Attorney Wendy Murphy criticizes the student newspaper at Bridgewater State University, which recently published the identity of a woman who claims she was raped in 2008. The woman's identity was published only after she had publicly spoken about the rape at a rally held in connection with the school's “Take Back the Night.” The rally was designed to encourage victims of sexual assault to speak up and not live in shame.
Organizers of the Take Back The Night rally, various fraternities, sororities, and student government members want the newspaper to take the article off its website and apologize to the woman. The student newspaper is defending its decision to print the woman's name on First Amendment grounds.
Reporting the woman's name wasn't necessary to tell the story the newspaper wanted to relate, and we suspect the woman didn't anticipate that her identity as a rape victim would be publicized beyond the supportive forum where she related it. On the other hand, it is our guess that the newspaper assumed the woman had de facto waived her anonymity by going public with the story and felt it was appropriate to name her.
The First Amendment doesn't require student newspapers to exercise good judgment or to insure its publication isn't in bad taste. Last November, for example, East Carolina's student newspaper splashed on its front page, above the fold, an unedited, full frontal nude photo of a 21-year-old man streaking at the school's football game the previous weekend. Sometimes it is appropriate to condemn a newspaper for acting in bad taste while still defending its right to do so.
But it is the issue of anonymity, in general, that is important. Wendy Murphy explained that "[v]ictims in sexual assault matters face unique burdens not experienced by other types of crime victims because the very nature of sexual violence is such that a public trial is certain to reveal things about the victim that are not only highly personal but protected by the Constitution.""Not naming victims in the press insulates them from the harm that would otherwise disproportionately affect their constitutional rights simply because they had the misfortune of being targeted for the most intimate of violent acts."
Ms. Murphy's assertions are difficult to refute. But, ironically, the same interests she discusses are shared by persons falsely accused of serious sex crimes. Rape is perhaps the most loathsome offense in the entire criminal law canon, universally considered worthy of the most severe societal censure and condemnation; in some cultures, rape is regarded as more offensive than murder. Because of the he said/she said nature of most rape claims, a false rape accusation is almost impossible to fully disprove, and even when falsely accused persons are cleared of rape charges, they often are tainted as the possible perpetrators of the most detestable crime known to mankind. Our bloggers have reported the public scorn heaped upon many false rape victims.
So what is the answer about anonymity for (1) rape accusers and (2) the presumptively innocent accused of rape? We don't know. We do know that the issues don't lend themselves to easy answers and that the current state of the public discourse ignores significant interests that should be aired.
The interests of protecting the identities of rape victims are well known, and they are legitimate. Those interests need not be fully aired on this blog since they represent the status quo and are articulated in the policies of the American news media that shield the anonymity of anyone who claims to have been raped. This blog, on the other hand, is among the few forums devoted to giving voice to the wrongly accused, and they, too, have interests that deserve to be aired but too often aren't.
Prof. Alan Dershowitz has made a persuasive case against anonymity -- for anyone. Here's what he wrote about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case: "The prosecution presented its case in public as if there were no doubt about the alleged victim’s credibility or the complete guilt of the alleged offender. In fact, one very important implication of the Strauss-Kahn case was this: the press is dead wrong not to publish the names of alleged rape victims. It is absolutely critical that rape be treated like any other crime of violence, that the names of the alleged victims be published along with the names of the alleged perpetrators, so that people who know the victim or know her reputation can come forward to provide relevant information. The whole manner in which this case was handled undercuts the presumption of innocence, and the same goes for many other cases like it. By withholding the name of the alleged victim while publishing perp photos of the alleged assailant, the press conveys a presumption of guilt. The next time I have to defend a case where there’s any chance of a perp walk, I’m going to federal court to demand an injunction against it."
Dershowitz previously said this on the subject: "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." Moreover: "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?"
Feminist Naomi Wolf has many interesting arguments why rape accusers shouldn't be anonymous. Among other things: "It is wrong – and sexist – to treat female sex-crime accusers as if they were children, and it is wrong to try anyone, male or female, in the court of public opinion on the basis of anonymous accusations. Anonymity for rape accusers is long overdue for retirement."
