todd@sri-unix (12/07/82)
Re: Connie Francis and rape laws:
Curtis Jackson (...!floyd!burl!rcj) shows great insensitivity in his
treatment of the issue of rape and of Connie Francis (a rape victim
who is angry). Jackson would do well to seek a better
understanding of the issue of rape and the
problems with existing treatment of rape victims. For this purpose, I
recommend (among several other books) Susan Brownmiller's
book, 'Against Our Wills: Men, Women, and Rape' (1975). I didn't see the show
Jackson refers to, so I will not defend Ms. Francis' tone or manner of
handling herself. However, from what I can tell of the version of Francis'
recommendations reported by Jackson, I agree with most.
The guilty by insanity plea clearly needs rework in the opinion of most
forensic psychologists. The lack of 'science' in the determination of
'insanity' in the courtroom (or on the psychiatrist's couch) translates into
a bias towards the ability of rich clients to hire the psychiatric testimony
they need to be placed in 'mental institutions' rather than prisons.
As for posters on victim's rights -- what's wrong here???
Repeal of archaic laws that required special proof of heroic resistence
to rape assault on the part of victims as a necessary precursor to the
prosecution of a rape was a welcome update of the legal code. The implied
belief that the cry of 'rape' by a victim needs to be substantiated by
proof of resistence is an inheritance of the age-old prejudice that women
don't know what they really want. (See Brownmiller for a better elaboration
of this point, as well as a history of such laws.)
By the way, most rape crisis centers do recommend prosecution regardless of
the demonstrated degree of resistence. Crisis center personnel, however, are
sensitive to the viability of the case as it would appear in court. The
prejudice alluded to above regarding the unwillingness to believe a rape
allegation without 'physical' evidence of a struggle is clearly a factor
in choosing a jury, and in evaluating the case's possibilities.
I agree with the Dallas, TX experiment in handling rape victims
in one area hospital before allowing police questioning. In previous
trials of this idea, police have cooperated strongly and recognized that
the information needed to try to apprehend suspects is a minor subset,
in most instances, of the information that is typically gathered in
interviews with recent rape victims. The consideration of the victim's
emotional needs as she passes through medical treatment and legal agencies
should be given prime importance - as Dallas seems to be doing. Again,
the procedure should be counterposed to the existing system of multiple
interrogation by individuals in many service agencies in a fashion that
is often described by rape victims as, 'the second rape.'
Again, Ms. Francis may have overstated her points, and she may even
have been 'flaming'. I don't feel that what she stated is unreasonable.
Furthermore, I praise her for being brave enough to come forward and
speak to a wide audience about a crime that many people still do not
consider a serious issue.
Todd Tiegersoreff (12/09/82)
I differ with Todd Tieger's suggestion of Susan Brownmiller's 'Against Our Wills: Men, Women, and Rape' as a recommended book. I read Brownmiller's book some years ago and found that it is overdocumented to the point of being nearly unreadable. Brownmiller tends to hammer points into the ground. I also found the chapter on pornography to be too flame-like. -Jeffrey Soreff
mcewan (12/11/82)
#R:pyuxjj:-36400:uiucdcs:29200003:000:199 uiucdcs!mcewan Dec 11 12:56:00 1982 I wish people would read before they flame. If you carefully re-read Curtis Jackson's original note you will see that the things you are arguing with him about are those that he said he AGREES with.