General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims.
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims.
Incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly-accused perps.
By Zerlina Maxwell December 6 at 6:00 AM
In last month’s deep and damning Rolling Stone report about sexual assault at UVA, a reporter narrated the story of “Jackie,” who was gang raped at a party and then essentially ignored by the administration. It helped dramatize what happens when the claims of victims are not taken seriously.
Now the narrative appears to be falling apart: her rapist wasn’t in the frat she says, the house held no party on the night of the assault, and other details are wobbly. Many people (not least UVA administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters, and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong. We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, UVA should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.
The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might de-friend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching, consuming his books, or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"...hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion..."
Yes, this is generally the sensible and ethical way to act in all criminal cases.
"We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says."
No, this is generally a stupid and unethical way to act.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)All claims should be investigated. This is what I take away from, "We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says."
By your way of thinking, no police calls should ever be responded to.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Treating an accusation as unproven and treating it as false are two very, very different things.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)which is what I, personally, took away from the article.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think it is saying that we should assume all accusations of rape are true until proven otherwise.
"We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist."
Igel
(35,312 posts)By investigating, you say you don't believe. However, by investigating you also say, "But I'm not denying."
It's being skeptical. Skepticism is far from belief. In a sufficiently polarized world, skepticism gets poo thrown at you from both sides--"You believe her!?" (No, it's why I'm investigating.) "You don't believe me!?" (Didn't say that--it's why I'm investigating.)
However, there's a bigger issue. I'm far, far more likely as a third-party observer to believe charges in an indictment than I am claims made over lunch at work. The first has forced the person making the claim to stop and reconsider, critically think about her (overwhelming 'her') facts and evidence. Sadly, part of the "thinking" phase is also going to be subjective--how much social and inappropriate flack would the accuser get? (These days, unless it's a prominent case, not just a whole lot, to be honest.)
Allegations over lunch are possible after considerable critical thinking, or possibly just emotionally colored complaining. And sometimes you can watch them grow and development as the memories are selected or pruned or reinterpreted to meet the emotional need. They have the opposite problem--often they develop in a way to maximize the social and inappropriate flack meted out to the accused.
The same kind of thinking that leads to "By your way of thinking, no police calls should ever be responded to" also leads to "Police calls should lead to those arrested being taken directly to prison to serve the prescribed time for what they're accused of."
Accusations aren't proof. Yet all too often we really want accusations to entail punishment, and revel in that kind of vigilantism. The exception proves the rule, but doesn't negate it or abolish it. Our response to the exception should confirm and show the validity of the rule.
Quoting what I said in a post nearly 10 years ago, "Skepticism serves our interests best."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY! Or do you think we should all have believed THAT 'accuser' too?
I like our system which says, you are not guilty of anything until there is enough evidence against you, presented in a court of law, under oath, where you get to defend yourself.
The default should be the OPPOSITE of what you say. Then let's investigate before we convict someone based on mere allegations and nothing else.
What a dangerous concept that is. All anyone has to do to destroy someone's life is to accuse them of something knowing they will be believed.
And why should women be treated differently than men btw? To say women are somehow 'different' is insulting to say the least. That they are pure, innocent angels, unlike men, who are simply incapable of any wrongdoing and are ALWAYS 'victims' if they say so.
It makes my head spin sometimes the things I read about women on this forum.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)"Were you really robbed, or did you give the guy the money and change your mind later?"
"Weren't you asking to be robbed, carrying money around?"
"It is more important to protect the reputation of an accused robber than an accused robbery victim."
"Bruises aren't enough evidence of an assault. Maybe the victim enjoys getting beat up."
"Someone wearing a skirt that short couldn't actually be the victim of manslaughter. She was asking for it"
"Victims of theft lie all the time."
"Most fraud accusations are false."