And there are legitimate arguments as to why persons accused of rape should not be named, at least until they are charged, or even convicted. Justice for rape victims does not depend on the public shaming and humiliation of the presumptively innocent. Our bloggers have argued in previous posts it is likely that more women would come forward and report their rapes if the men they accused were anonymous. That position bucks the common thinking on the subject, but it has a logic difficult to refute. When a woman accuses a male acquaintance of rape and he is publicly identified, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference when they accuse an intimate acquaintance of rape.
Ms. Murphy, fraternities, sororities, and student leaders are bemoaning the fact that a woman who claims she was raped was stripped of her anonymity even though she publicly spoke about her ordeal at a rally. Such concerns are legitimate, and it is good to air them.
It is lamentable, however, that virtually no one bothers to voice concern that persons wrongly accused of serious sex crimes are also stripped of their anonymity. Their reputations are sometimes indelibly stained by the publicity.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Two men formally exonerated in Dallas rape, shooting
Two Texas men were exonerated Monday in a nearly 30-year-old rape and shooting after DNA tests in Dallas County implicated others in the crime.
Judge Susan Hawk apologized to James Curtis Williams and Raymond Jackson after she declared both men formally innocent of aggravated sexual assault. Williams and Jackson were convicted of attacking a woman outside a Dallas bar in November 1983 and sentenced to life in prison. Both men were recently paroled.
"I hope that you feel like justice was served for you today," Hawk said.
Williams and Jackson shook hands with Hawk and Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who also apologized. With 10 other exonerated men watching in the audience, Watkins questioned the criminal justice system's fairness and whether blacks were being mistreated.
"I think we see the similarities in these men and the two that are being exonerated today that has not been addressed," said Watkins, who is black. "We need to address that here in Dallas County, in our state and in this country. We are doing something wrong with our criminal justice system and we need to fix it."
Dallas County has now exonerated 32 people since 2001, most of them during Watkins' tenure. Most of the cases — including Monday's — involved faulty eyewitness identifications.
Authorities say the woman was forced into a vehicle at gunpoint, sexually assaulted, shot and left for dead in a field.
Williams and Jackson were included in a photo lineup in the case because they had been implicated in a separate sexual assault. The victim picked them out of the photo lineup and later identified them in court. They were convicted in January 1984.
But DNA from the woman's clothing and a rape kit exam was preserved and later tested. The results implicated two other men, Frederick Anderson and Marion Doll Sayles. They have been charged with attempted capital murder, which does not have a statute of limitations, authorities said.
Jackson, 67, said he was already out on parole when the test results came back, clearing him and Williams. He did not blame the victim.
"She just made a mistake in identity, and I'm just thankful that they had DNA and kept ours," Jackson said Monday.
The Associated Press typically does not identify victims of sexual assault.
Williams and Jackson pleaded guilty in the other sexual assault case and served shorter sentences for that. Jackson is still on parole for a robbery committed in 1970. He said he hoped to start a business.
Williams said things were "very complex," but that his life had been greatly changed.
"It inspires me to do to the same, to go on with my life and do good to others," he said.
Link:
http://www.chron.com/news/article/2-men-to-be-exonerated-in-Dallas-rape-shooting-3520988.php
Judge Susan Hawk apologized to James Curtis Williams and Raymond Jackson after she declared both men formally innocent of aggravated sexual assault. Williams and Jackson were convicted of attacking a woman outside a Dallas bar in November 1983 and sentenced to life in prison. Both men were recently paroled.
"I hope that you feel like justice was served for you today," Hawk said.
Williams and Jackson shook hands with Hawk and Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who also apologized. With 10 other exonerated men watching in the audience, Watkins questioned the criminal justice system's fairness and whether blacks were being mistreated.
"I think we see the similarities in these men and the two that are being exonerated today that has not been addressed," said Watkins, who is black. "We need to address that here in Dallas County, in our state and in this country. We are doing something wrong with our criminal justice system and we need to fix it."
Dallas County has now exonerated 32 people since 2001, most of them during Watkins' tenure. Most of the cases — including Monday's — involved faulty eyewitness identifications.
Authorities say the woman was forced into a vehicle at gunpoint, sexually assaulted, shot and left for dead in a field.
Williams and Jackson were included in a photo lineup in the case because they had been implicated in a separate sexual assault. The victim picked them out of the photo lineup and later identified them in court. They were convicted in January 1984.
