We reported earlier today that football star Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of sexual assault in a civil action. His accuser did not bother to lodge a criminal complaint against him.
Ben Roethlisberger's hometown newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is not naming Mr. Roethlisberger's accuser because, it declares through writer Jonathan D. Silver, "The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette does not name alleged victims of sexual assault." They've even redacted her name from a document filed of public record (the complaint) so that you won't find out something that even the court doesn't care if you know. (Luckily, other publications aren't so constipated or left-leaning politically correct -- they've printed her name without the self-righteous, gender feminist drama of pretending to protect womankind.)
We have frequently discussed the unjust double standard in asymmetrical anonymity: the mere allegation of rape by any female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man's name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation. Men and boys falsely accused of this vile crime have been beaten and killed and have killed themselves; they've been fired from their jobs and lost their businesses; they've lost their wives, their girlfriends and their long-time friends. Rarely do they ever come out of it whole, and for many, the ghost of a false rape claim trails them for the rest of their lives. In contrast, the accuser retains lifelong anonymity, either by law (UK) or, among news outlets, as a courtesy and bow to political forces that insist on it (US).
The double standard of naming the presumed innocent accused while not naming the accuser (who, as every regular reader here knows, could be lying), is typically seen in the context of criminal cases. The persons behind the double standard justify it on the ground that to name the accuser would serve to "discourag[e] . . . victims from coming forward."
We don't want to discourage possible rape victims from "coming forward". . . to do what? Well, for one thing, we don't want to discourage them from reporting a crime that is regarded as the second most serious on our criminal books (after murder) given that such reporting can help bring the alleged rapist to justice, and thereby protect other innocent women. There are arguments justifying anonymity in this instance -- I don't happen to agree with them, but they do, at least, have a semblance of rationality.
So, exactly why should this be applicable to rape allegations made in connection with civil actions where, long after the alleged incident, no criminal complaint has been filed?
The fact is, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and like-minded publications do not want to discourage women from "coming forward" to file civil actions that, if successful, will only enrich the coffers of the accuser and her counsel but will leave the putative rapist on the street where he can rape other women.
What precise public policy interest is served by not naming those accusers who do what they do for themselves? Why does a private complaint involving a private cause of action between private citizens justify such special treatment?
The answer is, it doesn't, of course. It is a bow to political pressures and political correctness by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other newspapers that do the same thing. It is not fair to Mr. Roethlisberger or to the other persons civilly sued for torts based on alleged sexual assault. And it is not fair to other men the anonymous accuser might someday accuse -- they will have a much more difficult time learning that she's a serial accuser if the secrecy of her identity is guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to keep people from knowing he's Superman.
The fact is, asymmetrical anonymity can never really be justified, in either the criminal or the civil law settings. Alan Dershowitz said it best: "People who have gone to the police and publicly invoked the criminal process and accused somebody of a serious crime such as rape must be identified," he said. "In this country there is no such thing and should not be such a thing as anonymous accusation. If your name is in court it is a logical extension that it should be printed in the media. How can you publish the name of the presumptively innocent accused but not the name of the accuser?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
charging and naming false rape acussers would discourage other false rape acussers.
If the public saw how many false rape acussations there are compared to the small percentage that tell the truth...It would diffuse the gender feminist hysteria juggernaut, which gives them extreme cultural power.
We live in an age where the truth is treason.
I assume people around here know Dershowitz is a leftie, isn't he?
Not all of them suck up to feminist pressure.
Right, Norm. Dershowitz cares more about injustice than political ideology.
Correcting injustices, I assume?
Correcting injustices, correct.
Lets be honest, those who question the gender feminist mantra are ex-communicated.
Warren Farrel and Erin Pizzey are just a couple who come to mind.
Anonymity is something that the MSM in this country do because they wish to, not because the have to. It's too bad they don't give the same consideration the those who, according to our judicial system, are "innocent until proven guilty".
So much for the vaunted neutrality of the 4th estate.