"Protecting someone from being mistakenly accused of burglary is more important than the rights of the burglary victim to have her day in court." {note it doesn't say convicted, but accused}
"Women are always wrongly accusing wealthy frat boys of wire fraud so that they can sue them later and get rich."
Funny, substitute rape in for the crime in each of these sentences and you will see that such sentiments are repeated on DU all the time. check yourself to see if you are a rape apologist, and then think about what your dual standard on rape v. all other crimes does for the position of women in our society.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)like this.
Aside from the obvious dangers of such a premise, women are NOT 'special' they are 'equal' and should be treated the same as men.
And you can be sure that if that were to become 'policy' men would have every right to demand the same treatment.
It is a stupid thing to say frankly and denigrates women.
When someone lies and they are caught lying, that is on them and no one else.
mythology
(9,527 posts)But I think institutions should maintain a more equal approach. Schools should make efforts to separate accused and accusers in classes and dorms, but I don't know if I can support suspending based on an allegation alone.
B2G
(9,766 posts)about the effects on those who are accused.
We all saw what happened to those kids at Duke. It was not the minor inconvenience she alludes to. It was devastating to them and their families.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I don't think that word means what you think it means.
B2G
(9,766 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)losing exactly no rights and privileges, not being sexually assaulted, and having no health or wealth impacts.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Just said that to say they are "devastated" is not correct. Their lives are not over. They are not dead. They are not maimed. they didn't lose their family homes. They will graduate college. They have futures. The truth came to light well before the justice system had convicted them and they didn't spend a single day serving a wrongful sentence.
And I wouldn't say they are famous. I couldn't name one of them. I couldn't pick one of them out of a crowd. After several what I guess were very scary months for them, the truth came out and they went back to living their lives, thank goodness.
For "devastated," try the young men wrongly convicted of the famous "Central Park rape." Decades in jail, loss of health and wealth. They never got to live the lives they wanted. That is devastation.
I think we should all be grateful that in the Duke case, the truth was found swiftly.
Probably because, I am sorry to say, the accused were white and rich. They had the money to make sure they weren't railroaded like many poorer suspects are every day in this country.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I'm just thinking that debating whether or not it was truly "devastating" seems unfair when in fact life must of sucked in a massive way for these guys. But yea, I imagine/hope that all is well with em.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:39 AM - Edit history (1)
I'll accept that.
However, I am sick and tired of the meme on DU that rape victims are not to be believed. It gets my back up.
I do think justice should be done. In every case.
And I also know that people are wrongly accused of all kinds of crimes every day in this country. But only when it is a wrongful accusation of rape against a rich frat boy or rich lacrosse player do people seem to care.
The answer to getting justice for both rape victims and any wrongly accused suspects is not to treat rape victims like liars and criminals. Because that is what some here seem to be arguing--which is not what I am saying YOU did--but is what prompted my post.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)We don't know anything about their health or financial positions.
Shamefully ignorant post on your part.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)It would have been in the news if they were sick or dead or bankrupt. It wasn't. And they have enough family money to make sure life goes on pretty much the way it did before.
Equally as ignorant of you to assume there were long term impacts where there is no evidence of any.
To be racist, you have to be in a position of power. Racism is not the same as prejudice. There is no racism against whites in American society. It is clear who the powerful and the weaker parties are in US society, and I think you know who is on top. White victmhood is a myth. A powerful myth to Tea Partiers, but a myth just the same.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Have you spoken to their financial advisers and psychiatrists?
I made no such claim. I made the true statement that you are ignorant of that information. You have no basis to make the claim that they weren't impacted.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)This case was covered 24/7 by the press. Real injuries to the accused would have been reported and repeated over and over that is my basis, as I have already explained.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And not very good at it. Stop digging when you've been caught fibbing.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)What are you, a kindergarten teacher? I didn't bluff, fib, or lie (which seems to be what you really meant but were afraid to say).
Provide evidence of permanent devastation for any of the accused. If you do so, you'll have proved me "wrong," but not a "fibber".