But DNA from the woman's clothing and a rape kit exam was preserved and later tested. The results implicated two other men, Frederick Anderson and Marion Doll Sayles. They have been charged with attempted capital murder, which does not have a statute of limitations, authorities said.
Jackson, 67, said he was already out on parole when the test results came back, clearing him and Williams. He did not blame the victim.
"She just made a mistake in identity, and I'm just thankful that they had DNA and kept ours," Jackson said Monday.
The Associated Press typically does not identify victims of sexual assault.
Williams and Jackson pleaded guilty in the other sexual assault case and served shorter sentences for that. Jackson is still on parole for a robbery committed in 1970. He said he hoped to start a business.
Williams said things were "very complex," but that his life had been greatly changed.
"It inspires me to do to the same, to go on with my life and do good to others," he said.
Link:
http://www.chron.com/news/article/2-men-to-be-exonerated-in-Dallas-rape-shooting-3520988.php
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
FIRE takes issue with punishment over 'Cox' t-shirt
FIRE has not received any information from the school to confirm what FIRE has learned, but, apparently, the shirt was reported through Tufts' "bias incident" reporting system, in which students can anonymously report actions, words, or pictures that "target a person or community." The dean allegedly said the picture was too phallic and promoted aggression and rape.
FIRE believes Tufts' reaction is overblown. Read it here: http://thefire.org/torch/#14449
It is a moral imperative that colleges (1) support the accuser who was likely sexually assaulted, and (2) protect the presumptively innocent unless it is clear he is guilty: Princeton proves it is possible to do both
Late last year, Princeton quietly revised its sexual misconduct policy in a laudatory manner that serves the interests of both the accused and the accuser. It should be the model for all schools.
Most institutions of higher education have interpreted the the Department of Education's April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter as mandating that their schools apply the lowest standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence, for all sexual misconduct hearings. This means that a student likely will be expelled, or suspended for a lengthy period of time, if a disciplinary hearing board determines that it is more likely than not (50.1%) that he committed the offense.
Princeton doesn't read it that way. It has established separate, parallel procedures for (1) student discipline, and (2) Title IX grievances. Disciplinary proceedings, which involve investigations and adjudications of alleged student violations of University rules, require “clear and persuasive" evidence to find a violation. But Title IX grievances, which involve complaints against the University alleging that Princeton has failed to meet its obligations under federal law, require a lesser standard, a preponderance of the evidence.
What this means is that Princeton could clear an accused student of violating campus rules, but still conclude a Title IX violation took place, triggering a duty to provide support for the accuser.
Princeton's Provost Christopher Eisgruber described the University’s procedures as “fully compliant with Title IX,” noting that the OCR letter explains that colleges and universities “have options about how to address Title IX grievances related to sexual misconduct.” Provost Eisgruber said the policy is the best way to balance protecting both the Title IX and due process rights of students. "There are in these kinds of proceedings two different kinds of mistakes that can be made. You have to protect against both of them."
Provost Eisgruber is correct. First, protecting the accused is vital to all civilized notions of fairness. Employing a stringent standard of proof to adjudicate guilt is critical to the fair treatment of the presumptively innocent. It is universally accepted that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence" standards reduce the risk of punishing the presumptively innocent based on factual error. Sexual misconduct cases often come down to a battle of "he said/she said" evidence. The absence of overriding evidence to establish guilt or innocence is neither a valid nor a serious-minded justification for making it easier to punish the presumptively innocent. Just the opposite: it is a sound reason to be ever more vigilant of the possibility of punishing an innocent person for something he or she did not do.
By the same token, since it is often impossible to be reasonably certain about what happened in these cases, it is a moral imperative to also support the accuser if it's likely true that she was assaulted. If the school finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the accuser's Title IX rights have been violated by the school, she should be treated as a victim. Such an adjudication might require the separation of the accuser and the accused as well as other protections for the accuser that may impose certain restrictions on the accused. But it would not include besmirching forever his reputation, and impeding his education and employment opportunities, by expelling him.
