Men and boys falsely accused of rape often face an awful dilemma that is rarely discussed and for which I don't think I've ever heard anyone express sympathy: they are forced to reveal a consensual sexual relationship as a necessary part of their defense that is intimate, that may be embarrassing to them, and that is none of anyone's business. The tragic irony is that they are forced to make such revelation solely because they are victims of a terrible crime, false reporting of rape.
Of course, if there was no sexual contact, the falsely accused's defense will be exactly that. He will need to gather alibi evidence to demonstrate that he was elsewhere at the pertinent time, and, hopefully, DNA evidence will bear witness to his innocence.
But if he was engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with someone other than his wife or girlfriend, he is often presented with a terrible choice that is really no choice at all. For their part, women can accuse men of rape and their involvement in the sex act is rarely publicized. That's because accuser's identities will be protected with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to guard Superman's. In the UK, that is the law; in the US, it is ordained by compact of the major news organizations.
But as part of the male's defense of a false rape claim, if he engaged in consensual sex, his choice is either to reveal it (and hope the authorities, or the jury, believe him) or risk going to prison, possibly for many years, for a rape he didn't commit.
The sex act is typically a very personal matter, and the participants usually have no desire to announce it to the world. Often, publicizing it has widespread ramifications that are impossible to predict. Yet the fact that men are forced to reveal this very personal act in order to keep from going to prison for many years is something rarely ever mentioned, much less of concern to many people.
Let's get this out of the way first: men who cheat on their wives are forced to confess it to defend against a false rape claim. Few people -- and let's be honest, especially few women -- have any sympathy for men's forced confessions of infidelity, even when they are made to combat a crime committed against the man (a false rape report). It does seem perverse that women would gleefully deny men the choice that is always available to women -- the choice to reveal their infidelity at the time of their choosing. Men who cheat, you see, apparently do not deserve the same privileges enjoyed by women who cheat.
It is well to note this: an unfaithful woman often cries rape to cover up her unfaithfulness. Professor Kanin's landmark study of false rape claims found 56% of all false claims served an alibi function to "provide a plausible explanation for some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate consequence of a consensual encounter . . . with a male acquaintance." In contrast, the innocent but unfaithful man she falsely accuses must admit his unfaithfulness to keep from going to prison. She uses their illicit sexual contact as a sword to destroy him while he must use it as a shield to preserve his liberty. And even if the shield is successful -- even if he's cleared of the rape charge -- the sword has done its damage. His marriage is often destroyed simply because he was forced to reveal the sexual encounter. Women reading this likely will say "he brought it on himself." But that doesn't account for the gender asymmetry, does it? The fact is, women who cheat are not subjected to a similar fate. How is it acceptable to allow the guilty female to punish the innocent male?
But put the unfaithful man aside. The forced revelation that the man or boy engaged in a consensual sex act often wreaks havoc for single guys as well. It can destroy relationships with casual girlfriends with whom there were no promises of commitment; it sometimes causes estrangement between a young man and his family who might not approve of his sexual activity. A teen's 80-year-old grandmother might not approve of his sleeping with some girl.
The fact is, our sex lives are personal. Contrary to popular myth, men and boys typically don't go around school or work bragging about their "conquests." They typically don't share the details, or even the fact of, their romps with their mothers or their aunts or their sisters or the attendees of the family Christmas party. They typically don't announce to their classmates, teachers, co-workers, bosses, secretaries, or neighbors that they slept with a particular woman the night before.
So why is it somehow acceptable when a man or boy is forced to share this intimate fact with the entire world after he's been victimized by a crime? He is not afforded the anonymity enjoyed by his false accuser. The revelation that men are forced to make to keep from going to prison is often embarrassing and, to put it bluntly, none of anyone's business. I sincerely doubt that if the genders were reversed, women would stand for the public airing of such details.
But, hey, it's just men who are the victims. So, really, who gives a damn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
powerful stuff. good job.
AND . . . the woman is anonymous, so her loved ones don't even need to know about the encounter. But the man must reveal his defense to the entire world that he was fucking a woman who wasn't his girlfriend.
You make a good point about the other relationships. A college girl accuses a guy of rape and her family never knows about it. A boy is accused of rape, and he admits he was boinking a co-ed. The boy's 80 year old grandmother might have a heart attack if she learns her darling grandson is a player. She might even disinherit him.
This is the reason that a man who is falsely accused of rape must play hardball. Step one from the defense should be to subpoena everyone the woman might possibly know to inquire about her mental state and mental health.
"This is the reason that a man who is falsely accused of rape must play hardball."
I agree. He's got nothing to lose that she hasn't already taken from him.
