|
|
|
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assau
lt.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
A young woman sat in my office tears pouring down her face. She was crying
because she had just been referred to as "the accuser."
She is a survivor of a sexual assault. To the district attorney's office she
is a victim or the victim-witness. But to a particular fellow student, to
whom her experience is but a difficult to relate to story, she is "the
accuser."
This shift in language is subtle but profound. What did her fellow student
mean when he called her the accuser? He effectively put her behavior in
question instead of the behavior of the defendant. By calling her the
accuser he insinuated the following questions. Has she ever had sex before?
Does she like sex? Has she had more then one sexual partner? Has she ever
suffered with a mental health issue? Is she a liar? Does she have a motive
for a false accusation?
She has yet to hear a single person ask these questions of the defendant.
As The People of Colorado v. Kobe Bryant illustrated, the terming of the
victim witness as the accuser flips the traditional judicial process
paradigm. The victim witness is now doing something to the defendant, she is
accusing him. Over the past few months I heard many students refer to Kobe
Bryant as the victim of an accusation. Why tremendous empathy for a man you
do not know, and disregard and anger for a woman you also do not know?
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is now
more frequently falsely reported then any other crime. If we insist on
calling an alleged victim an accuser, then I suggest that we move to calling
defendants, accused rapists. That is parallel construction. How many times
would the defense object to the term accused rapist as prejudicial and
assumptive?
And what you ask, is a much talked about but little understood, Rape Shield
Law? Rape Shield Laws, which have been passed in 49 states, protect victims
by reminding us that we are all free to have lawful sex with whomever we
chose and as often as we like. Consensual sex is not a crime. It preserves
women's and men's right to say "no" to any unwanted sexual activity and
violence. Rape Shield Laws allow only for a victim's sexual history to be
introduced if it is relevant to the assault in question. When the spirit and
letter of the law are ignored, this serves as a chilling effect on victims
of these crimes. Approximately 1 in 5 sexual assaults is ever reported to
law enforcement. Unlike any other crime, there is a tendency to hold the
victim responsible for their own victimization which discourages many
victims from reporting. A victim who has had any prior sexual experience for
some reason is seen as having "bad character." That is why even if a victim
had consensual sex hours before an assault it should not be introduced if it
has no bearing on the case. In the first case she willingly engaged in sex.
In the later case she was the victim of a sexual assault. By allowing
consensual sexual history to be introduced in the courtroom we confuse sex
and sexual assault.
One in four college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her
college years. We all have friends, colleagues, lab partners and classmates
that are women. When we talk casually about sexual assault, relationship
violence, stalking and harassment, they are listening. They are listening
and hoping that we can remain fair minded, supportive, and compassionate.
College-aged women who report sexual assault are courageous. In my
experience, what a victim is typically seeking is the opportunity to tell
her truth, to be treated with respect and dignity and to hold the
perpetrator responsible for a crime. This is the task of any judicial
process.
But it is also our responsibility as her community. Language matters. Our
chosen words are other people's first clue to how we really feel and what we
think.
The student who sat in my office - she is a victim not an accuser.
|
| |
| |
In article <cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net>,
s_knight8 <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
A young woman sat in my office tears pouring down her face. She was crying
because she had just been referred to as "the accuser."
[snip!]
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is now
more frequently falsely reported then any other crime.
[snip!]
The student who sat in my office - she is a victim not an accuser.
How and why did the writer sneak that middle part in there without
even spending any time addressing it? That sentence is, literally,
standing out there on its own - and completely ignored.
Dimitri
|
| |
| |
"D. Gerasimatos" <dim@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is
now
more frequently falsely reported then any other crime.
How and why did the writer sneak that middle part in there without
even spending any time addressing it? That sentence is, literally,
standing out there on its own - and completely ignored.
Mostly because sexual predators are trying to use it as a presumptive
'reasonable doubt' affirmative defense, thus shifting the onus to the
complainant; the titular victim of his predation.