Wendy Murphy, for one, takes issues with the University’s approach. “Preponderance of evidence is a nonnegotiable standard of proof for all harassment based on sex — including sexual assault — irrespective of whether the harm is framed as a ‘disciplinary’ matter or a ‘Title IX’ matter,” Murphy said. She says that schools "have to stop saying, ‘We believe her, but not enough that we’ll punish him.’”
The fact is, in many cases, the school doesn't know who to believe. Murphy's all-or-nothing approach forces the school to make a terrible, and unnecessary, choice, often based on murky evidence: (1) severely harm the accused by expelling him, or (2) clear the accuser and do nothing to support the accuser. On gray evidence, most fair-minded people would have to choose the latter course, which often is not a good solution. Princeton's approach recognizes the reality of these cases and protects both the accuser and the accused as much as possible. For reasons that are unfathomable, it is more important to Wendy Murphy to punish men than to help women.
Most troubling in the ongoing debate are assertions that trivialize the rights of the accused. Murphy was recently quoted in a news article: "Colleges must protect victims, she says. That means abandoning the fantasy they can make everybody happy by also offering accused students the full due process rights they’d enjoy in a criminal trial. 'You can’t run a school that way,' Murphy said. 'If every once in a while a school has to be sued at the cost of being fair to all students, so be it.'”
Brett Sokolow, founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, which helps colleges across America mold their sexual assault policies to enhance the rights of alleged victims, recently commented on a news story by stating flatly: "Campuses are not administering justice. Why would you think we are? We're protecting our communities from those who may be dangers to it. How can we do anything less?"
We would like to see one of the schools that utilize Mr. Sokolow's services put that in a recruiting brochure -- "if you are accused by a fellow student of an offense, don't expect justice from us." Private colleges generally adhere to an established protocol of fairness, which often is contractually binding on it. Moreover, to suggest that a public college has no duty to apply due process in disciplinary proceedings (and how else can one reasonably read Sokolow's pronouncement?), or that a school can truly protect its communities by not doing justice, are assertions as frightening as they are wrong.
Wendy Murphy doesn't think the Department of Education's OCR will tolerate Princeton's approach. But the AP recently reported that Russlynn Ali, the head of OCR, "indicated she wasn't necessarily opposed to a two-tracked system. She declined to address any particular school, but said OCR was talking with colleges about their concerns and would study them 'case by case' — suggesting colleges may have more flexibility than they realize."
Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/21/on-campus-debate-over-civil-rights-and-rape/
http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2011/11/16/pages/4526/index.xml
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/10/18/29093/
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/24/ocr-dear-colleague-letter-prompts-big-change-sexual-assault-hearings-unc
http://www.cotwa.info/2012/04/brett-sokolow-colleges-now-are.html
Most institutions of higher education have interpreted the the Department of Education's April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter as mandating that their schools apply the lowest standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence, for all sexual misconduct hearings. This means that a student likely will be expelled, or suspended for a lengthy period of time, if a disciplinary hearing board determines that it is more likely than not (50.1%) that he committed the offense.
Princeton doesn't read it that way. It has established separate, parallel procedures for (1) student discipline, and (2) Title IX grievances. Disciplinary proceedings, which involve investigations and adjudications of alleged student violations of University rules, require “clear and persuasive" evidence to find a violation. But Title IX grievances, which involve complaints against the University alleging that Princeton has failed to meet its obligations under federal law, require a lesser standard, a preponderance of the evidence.
What this means is that Princeton could clear an accused student of violating campus rules, but still conclude a Title IX violation took place, triggering a duty to provide support for the accuser.
Princeton's Provost Christopher Eisgruber described the University’s procedures as “fully compliant with Title IX,” noting that the OCR letter explains that colleges and universities “have options about how to address Title IX grievances related to sexual misconduct.” Provost Eisgruber said the policy is the best way to balance protecting both the Title IX and due process rights of students. "There are in these kinds of proceedings two different kinds of mistakes that can be made. You have to protect against both of them."
Provost Eisgruber is correct. First, protecting the accused is vital to all civilized notions of fairness. Employing a stringent standard of proof to adjudicate guilt is critical to the fair treatment of the presumptively innocent. It is universally accepted that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence" standards reduce the risk of punishing the presumptively innocent based on factual error. Sexual misconduct cases often come down to a battle of "he said/she said" evidence. The absence of overriding evidence to establish guilt or innocence is neither a valid nor a serious-minded justification for making it easier to punish the presumptively innocent. Just the opposite: it is a sound reason to be ever more vigilant of the possibility of punishing an innocent person for something he or she did not do.
