The Washington Post reported that the United States Supreme Court heard argument yesterday on whether school officials have the right to strip-search a 13-year-old female student to find a prescription medication. The article summarized questioning by the Justices, and noted the following:
"[Justice] Ginsburg was also the toughest questioner of [Phoenix lawyer Matthew W. Wright, representing school officials and the school district], calling the events of the day 'humiliating' for Redding and saying school officials searched her on the basis of the other girl's accusations 'with no questions asked at all.'"
Hmm, strip searched on the basis of another girl's accusation. Sounds pretty awful, doens't it? That one person could have such power over another person -- to use the apparatus of the state to humiliate her by forcing her to be strip searched.
Now where have I heard of such things routinely happening? Except no one complains about them aside from a handful of us?
Wait! I know! The false rape context!
Like the man who was forced to undergo a full medical exam on the basis of nothing more than a woman's accusation, and then two weeks of hell. Turns out the woman lied he had raped her because she was afraid of what her boyfriend might do if he found out they were having an affair.
Or the cab driver who was arrested and subjected to an intimate medical examination on the sole basis of a lone woman's accusation. Thankfully, modern technology -- here a video camera -- showed the woman turn into a "victim" only when police were coming.
Or the innocent 27-year-old ex-husband who was arrested, strip-searched, forced to give intimate samples, and held for 16 hours -- this unspeakable humiliation was caused entirely by the false accusation of his ex-wife.
Or the innocent 20-year-old ex-fiance of a false rape accuser who was arrested, put in a cell, and forced to have an intimate swab taken, as well as DNA, fingerprints, a cheek swab and a photo.
Or the innocent cab driver who was arrested on the basis of a false accuser's word, and taken into custody where intimate samples, DNA and fingerprints were taken.
Or the innocent man who was a complete random stranger to his false rape accuser who was arrested, held in a cell for 22 hours, interviewed and given an intimate forensic examination.
Or the two innocent men who were arrested on the sole basis of a false rape accuser's word, forced to undergo medical examinations and to give intimate samples before being released on bail.
And I could go on and on. Those are just a handful of recent cases where young men were subjected to bodily humiliations, all because someone accused each of them of a vile sex crime.
I agree with Justice Ginsburg about the girl in this case, but I can't help but think -- why is there no outrage for the falsely accused men who are routinely humiliated in far worse ways -- on the basis of nothing more than one false accuser's word?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
While I have no doubt that what school officials did amounts to an abuse of power, they at least had a reason to want to look inside the girls clothing.
However, remembering back to the case of the case of the ex-husband forced to undergo a body-swabbing - days after the alleged incident, it seems clear to me that often the humiliating searches/exams given to falsely accused men do not even have the appearance of being a worthwhile exercise.
What can a body-swabbing find days later, or even after a shower? Nothing useful. How many guy’s accused of acquaintance rapes, who acknowledge that they had sex with their accuser, are never-the-less forced to strip and have their pubic region “combed”, supposedly in an effort to find the “victims” hairs? Just what would the point be, since the sex has been stipulated to?
Well, obviously that’s just a rhetorical question.
The equally obvious answer is that the men are made to undergo humiliating examination which cannot have any chance of yielding inculpatory evidence for no other reason than to subject the man to humiliation – perhaps in some detectives mind their way of providing a little pre-justice in the thought that they are subjecting the accused to a little bit of “his own” for having humiliated the (non-)victim.
But, that’s a clear violation of acceptable practices, and ought to lead to disciplinary action against those who request and those who perform tests with full knowledge that nothing useful could be expected to be found.
Although less egregious than those instance where a DA continues to prosecute/persecute someone they know to be innocent, the persecution of men for no other reason than the “sport” of their humiliation should garner stiff sanctions for those who freely choose to abuse the power of their positions.
So, yes, we can feel badly for a 13-year old girl who’s made to disrobe in a search for drugs (as if a young girl would even think to need to hide prescription analgesics in her underwear); with the understanding that the circumstance certainly did not justify going to such ends.
Likewise, we can readily understand that likewise, in many, many instances where men are subjected to needless humiliations, given the circumstance, the supposed ends (finding evidence which there is a 99.9999% chance will not exist, or will be of no evidentiary use) simply do not justify the mean-spirited means. And, sanctions against those who’ve abused their power and authority are rightly deserved in all such cases.
Very interesting post, slwerner. Excellent.
In addition I'd say this: even in those instances where there is some reasonable necessity to do an intimate body exam on a male accused of rape, this is merely another indignity that needs to count for something when the false accuser is outed and the police and prosecutor are considering whether she should be charged. It also needs to count for something when she pleads guilty or when she's convicted and it's time to sentence her.
Right now these indignities are routinely chalked up as nothing more than a necessary part of the process that could not be avoided. As in, "oh, well, we need to do this in order to convict rapists."
If they really need to do it, then SHE needs to pay the price for it at the time she's nabbed for making a false report. In crude terms, men shouldn't be forced to let some stranger examine their dicks just because some lying woman decided to screw them over.
SlWerner and Archivist, you have both made excellent points. When a male is accused of committing any crime(s) against a female and state prosecutors see fit to keep the " male in jail ", they can also hide behind many excuses including "due process" as they comprehend it," we are making sure there is no more evidence or making sure their is no evidence investigators may have missed ". These were excuses the state prosecutors here in Tennessee used for keeping me in jail ,after a thorough investigation discovered my accuser had lied about me having a gun. I find it outrageous that males are forced to endure being humiliated by having to allow their bodies to be invaded all because a woman wanted to play victim. It is equally outrageous to know that these males, after having to suffer such BS , do not even so much as recieve an apology from their accuser's or those who were hell bent on putting them in prison and destroying their lives, their reputations, their carachters, their senses of security and well being. What kind of nation is this ,that ignores the rights of it's males while jumping everytime a female claims to be a victim. A nation that seeks to destroy any male simply accused of commtting a crime against a woman? What? Do we not matter?
There is also the matter of us males paying taxes but, not offered the decency of having our word equally considered and taken seriously.
Ruth masturbator Ginsberg is a feminist moron.
I think a lot of the outrage that many people are feeling about the female victim is that she was a child.
If someone is strip searched at the airport on suspicion of having explosives or drugs, then that is just part of the process and I don't know how many people are outraged by that.
If there is any use in searching people accused of rape, then I think many people would consider it the same as the airport example - as part of an investigation it's necessary.
If there isn't any use, then it's just police harassment (if they know it's useless) or bad police practise, if they don't.
The outrage that the Justice was expressing was over taking the word of an accuser without anything more. This is what routinely happens with rape claims -- full blown forced physical exams, not looking for specific evidence but fishing so that "maybe" they'll find something to nail the poor bastard. In most of these cases, they are quicker to subject to male accused to this humiliation than to review existing video feeds that prove the woman or girl was lying.
Post a Comment