The NFL is already siding with the liar, saying that it will "investigate his behavior." What cowards. And they're throwing away a huge asset in this player.
And sorry Andrea McNutty, but your name will be all over the internet.
Omg, TMZ to the rescue! http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1968558/alleged_ben_roethlisbergers_rape_case.html?cat=14
Andrea McNulty is a crazy lady who make shit up -- what a surprise!
Before coming to this website, I never dwelled on the double-standard anonymity when it comes to rape. I never even thought about it, I thought that it was a benefit to the victim.
Now this whole thing has got me thinking. On one hand, I understand completely what you're saying and the logic behind it. On the other, I can still kind of understand why that process still exists. The some of the views, opinions, and thoughts on rape that many people have are still skewed to the point of either true victim-blaming taking place and the assumption of false accusation in some cases, especially when it comes to athletes, popular people in school, famous people, etc. So when someone presses charges and it gets in the news, I can kind of understand the anonymity. But of course there's the false rape accusations and I'm left wondering all over again. I guess in the end I have to agree with you for the most part.
At least, in this case I agree. I mean, everybody's different and crime victims handle things differently, but a civil action instead of a criminal complaint? Are the processes in finding guilt any different than a criminal trial?
Does accusers of any other crime have anonymity?
Anonymity for very non-credible individuals like Andrea McNulty make it look like all rape accusers have something to hide, so feminists really should support eliminating it. The public is going to have a field day with this sociopath.
If people are wondering aloud whether the woman is lying, that is how it should be. "Although it may not be 'politically correct' to question the veracity of a women's complaint of rape, failing to consider the accuser may be intentionally lying effectively eradicates the presumption of innocence."
Dr. Bruce Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associaton, Dec. 22, 2008.
Renee,
I believe, and Pierce may be able to state it more authoritatively, that criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "preponderance of evidence".
Which means in this case, since it appears that the only 'evidence' is her word, and after a year, any bruising/DNA etc., is long gone. Unless Rothlisberger can come up with video evidence, or eyewitnesses, likely, there will at least be a settlement.
The fact that she isn't willing to file a criminal complaint says volumes (to me at least), about motivation and veracity. If she is so certain of what happened, then she should be talking to the police and filing a complaint.
"Although it may not be 'politically correct' to question the veracity of a women's complaint of rape, failing to consider the accuser may be intentionally lying effectively eradicates the presumption of innocence."
Dr. Bruce Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associaton, Dec. 22, 2008.
So in a way while it's "innocent until proven guilty" and it's "liar until proven truthful"?
Not necessarily. To say "I don't believe that" isn't the same thing as calling someone a liar. To say "innocent until proven guilty" is simply to demand objective evidence of a claim before believing it -- and a rape accusation is really the only sort of claim that large numbers of people believe without any proof at all.
But if there is evidence that someone is lying, then yes, they should be called a liar. The McNulty claim is being made under very suspicious circumstances and we're already reading about how she falls in love with imaginary people and then has to go to therapy when they die in her pretend world.
Steve/The Archivist -- you are correct.
So are you, Renee.
Guys,
I'm inclined to believe 'Big Ben' and discount the word of Miss McNulty for one, big reason: this does NOT pass the smell test! One, since he's a famous, successful, accomplished QB (and I think a Super Bowl Champ would qualify, don't you?), Big Ben doesn't have to coerce any woman to sleep with him; all he has to do is snap his fingers, and there will be a bevy of hotties wanting to boff his brains out! Two, a guy of Big Ben's status could get someone WAY HOTTER than Miss McNulty. Anyone see a pic of her? Oh, gag a maggot!
I hope Big Ben doesn't settle. I hope he fights this. I hope he does what he can to have charges pressed against this bitch! This has got to stop!
What I'd like to see is for false accusers to get the same crime that their hapless victims would have gotten; that would be justice! Ah, but that would mean revoking the Pussy Pass, and we can't have that now, can we?
MarkyMark
She'll probably get the "pussy pass" to the pity party, just like all false rape accusers.