Until then, I'll keep assuming that you are someone who cares more about the lacrosse players who were saved from serving a single day of a wrongful conviction than about those whose lives ARE devastated by serving wrongful convictions every single day in this country. Somehow justice being done in the Duke case (no wrongful convictions, no wrongful sentences) annoys you, but the injustice to the Central Park rapists for decades escapes your attention. What happened to those boys was devastation.
Oh, and it is not grammatically correct to call someone you disagree with a "fibber". You can believe I am wrong, but I am not "fibbing" about anything. To fib is "to tell an unimportant lie." To "lie," I'd have to make "an intentionally false statement," which means I would have to know how these guys lives' were destroyed and be pretending the truth were otherwise.
That's the point, I don't believe these guys' lives were devastated, and I don't know of a shred of evidence that that is the case. Therefore, I have concluded they weren't "devastated". There is no way on earth I could by telling a lie about this.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)crime it IS pretty devastating. People have spent decades in jail due to wrongful convictions, some even put to death. As we know now that there are more ways to determine guilt and innocence.
If you don't mind being falsely accused of crimes, good for you. But most people I know would absolutely be devastated if such a thing happened to them. And there should be consequences for false accusers. There are in other countries when it is clear they lied in a way that harmed another person.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Some people have spent decades in jail and even been wrongly put to death due to false accusations. That's "devastating."
The Duke suspects did not spend one day serving time for a crime they didn't commit. The justice system worked the way it was supposed to for them. The truth was found. They did no time.
As opposed to, say the Central Park "rapists" (eventually exonerated after decades), the Duke boys' lives were not devastated. They are now living life pretty much as they always have. They have some shitty memories. And I'm sure their parents spent some money in the process. But they are not "devastated."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of college when you had done nothing wrong, had death threats to the point you had fear for your life, and in the end, your name associated with such a crime forever, your privacy totally destroyed, and then the fact that there will always be people who think you DID IT, no matter what the evidence to the contrary may be, if all that is the 'system working' I don't know what to say.
The system did NOT work in the Duke case. A crooked Prosecutor who 'believed' the accuser as the OP suggests should always be the case, destroyed many lives because he just wanted a 'conviction' and a sensational case to boost his own reputation. THAT IS NOT THE SYSTEM WORKING.
That is the system FAILING!
Sometimes I wonder about this world. NO INNOCENT PERSON should ever have to go through what those young men went through, EVER. And no prosecutor should ever have that job when he is clearly unfit for such a responsibility.
As someone else who was falsely accused, then finally exonerated, once said: 'Now, where do I get my reputation back'?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)If the system didn't work for them, they'd being jail serving time for a crime they didn't commit. The system worked for them because they had the money to hire private lawyers, etc. They were not poor people who could be bullied by a system that values money over all else. They were never convicted.
I agree that someone falsely convicted of a crime and let out of jail later has many challenges to overcome (least of all his reputation): no job history for the time spent in prison; likely PTSD from prison conditions; lack of income for time in prison; wife probably left him: strained relationship with kids who may have thought dad a criminal; I could go on and on.
The point is, these guys do not have those same problems. The are still young men. Their parents will go back to paying their tuitions. They will graduate from college. They are not part of the precariate.
To the extent that anyone remembers their names (a point I disagree with you about as I don't think most people do remember their names), they will be remembered as the exonerated, as the victims, not the criminals. They went through some terrible times. And their accuser clearly committed a crime. However, they had the money to make the system work. They will move on. I just don't see how their lives are devastated.
Devastated means "destroyed or ruined." These young guys' lives were neither destroyed nor ruined--they have plenty of life left despite the horrendous ordeal they went through. What don't you get about that?
My judgment that their lives are not devastated is not the same as arguing against the proposition that
"NO INNOCENT PERSON should ever have to go through what those young men went through, EVER."
so quit positing straw men that I don't care about the wrongly accused. I do. I just don't think every wrongly accused person's life is "devastated."