By the same token, since it is often impossible to be reasonably certain about what happened in these cases, it is a moral imperative to also support the accuser if it's likely true that she was assaulted. If the school finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the accuser's Title IX rights have been violated by the school, she should be treated as a victim. Such an adjudication might require the separation of the accuser and the accused as well as other protections for the accuser that may impose certain restrictions on the accused. But it would not include besmirching forever his reputation, and impeding his education and employment opportunities, by expelling him.
Wendy Murphy, for one, takes issues with the University’s approach. “Preponderance of evidence is a nonnegotiable standard of proof for all harassment based on sex — including sexual assault — irrespective of whether the harm is framed as a ‘disciplinary’ matter or a ‘Title IX’ matter,” Murphy said. She says that schools "have to stop saying, ‘We believe her, but not enough that we’ll punish him.’”
The fact is, in many cases, the school doesn't know who to believe. Murphy's all-or-nothing approach forces the school to make a terrible, and unnecessary, choice, often based on murky evidence: (1) severely harm the accused by expelling him, or (2) clear the accuser and do nothing to support the accuser. On gray evidence, most fair-minded people would have to choose the latter course, which often is not a good solution. Princeton's approach recognizes the reality of these cases and protects both the accuser and the accused as much as possible. For reasons that are unfathomable, it is more important to Wendy Murphy to punish men than to help women.
Most troubling in the ongoing debate are assertions that trivialize the rights of the accused. Murphy was recently quoted in a news article: "Colleges must protect victims, she says. That means abandoning the fantasy they can make everybody happy by also offering accused students the full due process rights they’d enjoy in a criminal trial. 'You can’t run a school that way,' Murphy said. 'If every once in a while a school has to be sued at the cost of being fair to all students, so be it.'”
Brett Sokolow, founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, which helps colleges across America mold their sexual assault policies to enhance the rights of alleged victims, recently commented on a news story by stating flatly: "Campuses are not administering justice. Why would you think we are? We're protecting our communities from those who may be dangers to it. How can we do anything less?"
We would like to see one of the schools that utilize Mr. Sokolow's services put that in a recruiting brochure -- "if you are accused by a fellow student of an offense, don't expect justice from us." Private colleges generally adhere to an established protocol of fairness, which often is contractually binding on it. Moreover, to suggest that a public college has no duty to apply due process in disciplinary proceedings (and how else can one reasonably read Sokolow's pronouncement?), or that a school can truly protect its communities by not doing justice, are assertions as frightening as they are wrong.
Wendy Murphy doesn't think the Department of Education's OCR will tolerate Princeton's approach. But the AP recently reported that Russlynn Ali, the head of OCR, "indicated she wasn't necessarily opposed to a two-tracked system. She declined to address any particular school, but said OCR was talking with colleges about their concerns and would study them 'case by case' — suggesting colleges may have more flexibility than they realize."
Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/21/on-campus-debate-over-civil-rights-and-rape/
http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2011/11/16/pages/4526/index.xml
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/10/18/29093/
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/24/ocr-dear-colleague-letter-prompts-big-change-sexual-assault-hearings-unc
http://www.cotwa.info/2012/04/brett-sokolow-colleges-now-are.html
Secretary of Defense creating SVU's for the Entire Military
Secretary Leon Panetta said that the Army's model of prosecuting sex offenses will become the entire military's model, and that the other services will establish Special Victim Units (SVU's). Also, whenever a sexual assault is reported, then the offense is required to be disposed of at an O-6 level.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/military-panetta-all-services-sexual-assault-prevention-svu-041712w/
Secretary Panetta announced that some of the steps the military will take will "not only prosecute those involved, but more importantly send a signal that this is not a problem that we are going to ignore in the United States military.” Isn't it interesting that sending a signal that sexual assault is not a problem that will be ignored is more important than prosecuting those who have committed rape? Makes you wonder if the signal is intended for would-be rapists or for the sexual grievance industry to show that the military takes rape allegations seriously.
