Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Rape accusation against college athletes treated as if rape likely occurred

So, you think big time athletes accused of rape are invariably believed, excused, or given a free pass because they are athletes?

Can you say "Duke Lacrosse"?

In fact, you need not even go back as far as the Lacrosse case, when virtually the entire country assumed "something" must have happened in the "rape" house. In fact, you need not go back further than today. A prosecutor decided not to bring rape charges against three University of Arkansas players for an alleged incident at a fraternity due to a lack of evidence. But the frightening aspect to the story was the reaction to the initial, sparse report that three players were being investigated for rape. I've collected the pertinent articles, including a You Tube link of a television news story, here. Let me put it all in perspective:

When the story broke, a local television station actually cut into the regular programming to provide a four-plus minute breaking news report on the fact that an allegation was made. You heard that right: they cut into regular programming the way a reporter might cut in to tell us about a plane crash or that fact that a very important person had died. This station cut in to tell us that three young men were being investigated for rape -- not charged, investigated.

At At 3:30 into the television news report, the reporter reminds people about the Duke Lacrosse scandal. But then in the very next breath he made this bizarre comment: ". . . that three basketball players are involved doesn't speak well for what's happening with the University of Arkansas basketball program."

Do you get the implication? There's a problem with the program. He could not have said that if he believed the charge was false. Incredible, after he just finished reminding people after the false charges at Duke.

Worse are comments under the You Tube story. Someone wrote this: "And it begins again. . . . . I remember when several of Nolan’s players were under investigation in the 80s-90s. What is up with athletes thinking they can get away with this shit?" And later when it was announced that no charges would be filed, the same commentator wrote this: "No charges filed. What a shocker."

Nice, isn't it, that a commentator has taken it on himself or herself to adjudicate this case without bothering to know a single fact? That, of course, is an ingenious way to save taxpayers the expense of a silly old trial.

After it was announced that the players were being investigated, ArkansasSports360 reported the following: "Northwest Arkansas' KHBS/KHOG 40/29 is reporting that three Arkansas Razorback basketball players are involved in a rape that occurred at a campus fraternity house late last month."

Did you get that? Not an "alleged" rape, but "a rape that occurred." It is reported as a fact that rape occurred.

SEC Talk Forum put up this post: "Arky players in trouble." Their story starts as follows: "An ugly story is developing in Northwest Arkansas today."

"Ugly," because apparently a rape occurred. Not "ugly" because the claim might be false.

And then, even when the charges were dropped, a reporter wrote this: "The victim's attorney, John Bass, has told 5news earlier that he had been working with the Washington County Prosecuting Attorney's Office on the now closed investigation."

She's "the victim" even though there is insufficient evidence of a rape. Never mind that such a description does a grave disservice to (1) the presumed innocent who were, at that point, no longer even accused of rape. By necessity, they must be guilty if their accuser is, in fact, a "victim"; (2) actual rape victims, because we trivialize rape when we include among its "victims" women who might only be false accusers; and (3) the readers of the news story in question, who were entitled to accurate reporting but received something less than that when the reporter transformed an accuser into a "victim."

So there you have it. The mere accusation of rape against three college athletes was treated with an importance, a solemnity, and a gravity consistent with the likelihood that a rape occurred. It was as if the entire basketball program had been indicted. The allegation was not dismissed out of hand, nor was it treated cavalierly. The veracity of the unnamed accuser was not questioned. The story was covered as if the players were likely guilty. And that was by no means fair to the Arkansas basketball program or, specifically, the three players investigated.

Link: http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/09/no-rape-charges-vs-u-of-ark-basketball.html

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing will challenge current rape hysteria...but the truth, and the gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance find it too "profitable"..to give us the truth.
END THE VIOLENCE, BREAK THE MISINFORMATION ALLIANCE!!!

Anonymous said...

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and guaranteed all citizens a fair trial, they couldn't have envisioned the modern tabloid media, which always poisons the jury pool in cooperation with the police.