Rape is also one of the most underreported crimes- and one of the most
common multiple offense perpetrators. It's one of the few crimes combining
sex and violence, and one of the few wherein the target is shamed and
humiliated after the commission of the crime itself. It is, by nature,
generally done in private/concealment- often with only two
participants/witnesses, one of whom is a seriously disturbed individual by
any standard.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assau
lt.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
A young woman sat in my office tears pouring down her face. She was crying
because she had just been referred to as "the accuser."
She is a survivor of a sexual assault.
Let's pour on the melodrama and hyperbole.
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
To the district attorney's office she
is a victim or the victim-witness. But to a particular fellow student, to
whom her experience is but a difficult to relate to story, she is "the
accuser."
This shift in language is subtle but profound. What did her fellow student
mean when he called her the accuser? He effectively put her behavior in
question instead of the behavior of the defendant.
That's deep. If rape cases are still real cases, then the accused
still has the benefit of the doubt. And still has to be convicted
in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yes, the accuser should be scrutinized.
By calling her the
accuser he insinuated the following questions. Has she ever had sex before?
Does she like sex? Has she had more then one sexual partner? Has she ever
suffered with a mental health issue? Is she a liar? Does she have a motive
for a false accusation?
He did all that by just calling her "the accuser"?
Is it just me, or are these "feminists" trying to treat legal cases
like a class on French language theory? Let's sit around the
campfire and "deconstruct" the words of her colleagues.
She has yet to hear a single person ask these questions of the defendant.
As The People of Colorado v. Kobe Bryant illustrated, the terming of the
victim witness as the accuser flips the traditional judicial process
paradigm. The victim witness is now doing something to the defendant, she is
accusing him. Over the past few months I heard many students refer to Kobe
Bryant as the victim of an accusation. Why tremendous empathy for a man you
do not know, and disregard and anger for a woman you also do not know?
Because whatever version of events she gave, it was seriously
compromised by the facts of the case?
Alex
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote
She is a survivor of a sexual assault.
Let's pour on the melodrama and hyperbole.
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
Yes; the rest are called 'murder victims'- often by strangulation.
It must be a terrible experience- and only mitigated by surviving instead of
being found down by the river.
Why do you seek to minimize the crime, or be scornful of the victim's
response to being assaulted?
I know you to be a martial artist, Alex- how much rape are you willing to
tolerate? Is an assault of no moment unless you're killed? Why do you spend
so much of your life preparing to defend yourself against assault if it's
not important unless you don't survive?
That's deep. If rape cases are still real cases, then the accused
still has the benefit of the doubt. And still has to be convicted
in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yes, the accuser should be scrutinized.
They are.
closely.
Do you think that Hurlburt missed the controversy over her credibility?
How do you think they catch the false accusations so frequently?
How come the Bryant accuser passed all the investigative inquiry except by
having a strong complaint?
Is it just me, or are these "feminists" trying to treat legal cases
like a class on French language theory? Let's sit around the
campfire and "deconstruct" the words of her colleagues.
That's what you get from having a common interest- being raped- or all the
money in the world for a defense- like Bryant.
Because whatever version of events she gave, it was seriously
compromised by the facts of the case?
He's *admitted* it- talk about being compromised by the facts of the case!
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <41777dcf$0$62029$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Alex <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net...
Let's pour on the melodrama and hyperbole.
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
I can think of a lot of things that you would survive that would
mess you up for the rest of your life.
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
I can think of a lot of things that you would survive that would
mess you up for the rest of your life.
I can think of one that would break him of going to Kobe's room to get an
autograph in the future.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net...
Let's pour on the melodrama and hyperbole.
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
That's deep. If rape cases are still real cases, then the accused
still has the benefit of the doubt. And still has to be convicted
in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yes, the accuser should be scrutinized.
He did all that by just calling her "the accuser"?
Is it just me, or are these "feminists" trying to treat legal cases
like a class on French language theory? Let's sit around the
campfire and "deconstruct" the words of her colleagues.
Because whatever version of events she gave, it was seriously
compromised by the facts of the case?
Alex
|
| |
| |
"OffLine" <offl1n3@yahoo.com> wrote
now they know how the men have been treated for so long.
Actually, it's pretty recent.
