity is not? See any undertones of the feminist agenda there? See any degree of unfairness?
No, it dealt with a man wanting to stop, but was restrained by the woman. And, no, the man would not be legally free from the obligation of supporting the “choice” that the woman makes. The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled:
The typical feminist response is, “You play, you pay” or " When you agree to have sex, you agree to the consequences", of course, those are just the rules that men have to abide by.
Ah, yes, the feminist agenda. That word–usually used with ‘homosexual’ has such a nice conspiratorial tone to it. Whereas people who deny that rape victims get bashed, and that revealing their identities or sexual past has anything to do with the under-reporting of rape have no agenda.
margin, once again I feel I must protest your method of debate - the one where you jump back and forth between different subjects, but string the jumps together as though you are discussing the same event.
In the post above, it’s unclear whether you’re discussing the trial evidence presented by the defense, or the articles published by newspapers about the accused and accuser. You say, “Smith was defended by Roy Black, who never explicitly went into the victim’s past, but still managed to work in a portrait of her as some kind of unstable social climber,” which suggests that you’re discussing his evidence at trial, but then you immediately begin talking about the pieces done by the New York Times - which, of course, are not evidence, and were not presented during the trial.
Finally, this being Great Debates, I’m going to ask you for a citation for the claim that juror Lea Haller “…led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations.” If she got her information from somewhere other than the trial, this was certainly improper. What’s your evidence that this occurred?
- Rick
My source is A Woman Scorned by anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday, in which she quotes Roy Black as petitioning Judge Mary Lupo for permission to examine Patricia Bowman’s psychological records, as well as telling news reporters that he ‘had strong and compelling evidence that Bowman was psychologically or emotionally unstable.’ He also claimed that she suffered from ‘a deep resentment of men’ and encouraged the jury to examine her bra, panties, and pantyhose in open court. The New York Times article which I cited got most of its damaging evidence from so-called ‘anonymous’ friends.
Given that rape shield laws have been called into question as a symptom of some agenda rather than as a response to bias, and that defense lawyers are so instrumental in making them necessary, it’s relevant to discuss the shady methods they use to work their way around said laws.
Lea Haller was quoted by Lynn Hecht Schafran as saying of William Kennedy Smith in The Importance of Voir Dire, “I think he’s too intelligent and good-looking to have to resort to violence for a night out,” page 26. She’s quoted extensively there, including comments which indicate her mind was made up very early in the trial, if not before the trial. She later appeared with Black on Donalue and subsequently married him. Schafran also wrote the informative There’s No Accounting for Judges,
and as well as numerous articles for Trial, various magazines, and at least one federal agency on the subject of discrimination against women in the courts.
That’s quite a lengthy response, margin. Unfortunately, it is utterly devoid of the cite I requested: Lea Haller “led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations.”
Where might I find documentation concerning that claim?
- Rick
The Importance of Voir Dire. Lynn Hecht Schafran, as noted here:
Some material on this case may also be found in Still Unequal by Lorraine Dursky.
** Razorsharp: **
reply by Clark K:
An interesting exchange which deserves stressing, as this sort of attitude appears common in discussions of this type.
There are several possibilities I see.
The first is that you believe “I think he’s too intelligent and good-looking to have to resort to violence for a night out,” is fairly described as “a tragedy” of the Kennedy family. I do not agree. If you based your claim on this line, I reject it.
The second is that you believe “…comments which indicate her mind was made up very early in the trial, if not before the trial,” somehow include “tragedies” of the Kennedy family. These comments may support your position, or they may not. Without knowing what those comments were, it’s unclear if they referred to tragedies that the Kennedy family suffered. Even more important, there is no evidence that she “led the jury in discussions” of the Kennedy family tragedies. If you believe this constitutes a cite of that proposition, it does not.
Nor does “some discussion of this case” constitute a cite.
So, I ask again: what evidence do you have for the claim you made that juror Lea Haller “led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations?”
If the only evidence you have is that juror Haller said that Mr. Kennedy was too intelligent and good-looking to have to resort to violence for a night out, that is not sufficent.
If the only evidence you have is that juror Haller made comments that indicated her mind was made up before the close of evidence, that is not sufficient.
Neither of those facts, if true, are the same thing as showing that juror Haller “led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations?”
So, margin: please provide a cite for your claim that juror Haller “led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during jury deliberations.”
Thank you.
- Rick
In A Woman Scorned I see references to interviews with jurors Thomas J. Stearns, Samuel Celaya, and Haller herself, during which they described their feelings about the Kennedy family, and how they wept at the tragedies of the family. According to Haller, 'the evidence just wasn’t there. The testimony of the three other women had no relevance on the case." I can’t find the exact quotes, which appear in the Schafran book.
