Legal question --- calling our resident experts

[swamp]

Jun 8, 2016 12:35:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:52:23 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. 

Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do?   Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury?

I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions,  as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty.  Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no.


I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions.



 

Except for every other crime they only go for inconsistencies in the victim's account of the instance. Whether or not she had sex with her bf two days previous has nothing to do with what occurred that night. It's not an inconsistency. How many people she has had sex with doesn't show an inconsistency of whether or not she said yes to this guy.

Whether she wanted to have sex with her bf that night has nothing to with having sex with that guy. The bf wasn't there. That'd be like a thief saying "Well you were planning to donate the money I stole" as a defense to stealing your money. It's ludicrous and would not be allowed to be part of the defense. Yet it was in a rape trial.


The thing is all the questions about previous sexual partners and encounters treats sex as a universal thing. Because she's had sex before she wanted to have sex this time. I mean, why else does it matter what she has done with other people unless the implication is she did it with him so she did it with me.

The only instance past sexual encounters should even be remotely relevant is if there was a previous sexual relationship. But even that is practically irrelevant because there is no such thing as blanket consent when it comes to sex. Ever.

NY bars these questions under the Rape Shield law.  I'm surprised CA allows it.

[gs11rmb]

Jun 8, 2016 12:25:49 GMT -5 milee said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:51:35 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

[justme]

Jun 8, 2016 12:20:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:14:47 GMT -5 Tiny said:

This is the generic you:    Is it also being stupid if you are driving on your merry way - but some other car hits you?   Were you complicit in the accident because you weren't paying enough attention? How could you NOT have seen that the other car was going to hit you?    Were you too trusting that the other car would stop (maybe they were suppose to stop, maybe their weren't).

 

Maybe you should stop driving.  It's dangerous.  You have to keep putting yourself in vulnerable positions as you make your way down the road.  You have to TRUST that other people will follow the rules or not make mistakes. 

 

i actually do go out of my way to avoid driving when I know there are much higher chances of having drunk drivers on the road. Doesn't mean if I go out and get hit by one it is my fault. At the same time, I know that the only one that cares about my safety is me. Same thing Im saying in this thread. But somehow that gets turned jnto me blaming the victim

Ok, let's say you do go out on new years and someone hits you. Enough damage/injury that you end up going to trial. Should they be able to bring up in their defense "yea but she went out on new years, she should have known there was a good chance to get in an accident so I shouldn't have to pay"

[midjd]

This situation is all on the rapist. The person who decided that it was okay to violate someone else because that's what they wanted is 100% responsible for what happened.

This is the crux of it. And I do believe that everyone posting in this thread believes this.

The problem is that when the discussion acknowledges this fact but immediately turns to the victim's actions, it looks like victim blaming. 

The victim can't go back and be un-raped. Her life is forever changed. All the precautionary tales or coulda/shouldas in the world aren't going to help her. And while I think a conversation on personal safety and smart decisions is very worthwhile to have with your teens before they go out into the world, on a societal level it does send the message that the focus should be on what we can do to protect ourselves from rape, not what we can do to prevent people from becoming rapists. 

It's like taking cold medicine when you really need antibiotics. Yeah, it might make you feel better for a while, might even keep you functional at work for a few days, but the underlying disease is still there. (Apologies for the tortured analogy, just got out of a 4-hr meeting). 

[ArchietheDragon]

Jun 8, 2016 12:25:49 GMT -5 milee said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:51:35 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

unfortunately the defense is going to do everything they can to prove that it was consensual sex.  (assuming that the defendant admit to having sex with the victim).  

What was she wearing, did she touch his arm, did she kiss him, did she have a few drinks, did she laugh at his jokes, did she like to have lots of sex with lots of guys...  etc, etc,  it all goes to make a case that she consented.       It is not right, but I don't know the answer to how to prevent it.     getting convicted of rape certainly isn't good for a guy, especially if he is innocent, so a guy needs to be able to defend himself.    How do you make it equitable for both parties? I don't know. 