What I don't understand is this woman that is accusing Ben her image and name is being shown.
But on other rape cases the accusers name is not released.
Is this because it's a civil suit?
As soon as I heard about this I thought how nice another person gets to sit back and accuse someone of rape and be anonymous.
Then I was shocked to see her name and even picture on tv!
Can someone explain why her name was released?
"So much for the vaunted neutrality of the 4th estate"
The American press has been totally fascist, going at least back to Nixon. The Washington Post (Graham) didn't like him so went all-out after him when Watergate broke. I'm not saying the outcome would have been any different as far as punishment, but the press created the public perception of Nixon the man.
More toward the present day, the press reduced our effectiveness in Afghanistan and in part determined the course of that war. It must be incredibley frustrating to be the commander in chief and have some dud of a reporter with a hair up her ass (Jane Pauley), say "there are reports the war isn't going well..."
The purpose of my two examples above is too show how WAY irresponsible and out of control the press has become. But try fixing that one...hah!! "So you want to censor us?!"
the magic 'c' word used in that context, strikes a nerve even in the conservative camp. Thus are hate-filled pigs like Nancy Grace given free license to wreck peoples lives.
MarkyMark - "a guy of Big Ben's status could get someone WAY HOTTER than Miss McNulty"
I thought this exact same thing.
But, then again, she undoubtedly knows it all too well herself. Despite McNulty's "McNutly" history, in this case it seems to me she is making perhaps the most purely rational yet cold hearted "gambles" she possibly could.
Having had "some" relationship with Roethlisberger, but knowing it would never become any thing more than booty-calls when he's in town (and only so long as her already fading looks held out), she's seems to have made the calculation that this is the time for her to take the gamble on getting one big pay-off.
Obviously, she's playing this one smarter than Kobe Bryant's accuser, and bypassing the hurdles of a police investigation which would have arisen from a rape charge.
Instead, she is simply doing what is often seen in civil law - making a claim primarily intended to force the targeted entity to make the choice to either spend the large sum of money necessary to fight the claim in court, or to save themselves even more money in the long-run by “settling” (aka “buying-off”) . This women has even been so brazen as to name her pay-off price right in her suit.
She’s also made the calculation that by going the civil suit route, she can also avoid criminal charges of false reporting if her gamble doesn’t pan out. And, she can even take advantage of her questionable mental history should a counter-suit ever be filed (she’s just a poor, confused, misguided woman – no jury would find against such a damsel in distress).
To take the devious gold-digging point of view, this tact, and this suit is actually quite intelligent. Little risk, high possible reward, and over “he said, she said” issue of the type that are never easily determined to go one way or the other. She needs only to have him seen as 51% responsible, and she get’s paid. Unfortunately, Roethlisberger’s is quite perilous. He’s actually have a much better chance of being exonerated of rape charges than he will of escaping loss in this one (his defense will likely cost him as much, if not more, than her minimum asking price – a number I’d wager was determined based on what her legal team calculates it would cost him to fight).
Hopefully, she’s not been good at keeping her mouth shut around friends who are also not so good at keeping secrets. I’d guess that if she told any of her “friends” about her scheme, they’d be happy to give her up for a fraction of what she’s asking.
If you don't mind Norm, what then are your views on Nixon and the war? I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, I'm just curious.
And "pussy pass"...what exactly is a "pussy pass"? I highly doubt that there's anything called a "dick pass".
Renee asks - "And "pussy pass"...what exactly is a "pussy pass"? I highly doubt that there's anything called a "dick pass"."
The so-called "pussy pass" is the term given to the tendency to punish women much less harshly for similar crimes than are men. Consider these two names: Debra Lafave & Mary Winkler. They represent literally thousands of examples of women getting off lightly for serious crimes that men, who'd committed the same crime would ever have.
SO, yes, Renee, you're right - there is no corresponding "dick pass".