Rape used to be pretty much only applied to women of the gentry- lower class
women suffered rape and learned to live with it. Race used to play a big
part in it- violent sexuality was treated differently depending on the
race/class of the participants.
It's actually only been about thirty years that women have had much to say
about rape in any case- a shorter time than that in which 'acquaintance
rape' had much meaning at all.
Issues of consent have become a question- 'marriage' does not impute
unqualified consent, neither drunkenness, or wardrobe, or context.
If only a percentage of rapes are even reported, and only a percentage of
those are false accusations, the probability of rape and a miscarriage of
justice is far higher than otherwise.
Chas
|
| |
| |
In article <41777dcf$0$62029$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>, Alex
<avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net...
Let's pour on the melodrama and hyperbole.
Most rape victims survive their ordeal.
It's part of the Pity Machine that has taken over America.
People are referred to as "Survivors," with a capital "S."
I figure it started with the Holocaust industry.
Then the psychobabblers picked it up, so that anybody who got his or
her butt smacked as a kid can claim to be a "Survivor."
Now the term has become meaningless.
--Tim May
|
| |
| |
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assau
lt.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
A young woman sat in my office tears pouring down her face. She was crying
because she had just been referred to as "the accuser."
She is a survivor of a sexual assault. To the district attorney's office
she
is a victim or the victim-witness.
Which is CRAP. There has not been a trial, so she is the ALLEGED victim
of an ALLEGED sexual assault. We do NOT know that she is a victim --
all we know is that she is an ACCUSER.
|
| |
| |
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assau
lt.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
One in four college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during
her
college years.
This is from the National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, and it
is false. The study found that one in 36 were the victims of rape or
attempted rape over a six-month period during the time when classes were in
session. Erroneous projections were made by the study's authors, feminists
appointed by the VAWA, to arrive at the one-in-four figure.
College-aged women who report sexual assault are courageous. In my
experience, what a victim is typically seeking is the opportunity to tell
her truth, to be treated with respect and dignity and to hold the
perpetrator responsible for a crime. This is the task of any judicial
process.
In between 8% and 41% of such cases, the woman is not doing any such thing.
She is making up the allegation to get attention, explain her tardiness to
class, harm a man, or get money.
The student who sat in my office - she is a victim not an accuser.
You would not know.
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:26:12 GMT in talk.rape Michael Snyder
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message
<UiSdd.339$_3.6259@typhoon.sonic.net>...
Which is CRAP. There has not been a trial, so she is the ALLEGED victim
of an ALLEGED sexual assault. We do NOT know that she is a victim -- all
we know is that she is an ACCUSER.
We don't even know that. The article doesn't say whether a suspect has been
accused, still less whether one was accused *by her*.
Rich once cited a case a while back, in which an (undisputed) rape victim
testified in court that the defendant was positively *not* the person who
raped her. He was nevertheless convicted on a dubious DNA match. I asked
Rich questions which he never answered: Was this a case of false accusation?
If so, who was the false accuser?
All we know in the instant case is that she is a COMPLAINANT.
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
Followups set to the only two groups which are at all interested.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:41:21 -0700 in talk.rape Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
<211020040941214477%timcmay@removethis.got.net>...
Then the psychobabblers picked it up, so that anybody who got his or
her butt smacked as a kid can claim to be a "Survivor."
We are talking about rape victims, not people who have had their butt smacked.
The implied comparison is despicable.
--Tim May
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:28:20 GMT in talk.rape Offshore Eddie
<eddie@nospam.com> wrote in message
<oCXdd.3702$KJ6.183@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assault.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
One in four college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during
her college years.
This is from the National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, and it
is false. The study found that one in 36 were the victims of rape or
attempted rape over a six-month period during the time when classes were
in session. Erroneous projections were made by the study's authors,
feminists appointed by the VAWA, to arrive at the one-in-four figure.
Was that Koss's study in the mid eighties?
The rate of reported rape also fell by a third during the nineties, which
can only be partly accounted for by changing demographics.