Really? Females never have their personal, private lives on display for all to see and comment upon when they are part of a rape trial? I beg to differ. The accused rapist and his lawyer get free access to her counseling and medical records. They get to know anything sexual she's ever done. And use it against her if they can. Rape shield laws can be easily manipulated. And it seems to me that any guy she's had sex with in her past is ok to bring up, but nothing in his past, not even other rapes, can be brought up (although I'm not entirely certain about that; maybe it depends on the state). And a girl who accuses someone of rape cannot keep that from her family. Come on.
"Rape shield laws can be easily manipulated."
My dear Jeana, why don't you save that crap for someone who doesn't know any better, please. I knew that was wrong 28 years ago when I studied criminal law in law school.
The fact is, you have it completely backwards. Her sexual history is so hermetically sealed that some states don't even allow her prior FALSE RAPE CLAIMS into evidence. She can be a serial false accuser and the jury's not allowed to hear about it. And if she's a PROSTITUTE, that often can't come in, despite its relevance to show consent.
I don't mind good dialogue and, yes, I have been wrong in the past, but what you are asserting is so erroneous that it's not worth discussing.
Oh, p.s. his past is fair game. Have you never read this site when I discuss Fed.R.Evid. 413 and its state progeny? You don't even need to get to 413 to admit his sexual past if it's relevant. Ain't no rape shield laws protectting him.
Pierce, is there anything you can do to block her name or can you delete her name? Enough is enough.
Tell me about it Pierce....
I have a mother / daughter pair accusing me, yeah, OK, I'm a shit for dumping a woman for her daughter, except she dumped me and her daughter (more than willingly) stepped into the "vacancy" as it were.
But yeah, had to discuss it all at the interrogation H^H^H^ interview, along with the sex toys (or, as the police refer to them, "sex implements") and all the rest of it.
Then, joy of joys, you get to tell your entire family circle and friends, maybe 24 hours before they get told on your behalf, and not so politely...
posting (as ususal) anon for obvious reasons.
PS, for you guys thinking hello, mum and daughter eh, bit of a fantasy there, let me tell you, the reality bears no relationship whatsoever to the fantasy.... If I ever meet a guy living with two bisexual twins I'll buy him a beer, and we can swap stories about reality vs fantasy.
cheers
Jeana - "The accused rapist and his lawyer get free access to her counseling and medical records. They get to know anything sexual she's ever done. And use it against her if they can. Rape shield laws can be easily manipulated."
As anyone who's seen your posts for any length of time can attest, you know little enough when you're NOT trying to talk about the law.
You quite obviously know next to nothing about Rape Shield Laws, nor the extremely high standard that must be met in order to "pierce" them.
Pierce (the attorney, not the action of getting through the Rape Shield Laws) alluded to it somewhat, but I know, from the detailed explanation that my wife has provided me that, here, in Colorado, even a proven false rape claim can only be entered into the court record IF the false accuser has been first convicted of that crime in a court of law.
If she was charged, but never tried, any mention of her having made such a false claim is strictly forbidden. Law enforcement and prosecutors would be barred from bring it up by the Rape Shield Laws (Which cover virtually any activity that can, in any way, be linked to sexually related activity), and if a lay witness (i..e a friend of the accused) dared to try to mention it, it would be stricken as hearsay (actually, the instant either a question which might give any opening to it's mention, or any response from the witness which might indicate that they were about to go there, would have the DA up, objecting, and seeking a sidebar conference with the Judge. The witness would likely be hauled into the judges chambers to be warned that any mention of the fact would put them in contempt, and they be arrested forthwith). Great care is given so as to never allow a jury to hear anything about anything related to HER sexual history.
For the guy, on the other hand, it's open season. Even information that he had had prior consensual sex (with anyone) can be used to demonstrate that he had a expectation of getting sex - and therefor is more likely than not to have been predisposed towards rape.
The system is extremely unbalanced against defendants in the case of rape - even prosecutors will readily admit this.
The fact that so few rape trial lead to a conviction should serve to demonstrate just how weak many of the case that are taken to trial really are.
What slwerner said! Oh, Jeana, why not do us a favor and GTFO here! Either that, or the authors of this blog could ban her feminazi ass...
I "alluded to it somewhat"? What the . . . ?
The guy's sexual history has to be relevant in order to be admissible. Rape Shield Laws were designed to keep trials from devolving into a trial of the woman's past history, as previously was common. Everyone, except for loons, agrees they serve a good purpose except in some places they have been applied unfairly.
Rule 413 is the real problem, where applicable. Thank Bob Dole for that and -- ironically -- Joe Biden was its biggest opponent.