If they had then they would have designed the system in such a way that would have prevented this. We can't pretend that what goes on in the press has nothing to do with whether or not the defendent gets a fair trial.

gwallan said...

Why does the "victim" have an attorney?

Pierce Harlan said...

Gwallan, excellent question. That is odd, isn't it?

Norm said...

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or anything, but I am kind of wondering how to reconcile all this with what some other guys have said on this board like (paraphrasing), "the public is starting to recognize these false accusations have been going on", "people are starting to wise up", etc...sorry, but there is absolutely no way to reconcile either of those statements with what the public's attitude has been in this case. Unless someone is prepared to say "Arkansas is different" or something, then the overwhelming evidence is that either the public still doesn't have an inkling, or they just don't care. (actually, it's probably even more accurate to say that the public is even more gleeful now about going after guys than they were ten years ago.)

Anonymous said...

The public is obviously ambivalent. I think that there are more people asking questions about cases like this, but still plenty of people who are happy to schedule the hanging well before the trial.

Anonymous said...

Norm and Anon, I have a feeling both of you are correct. Anon, the first poster, you made an interesting and insightful observation regarding the tabloid media. We should also consider the mainstream media's ability to sway the opinon(s) of both the public and the jury of the accused's "peers".

gwallan said...

@Pierce...

The correct answer is "civil suit in the offing".


"Northwest Arkansas' KHBS/KHOG 40/29 is reporting that three Arkansas Razorback basketball players are involved in a rape that occurred at a campus fraternity house late last month."

You are correct to draw attention to the implication of the word "occurred". However I would point out that their use of "involved" is as verb. They are saying the three concerned are rapists.

The players should be seeking legal advice.

slwerner said...

Anonymous "The correct answer is "civil suit in the offing"."

On a recent thread about Ben Roethlisberger's case, trollette Renee posted a link to this crap:
Why the Charges are Civil (and Why That Doesn’t Mean She’s a Lying Golddigger)

If one reads it, it sets out to offer some plausible reasons, but, ultimately places it's main focus on the fact that it's the best way for a woman to get "paid".

Unfortunately, I can see nearly limitless potential for abuse in this regard, and highly suspect that we will be seeing a rash of straight-to-civil-court rape claims in the near future.

Some point that the linked article "forgets" to mention:

*If there is no police report, there is no police investigation.

*If there is no crime charged, there is no need to prove that any crime happened. Potentially, a woman would not even need to actually have sex with the man she's trying to swindle - the jury need only conclude that such sex could have taken place, and could have been forced.

And;

*By forgoing the criminal route, third parties with "deep pockets" (like, say, Universities who have basketball programs) can be included in law suits.

Despite the effort the linked article makes to portray "valid" reasons to forgo the criminal complaint, it's real intent - to get women more money - remains quite apparent.

Anonymous said...

There is no reason for a victim to avoid filing criminal charges, unless she is a liar who is too cowardly to face cross-examination. This golddigger wanted to settle out of court without risking being exposed as a liar.

Anonymous said...

Here is some more bullshit from the "victims rights law center":

"Sexual assault causes a powerful ripple throughout a victim’s life. Rape threatens a victim’s privacy, her education, housing, employment, immigration status and financial security."

Uhhh, I think they're confusing sexual assault with another crime, that really does have those effects. Let's change it so that it makes sense:


False rape accusations cause a powerful ripple throughout a victim’s life. False rape accusations threaten a victim’s privacy, his education, housing, employment, immigration status and financial security.

Anonymous said...

MENS REALITY QUIZ #2

Q: Why would any woman knowingly falsify a rape?

A: Because she can.

Anonymous said...

For the same reason dishonest little girls suck up to their teachers and tell lies about boys they don't like. For attention, and so they will be coddled.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
For the same reason dishonest little girls suck up to their teachers and tell lies about boys they don't like. For attention, and so they will be coddled.

and the sadistic pleasure of watching the boy get punished.