So, you might wonder where our tax dollars go when the Services create new SVU's. Well, one of the highly qualified experts hired in 2009 for the Army's SVU program was Roger Canaff. Read his blog and perhaps you will wonder why the Army would hire him to be one of its highly qualified experts to train its prosecutors:
http://www.rogercanaff.com/
Another highly qualified expert hired for the Army's SVU program is Sandra Tullius who has a particularly aggressive reputation in the Army. You can read what the Hartford Courant wrote about her here:
http://articles.courant.com/2009-10-31/news/charges-dropped-1031.art_1_murder-case-key-witness-superior-court
Anybody wonder what kind of people the other Services will hire for their respective SVU programs?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/military-panetta-all-services-sexual-assault-prevention-svu-041712w/
Secretary Panetta announced that some of the steps the military will take will "not only prosecute those involved, but more importantly send a signal that this is not a problem that we are going to ignore in the United States military.” Isn't it interesting that sending a signal that sexual assault is not a problem that will be ignored is more important than prosecuting those who have committed rape? Makes you wonder if the signal is intended for would-be rapists or for the sexual grievance industry to show that the military takes rape allegations seriously.
So, you might wonder where our tax dollars go when the Services create new SVU's. Well, one of the highly qualified experts hired in 2009 for the Army's SVU program was Roger Canaff. Read his blog and perhaps you will wonder why the Army would hire him to be one of its highly qualified experts to train its prosecutors:
http://www.rogercanaff.com/
Another highly qualified expert hired for the Army's SVU program is Sandra Tullius who has a particularly aggressive reputation in the Army. You can read what the Hartford Courant wrote about her here:
http://articles.courant.com/2009-10-31/news/charges-dropped-1031.art_1_murder-case-key-witness-superior-court
Anybody wonder what kind of people the other Services will hire for their respective SVU programs?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Why is there not more outrage? A 33-year-old locked away for a murder he didn't commit is finally released at 51
All persons of goodwill should be asking how could this happen?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/335695/20120501/robert-dewey-free-jacie-taylor-murder-dna.htm and http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20518215/filet-mignon-chocolate-chip-cookies-top-robert-deweys
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/335695/20120501/robert-dewey-free-jacie-taylor-murder-dna.htm and http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20518215/filet-mignon-chocolate-chip-cookies-top-robert-deweys
False rape claims 'deserve severe punishment from the courts and abhorrence from a cruelly mocked community'
False rape belittles victims
News and Star/Published at 11:26, Tuesday, 01 May 2012
Cast the mind back to last autumn and the memory of menace will still be clear.
The belief was that a rapist was stalking women. It was a sincerely held conviction arising from separate and apparently unrelated reports of attacks by a stranger.
Two women have now been punished for the lies that blighted Carlisle. Two women have been convicted of fabricating stories of brutal sex assaults – untruths that seriously and directly impacted on the ordinary, routine day to day activities and peace of mind of thousands of their fellow citizens.
The latest to be dealt with in court was Takara Jayne Harding, a young woman who admits now wanting to worry her boyfriend, draw attention to herself, corner him into offering pity.
Not only did she waste valuable police time and contribute to bringing a climate of terror to Carlisle’s nightlife, her actions thoughtlessly belittled all women who, having been subjected genuinely and terrifyingly to rape, struggle to face the frightening ordeal of bringing charges and giving testimony.
False rape claims carry no logic beyond shameful attention-seeking selfishness – which is no logic at all.
They deserve severe punishment from the courts and abhorrence from a cruelly mocked community.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/opinion/our-view/false-rape-belittles-victims-1.949504?referrerPath=opinion/
Is Senator Bob Casey scaring women about rape for political gain?
Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, like his father, the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, is that rare Democratic politician on the national stage who identifies as pro-life.
Beyond that, Bob Casey was one of just three Democrats in the Senate who supported Sen. Roy Blunt’s recent failed attempt to give employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraception on the basis of conscience.
The senator seems cognizant of his tenuous-at-best relationship with an important block of female voters, and sometimes, he seems to pander to women in prominent ways. Last year, he procured hundreds of thousands of dollars for little Gannon University to reduce violence against women on the university's campus even though the director of Gannon University's office of campus police and safety said there is no evidence that the university has a problem with sexual violence. We did not hear any taxpayers complain.
