cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/07/85)
In article <809@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: > Finally, angry people call for ways to make rape convictions > easier, to ease off on the victim, to allow the evidence to be > weaker for a conviction. What you don't seem to be acknowledging here is that rape cases historically have had a much different standard than other crimes--in rape cases, victims were put on trial & made to corroborate their evidence in a way that was never true for any other kind of crime, violent or otherwise. Many of the pleas to change the laws re: rape are pleas to treat rape victims and suspects like victims and suspects in other kinds of crimes. > I was at one point accused of an esstentially subjective crime - > a disorderly persons offense revolving around the amount of noise I made > in my upstairs apartment. You were falsely accused of a misdemeanor. As I mentioned in another posting, the rate of false reporting of rape is the same as it is for other kinds of serious crimes. (This is statistic refers to saying that a rape occurred when one did not, and to inadvertently misidentifying the suspect.) > I have one point and one point only: just saying someone committed > a crime, ANY CRIME, can never be enough to convict them. This (conviction on one person's word alone) is not the case with rape now nor is that what most reformers want. As the Webb-Dotson case indicates, the prosecution invariably brings in other kinds of evidence when rape cases are tried. For instance, many women who are raped feel the need to cleanse themselves immediately afterwards. This is not a good idea because unless a victim presents herself to a medical examiner with evidence of semen on herself and on her clothes, no charges will ever be brought against anyone. Also, because rape is a violent crime, victims very often have bruises, torn vaginas and other physical marks on their bodies after the attack. Often, there is fiber evidence as well. The kinds of evidence most reformers want to keep out of rape trials are the evidence that the defense is allowed to produce--such as whether the woman was a virgin or not, whether she was generally faithful to her husband or not, etc. Look, I was attacked by an absolute stranger when I was walking back from the library. If they had ever found the guy, in some states the fact that I was not a virgin at the time would have been admissible evidence for the defense. In fact, the defense could have asked me at great length about my sex life--and they could go back as far as they wished in asking questions. Now the point of that kind of defense is not even to create a *reasonable* doubt in the minds of the jury, but to feed on their prejudices about proper behavior & their prejudices about nice girls not getting raped. But it would have nothing to do with the *facts* of the case. In NO other kind of crime case does the defense attempt to do that, nor do judges allow it. > What I have said goes for rape as for all other crimes. It goes > for all kinds of rape - Date rape, wife rape, stranger rape. > Cases must be decided one at a time based on the evidence. Punishement > must be appropriate to the magnitude of the crime. I don't believe in capital punishment, nor do I think that castration is a good (or constitutional!) punishment. It might give me some emotional satisfaction if I could castrate the man who tried to rape me, but I would never seriously advocate that as a justifiable punishment. But the question of guilt or innocence is a different one than the question of punishment. They are decided at different times & by different people under our legal system. I'm not sure why you're talking about the two of them together. Are you saying that punishments for rapists should be minimal or not so severe because a convicted rapist may nonetheless be innocent? Isn't that true for any other kind of crime? > It is extremely easy to sit on the sidelines and urge that harse > punishment be meted out to "criminals." It is only when we sit > down in court and listen to different cases that we realize > the difference between being in jail(or dead in the chair), and > being free may rest on the word of some pretty dubious characters, > and some pretty flimsy evidence. That's why in many states, punishments are discretionary--that is, judges are given a range of punishments from which to choose. The push for mandatory sentencing comes more out of a conservative anti-crime movement & less from any specific attitudes re: rape. > Dale C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (06/07/85)
> I agree, rape is a crime of violence, regardless of motive. > However, many people are extremely angry about rape as an issue > and an event. Angry people call for extreme measures - long sentances, > the death penalty, castration, etc. Angry people lash out in > a broad sweep at all kinds of supposed "causes" of rape, including > pornography. Finally, angry people call for ways to make rape convictions > easier, to ease off on the victim, to allow the evidence to be > weaker for a conviction. It is not uncommon for the psychological *cause* of rape to be anger. The rapist is *actually* angry at some woman in his past (probably mom), and takes it out on a random passerby, or one who looks like her. It is unreasonable to expect a raped woman to not be angry at the anger dumped unjustifiably on her by some man who didn't have the balls to dump it where it belonged: on (probably) mom. Men don't grow up with enough disrespect for women in general to commit rape, in a vacuum you know. There have to be reasons for his disrespect. 1) Mom 2) Society A) Peers (other men) B) others ( women) By the time he rapes, it's pretty late to fix his relationship with mom, if that was the cause, and is a long slow psychotheraputic process not often available to your average incarcerated rapist (may we offload discussions of incarceration vs rehabilitation into net.politics.theory?) I believe other postings have indicated that there is sufficient societal reinforcement of the worthlessness of women on the whole that it doesn't take much peer exposure for a man with any tendencies to disrespect mom to fall over the brink into disrespect for women in general, and thence into disrespect of any given example thereof, and thence into rape. But what do I know? having neither raped nor been raped? I still say patriarchy is the problem. And, no, matriarchy is not the solution. Why was it ERA didn't pass? Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (06/07/85)
Sounds to me like Carol Jackson & I agree: rape should be treated by the same standards as any other crime. I agree this means prohibiting questions like "are you a virgin" and so on. In fact, I mentioned in the original posting that rape laws did need reform. It was never my intention to suggest that I had any evidence that the chances of being falsely accused of rape were any greater than for any other crime. However, I think men fear being falsely accused of rape for three reasons: 1)They *know* women exist who are mad at them for one reason or another. 2)They see little that they could offer by way of a defense, especially if they have had some sort of relationship with the person in the past. 3)They can readily imagine a your word against mine situation, no conviction, and then the total destruction of their reputation, possible loss of job, etc. because everyone they know will take sides. Hence, when someone says something like "as soon as she says no, sex becomes rape," it tends to scare men spitless. We all agree rape is a crime of violence. It is not the no that makes it a crime so much as the force used to overcome the no. As long as we all agree that the same rules of evidence are used for rape as for all crimes, I, and I think most men, have no problem with the situation. Nothing I have said is intended to belittle the suffering of rape victims. However, I am trying to shed some light on why men may be extremely defensive, and refuse to acknowledge the suffering of rape victims. Dale All opinions are my own, and not those of AT&T.