College-aged women who report sexual assault are courageous. In my
experience, what a victim is typically seeking is the opportunity to
tell her truth, to be treated with respect and dignity and to hold the
perpetrator responsible for a crime. This is the task of any judicial
process.
In between 8% and 41% of such cases, the woman is not doing any such
thing. She is making up the allegation to get attention, explain her
tardiness to class, harm a man, or get money.
It's odd how antifeminists challenge statistics that don't suit them, but
never subject those that do to any kind of scrutiny.
The 41% figure is Kanin's, and applied only to the *disposed* cases of *one*
police agency, so not even to all cases in that agency, let alone generally.
Of the figure, Kanin said: "Certainly, our intent is not to suggest that the
41% incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly
in light of our ignorance regarding the strutural variables that might be
influencing such behaviour and which could be responsible for wide
variations among cities' (Kanin, 'False rape allegations', Archives of
Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994, pages 81-90)
The 8% figure is of course, the FBI's unfounding rate. Of this, Kanin said:
'Generally, this issue [false rape allegations] is counched in terms of
unfounded rape. However, we are not addressing that concept here since
unfounded rape is not usually the equivalent of false allegation, in spite
of widespread usage to that effect. There is ample evidence, frequenly
ignored, that in practice, unfounded rape can and does mean many things,
with false allegation being only of them, and sometimes the least of them'
(id., internal citations omitted).
He went on to say: 'But a far greater obstacle to obtaining "true" incidence
figures, especially for larger cities, would be the extraordinary variations
in police agency policies, variations so diverse, in fact, that some police
agencies cannot find a single rape complaint with merit, while other cannon
find a single rape complaint without merit. Similarly some police agencies
report all of their unfounded rape cases to be due to false allegation,
while other agencies report none of their unfounded declarations to be based
on false allegation' (id., citations omitted.)
His remark about evidence being "frequently ignored" is particularly ironic,
given that it is antifeminists, who love to cite his figure, who are doing
the ignorring. Gerry Harbison - whose redacted version of Kanin's paper you
all have read - didn't include the above quotes. Funny that. Fortunately I
have the full text.
Bottom line: There are no credible figures *whatsoever* for the rate of
false reporting.
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:09:38 -0600 in talk.rape Chas
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
<2fydnYv6heeqTOrcRVn-2Q@comcast.com>...
"OffLine" <offl1n3@yahoo.com> wrote now they know how the men have been
Actually, it's pretty recent. Rape used to be pretty much only applied to
women of the gentry- lower class women suffered rape and learned to live
with it. Race used to play a big part in it- violent sexuality was treated
differently depending on the race/class...
....And gender...
...of the participants.
Still is. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if there were large
numbers of women in prison being forced into sexual slavery by other
prisoners.
[...]
If only a percentage of rapes are even reported, and only a percentage of
those are false accusations, the probability of rape and a miscarriage of
justice is far higher than otherwise.
It's not clear what you are trying to say here.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, there are no good figures for the
rate of false allegation, still less any evidence of vast numbers of false
convictions. However it is the very lack of data that is a cause for
concern, given how effective victims' advocates have been in lobbying for
justice reforms in favour of complainants.
Chas
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:25:16 +0100 in talk.rape OffLine <offl1n3@yahoo.com>
wrote in message <4177c6cf_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...
now they know how the men have been treated for so long. the men have lost
their life, jobs, homes, incomes, families all because of accusations - true
or untrue - in the past, and even when courts proved their innocence,...
Courts do not prove innocence. Courts either prove guilt, or they do not.
society still kicked them back down and made them stay down.
[Bryant's] is the first case i've heard of where the accuser is recipient
of social attitudes...and it's about time for the shoe to be on the other
foot...
Two wrongs do not make a right.
...hopefully, a few women will think twice before making false
accusations.
Perhaps they will, however this no more justifies the vilification of the
alleged victim in this case, than "encouraging victims to come forward" is a
reason for compromising the rights of accused people.
Bryant's accuser is just as entitled to presumed innocent as he is. However
she has been found guilty without fair trial by the kangaroo court that is
soc.men, and the wider societal attitudes that they represent.