I refuse to waste any more time arguing semantics with you about whether these kids' lives are over. They aren't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)changed in such a negative way, being arrested, jailed, bailed out having your photo in every newspaper, every tabloid with the words 'monsters gang rape woman' based on LIES, and a Prosecutor who decided to 'believe' an accuser, if THAT is the system working in your opinion, I hope it works for you should it ever happen.
The fact that they are not in jail, is not thanks to the system, the prosecutor who was part of that system who FAILED in his duty, it is thanks to the fact that fortunately for them, these men had enough money to hire good enough lawyers who eventually were able to get them out of the system that you think WORKED for them.
And thanks to the millions of people who did NOT just 'belieeeeve' the accuser. I was on DU when this happened, and was one of those who wanted to wait before convicting those men. I was shocked to see that so many here had already convicted them, some probably still believe they 'got off'.
I can understand why you don't want to continue arguing that a total failure that had devastating results for several young, innocent men was actual THE SYSTEM WORKING, isn't something you can continue to argue for successfully.
That case was a total failure of the system and an indictment on our media and showed how mob rule can publicly convict completely innocent people.
I will never, ever automatically believe accusers. Show me the evidence so that no one's life is ever devastated to the point those men's lives were, not with my cooperation anyhow.
Throd
(7,208 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And their lives would be "devastated." That's my argument.
There is a difference between the comfortable being temporarily made awful--when the the period of the affliction is short and they have the resources to make a come back--and lives of the disenfranchised being ruined because they do not have the resources to see that the truth is revealed before serving a decades-long sentence or even being put to death for a crime they didn't commit. The Duke boys' ordeal was short enough to ensure their resilience. They didn't serve one single day serving an unjust sentence.
Every justice system, no matter how good or bad, is going to have folks who are wrongly accused. That is the reason for a trial. How quickly the innocent can be recognized as such matters.
I don't think both outcomes are equal, nor do I think they should be equated. But that is just my opinion. Clearly others make no such distinction, which I think minimizes actual devastation. My two cents.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Jackie was a mentally ill woman who fabricated shit, and the reporter who bit on her "story" didn't do a soupçon of story-vetting before racing this great "story" (and oh, what a story it was) to her editor(s).
And the "editorial staff" at RS isn't fit to wipe my behind, frankly--what a useless lot. Not even a shred of Ye Olde Faire and Balanced perspective in the story, and they just nodded and smiled--that should have been their first red flag.
Had anyone touching that story at RS had even an IOTA of professionalism, no one would be talking about this, no one would be pointing at "Jackie," and the "anti-rape awareness" (I mean really, I don't know what the hell else to call it....) crowd wouldn't be crowing with glee and hauling out all those tired old mitigating arguments.
Everyone should be pissed off when "reporters" are sloppy and media outlets ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. It cheapens discussion, it stifles the truth, it gives aid and comfort to assholes who like old paradigms about human behavior because they give people an "out" to justify their baser instincts.
Making this about who to believe is like trying to cover up a gaping wound with a band-aid. How about people who respond to, investigate, and report this shit try acting like PROFESSIONALS in the first place? This business probably would have been nipped in the bud before "Jackie" started inventing all sorts of dramatic details to fill out her tale of abuse and woe. She'd probably have gotten mental health treatment long ago and been on the road to recovery. Instead, her fantasies were validated, the bullshit got too big, she knows what she did, and even if no one knows her last name, she has a sense of the furor she has caused. Talk about a LOSE-LOSE situation...
Darb
(2,807 posts)I have read nothing yet that convinces me in the slightest that there was no rape. The guy wasn't in the frat? Big fucking deal. That doesn't mean it didn't happen just like she said. There was no party? Bullshit, there is always a "Party".
I do think Rolling Stone needs to roll up its sleeves and get to the bottom of this asap. But nothing so far makes the event a complete figment of "Jackie's" imagination.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)So why would the guy who was not in a frat be in charge of initiation ritual?