Casey also introduced the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), which, among other things, would do legislatively what the Department of Education has already improperly done by executive branch fiat: mandate that colleges use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for sexual assault cases. In other words, if your son is accused of sexual assault at college, Senator Casey thinks its fine to expel him even if the hearing tribunal believes there is a 49.9999% chance he didn't do it.
Casey is at it again. He recently took to the editorial pages of the Delaware County Pennsylvania Daily Times to warn women that one-in-five of them will be raped. His source was a survey released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
That survey is problematic because, among other things, it counts “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration” as a sexual violation even though such penetration often is legally, and factually, consensual. In addition: "Participants [of the survey] were asked if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by 'telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?' All affirmative answers were counted as 'sexual violence.' Anyone who consented to sex because a suitor wore her or him down by 'repeatedly asking' or 'showing they were unhappy' was similarly classified as a victim of violence. The CDC effectively set a stage where each step of physical intimacy required a notarized testament of sober consent." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
The fatal legal infirmities of punishing for "sexual coercion" are many. See here. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies sexual coercion as sexual violence is disturbing; the fact that a United States Senator uses that terribly flawed survey to fear-monger and to play group identity politics should be unacceptable.
The newspaper where Casey wrote the op-ed thinks so, too. It has written an editorial called "Rape has no place in political arena" that astutely points out that a terrible byproduct of rape hysteria is wrongful convictions. Among other things, the editorial criticizes the Obama administration's fiat requiring colleges to lower the standard of proof for sexual misconduct. "This should be troubling to any parent who sends a son to college," the editorial notes, "for the vast majority of those accused are young men. More than a few have had their lives forever changed by an accusation later recanted or shown to have been false." The editorial also bemoans the "prevailing campus orthodoxy . . . that when accused of any sort of sexual misconduct men are basically guilty until proved innocent."
The editorial concludes with this:
Beyond that, Bob Casey was one of just three Democrats in the Senate who supported Sen. Roy Blunt’s recent failed attempt to give employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraception on the basis of conscience.
The senator seems cognizant of his tenuous-at-best relationship with an important block of female voters, and sometimes, he seems to pander to women in prominent ways. Last year, he procured hundreds of thousands of dollars for little Gannon University to reduce violence against women on the university's campus even though the director of Gannon University's office of campus police and safety said there is no evidence that the university has a problem with sexual violence. We did not hear any taxpayers complain.
Casey also introduced the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), which, among other things, would do legislatively what the Department of Education has already improperly done by executive branch fiat: mandate that colleges use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for sexual assault cases. In other words, if your son is accused of sexual assault at college, Senator Casey thinks its fine to expel him even if the hearing tribunal believes there is a 49.9999% chance he didn't do it.
Casey is at it again. He recently took to the editorial pages of the Delaware County Pennsylvania Daily Times to warn women that one-in-five of them will be raped. His source was a survey released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
That survey is problematic because, among other things, it counts “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration” as a sexual violation even though such penetration often is legally, and factually, consensual. In addition: "Participants [of the survey] were asked if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by 'telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?' All affirmative answers were counted as 'sexual violence.' Anyone who consented to sex because a suitor wore her or him down by 'repeatedly asking' or 'showing they were unhappy' was similarly classified as a victim of violence. The CDC effectively set a stage where each step of physical intimacy required a notarized testament of sober consent." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
The fatal legal infirmities of punishing for "sexual coercion" are many. See here. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies sexual coercion as sexual violence is disturbing; the fact that a United States Senator uses that terribly flawed survey to fear-monger and to play group identity politics should be unacceptable.
The newspaper where Casey wrote the op-ed thinks so, too. It has written an editorial called "Rape has no place in political arena" that astutely points out that a terrible byproduct of rape hysteria is wrongful convictions. Among other things, the editorial criticizes the Obama administration's fiat requiring colleges to lower the standard of proof for sexual misconduct. "This should be troubling to any parent who sends a son to college," the editorial notes, "for the vast majority of those accused are young men. More than a few have had their lives forever changed by an accusation later recanted or shown to have been false." The editorial also bemoans the "prevailing campus orthodoxy . . . that when accused of any sort of sexual misconduct men are basically guilty until proved innocent."