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:41:25 -0600 in talk.rape Chas
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
<39GdnZWOZez3PercRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote She is a survivor of a sexual
assault. Let's pour on the melodrama and
Why do you seek to minimize the crime,...
While I don't agree with Alex on this point, I don't see any minimisation in
his remarks.
...or be scornful of the victim's response to being assaulted?
Strictly speaking, he was objecting to the writer's response. What the
complainant's response was, we don't know. It's true that many victims
prefer to think of themselves as "survivors", but there are other survivors
who detest the term, and use the word "victim".
The problem arises, I think, not out of a desire to be melodramatic, but
because there is no politically neutral word which means "person who has
been raped".
I know you to be a martial artist, Alex- how much rape are you willing to
tolerate? Is an assault of no moment unless you're killed? Why do you
spend so much of your life preparing to defend yourself against assault if
it's not important unless you don't survive?
That's not fair. There's nothing in his (her?) words to suggest that he
thinks any such thing.
[...]
How do you think they catch the false accusations so frequently?
Do you have any credible data to support that claim?
How come the Bryant accuser passed all the investigative inquiry except by
having a strong complaint?
I haven't followed the Bryant case, so I have no idea whether that is true
or not in this instance. Unfortunately there are any number of flimsy cases
which are nevertheless prosecuted. And even if a case seems strong at the
start, that doesn't mean that it won't unravel during the proceedings.
Is it just me, or are these "feminists" trying to treat legal cases like
a class on French language theory? Let's sit around the campfire and
"deconstruct" the words of her colleagues.
That's what you get from having a common interest- being raped- or all the
money in the world for a defense- like Bryant.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Alex's remark, which was a response to
a particularly nonsensical passage from the original article.
It is indeed fortunate for Bryant that he was able to afford a top defence
team, however it appears that the prosecuting authorities also spent a lot
more money on the case than usual. Don't forget that many defendants do not
have Bryant's advantages.
Because whatever version of events she gave, it was seriously
compromised by the facts of the case?
He's *admitted* it- talk about being compromised by the facts of the case!
He has?
Chas
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:40:30 -0600 in talk.rape Chas
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
<VJednbpZ0YAZmOrcRVn-vg@comcast.com>...
"D. Gerasimatos" <dim@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is
now more frequently falsely reported then any other crime. How and why
did the writer sneak that middle part in there without even spending any
time addressing it? That sentence is, literally, standing out there on
its own - and completely ignored.
Mostly because sexual predators are trying to use it as a presumptive
'reasonable doubt' affirmative defence, thus shifting the onus to the
complainant; the titular victim of his predation.
Defendants, whether guilty (as your remark presupposes) or not, don't need
to use any such thing. They already have reasonable doubt - not as an
"affirmative defence", but as the standard beyond which the prosecution must
find proof. The onus is *already* on the prosecution to prove 1. That the
rape occurred, and 2. that the defendant is the perpetrator. No "onus
shifting" needed. The complainant - the *alleged* victim - is strictly
speaking a prosecution witness.
Rape is also one of the most underreported crimes- and one of the most
common multiple offense perpetrators. It's one of the few crimes combining
sex and violence,...
Violence, according to my dictionary, means physical force or threat
thereof. Rape is only violence by definition in those jurisdictions that
define it as a "forcible" sexual act. Most jurisdictions define it as one
"without consent" a quite different concept, and one which allows for non
forcible acts to be considered rape. Such cases are not violent.
I agree that many, perhaps most, non-consensual rapes are violent.
...and one of the few wherein the target is shamed and humiliated after
the commission of the crime itself...
Also not true. Victims of many crimes often feel shamed and humiliated.
It is, by nature, generally done in private/concealment- often with only
two participants/witnesses,...
Which, in the absence of evidence of force, makes it very difficult to
prove.
It also makes it very difficult to defend against false charges.
one of whom is a seriously disturbed individual by any standard.
None of which has any bearing on Geratimatos's point.