Obviously the story has fallen apart.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And the "reporter" or RS not verifying the details is gross negligence.
Something may have happened to her, but not what she's claiming.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Do a little reading. Rolling Stone isn't shitting bricks and backpedaling like maniacs because "it might have happened but the details were wrong." The details were TOTALLY wrong and couldn't be reconciled.
They DID "get to the bottom of this" but they didn't do it ASAP--they waited until they published a completely BS story.
This was an utter fabrication by a mentally ill young woman. She may have been attacked by someone, sometime, but it didn't happen by whom, where, or when she claims. And what was wrong with the reporter and the RS staff for not seeing that? Even her friends are saying "Something stinks on ice--and it's her story," pretty much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/05/rolling-stones-disastrous-u-va-story-a-case-of-real-media-bias/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/05/rolling-stone-retracts-uva-story/19954293/
"Jackie" needs help. She may have been traumatized at some point, but it wasn't where or when she claimed. Biggest point--she's not the issue, here. The issue is that RS completely ignored basic journalistic standards and as a consequence have set back the whole "rape awareness" agenda in an enormous way. The damage they have done with their "Let's tell a little story" approach to journalism, with no vetting or fact-checking or covering all sides of the incident, will resonate for years. Yes, YEARS.
This is a bad, bad thing that RS did.
Cha
(297,249 posts)Finally, this afternoon, CBS suspended Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan after the network’s internal probe found serious problems in their 60 Minutes Benghazi report.
The report hit Logan for not knowing, or knowing and not caring, about key source Dylan Davies telling a different story to his employer and FBI; for not really substantiating her claims that Al Qaeda led the assault; and for her now-famous October 2012 speech that suggested she was far from objective on this issue.
Her boss, Jeffrey Fager, now says he needs to “make adjustments” at the show. But he did not say how long the pair would be suspended.
This added injury to insult as Logan had just been disinvited to host the Committee to Protect Journalists dinner tonight.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177379/cbs-finally-suspends-lara-logan-false-benghazi-report
thanks for the links, MADem
seaglass
(8,171 posts)what the issues are.
Matt Taibbi tweeted this morning and I can't make heads or tails of what he is trying to say: (tweets below are in reverse order)
At RS, they don't accept notes as backup. You must have everything on tape or video, or sources must speak directly with fact-checkers
and
It usually takes longer to fact-check a Rolling Stone feature than it does to write it. Each review is like an IRS audit. It's miserable.
and
People also need to understand that the mistake here did not involve the fact-checking department.
and
First, like everyone else at the magazine, I'm both mortified and sorry -- for the public, for anyone affected, and for the source herself.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Wrongly accused wouldn't be a perp.
It would be an innocent person wrongly accused.
I wonder how this Zerlina person would feel if she was wrongly accused of something she didn't do.
I think it's a fair bet she wouldn't feel the same way as she apparently feels about others wrongly accused.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Zerlina Maxwell is a political analyst, speaker, lawyer, and writer. She typically writes about national politics and cultural issues including domestic violence, sexual assault, and gender inequality.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assume guilt based an allegation? Where did SHE go to Law School? I didn't go to law school but thought our judicial system assumed the opposite until proven guilty?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Preemptively reporting Rape cases puts the accuser and the accused in a bad position.
They should only report on instances where the police are looking for more victims or the accused perpetrator is on the run.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Nope. Now think about why.
I would say it is the nature of the offense. In murder the state is the accuser, and they have the evidence of a dead body to show that a murder has been committed.
In rape, especially date rape, it is a he said she said. There may be evidence that sexual activity occurred, but that doesn't mean it was rape. It now turns into a he said, she said.
You did make me think and I have never seen a false robbery or arson claim before, ever. Sadly I have seen many false rape reports.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)"have never seen a false robbery or arson claim before, ever. Sadly I have seen many false rape reports."