But what a defense attorney does and what we do as a society are - and should be - two different things.  Defense attorneys can get away with this defense because our societal conditioning makes us predisposed to believe it is relevant.  When our media reports on these incidents and lists the attacker's athletic achievements or states what the victim was wearing... that perpetuates the myth.  When we have school dress codes and administrators that explicitly state that girls have to cover up because if they don't it distracts the boys, that perpetuates the myth that girls are responsible for preventing boys' bad behaviour.  When we individually hear about one of these crimes and discuss what the victim did - drinking, wearing, actions - to "contribute", then we perpetuate the myth.  And because everybody buys into the idea that women are responsible for controlling the thoughts and actions of men and because it's considered OK to examine what she was wearing and how she contributed or failed to prevent her attack, we perpetuate the idea that she is partially responsible.

We can stop this by making small but meaningful changes.  Changes like:

Calling out the media on their descriptions.  Recently, our local paper had the headline "Man convicted of murdering a prostitute".  A reader wrote in to point out that the attacker was a registered sex offender with many prior convictions and that the headline should have read "Convicted Sex Offender convicted of murdering a woman."  Read that again.  It's subtle but powerful.  In the first headline the woman is demeaned and the implication is that she was putting herself at risk or was someone who deserved whatever she got at the hands of a "man".  It's that type of pervasive messaging that is the problem.

When we talk to our daughters about how to keep themselves safe, don't do it right after we hear about a rape.  By connecting the two, you are implying with the timing that the rape victim was at fault.

Work with our schools to make the dress codes gender neutral - same for all sexes and about a standard level of covering up, not about one sex being responsible for controlling the other sex.

Call people out when they want to discuss the victim more than the crime.



Will any of that help immediately or result in a 180 degree change?  No.  But over time, it will help.  I'm in my 40s and remember how when I was growing up, the news always discussed the race of the criminal as an integral part of the story.  It was "a black man is accused of _______" or "a jury convicted John Smith, a black man, of ________."  Just mentioning the race implied that race was relevant to the crime.  People would discuss crime and usually casually mention race in the discussion.  None of that is considered OK any more partly because of small but important changes in the media and in how people talk amongst themselves.  Over time, public reaction helped the media to realize that this was unacceptable and you don't hear about it any more.  In most social settings, it's not considered acceptable and you don't hear it any more.  

We need to do something similar with how we constantly connect rape and "prevention"... make it socially unacceptable.  Over time, as that happens it will no longer be something that defense attorneys will do since it will not be effective and will even backfire as people find it repugnant that a defense attorney would attempt to imply the length of a victim's skirt is relevant.  Just like it now backfires if a defense attorney implies the color of the defendant's skin is relevant.

The court of public appeal is a tough one.    I think you are right though and it is changing.  Changing very, very, very slowly, but it is changing.  

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 8, 2016 12:36:19 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:17:23 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Can you ever post without sarcasm? It is hard to take you seriously since you can't just have a discussion

But show me anywhere in this thread where anyone said she deserved it?

No one in the threat said she deserved it.  And I don't think there's any sarcasm... it's about the trial.  The woman WAS asked very personal questions in such a way as to determine if she might have consented to sex with the guy.  The guy's defense DID try to depict the woman as being the kind of girl who WOULD have sex with just anyone (her behavior, the way she was dressed, the fact that she was drinking at a frat party...)   If they could determine that she was 'free and easy with sex' - then maybe it is OK for a guy to have sex with her when she is unconscious...   

We can't control what a defense attorney does. Unfortunately the defense attorneys always try to discredit the victim. No different in other kinds of cases

But what the defense does has no bearing on what people in this thread are talking about as far as not putting ourselves in vulnerable positions.

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 8, 2016 12:38:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:20:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

i actually do go out of my way to avoid driving when I know there are much higher chances of having drunk drivers on the road. Doesn't mean if I go out and get hit by one it is my fault. At the same time, I know that the only one that cares about my safety is me. Same thing Im saying in this thread. But somehow that gets turned jnto me blaming the victim

Ok, let's say you do go out on new years and someone hits you. Enough damage/injury that you end up going to trial. Should they be able to bring up in their defense "yea but she went out on new years, she should have known there was a good chance to get in an accident so I shouldn't have to pay"

Im guessing a defense attorney would use anything he or she could to try to discredit me. Have you never read reports of what has been blamed on victims or do you only focus on women who were raped?