Chas
--
Daran
Although the Court was looking forward to Plaintiffs' presentation of direct
evidence as to their factual assertion that "[t]he Ten Commandments were
personally and directly revealed by God to Moses," (Amended Complaint at
P12), subject to the rules of evidence and the appropriate burden of proof
to be satisfied through offering of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses,
legal relief on Plaintiffs' claims has been foreclosed by existing
precedent, and a statement from Moses and/or other contemporaneous witnesses
to this event need not be discovered, produced, or proffered, at least in
the instant matter. -- Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
|
| |
| |
ollowups set.
On 20 Oct 2004 20:03:20 EDT in talk.rape s_knight8
<s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<cl6uc8$nks@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assau
lt.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
A young woman sat in my office tears pouring down her face. She was crying
because she had just been referred to as "the accuser."
She is a survivor of a sexual assault. To the district attorney's office
she is a victim or the victim-witness. But to a particular fellow student,
to whom her experience is but a difficult to relate to story, she is "the
accuser."
This shift in language is subtle but profound. What did her fellow student
mean when he called her the accuser? He effectively put her behavior in
question instead of the behavior of the defendant. By calling her the
accuser he insinuated the following questions. Has she ever had sex
before? Does she like sex? Has she had more then one sexual partner? Has
she ever suffered with a mental health issue? Is she a liar? Does she have
a motive for a false accusation?
She has yet to hear a single person ask these questions of the defendant.
That doesn't mean that they haven't. She hasn't heard a single person ask
these questions of her, at least not merely by calling her an accuser.
There is an issue here, which the author has missed. It can perhaps be
illustrated by the following fictional dialogue.
Victim: "I've been stabbed. I'm bleeding!"
First-aider: "When and where did this happen?"
Victim: "Outside in the street, just now."
First-aider: "How do I know your telling the truth?"
Victim: "I'm bleeding, can't you see?"
First-aider: "I can see some red stuff. I don't know that it's
blood."
Victim: "Can't you bandage it up?"
First-aider: "We need to find out what really happened. This
person you say stabbed you. What did he look like?"
Victim: "Um, what does that matter?"
First-aider: "How do I know you didn't stab yourself? I mean, you
can't even give a description of the man you say attacked you..."
It should be obvious that a line of discourse which is appropriate for one
context - a court, or a police interview - is quite inappropriate in
another.
The term 'accuser' does shift the discourse from the complainant's
experience, to her honesty. That's legitimate in a court. It's not fair to
do that to an injured person outside of that context. Those people in her
social network, and his, are very much in the position of first-aiders. The
student in question would have done better *either* to decide to support
her, setting aside any doubts he or she might have had, and steer well clear
of him, *or* to support him, again, setting aside any doubts about his
innocence, and steer clear of her. If he can't do either, then he should
just steer clear of both of them.
I have other problems with the word "accuser" as it is generally used in
these discussion. One I raised in my reply to Michael Snyder. The other is
that the word is used virtually synonymously with "liar". However, these
are problems with the way the word is used in these discussions, not with
the word itself.
As The People of Colorado v. Kobe Bryant illustrated, the terming of the
victim witness as the accuser flips the traditional judicial process
paradigm...
Here the writer shoots herself in the foot. The case of The People of
Colorado Vs. Bryant is *precisely* the context in which the alleged victim's
claims *should* be questioned. The word "accuser" does *not* flip anything.
The traditional judicial process paradigm assumes the defendant to be
innocent. That is to say, the rape is presumed not to have happened, and if
it did, it is presumed not to have been committed by the defendant. It is
for the prosecution to overcome both of these presumptions.
On the contrary, it is by calling the complainant the "victim" that the
paradigm is reversed, at least as far as the first of those presumptions is
concerned.
...The victim witness is now doing something to the defendant, she is
accusing him. Over the past few months I heard many students refer to Kobe
Bryant as the victim of an accusation. Why tremendous empathy for a man
you do not know, and disregard and anger for a woman you also do not know?
Calling Bryant a "victim" of an accusation is inappropriate; we don't know
whether he is one or not. But since the writer advocates calling the
complainant a "victim" the same question can be asked in reverse: Why
tremendous empathy for a woman you do not know, and disregard and anger for
a man you also do not know?