P.S. I am sure that everyone who reads this blog knows that I've gone over the rape shield laws in detail in the past.
If a female says that the guy who raped her gave her herpes, the guy and his lawyer can tell the court if she had any STD in her past, can’t they? And use that to talk about past sexual history. Because they have her medical record. And if she talked about any sexual experiences with a counselor, can’t they bring that up too? If she was raped before, they can bring that up and use it against her. I’ve read way too many accounts of terrible stories that happened to females that should not have happened because judges do not always seem to care about rape shield laws. I’ve never once heard about a guy ever having to bring up his past sexual experience, even if he had raped before. And doesn’t a female also have to talk about her sexual experiences with the guy she accused of rape? And describe in detail what he did to her? So why shouldn’t he also have to describe what he claims happened?
This thread was an intelligent discussion about what the victims of false accusations go through. Then Jeana came.
Now the thread is about Jeana. The topic always changes to Jeana's favorite topic -- Jeana!
Oops! I misspoke when I stated - "If she was charged, but never tried, any mention of her having made such a false claim is strictly forbidden."
What I should have said was, "If she was charged and even tried, but never convicted, any mention of her having made such a false claim is strictly forbidden."
That correction made, I'd like to get back to my rant about just how terribly wrong Jeana is about the effect of Rape Shield Laws.
Another of her supposed points was:
"The accused rapist and his lawyer get free access to her counseling and medical records."
Actually anyone who's ever watched a TV show like Law & Order will recognize the idiocy of what she saying. Both counseling and medical records have "privilege" attached to them. And this would apply even if the were no rape involved. In order to even get a peek at them, a motion to the court will have to be made which would have to convince a judge that it was absolutely known that a specific piece of was to be found in the records which had an absolutely critical bearing on the case. In other words, "fishing expeditions" are essentially forbidden - and not just in cases of alleged rape, it, as most everyone knows, applies across the board.
Another point would make is that, even where it is generally known that a woman making a false rape claim has a husband or boyfriend (i.e. she might be lying to cover for her cheating - as is so often the case), if she does not choose to freely mention this fact to a jury, the only way that jury can be allowed to know about him is if his DNA turns up in the same vaginal swab sample as the alleged rapists (actually, it could be any other mans DNA, other than the defendants). This gives the defense a "doorway" to question the DNA evidence, and the presence of "alternate suspect" DNA would then come to be addressed.
It is also worth noting that this would not apply if such "alternate" suspect DNA turned up in any swab sample other than a vaginal one. You see, only DNA (preferably from semen) found in her vagina absolutely proves that she had had sex with another man. Even semen found elsewhere on her person can be argued to have gotten there in another way (much as such explanations might strain the imagination), meaning that another man's DNA need not be explained, and the jury will be left with impression that the alleged victim is completely asexual.
Yet, any DNA of the alleged rapist found anywhere on her person, being evidence of the two of them have some close intimate contact, is considered to be evidence supporting the possibility (nay, probability) of rape.
Unfortunately, the list of potential misuses of Rape Shields are far too numerous for me to even hope to list.
Perhaps Pierce has a few select favorites?
As long as the gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation alliance continues to give the public misinformation about the true percentages of false rape acusations..Americans will never get the proper perspective on the current mass hysteria, rape hysteria.
Jeana, you are wrong about the rape shield laws. Don't have time to give you a tutorial -- plenty of sites will do that for you.
"If a female says that the guy who raped her gave her herpes, the guy and his lawyer can tell the court if she had any STD in her past, can’t they?"
Um, why would the herpes be relevant? If it's relevant and admissible, then of course he must be permitted to refute it -- if we want a fair trial. Whether her past would shed light on that issue, I don't know.
"And doesn’t a female also have to talk about her sexual experiences with the guy she accused of rape?"
Rape Shield laws wisely only pertain to alleged sexual encounters with third parties, not the man she accused. The accused is permitted to question her about THEIR prior sexual history, or else a husband accused of rape would not be allowed to say that THEY'VE BEEN FUCKING EVERY NIGHT FOR THE FIVE YEARS THEY'VE BEEN MARRIED!
Excuse my radical feminist language. But this is insultingly stupid.
"And describe in detail what he did to her?"
Just as the victim of a robbery or the theft of a pack of gum would have to describe what happened to them, yes, of course.
"So why shouldn’t he also have to describe what he claims happened?"
Because of the Constitution, Jeana. I know that's something you and your uber-radical feminist friends don't think should apply to men accused of rape. An accused person has no duty to take the stand (except that when Rule 413 is used against the man, he will have to take the stand or he'll likely go to prison).