The editorial concludes with this:
By unquestioningly citing statistics, such as the ones developed by the survey, Casey is allowing himself to be used by partisan ideologues who are more interested in seeing women as potential victims, especially of sexual assault, than the empowered and self-determining people that they are.They do, after all, today make up almost 60 percent of the college-going population. No matter how much equality in the classroom or workplace that any identity group achieves, there will always be those who will pander to individuals of that group and their sense of vulnerability and/or grievance.Generally speaking, such pandering efforts should be revealed for what they are and resisted, corrected and even, mocked. Derision is sometimes the best disinfectant against such divisive tactics.Rape is too serious and awful a crime to be used in such an obvious political manner. Bob Casey is a decent man and he should know better.
Woman sentenced for lying about rape
Three men spent 14 months in jail before being acquitted due to the false testimony of an 18-year-old women who will now receive psychiatric treatment.
An 18-year-old woman has been sentenced to five years of psychiatric care after being found guilty of giving a false witness testimony in a rape case three years ago.
The woman’s testimony lead to three men, who where were 16, 17 and 18 at the time, spending 14 months in jail for rape.
But after the younger brother of one of the accused secretly recorded the girl admitting she lied about the rape, the three were retried, cleared and each given compensation of between 600,000 and 700,000 kroner.
In court yesterday, the woman was found guilty of having lied about the involvement of two of the men who she said held her down while the third man allegedly raped her in the handicapped toilet at Fredericia train station on 13 September 2008.
One of the three imprisoned men, Sharif Saloni, said he was disappointed that the girl did not receive a prison sentence.
“She ought to feel a little bit of what we felt when we were locked up,” Saloni said, according to Jyllands-Posten newspaper. “Nobody deserves to go through what we went through.”
Saloni also expressed disappointment that the court did not find the woman guilty of lying that he raped her, and instead found only that she lied about the two other men holding her down.
According to the prosecutor, it was not possible to find her guilty of lying about the rape, as it could not be proved that she did not think she was raped.
“We need to put ourselves inside the girls head,” prosecutor Birte Wirnfeldt told Jyllands-Posten. “What was she thinking when she testified against Sharif Saloni? We cannot disprove that she felt raped. But still, that is not the same as saying a rape took place.”
The girl received a five year psychiatric sentence after her psychiatric report showed she had a very low mental capacity.
The girl will now spend at least one year in a psychiatric institution.
Link:
http://cphpost.dk/news/national/woman-sentenced-lying-about-rape
An 18-year-old woman has been sentenced to five years of psychiatric care after being found guilty of giving a false witness testimony in a rape case three years ago.
The woman’s testimony lead to three men, who where were 16, 17 and 18 at the time, spending 14 months in jail for rape.
But after the younger brother of one of the accused secretly recorded the girl admitting she lied about the rape, the three were retried, cleared and each given compensation of between 600,000 and 700,000 kroner.
In court yesterday, the woman was found guilty of having lied about the involvement of two of the men who she said held her down while the third man allegedly raped her in the handicapped toilet at Fredericia train station on 13 September 2008.
One of the three imprisoned men, Sharif Saloni, said he was disappointed that the girl did not receive a prison sentence.
“She ought to feel a little bit of what we felt when we were locked up,” Saloni said, according to Jyllands-Posten newspaper. “Nobody deserves to go through what we went through.”
Saloni also expressed disappointment that the court did not find the woman guilty of lying that he raped her, and instead found only that she lied about the two other men holding her down.
According to the prosecutor, it was not possible to find her guilty of lying about the rape, as it could not be proved that she did not think she was raped.
“We need to put ourselves inside the girls head,” prosecutor Birte Wirnfeldt told Jyllands-Posten. “What was she thinking when she testified against Sharif Saloni? We cannot disprove that she felt raped. But still, that is not the same as saying a rape took place.”
The girl received a five year psychiatric sentence after her psychiatric report showed she had a very low mental capacity.
The girl will now spend at least one year in a psychiatric institution.
Link:
http://cphpost.dk/news/national/woman-sentenced-lying-about-rape
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