[gs11rmb]

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

[swamp]

Jun 8, 2016 12:45:59 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

I think that is the most disturbing part.

I understand a parent's urge to protect their kid. However, dad's description of a rape as "20 minutes of action" is just sickening. They don't see this as a violent act. They see it as a drunk hookup gone wrong.

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 8, 2016 12:45:59 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

And that's all I've been trying to say. There are things we can do to either put ourselves in a situation that might get ugly or not. There are bad people out there and we need to do our best to not become their easy prey (I love that wording). For me, that means not going into bad areas, trying to avoid driving when the drunks will be out, not accepting drinks from strangers in bars, locking my car and house, and many others. that doesn't mean if I didn't lock my doors that I deserve to be robbed or killed, but it does mean that I didn't take all of the precautions I could have to prevent it.  And it is also true that I can take every precaution out there and still become a victim.  but my goal in life is not to make it easy for the criminals.

[midjd]

I understand a parent's urge to protect their kid. However, dad's description of a rape as "20 minutes of action" is just sickening.

And probably 99% of the reason his son is a rapist. 

IMO focusing on this attitude (rather than 4 pages of what the victim did) is the way to prevent rape.

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 8, 2016 12:49:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:45:59 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

I think that is the most disturbing part.

I understand a parent's urge to protect their kid. However, dad's description of a rape as "20 minutes of action" is just sickening. They don't see this as a violent act. They see it as a drunk hookup gone wrong.

I struggle with that.  As an outsider I think the guy is a huge fucking douche and the reason his son is the way he is.  On the other hand, as a parent, I honestly don't know what I would believe if my child were charged with something like that.  I think as parents we want to believe our kids are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc.  I'm just saying I can sort of understand him not actually believing it because I can't imagine ever believing my child did something god awful like that

[swamp]

Jun 8, 2016 12:50:32 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:45:59 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

And that's all I've been trying to say. There are things we can do to either put ourselves in a situation that might get ugly or not. There are bad people out there and we need to do our best to not become their easy prey (I love that wording). For me, that means not going into bad areas, trying to avoid driving when the drunks will be out, not accepting drinks from strangers in bars, locking my car and house, and many others. that doesn't mean if I didn't lock my doors that I deserve to be robbed or killed, but it does mean that I didn't take all of the precautions I could have to prevent it.  And it is also true that I can take every precaution out there and still become a victim.  but my goal in life is not to make it easy for the criminals.

Did you see the story making the rounds on the internet about a week ago.  Three women out for happy hour saw a guy put something in a woman's drink when she went to the restroom.  And he was her friend!!!!   WTF is wrong with people?

I also don't understand the allure of sex with basically a dead person.  I like feedback.  Preferably positive.

[justme]

Jun 8, 2016 12:37:38 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:35:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Except for every other crime they only go for inconsistencies in the victim's account of the instance. Whether or not she had sex with her bf two days previous has nothing to do with what occurred that night. It's not an inconsistency. How many people she has had sex with doesn't show an inconsistency of whether or not she said yes to this guy.

Whether she wanted to have sex with her bf that night has nothing to with having sex with that guy. The bf wasn't there. That'd be like a thief saying "Well you were planning to donate the money I stole" as a defense to stealing your money. It's ludicrous and would not be allowed to be part of the defense. Yet it was in a rape trial.


The thing is all the questions about previous sexual partners and encounters treats sex as a universal thing. Because she's had sex before she wanted to have sex this time. I mean, why else does it matter what she has done with other people unless the implication is she did it with him so she did it with me.

The only instance past sexual encounters should even be remotely relevant is if there was a previous sexual relationship. But even that is practically irrelevant because there is no such thing as blanket consent when it comes to sex. Ever.

NY bars these questions under the Rape Shield law.  I'm surprised CA allows it.

I didn't realize every state hasn't stopped these questions yet.