As well you should, because it ought to be pretty clear that it was used to indicate that in addition to spouting crap about how attractive guys don’t need to rape, Haller went into the jury box determined to acquit the guy.
but then you immediately begin talking about the pieces done by the New York Times - which, of course, are not evidence, and were not presented during the trial.
We’re having a discussion about what rape shield laws do and don’t accomplish. According to razorsharp, they’re a product of feminist agendas. If the New York Times feels compelled to weigh in on the side of the accused, wouldn’t that appear to indicate that such laws are not too strong, but pitifully inadequate?
Off to look for the Schafran now.
This whole bit about William Kennedy Smith doesn’t seem to illustrate much except that people with means (e.g. money and clout) can manage the system better than those without it. In the vast majority of rape cases neither party is likely to possess the means to manipulate the media or hire $1,000/hr attorneys (I don’t know that Kennedy’s attorneys cost that much but I bet they cost plenty and were better than a public defender).
My father (who is an attorney) watched and followed the WKS case closely (ordinarily my dad doesn’t do that but he did in this case for some reason). His opinion was that WKS was likely guilty but that the prosecutor did a truly miserable job. Given the case as presented to the jury he felt they had no alternative but to return a verdict of innocent. In this particular case, if you felt justice wasn’t served, your anger is best directed at the state’s prosecution for fumbling the ball. You can hardly blame the defendant for taking advantage of that even if they are slime.
It would seem more often than not the ‘trial of public opinion’ is lopsided against the defendant. We have illustrations in this thread of people having their life being damaged irreparably by the mere accusation of rape and other examples where it ‘merely’ cost them several thousand dollars. Accusations that later turned out to be wholly untrue (not just someone slipping through a loophole but definitively untrue). I think this is what Razorsharp is on about (although correct me if I’m wrong). There is nothing ‘shielding’ the accused. The main problem with this is that we have an assumption of innocence till proven guilty. Unfortunately even if the defendant is proven innocent the damage from the accusation alone can be very real and lasting. While the law may not see it this way the court of public opinion seems more likely to assume guilt once an accusation has been made.
Put more succinctly I think you have two aspects. The victim potentially getting abused again during trial and the defendant potentially getting abused by the media/family/peers/employer.
I don’t know that there’s much potential about the victim possibly getting abused. I read a fascinating book called, “Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes,” by Helen Benedict, and while she did discuss biased vocabulary in the press, she pointed out that people—journalists and civilians both—were often capable of discussing every kind of bias but that of gender. The resistance was extraordinary.
Also, I don’t know how much that the defendant suffers afterward. Is there any study which verifies this? I do know that there was considerable coverage of the Spur Posse boys being greeted with open arms, and that Mike Tyson is still regarded as being railroaded.
So it would seem there are several things that need to be cleared up:
Do, in fact, acquitted people suffer a stigma after being acquitted?
How bad is it?
And do rape victims still suffer the so-called rape stigma in this day and age?
It seems that the issue of false acquittals must be addressed as well. If the guy was let off because of a technicality, are people entitled to be twitcy about the guy? I mean, look at OJ Simpson. Are we going by strict legality here, or opinion? Is sexism in fact dead and gone?
FWIW, I always thought when Judge Mary Lupo rejected testimony about bad prior acts is when the case seemed to go downhill. Why is it that if a victim’s past is relevent, then the guy’s isn’t?
margin, I don’t suppose you have any remote acquaintance with evidence rules - 404(b) in federal practice and the model code?
I don’t suppose you’re going to answer my request for a cite about the juror leading a discussion during deliberations with other jurors concerning the tragedies the Kennedy family suffered, are you?
And by the way, margin - you ask:
This statement assume facts that are not true.
In general, a rape victim’s sexual hsitory is not relevant.
In general, prior bad acts on the part of the accused are inadmissable for the purpose of proving that the accused acted in conformity therewith.
In other words, you can’t introduce prior bad acts to show that the guy did the same thing this time. That’s not evidence that he did the same thing this time, after all.
However, prior bad acts are admissible for any number of other reasons - to show a common plan, scheme, or motive, for example; to show absence of mistake; to impeach credibility.
Sheesh.
Please stop jumping all over the map here, and try, try, to focus on one particular chain of reason as it relates to one particular event. I beg you.
- Rick
<snip>
Do, in fact, acquitted people suffer a stigma after being acquitted?
How bad is it?
And do rape victims still suffer the so-called rape stigma in this day and age?