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is
now more frequently falsely reported then any other crime...
Really? That's a claim often made, but never supported.
...If we insist on calling an alleged victim an accuser, then I suggest
that we move to calling defendants, accused rapists...
Well, we already call them "alleged rapists", which is not that different.
That is parallel construction...
No it's not. The parallel construction is the call the defendant "the
accused".
There are a couple of other parallel constructions:
complainant vs. defendant. alleged victim vs. alleged rapist.
...How many times would the defense object to the term accused rapist as
prejudicial and assumptive?
It's common, and not at all prejudicial to use any of the terms listed
above.
"Accuser" is prejudicial in the general case for reasons given in my reply
to Michael Snyder. However in many particular cases, including Bryant's,
there's no question that the complainant is the accuser.
And what you ask, is a much talked about but little understood, Rape
Shield Law? Rape Shield Laws, which have been passed in 49 states, protect
victims by reminding us that we are all free to have lawful sex with
whomever we chose and as often as we like...
It's not clear to me what it does. According to soc.men propaganda, it
limits the defence, but in the few cases of miscarriage of justice that I've
seen them cite, it was the *misapplication* of rape shield law -
subsequently reversed on appeal - that caused the miscarriage.
Consensual sex is not a crime. It preserves women's and men's right to say
"no" to any unwanted sexual activity and violence. Rape Shield Laws allow
only for a victim's sexual history to be introduced if it is relevant to
the assault in question. When the spirit and letter of the law are
ignored, this serves as a chilling effect on victims of these crimes...
Not to mention a few innocent men in prison.
...Approximately 1 in 5 sexual assaults is ever reported to law
enforcement. Unlike any other crime, there is a tendency to hold the
victim responsible for their own victimization which discourages many
victims from reporting. A victim who has had any prior sexual experience
for some reason is seen as having "bad character."...
Attitudes have changed markedly in recent years. It is not clear to what
extent this is still true.
...That is why even if a victim had consensual sex hours before an assault
it should not be introduced if it has no bearing on the case...
I agree *if* it has no bearing on the case. In the cases of miscarriage
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<VJednbpZ0YAZmOrcRVn-vg@comcast.com>...
"D. Gerasimatos" <dim@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote
The FBI statistics on false crime reporting show that sexual assault is
now
more frequently falsely reported then any other crime.
Mostly because sexual predators are trying to use it as a presumptive
'reasonable doubt' affirmative defense, thus shifting the onus to the
complainant; the titular victim of his predation.
A crime has to be proved. The onus is always on the prosecution.
There is no shifting involved. Unless of course in the case of false
accusation, where the prosecution doesn't bother to do anything
serious. Put a man behind bar for life on a woman's word, sure. But
if she is found lying, it is 3 months of jail time. Justice, who
cares about justice.
Rape is also one of the most underreported crimes- and one of the most
common multiple offense perpetrators.
And false accusation is the most under prosecuted felony.
It's one of the few crimes combining
sex and violence, and one of the few wherein the target is shamed and
humiliated after the commission of the crime itself. It is, by nature,
generally done in private/concealment- often with only two
participants/witnesses, one of whom is a seriously disturbed individual by
any standard.
Chas
And therefore, lets throw due process and rule of law out of the
window.
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<39GdnZWOZez3PercRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote
She is a survivor of a sexual assault.
Yes; the rest are called 'murder victims'- often by strangulation.
It must be a terrible experience- and only mitigated by surviving instead of
being found down by the river.
Or be found counting out the cashier under supervision.
Why do you seek to minimize the crime, or be scornful of the victim's
response to being assaulted?
Why do you seek to dramatize the crime, or be scornful to the accused.
He is innocent until a court of law says otherwise. Unless you were
there, you have only a person's word to count on. But yet you have
already form an opinion in what you don't know.
That's deep. If rape cases are still real cases, then the accused
still has the benefit of the doubt. And still has to be convicted
in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yes, the accuser should be scrutinized.
They are.
closely.
Do you think that Hurlburt missed the controversy over her credibility?