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 8, 2016 12:53:46 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:50:32 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

And that's all I've been trying to say. There are things we can do to either put ourselves in a situation that might get ugly or not. There are bad people out there and we need to do our best to not become their easy prey (I love that wording). For me, that means not going into bad areas, trying to avoid driving when the drunks will be out, not accepting drinks from strangers in bars, locking my car and house, and many others. that doesn't mean if I didn't lock my doors that I deserve to be robbed or killed, but it does mean that I didn't take all of the precautions I could have to prevent it.  And it is also true that I can take every precaution out there and still become a victim.  but my goal in life is not to make it easy for the criminals.

Did you see the story making the rounds on the internet about a week ago.  Three women out for happy hour saw a guy put something in a woman's drink when she went to the restroom.  And he was her friend!!!!   WTF is wrong with people?

I also don't understand the allure of sex with basically a dead person.  I like feedback.  Preferably positive.

I saw that!  I loved that strangers prevented a rape.  It made me sad because that is just further proof that you honestly can't trust anyone.  People just make me so sad

[swamp]

Jun 8, 2016 12:55:53 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:50:37 GMT -5 midjd said:

And probably 99% of the reason his son is a rapist. 

IMO focusing on this attitude (rather than 4 pages of what the victim did) is the way to prevent rape.

Agreed,  but preventing isn't eliminating.  Therefore I'd tell any woman, girl, or boys/men that I know that it's all well and good not to blame the victim,  but I'd rather not be a victim in the first place and will do everything in my power not to be.   Such as putting in precautions when I'm drinking, walking down the street, or watching lifetime movies in my ratty sweatpants and no makeup. 

Isn't it true you were wearing ripped sweatpants and a naked face, you whore?   And you put your hair up in a seductive pony tail?   And were drinking a beer?  And eating chips? 

[Opti]

Jun 8, 2016 12:35:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:52:23 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. 

Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do?   Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury?

I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions,  as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty.  Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no.


I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions.



 

Except for every other crime they only go for inconsistencies in the victim's account of the instance. Whether or not she had sex with her bf two days previous has nothing to do with what occurred that night. It's not an inconsistency. How many people she has had sex with doesn't show an inconsistency of whether or not she said yes to this guy.

Whether she wanted to have sex with her bf that night has nothing to with having sex with that guy. The bf wasn't there. That'd be like a thief saying "Well you were planning to donate the money I stole" as a defense to stealing your money. It's ludicrous and would not be allowed to be part of the defense. Yet it was in a rape trial.


The thing is all the questions about previous sexual partners and encounters treats sex as a universal thing. Because she's had sex before she wanted to have sex this time. I mean, why else does it matter what she has done with other people unless the implication is she did it with him so she did it with me.

The only instance past sexual encounters should even be remotely relevant is if there was a previous sexual relationship. But even that is practically irrelevant because there is no such thing as blanket consent when it comes to sex. Ever.

This was remarkably well said and well thought out.

I think this thread is helping shed light on why the double standard for sex crime victims. I think part of the issue too is the justice system still hews to a male sensibility. And a male sensibility to have sex with a female is often why the heck not? For most women it is very different. Most women are choosy and don't have sex for sex's sake unless its with a regular partner. So the only questions that are appropriate in general of a woman victim, is would she have slept with this guy in other circumstances, or had she? Because the issue is consent *WITH THIS GUY ONLY* *at that place that time*. Most women understand how unique even letting alcohol cloud your mind might be for some women.

I grew up Lutheran. We weren't supposed to lose control ... ever. Your life and mileage will vary.

[justme]

Jun 8, 2016 12:44:29 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:38:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Ok, let's say you do go out on new years and someone hits you. Enough damage/injury that you end up going to trial. Should they be able to bring up in their defense "yea but she went out on new years, she should have known there was a good chance to get in an accident so I shouldn't have to pay"

Im guessing a defense attorney would use anything he or she could to try to discredit me. Have you never read reports of what has been blamed on victims or do you only focus on women who were raped?

Not every one no. But I've had a fair bit of experience regarding car accidents and them choosing to drive on days that have more accidents than normal or roads was never brought up.

