mom@sftri.UUCP (M.Modig) (12/14/84)
There has been a lot of traffic recently in this newsgroup
concerning confrontation of rapists by their victims. This certainly
seems like a good idea; I am quite intrigued by this idea, and would
like to know more...so, that is request 1. Does anyone know where I
might be able to find out about more about this technique?
One problem that, in my opinion, has not been dealt with adequately
are some of the legal questions surrounding this technique. For
example, what about the rapist's rights? (Hard to believe, but they
do have rights--violating them just because he violated someone
else's is no excuse, unless you're a member of the eye for an eye,
life for a life school of thought. If not, how do you answer the
charge that two wrongs don't make a right?)
Second of all, misusing this technique could smack of taking the law
into one's own hands and vigilante-style justice. Consider: a man
is accused of rape, tried and convicted. However, his sentence is
releatively light in the opinion of the victim, and so she decides
to arrange a little extra punishment of her own....etc., etc.,)
Finally, and, I feel, most important, how do you protect the
innocent man against being falsely accused? "Well, there aren't that
many false accusations."
Sure... Well, Mrs. Smith, according to statistics,
you know there is only one death per year due to radiation induced cancer
among nuclear plant workers/ X-ray technicians/whatever. Well, I'm afraid
your child was the one. I know how you feel, but we do need power
to run this great country of ours... [parallel this to the case of
the single man falsely accused and the usefulness of this technique
in helping victims]
A man accused of rape in so public a fashion as a confrontation
would probably have his personal and professional life
destroyed. Sure, if he was innocent, he could sue. He would probably
even win (lotsa buck$). But money can't buy everything.
So, how do you protect the innocent? "Well, this technique is only
used if the woman is sure of her assailant." Did anyone see the
story on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks back about the Marine Corps
Corporal found guilty of raping a woman? The initial spiel made him
look pretty bad. And the woman insisted in her testimony (she was
not actually interviewed; she declined, for reasons that I think are
understandable given society's attitude toward rape victims in general)
that it was the corporal
who had abducted and raped her. She positively identified him in
lineups, and in court. I would imagine that such positive
identification and absolute certainty would be necessary to get a
conviction on a rape charge; it's hard enough to get a conviction
even when there's so much conclusive evidence that it should be an
open-and-shut case. But then the program goes on to look at the
evidence, and talk with some of the people involved. At the start
of the piece, I was pretty sure the guy was guilty. By the time it
ended, I wasn't so sure anymore.
So, in this case, the man, in my mind, could be innocent. The
victim, tho, was sure it was the corporal. So, would one of these
groups support her in an effort to bring about a confrontation with
him, assuming he was out free? [on bail, perhaps, or whatever]? I'm
totally in the dark on this, so if I'm missing something, let me
know.
One possible answer might be a court-arranged confrontation,
presumably after a rapist had been convicted. This has some
therapeutic value, I guess, but nowhere near the impact of a public
confrontation, and if the guy's guilty, I see no reason he shouldn't
get as much as can be dished out at him. It might even be made part
of HIS therapy, too.
Basically, then, as I see it, we have the choice of allowing the
victim basically free rein to harass someone or some people who
is/are most likely guilty of rape, and dealing with the very small
number of cases of false accusation as they come up, or restricting
the victim to, say, a court-approved confrontation, and thus
reducing the chance of a false accusation to an even smaller amount (I
haven't heard yet of a demonstrably falsely accused and convicted
rapist, but I suppose there is a chance [I'm not going to hold my
breath, tho]). I can appreciate some of the guilt and anger and
frustration associated with being a rape victim (I think being
completely unable to appreciate it just because I'm a male is garbage),
but, for my money:
1) I'm biased as hell about this
2) If you violate another's rights, you are no better than they are
violating yours
3) We have always been a country that prides itself on individual
rights, freedoms, and privileges. Protection of the individual
from such things as false accusations has always been important, but
we also hold the well-being and rights of others, including victims,
to be important, too. Which takes precedence?
No fair slipping out of it by saying that rape is a special stigma,
etc. that isn't really given due recognition. That is changing;
convictions are becoming easier to get, sentences are becoming
longer, and even the fact that the idea of confrontation is being
used indicates that change is beginning. I guess my question really
is asking how much should that change be as far as the use of
confontations is concerned.
Also spare me any frenzied, sarcastic, or even well-reasoned
accusations that I am in favor of "protecting rapists" or that I am
a woman-hater for daring to intimate that the rapist is a human
being, and thus is entitled to rights we accord all other human
beings, and may only have those rights and privileges taken away
from him in a particular manner [convictions, courts,
sentencing...,etc.]
Mark Modig
ihnp4!attunix!mommary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) (12/21/84)
In part of your generally well-reasoned article on confrontation of rapists, you mention: > > 1) I'm biased as hell about this > 2) If you violate another's rights, you are no better than they are > violating yours > 3) We have always been a country that prides itself on individual > rights, freedoms, and privileges. Protection of the individual > from such things as false accusations has always been important, but > we also hold the well-being and rights of others, including victims, > to be important, too. Which takes precedence? > > No fair slipping out of it by saying that rape is a special stigma, > etc. that isn't really given due recognition. That is changing; > convictions are becoming easier to get, sentences are becoming > longer, and even the fact that the idea of confrontation is being > used indicates that change is beginning. I guess my question really > is asking how much should that change be as far as the use of > confontations is concerned. > > Also spare me any frenzied, sarcastic, or even well-reasoned > accusations that I am in favor of "protecting rapists" or that I am > a woman-hater for daring to intimate that the rapist is a human > being, and thus is entitled to rights we accord all other human > beings, and may only have those rights and privileges taken away > from him in a particular manner [convictions, courts, > sentencing...,etc.] > > Mark Modig > ihnp4!attunix!mom I would like to elaborate on that last paragraph...It is certainly very important to avoid false accusations, and see that justice is accorded properly, but as far as I'm concerned, the CONVICTED rapist (or for that manner, anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime against another person) is no longer a human being, but some sort of beast--I don't want to use the term animal for fear of insulting the animals :-). It seems to me that in our zeal to see that justice is administered fairly, the scales have swung too far in the direction of the convicted criminal, and that just doesn't seem right to me. I'm not advocating INHUMANE treatment of these people, but I do think that they should be punished for what they've done, and that usually involves revoking many rights and privileges that most humans take for granted. Admittedly, you do make mention of the conditions under which a person's rights may be taken away, but again, a being who has been convicted of a violent crime has, in my opinion, just forfeited any rights he/she may once have claimed as a human being. Perhaps people would thing twice about committing violence against their neighbors if the punishment were swift, sure, and just. No doubt the fostering of the proper attitudes toward our fellow humans, male and female, would be the ideal solution, but I don't see that becoming widespread anytime soon. The point is, people must learn that antisocial behavior has nasty consequences. MJR Shurtleff ...!decvax!bunkerb!mary