It seems that the issue of false acquittals must be addressed as well. If the guy was let off because of a technicality, are people entitled to be twitcy about the guy? I mean, look at OJ Simpson. Are we going by strict legality here, or opinion? Is sexism in fact dead and gone? **
[/QUOTE]
You seem bent on denying that false accusations can and do happen and that even if they do the reult can’t be all that bad. Deciding to finally check it out I was rather shocked at how bad actually may be.
Pretty dramatic so I looked for more info on the study by Eugene Kanin and the following is the best I found (most cites for this were snippets citing his stats without including a significant portion of the study itself)
Not to rely on just one source however there is the following which I think can be considered reputable:
As to studies that show how acquitted people suffer I haven’t found any but I have found TONS of stories and links detailing such cases. The stat above shows that on average falsely convicted men spent 7 years in jail.
Here is a collection of some 15 stories. Read them at your leisure to see how the accusations affected the falsely accused.
I’m not sure what else you want. You can question any of the above if you like but it is clear that false accusations exist and clear that they are very harmful to those so accused. Absolutely NONE of this should be taken to suggest that legitimate claims of rape shouldn’t be prosecuted nor is it meant to demean the very real trauma suffered by those who have been raped (both by the crime itself and the subsequent trial).
What is important here is that there are TWO legitimate sides that need protection. Unfortunately to protect one side more greatly often means the flip-side will lose something in protection. Ultimately this all goes to the OP (oh so far back now) in that I still am not persuaded that the new law protects women in any substantial amount than they were prior to the new law but it would seem to open the door for false accusations wider. In the balance, in this particular case, I do not think it is a good tradeoff that serves the interests of justice.
Just a point: the “metropolitan community” in that study is almost certainly Lafayette, Indiana, my birthplace (it fits the description and Professor Kanin would have had ready access to that community, as he probably lived there). That community may not be typical: there is a very large land-grant university there with a lot of college students. I’d be curious whether those findings hold in a community that does not have a nonresident student population the size of Purdue’s. College students are not a representative cross-section of Americans.
How many of these cases were determined to be false prior to trial? Indictment? Arrest?
Jow many of those recanting victims were pressured into recanting by the police, the perp, the perp’s friends, or others? How many victims falsely admit that they lied solely to avoid being subjected to involuntary commitment? If given a choice between making a false recantation and being stuck in a mental institution for the rest of my life, I would probably lie, and then get the hell out of town as fast as I could. I would lie to the police to preserve my freedom in such an unjust situation. I have no doubt that this sort of thing happens. It may very well happen a lot.
Victims are often grilled by the police more aggressively than perps are. God knows I was when I was raped. I’m certain that the emotional damage I suffered at the hands of my perp pales in comparison to that inflicted by the Austin Police Department.
Follow the link I provided in the study and look under METHODS for some answers as to why they chose the town they did. I see no mention of a college being present but that doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t. However, while spinning about the web I saw one stat that said colleges were believed to have an over 50% false reporting rate. I think I skipped inclusion of that because it was a narrow spectrum ti use as an indicator and I’m (trying to remember) I may have thought the support for the ‘stat’ was weak or non-existant (just tossed out there). I’ll look again for that number if you like.
I do not think the study tries to make the case that their results can be extrapolated to cover the entire US. There are tons of variations across the country that would show numbers all over the place. I think mostly the study was done to show an alarming possibility.
I do not know. The METHODS section says that the officers are NOT allowed to use discretion in deciding whether to acknowledge a rape complaint and must enter it. They also offer teh complainant a chance to take a polygraph if she wishes. It seems to me that Kanin tried to find a police department that tried to be diligent in their job but of course there isn’t enough evidence from what I have provided to say definitively one way or the other.
No way to tell from the bits I have gathered. I haven’t found the entire study published online. One would hope this researcher didn’t have an agenda to prove but it he wouldn’t be the first if he did. Again, we just can’t tell from what is there.
All of that said I DID provide other evidence. Evidence from the FBI showing a 25% false accusation rate only tied to DNA evidence. In this case you do not have police harassing the victim. You have the ‘victim’ going through with the case (often sendingthe men to jail) only to be proven definitively wrong by very strong evidence. This is only where DNA evidence can be used. I think it is reasonable to assume there are instances where DNA for whatever reason isn’t available to exonerate the defendant. So, take the 40% from above and the 25% from the FBI data as your ‘window’ with the answer probably lying in there somewhere. Even at the low end I find a 1-in-4 wrongful accusation rate alarming in the extreme. Chances are it is somewhat higher than that.
If these numbers truly hold-up they should absolutely appall everyone.
Whoops…this sounds like an indictment of the researcher in this case. I meant to imply that it wouldn’t be the first time that a researcher (any researcher) intentionally skewed results to support a particular agenda. I have no idea regarding Eugene Kanin if this is so.