Obviously, she's playing this one smarter than Kobe Bryant's accuser,
No she isn't. Katelyn Faber played that situation perfectly, and was rewarded with millions. McNutty won't get a dime -- or so I predict. If she wanted to win then she should have gotten a fuckward DA to rubberstamp her accusations first, just like Faber and Mangum.
[let's try that again]
"Katelyn Faber played that situation perfectly, and was rewarded with millions."
Faber's rape claim isn't what got her millions - Kobe's buying her off in her civil suit is what won the day for her.
There was no guarantee that Kobe would be found guilty. There were rumors that Faber had been bragging about "bagging" Bryant before making her rape claim, and had had sex with other men soon after. As time went by, the criminal case against Bryant started to look weaker and weaker. Plus, there was no money to be had (other than victims assistance) even if Kobe was convicted.
She (or, more likely, her enterprising lawyer) realized that the real prize was to be had in a civil suit. By dropping the criminal charge when they did, they could better capitalize on the damage done to Bryant – who had been declared “guilty” early on (But, even that was fading with time).
The "problem" was that Kobe "blinked" and decided that since the real damage (that to his reputation) had already been done, it was better to pay her off and try to limit further damage and the expense of trying to mount a defense.
Faber got her pay-off, but, in the end, the power of her rape claim lay not in the potential criminal prosecution, but rather in Bryant's having been cast as a rapist (He was found guilty in the media, but not in a court of law).
So, McNulty has learned that one needn’t waste time with going to the police with a rape claim when trying to shake down a multi-million dollar celeb, just go straight to civil court - and, more importantly, to the press.
Just a with Kobe, a criminal case can end in a acquittal, which would ruin the chance for a big civil pay-off - so why risk it?
In this, she has made a very sound (if entirely unethical) choice. A criminal charge against Roethlisberger would have been even weaker than the one lodge against Bryant – but the press doesn’t need verifiable, court-admittable evidence. On her claim alone, the NFL was ready to start investigating him themselves.
This is why I still say McNulty played her (weaker) hand better than did Faber. And, more importantly as it applies to all men, why anonymity for the accused is so very vitally important.
I was reading another post about this case and began thinking about something.
Isn't it common for rape victims to not report the crime to the police and file a criminal complaint? And since rape is at times hard to prove, would it make sense for a victim to seek justice through civil action?
This isn't so much about this case as it is about rape victims in general and how they deal with rape when it comes to seeking justice.
Renne - "This isn't so much about this case as it is about rape victims in general and how they deal with rape when it comes to seeking justice."
I disagree. The vast majority of men implicated in rape claims (true or false) do not have assets worth going after.
No, this is about a gold-digger seeking money, and trying to use a claim of rape in the press (against a famous person) to achieve that goal.
Unless Roethlisberger sticks to his guns, fights this, and prevails, you can pretty much count on a flood of subsequent claims being made against others by women looking to cash-in on this scheme (before celebs learn to protect themselves better).
Renee,
Isn't it common for rape victims to not report the crime to the police and file a criminal complaint? And since rape is at times hard to prove, would it make sense for a victim to seek justice through civil action?
So its better to let a rapist walk the streets will less money in thier pocket, than to pursue a criminal complaint and get them in jail and lessen the danger to others? That would be a pretty selfish attitude, IMO.
Another thought that comes to mind. My understainding is that the rape shield laws are not applicable in civil court. Therefore, the accused can bring up anything about the accusers sexual history. Considering how often we hear about how women are 're traumatized' by a rape trial, I would think that a civil case would be the last thing to try.
Unless, of course, money is all it is about.
Slwerner,
Just a with Kobe, a criminal case can end in a acquittal, which would ruin the chance for a big civil pay-off - so why risk it?
I realize it wasn't a rape case, but isn't the exact opposite what happened in the O.J. case? The criminial case ended with an acquittal, but the civil case was won. Maybe a rape case would be different.
"I realize it wasn't a rape case, but isn't the exact opposite what happened in the O.J. case? The criminal case ended with an acquittal, but the civil case was won. Maybe a rape case would be different."