In my very limited experience with assault cases the victim was never asked if they had ever been in a fight before. Whether or not the person was a wrestler or took karate was never brought up.

[Opti]

Jun 8, 2016 12:49:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:45:59 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Something strange is going on when I try to quote somebody! My post was in relation to milee on the importance of language. In the late 70s/early 80s, the UK was terrorized by a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. He initially killed prostitutes but when he killed a woman who was not a sex worker the infamous headline read "Ripper Claims First Innocent Victim".

I will warn my young daughters not to get drunk because it makes them easy prey. Brock Turner is a predator and one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is he (and his family) really seem to believe that what he did wasn't that bad.

I think that is the most disturbing part.

I understand a parent's urge to protect their kid. However, dad's description of a rape as "20 minutes of action" is just sickening. They don't see this as a violent act. They see it as a drunk hookup gone wrong.

And IMO I think they should see it as' OM Flying Spaghetti Monster, we have parented a sexual predator! What will we do?

[milee]

Jun 8, 2016 12:38:47 GMT -5 justme said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:20:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

i actually do go out of my way to avoid driving when I know there are much higher chances of having drunk drivers on the road. Doesn't mean if I go out and get hit by one it is my fault. At the same time, I know that the only one that cares about my safety is me. Same thing Im saying in this thread. But somehow that gets turned jnto me blaming the victim

Ok, let's say you do go out on new years and someone hits you. Enough damage/injury that you end up going to trial. Should they be able to bring up in their defense "yea but she went out on new years, she should have known there was a good chance to get in an accident so I shouldn't have to pay"

Well, that could be relevant.  Please tell me if you have any special athletic ability or if you no longer crave your favorite snack foods so I can make a decision.

[ArchietheDragon]

Jun 8, 2016 13:05:52 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:49:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

I think that is the most disturbing part.

I understand a parent's urge to protect their kid. However, dad's description of a rape as "20 minutes of action" is just sickening. They don't see this as a violent act. They see it as a drunk hookup gone wrong.

And IMO I think they should see it as' OM Flying Spaghetti Monster, we have parented a sexual predator! What will we do?

The only thing that a parent wants to believe less than "my kid is a rapist" is "I parented my kid into being a rapist."

[Kolt!]

Here's the thing about this father. He doesn't even seem in denial about what his son did. He just literally doesn't think that he raped someone was a big deal.

There's a difference in a parent believing their child couldn't have done something so terrible and want to believe it...and a parent that knows their kid raped someone and is defending that child.

I understand wanting to believe your child couldn't do that but this parent seems to know and just is bypassing it like it's no big deal..

[lexxy703]

Kinda makes you wonder what dear old dad was like in college doesn't it?

It doesn't sound like he has much respect for women. I hope he doesn't have any daughters.

[imawino]

Jun 8, 2016 12:01:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

My issue with these threads is that the statement is always "Of course the rapist is at fault... BUT" and then a laundry list of what the victim could/should have done. It's no different from prefacing something with "not to be racist, but..." 

Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped. So maybe the focus shouldn't be on being careful/staying sober/whatever else women should be doing but the actions of the people actually doing the raping. 

And I have been there, done that with the 151 drinks at frat parties. So message for women should be to be very cautious in these situations.

Perhaps the message should be for men (or frat boys) that purposely disguising the taste of alcohol in order to get women drunker than they expect (for what purpose? is there ever a good one?) is a dangerous game. 

I was going to try to read through to the end but have to quote this instead.  That's what I'm always saying - in these cases there is always a contingent that cannot control themselves from continuing past the point of "the rapist is at fault".  There is always a "but, you know, she's kinda at fault too.   I'm not blaming her of course, but......blah blah blah."    

[imawino]

Jun 8, 2016 11:52:23 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. 

Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do?   Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury?

I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions,  as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty.  Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no.


I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions.