Judge by his stupidity, wouldn't be a big surprise.
How do you think they catch the false accusations so frequently?
Basis of this claim please?
How come the Bryant accuser passed all the investigative inquiry except by
having a strong complaint?
A stupid DA who is looking for fame for his re-election?
A strong complaint who can't testify in a criminal court but a civil
court. Yes, strong indeed.
That's what you get from having a common interest- being raped- or all the
money in the world for a defense- like Bryant.
Rich = guilt, good rationalization.
Having a good defense is a sin, but it is still a strong case without
physical evidence.
Nice way to spin it.
Because whatever version of events she gave, it was seriously
compromised by the facts of the case?
He's *admitted* it- talk about being compromised by the facts of the case!
Yeah, he's admitted to having consensual sex and he admitted to have a
consensual sex partner who changed mind and sue him for a million
dollar.
Talk about facts, lets talk about facts.
She lied to embliesh the case to the court. Admitted in writting.
She lied to the police. Proved by preliminary.
She lied to the court. As in her affirmation of no sex after
encounter, proven false by the DNA evidence.
She is a liar.
Chas
But Chas still want to talk about strong complaint and strong case and
credibility.
She doesn't have any credibility and neither do you.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<cl897e$63i@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <41777dcf$0$62029$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>, Alex <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote: I can think of a lot of things that you would survive that would mess you up for the rest of your life.
You have my condolence for whatever that make you an irrational hater
against civil liberty and human rights.
|
| |
| |
"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote
Actually, it's pretty recent. Rape used to be pretty much only applied to
women of the gentry- lower class women suffered rape and learned to live
with it. Race used to play a big part in it- violent sexuality was
treated
differently depending on the race/class...
...And gender...
Yes; white male/black woman was treated differently from black male/white
woman; same with Asians, same with American Indians, same with Italians, for
that matter.
Still is. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if there were large
numbers of women in prison being forced into sexual slavery by other
prisoners.
Supposedly, there are. I understand that dominent lesbians run women's
prisons, and that's certainly a part of it.
And, why no howls of protest when there are large numbers of men being
forced into slavery by other prisoners/guards/staff?
If only a percentage of rapes are even reported, and only a percentage of
those are false accusations, the probability of rape and a miscarriage of
justice is far higher than otherwise.
It's not clear what you are trying to say here.
I was still speaking to the point that apologists want to raise the
incidence of false reporting of rape as an affirmative defense in reasonable
doubt to a charge of rape.
Only a minor percentage of rapes are even reported to a law enforcement
authority at all- the percentage of rapes reported falsely is only a minor
percentage of those.
It's far more likely that a rape report is true than false.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, there are no good figures for the
rate of false allegation, still less any evidence of vast numbers of false
convictions. However it is the very lack of data that is a cause for
concern, given how effective victims' advocates have been in lobbying for
justice reforms in favour of complainants.
It's a necessary correction. The shield laws were initiated because a
woman's sexual history was allowed in evidence even in violent stranger
encounters (as contrasted with acquaintance rape). It was a test of
humiliation and public embarrassment that intimidated a lot of witnesses.
Most people who are worried about false rape charges ought to be checking
themselves instead.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Followups set to the only two groups which are at all interested.
I don't accept your judgement. What, for instance, makes you think that
rape is not of interest to alt.true-crime?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:41:21 -0700 in talk.rape Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
<211020040941214477%timcmay@removethis.got.net>...
We are talking about rape victims, not people who have had their butt
smacked.
The implied comparison is despicable.
The point, nevertheless, is valid. Most victims of rape do not die,
except in the sense that everybody dies. Calling them survivors,
and still less "Survivors", is not appropriate. It's spin.
|
| |
| |
Followups set.
Please stop it.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:28:20 GMT in talk.rape Offshore Eddie
<eddie@nospam.com> wrote in message
<oCXdd.3702$KJ6.183@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/10/04/Opinions/In.Cases.Of.Sexual.Assault.Language.Matters-740223.shtml
One in four college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during
her college years.
Was that Koss's study in the mid eighties?
Yes.
|
| |
| |
| | |