Pierce Harlan - "I "alluded to it somewhat"? What the . . . ? "
You mentioned the inadmissibility of prior false rape allegations as evidence for the defense.
To refresh your memory, you stated: "She can be a serial false accuser and the jury's not allowed to hear about it."
You did not go into detail, so I was pointing out that, in Colorado, at least, the only way in which a woman's prior false allegation could be presented to a jury would be for her to have been convicted in a court of law so that the "evidence" of that crime would be admissible.
To update: in verifying what I'm contending, I checked with my expert (my wife) who corrects me thusly: A mere conviction of making a false rape claim IS NOT sufficient to pierce the Rape Shield. What is actually required is what id termed "Proof In Fact" - an even higher standard to meet.
From the pertinent Colorado Supreme Court ruling:
"The offers of proof provided by the defense as part of their motion to pierce the rape shield statute are insufficient to warrant a convening of a rape shield hearing. The defense would need to provide an affidavit accompanying an offer of proof which would show that the alleged victim made multiple prior or subsequent reports of sexual assault that were in fact false. People v. Weiss, 133 P.3d 1180, 1181 (Colo. 2006)."
And, further, I'm not arguing against the rape shield laws themselves - in fact, as I stated before, they serve a very real and vital purpose in protecting victims. Still, at the same time, they clearly preclude potentially exculpatory evidence simply because they have set the bar so high for the admissibility of such evidence.
As you yourself have stated, "Her sexual history is so hermetically sealed that some states don't even allow her prior FALSE RAPE CLAIMS into evidence."
Perhaps you misunderstood my point? I certainly did not mean to argue against what you had already stated - I was just pointing out some specific examples of same, which I had heard about occuring.
No, I'm not arguing with you, I'm kidding you. You're really doing a great job explaining things. (Somehow, I suspect it won't matter to one person.)
The rape shield laws exist solely to make it easier to convict innocent men. They are not needed to protect legitimate victims. Nobody cares about a woman's sexual history.
slwerner and the other guys,
as some of you probably alread know from other boards, a standard arguing tactic of jeana's is to try and 'blow' something by us, like the line of shit she just gave about rape shield laws. It's almost as if she's hoping we're stupid enough to have bought it, and thus not really notice it. Unfortunately, it is only she who is the dumbo on this board.
Norm - "as some of you probably alread know from other boards, a standard arguing tactic of jeana's is to try and 'blow' something by us"
One more comment, then I will stop feeding the troll...
One thing she seemed to do quite frequently (at Glenn Sacks blog) when she challenged on some idiotic notion she'd spewed out, asking her to provide some proof/reference/example of her wild claim was to respond that she had read it somewhere (but, typically, could remember where she had read it).
So, it was hardly any suprise to read this from her:
"I’ve read way too many accounts of terrible stories that happened to females that should not have happened because judges do not always seem to care about rape shield laws."
Really, Jeana!? As has so often been asked of you, give us one link (just one measly link) to such a story that you've read somewhere so that we can determine if it has any merit (hint - an account of someone, who knew someone to whom such an injustice happened, posted anonymously at a hale-hating feminist site isn't going to carry much weight).
Come on Jeans! If any judge, any where had ever decided to ignore the Rape Shield Statutes, it would have been big, big news - feminists picketing, and all that - which the media would love to have covered, and even devote a special "investigative series" to uncovering the Misogyny in Our Courts"
And with that, I now apologize to one and all for wasting time addressing Jeana (as if she'd post a rational response, and not just a serious of her typical nonsensical blather about how evil men are and how bad she and her fellow women have it).
I assure you, I won't do it again.
slwerner, you keep contributing any time you see something that needs to be said. I like it when we use the comments of uber radical gender feminists as a teaching moment. Their comments are akin to tossing one underhand to Ted Williams. The one thing that I've learned about their movement is that there aren't too many (if any) smart people involved in it, because, wow!, are they terrible at crafting arguments.
"slwerner, you keep contributing any time you see something that needs to be said. I like it when we use the comments of uber radical gender feminists as a teaching moment."
What i meant was that I will not be responding directly to Jeana. I didn't mean that I would bring up examples, or even the text of laws and court rulings to show her errors.
I wouldn't want her to succeed in "planting" to wrong ideas.
But, it isn't as if I'm always going to get it "right" either.
In reviewing something I posted yesterday, "information that he had had prior consensual sex (with anyone) can be used to demonstrate that he had a expectation of getting sex..." was something that was attempted to get around CO 404B evidentiary rules (like Federal 413) tried, but not upheld by the court.