 

No, I don't blame the attorney for trying to make the defendant look less guilty.  The question is, why does asking the victim whether she's had sex with her boyfriend somehow make the defendant look less guilty? Isn't that the issue? Asking her if she's ever had sex, what she was wearing, etc only works because too many people believe that wearing a short skirt makes a rapist less guilty. Or that a woman drinking makes a rapist less guilty. Or that her not being a virgin makes a rapist less guilty.  That is a serious fucking problem.

[swamp]

Jun 8, 2016 14:05:01 GMT -5 imawino said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:52:23 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. 

Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do?   Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury?

I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions,  as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty.  Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no.


I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions.



 

No, I don't blame the attorney for trying to make the defendant look less guilty.  The question is, why does asking the victim whether she's had sex with her boyfriend somehow make the defendant look less guilty? Isn't that the issue? Asking her if she's ever had sex, what she was wearing, etc only works because too many people believe that wearing a short skirt makes a rapist less guilty. Or that a woman drinking makes a rapist less guilty. Or that her not being a virgin makes a rapist less guilty.  That is a serious fucking problem.

in here statement, she says she was wearing a cardigan.    Didn't she know some guys have a thing for librarians? 

[ArchietheDragon]

Jun 8, 2016 14:00:33 GMT -5 imawino said:

Jun 8, 2016 12:01:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

My issue with these threads is that the statement is always "Of course the rapist is at fault... BUT" and then a laundry list of what the victim could/should have done. It's no different from prefacing something with "not to be racist, but..." 

Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped. So maybe the focus shouldn't be on being careful/staying sober/whatever else women should be doing but the actions of the people actually doing the raping. 

Perhaps the message should be for men (or frat boys) that purposely disguising the taste of alcohol in order to get women drunker than they expect (for what purpose? is there ever a good one?) is a dangerous game. 

there is always a contingent that cannot control themselves from continuing past the point of "the rapist is at fault". 

Is there any way to get from the first part to the second part?  Ie.   If you wait 10 minutes, between "the rapist is at fault" and going through a list of how to protect oneself is that an acceptable break so that you are not qualifying the first statement?  What if you put put a bunch of words in between the two?  Does that adequately separate the two?  What if you separate them by a night's sleep?  ie.   one day you say "the rapist is at fault" and then the next day you say, "to protect yourself you should do the following."

I guess my questions is, can you get there from here?  Or do you just have to stop at "the rapist is at fault" and never mention the list?

[imawino]

Jun 8, 2016 12:25:49 GMT -5 milee said:

Jun 8, 2016 11:51:35 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

unfortunately the defense is going to do everything they can to prove that it was consensual sex.  (assuming that the defendant admit to having sex with the victim).  

What was she wearing, did she touch his arm, did she kiss him, did she have a few drinks, did she laugh at his jokes, did she like to have lots of sex with lots of guys...  etc, etc,  it all goes to make a case that she consented.       It is not right, but I don't know the answer to how to prevent it.     getting convicted of rape certainly isn't good for a guy, especially if he is innocent, so a guy needs to be able to defend himself.    How do you make it equitable for both parties? I don't know. 

But what a defense attorney does and what we do as a society are - and should be - two different things.  Defense attorneys can get away with this defense because our societal conditioning makes us predisposed to believe it is relevant.  When our media reports on these incidents and lists the attacker's athletic achievements or states what the victim was wearing... that perpetuates the myth.  When we have school dress codes and administrators that explicitly state that girls have to cover up because if they don't it distracts the boys, that perpetuates the myth that girls are responsible for preventing boys' bad behaviour.  When we individually hear about one of these crimes and discuss what the victim did - drinking, wearing, actions - to "contribute", then we perpetuate the myth.  And because everybody buys into the idea that women are responsible for controlling the thoughts and actions of men and because it's considered OK to examine what she was wearing and how she contributed or failed to prevent her attack, we perpetuate the idea that she is partially responsible.

We can stop this by making small but meaningful changes.  Changes like:

Calling out the media on their descriptions.  Recently, our local paper had the headline "Man convicted of murdering a prostitute".  A reader wrote in to point out that the attacker was a registered sex offender with many prior convictions and that the headline should have read "Convicted Sex Offender convicted of murdering a woman."  Read that again.  It's subtle but powerful.  In the first headline the woman - who was the VICTIM -  is devalued, demeaned and the implication is that she was putting herself at risk or was someone who deserved whatever she got at the hands of a "man".  It's that type of pervasive messaging that is the problem.