Perhaps what these cases (Kobe, O.J [the murder one], and now Roethlisberger [pending outcome]) are pointing to is that, when it comes to those with fame and money (especially, but not necessarily exclusively), the outcome of a criminal case will have little or no bearing on a civil case.
I would imagine that in Kobe's case, he (and his defense team) ran some mock civil juries and determined that his reputation was so sullied that he stood to loose due largely to inherent biases against him.
If we look back at the criminal case, it was falling apart for the Eagle County DA. Pamela Mackey had already gotten the accused name out (my wife is certain that this was does because Faber was well known as a slut amongst those who knew her, and word of her reputation would spread through the potential jury pool), people were starting to talk, and the choice to drop the case was made with the consideration as to whether the case was winnable.
The decisions of DA's are not beholden to the wishes of an alleged victim - although the wishes of said victim may be considered, especially in rape cases. If the DA truly believed that Kobe was guilty, and that he had a winning case, he could have pressed forward.
So, to my mind, one of two things (or both) occurred. The case had become winnable, in his eyes, or the accuser was no longer willing to cooperate.
Now, in most other instances, one might well assume that criminal charges against a defendant being dropped would damage the plaintiff’s position in any subsequent civil action – but, as I believe you’ve often alluded to, rape charges are a unique situation. A man’s reputation can be ruined by his merely being charged. Kobe had already been tried in the MSM – and declared guilty. A convergence of feminist outrage at any rape allegation, envy of those who gained fame and wealth “easily”, and (I highly suspect) the interjection of racial animosities left far to deep a negative impression for Kobe to have ever hoped to overcome.
I’m quite convinced that her would have been acquitted by trial. But, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt would not be necessary for a civil verdict, and plenty of people would have had an axe to grind wrt their negative impression of Bryant.
As I believe happened with O’J’s civil trial (even though I’m of a mind that he did commit murder), he suffered from a similar negative opinion. Those jurors’ were “ready” to be persuaded of his liability.
For Ben Roethlisberger, it may be a bit better. The accusations against him do not seem to have galvanized the public to the same sort of perfunctory assumption of his guilt (based only my own observations, of course). The plaintiff seems less sympathetic, since, despite the efforts of the The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, her identity was revealed early-on.
Personally, I suspect her legal team knows this and is why they’ve included a relatively cheap by-off amount in their suit.
Given that I believe he’s in a stronger position, I hope that Roethlisberger will choose to fight this (even beyond the cost of the pay-off amount), not only for the sake of his reputation, but for the bulwark his winning would provide for other male celebrities who might otherwise face similar scheming. I say this in the light of understanding that juries can be fickle, and he does stand to loose millions should she manage to prevail (just so my anonymous detractor won’t accuse me of trying to loose him millions with bad advice).
Excellent thoughts.
A convergence of feminist outrage at any rape allegation, envy of those who gained fame and wealth “easily”, and (I highly suspect) the interjection of racial animosities left far to deep a negative impression for Kobe to have ever hoped to overcome.
I would add that this was also exactly what happend with the Duke case. Rich (Or upper middle class) young white men accused by a lower class black woman. The racial and class issues alone had convicted those young men in the press (too bad for all those that wanted them convicted, that the evidence couldn't do the same). :)
The thing that worries me, is that more and more accusers (falsely or not), will start to use this route instead of going through the criminal system. At that point, how many true rapists would be free, and how many falsely accused men would be even more financially punished/devestated.
" how many falsely accused men would be even more financially punished/devestated. "
I suspect that if you asked the gender feminists and radical feminist this, their answer would be; " Not enough"!
There are alot of people in the blgosphere that see through this accuser's story. So fat, there isn't anyone claiming to be a real rape victim and trying to advocate for the accuser in this case.
Hah!...Renee wants to know if I'm a Republican. That way she can invalidate (within herself) any future points I make where politics might come into play.
No Renee, I'm an independent who leans left.
(p.s. she is also trying to figure out if "most MRA's are conservative" or something.)
Post a Comment