What IS allowed to be used as negative character evidence against a man is if a pattern of his use of coercion and pressure to attain "consensual" sex can be shown via timely outcries from his partners (in laymen's terms, the women he has sex with complained to their friends about the way he made them feel that they had to have sex with him, or that he was physically aggressive in his pressuring them to have sex). That would demonstrate that he had a propensity to get sex via increasingly forceful means.
(I'll try to get the CO Court of Appeals reference if anyone has any specific questions, or feels I'm not getting the meaning of set precedents straight)
Posted anonymously (and cowardly so) - "Kanin's study is a load of shit.
And the guy shouldn't have been having an affair in the first place."
So, then...
Can we expect to see your full refutation of the study?
No?
Well, then, how about a few key arguments?
Still no?
Just your heartfelt opinion that you just don't like what it concludes?
Okay, I guess we'll go with that.
Thanks fro your input.
Say...
In all though cases where women have been found to have been lying about being rape so as to cover up fro the fact that they were cheating, would you say that the woman shouldn't have been in an affair in the first place, or would you contend that is at fault for engaging in an affair with a married woman?
I'm guessing that you'd prefer to go with the latter, since it would better fit with your radical man-hating gender-feminist idea of men = bad, women = good?
Unlike "researchers" such as Liz Kelly and her ilk who have long fanned the flames of hysteria about men and rape, Professor Kanin had no political axe to grind with his studies.
In fact, he was highly respected in the feminist community before his false rape studies.
His studies on male aggression and acquaintance rape in the 50s and 60s made him a pioneering feminist icon, a sociologist whose writings were quoted without question. See, e.g., "I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report on Recognizing, Fighting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape" (1994) at pages 13, 43, 86-87.
All that changed when people started publicizing Kanin's false rape studies from the mid-90s.
You see, Kanin went from being a serious social scientist whose pronouncements were not to be questioned to a complete nitwit who had no idea how to conduct objective and impartial research.
The recent study of Liz Kelly in the UK is touted among hard-core gender feminists as Gospel. They don't bother to mention that she has a history of writing things like this: "Sexual violence includes any physical, visual, verbal or sexual act that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or assault that has the effect of hurting her or degrading her and/or taken away her ability to control intimate contact."
Professor Kanin, on the other hand, is viewed as a traitor to the feminist cause -- because feminists don't like the results of his objective false rape studies.
If his report, written with objectivity by someone with unquestioned feminist credentials, can be attacked by gender feminists as it has been, it only underscores the vacuity of the feminist movement -- a movement that has no interest in facts that interfere with the feminist agenda.
And p.s. anonymous defamer, Kanin's second study at a major university -- wasn't "tainted" by polygraphs. That study yielded a 50 percent false rape claim rate.
Go to hell.
I am making an exception to our policy about not deleting posts. I won't have Prof. Kanin defamed. I am deleting a post that started with this sentence:
"Kanin's study is a load of shit."
The second sentence is not pertinent to what we do here and is libelous.
Pierce/Slwerner/Norm,
Keep in mind that the same type of ostracism happened to Erin Pizzey with the DV shelter she opened back in the 70's. She was insisting on catering to both men AND women who were victims of DV, and that didn't set well with the Feminist mantra. If you go to the site for that shelter, you will find no mention of Pizzey anywhere.
"Follow the mantra, or we will actively work to destroy your credibility and life's work."
This should be the industries motto.
jeana - Tegan Wagner thought it utterly unfair that the jury in her case weren't told her rapists were already doing time for other rapes. But the reason the jury isn't told is so they're not prejudiced against the accused at the start of the trial.
In her case, one of the accused stood up in the middle of one of the sessions and shouted that they (the 3 "K brothers" as they're known) were already convicted rapists. The trial of the other two was halted, but not his. His own stupid actions prejudiced the jury, and instead of being found guilty of only one or two of the charges against him, he was convicted on all four.
Yes, Tegan went through some awful cross-examination (they made it out like she was a tart), but when it was over and she realised she could speak her mind at last, she told the brothers exactly what she thought of them in a courtroom still packed with reporters.
Yes, I admire her. She's got guts. She did the hard yards and came out on top instead of whining on about how she was such a victim.
The one thing I don't like about excluding prior convictions is that in cases involving a defendent with NO convictions, the jury might think that he DOES have convictions that it isn't hearing about.
A clean criminal history should always be considered bigtime evidence in favor of the defendent.
Anonymous said...
The one thing I don't like about excluding prior convictions is that in cases involving a defendent with NO convictions, >>the jury might think that he DOES have convictions that it isn't hearing about.<< IMHO, That is the ideaor,theory some prosecutors (especially feminist prosecutors) use to sway a jury to find the accused ,guilty
Post a Comment