When we talk to our daughters about how to keep themselves safe, don't do it right after we hear about a rape.  By connecting the two, you are implying with the timing that the rape victim was at fault.

Work with our schools to make the dress codes gender neutral - same for all sexes and about a standard level of covering up, not about one sex being responsible for controlling the other sex.

Call people out when they want to discuss the victim more than the crime.



Will any of that help immediately or result in a 180 degree change?  No.  But over time, it will help.  I'm in my 40s and remember how when I was growing up, the news always discussed the race of the criminal as an integral part of the story.  It was "a black man is accused of _______" or "a jury convicted John Smith, a black man, of ________."  Just mentioning the race implied that race was relevant to the crime.  People would discuss crime and usually casually mention race in the discussion.  None of that is considered OK any more partly because of small but important changes in the media and in how people talk amongst themselves.  Over time, public reaction helped the media to realize that this was unacceptable and you don't hear about it any more.  In most social settings, it's not considered acceptable and you don't hear it any more.  

We need to do something similar with how we constantly connect rape and "prevention"... make it socially unacceptable.  Over time, as that happens it will no longer be something that defense attorneys will do since it will not be effective and will even backfire as people find it repugnant that a defense attorney would attempt to imply the length of a victim's skirt is relevant.  Just like it now backfires if a defense attorney implies the color of the defendant's skin is relevant.

See, this is why I should read further before commenting.  Milee already made my point, but better. 

[midjd]

Jun 8, 2016 14:09:09 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jun 8, 2016 14:00:33 GMT -5 imawino said:

there is always a contingent that cannot control themselves from continuing past the point of "the rapist is at fault". 

Is there any way to get from the first part to the second part?  Ie.   If you wait 10 minutes, between "the rapist is at fault" and going through a list of how to protect oneself is that an acceptable break so that you are not qualifying the first statement?  What if you put put a bunch of words in between the two?  Does that adequately separate the two?  What if you separate them by a night's sleep?  ie.   one day you say "the rapist is at fault" and then the next day you say, "to protect yourself you should do the following."

I guess my questions is, can you get there from here?  Or do you just have to stop at "the rapist is at fault" and never mention the list?

You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. 

The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. 

I think the discussion about frat parties and the 151 drinks is interesting. We warn women to be careful about these drinks and use the buddy system, but has no one suggested to the guys that maybe it's not a good idea to spike womens' drinks in an effort to lower their inhibitions? Or is it just an accepted part of frat culture? 

[milee]

Jun 8, 2016 14:09:09 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jun 8, 2016 14:00:33 GMT -5 imawino said:

there is always a contingent that cannot control themselves from continuing past the point of "the rapist is at fault". 

Is there any way to get from the first part to the second part?  Ie.   If you wait 10 minutes, between "the rapist is at fault" and going through a list of how to protect oneself is that an acceptable break so that you are not qualifying the first statement?  What if you put put a bunch of words in between the two?  Does that adequately separate the two?  What if you separate them by a night's sleep?  ie.   one day you say "the rapist is at fault" and then the next day you say, "to protect yourself you should do the following."

I guess my questions is, can you get there from here?  Or do you just have to stop at "the rapist is at fault" and never mention the list?

Until the unconscious bias is changed, I think a big, huge, wide as the Grand Canyon buffer zone will be needed.  Similar to the prior example I posted where newscasters used to announce the race of a criminal.  John Smith, a black man, was convicted of _____.  It's not that it's not true.  After all, Smith is a black guy.  It's that by mentioning it, you implicitly connect the two.  Same thing with rape and blame.  Right now, by mentioning "prevention tecniques" you implicitly blame the victim.  Sometime in the future if we ever get past this way of thinking, we might be able to have these discussions closer together.  Just like sometime in the future we might be able to examine why the murder rate among minorities is higher.  But right now, there's no way to do that without perpetuating a problem.