neal@fear.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (06/08/85)
In article <809@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: > Disclaimer: I agree, rape(including non-sexual rape), is ---------- > Dale > > All opinions are my own, and not to be associated with AT&T. Non-sexual rape? That's a new one.... maybe he means assualt? Neal B.
dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (06/12/85)
Disclaimer: I agree, rape(including non-sexual rape), is a crime of violence, regardless of motive. It is a crime, and should be treated as a crime. Excuses based on provocative clothing and enticement should be given the short shift they deserve. My belief is that some reform of the law surrounding rape is called for, and that many "reform" laws have already been passed. No doubt further work is required here. However, many people are extremely angry about rape as an issue and an event. Angry people call for extreme measures - long sentances, the death penalty, castration, etc. Angry people lash out in a broad sweep at all kinds of supposed "causes" of rape, including pornography. Finally, angry people call for ways to make rape convictions easier, to ease off on the victim, to allow the evidence to be weaker for a conviction. Such sentiments are common among law abiding citizens in relationship to all crimes. The popular view is that crooks get off easily, and that our courts have no good reason to operate the way they do. I do think that our justice system is imperfect, and have my own ideas as to its reform. However, I am writing now to tout its virtues. I was at one point accused of an esstentially subjective crime - a disorderly persons offense revolving around the amount of noise I made in my upstairs apartment. Forgive me if I leave out juicy details, but I have no desire to incur any legal liabilities. From my point of view, I was falsely accused. The person accusing me had not even bothered to walk upstairs and complain prior to calling the police. Once I arrived in court, the reason for all those rules protecting the defendent became abundantly clear to me. Those rules were ALL that stood between me and a conviction for a crime I did not commit. The prosection had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I had actually done what I was accused of doing. There had to be PROOF, witnesses, physical evidence, something! I had the right to confront my accuser, to ask probing questions, and to make statements in my own defense. I easily refuted some of the specific claims being made by presenting hard evidence of my own. In the end it boiled down to someone's word against mine. The case was dismissed. But frankly, I was scared spitless throughout - mainly by the thought that someone disliked me enough to falsely accuse me of a crime. I have one point and one point only: just saying someone committed a crime, ANY CRIME, can never be enough to convict them. This is my only protection against false accusation. Every one of us probably has someone, perhaps someone we do not even know, who, if they could, would delight in making trouble for us. Our only protection against these people is our legal system. What I have said goes for rape as for all other crimes. It goes for all kinds of rape - Date rape, wife rape, stranger rape. Cases must be decided one at a time based on the evidence. Punishement must be appropriate to the magnitude of the crime. There must be no excuses of provocative clothing permitted, but the case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This means, regretably, that some rapists, and some murderers, and some check forgers, will go free. This is they price we all collectively pay for our consitutional rights. It is a price I will gladly pay. I know that I may not feel this way after I get mugged and the mugger gets off on some minor rule, but I hope I do. It is extremely easy to sit on the sidelines and urge that harse punishment be meted out to "criminals." It is only when we sit down in court and listen to different cases that we realize the difference between being in jail(or dead in the chair), and being free may rest on the word of some pretty dubious characters, and some pretty flimsy evidence. I have spent some time in court listening to cases, including husband/wife domestic violence, and I assure you it is sometimes anything but simple to decide guilt and innocence. In fact, I urge you all to go to your local night court and get a feel for what the legal system is about. I found it an education well worth getting. Dale All opinions are my own, and not to be associated with AT&T.