Really? Yeah, those women, you can't ever trust them. But a man would never lie about losing money. I see.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)In murder, theft, robbery, arson, what have you.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20141204/man-accused-of-making-false-armed-robbery-report-in-ferndale
http://southtownstar.chicagotribune.com/news/30185053-418/two-southland-women-sue-victorias-secret-claiming-false-theft-accusation.html
http://www.omaha.com/news/men-falsely-accused-in-murders-to-get-million-in-settlement/article_5b0d3f79-2a7d-5c4a-a6e8-59e8bd0a09ed.html
http://www.arsoninjustice.com/cases.html
But you have a double standard because you assume rape victims to be liars but victims of other crimes to be truthful. Ask yourself why you think this way.
deist99
(122 posts)I could be rembering the false rape reports more. I took a quick look at those links. I'm going to read them more in depth right now and get back to you.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Apparently not.
deist99
(122 posts)I was thinking of one person falsely accusing another person in a criminal case.
I was an MP in the service for four years and did see one false robbery report, but it was more along the lines of the accusser thought his roommate did it, he didn't actually see his roommate do it.
The problem with date rape accusations is that the people know each other and there is minimal chance of false identification. The other problem is in our system you are innocent until proven guilty. So how can the accused be innocent of the crime? Well the accuser must be lying.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Some countries omit the names of the people involved, but wouldn't you want to know if a rape had happened next door, the next block over, down the street, around the corner, and over on the other side of the park in your neighborhood?
Or should they just say "Well, we haven't caught the perpetrator" or "The accused hasn't confessed yet" so we won't mention it?
There are ways to "report" and not necessarily put the name, address and social security numbers of those involved out on the wire. The public deserves fair warning.
kiva
(4,373 posts)who care less about the truth than about fluffing their resume...she seems equally proud of being featured on Fox News and on Feminsting:
http://zerlinamaxwell.com/
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Have innocent until proven guilty. Now a robust investigation is mandatory, but to make anyone guilty before facts are known is not a good way of doing things. I say keep all parties unanumous until actual charges are brought.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...so believe the one that will hurt less if not true? Dumb.
Take accusations seriously, but respect the rights of the victim and the accused. It's not always easy, but it's the most humane way to be.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)First and foremost, innocent people falsely accused of any crime, and especially something as heinous as rape, are not merely inconvenienced. They have to spend months (and often thousands of dollars) defending themselves. An accusation like that can dog them for the rest of their lives. If it goes as far as an arrest it can affect their careers. They will often have to live under a cloud of suspicion by some who won't believe them, no matter what. Finally, if they are unable to clear their names, they will be permanently labeled sex offenders, which carries consequences I wouldn't even want to consider.
False accusations are so serious that the judge in the Duke lacrosse case made the unusual ruling that the accused were not merely "not guilty," but actually "innocent." They probably received a measure of vindication that people of lesser means wouldn't have gotten.
The other side of the coin is that it makes it harder for actual victims to receive justice.
In this specific case, how do we know that UVA didn't conduct an investigation at the time, and come to the conclusion that Jackie's story didn't add up? Due to confidentiality concerns, they probably couldn't publicize the results.
The RS reporter, and the author of this piece both have an agenda, and they are willing to ruin lives in pursuit of their agenda.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Kelly Michaels worked at a day care center in New Jersey. On a visit to a doctor’s office one day, one of the children at the center said, as his temperature was being taken rectally, “that’s what my teacher does.” Soon the boy's teacher, Kelly Michaels, found herself the subject of a criminal investigation.
Investigators repeatedly interviewed three and four-year-olds, suggesting through their graphic and disturbing questions that the children had been sexually molested. The suggestions finally worked: children who initially denied that they were abused in any way finally said that they had been. Children try hard to find answers that please adults. One child said that Michaels “made us eat boiled babies,” another said that “she put a sword in my rectum,” and a third said that she “played piano naked.”
Kelly Michaels was charged with sexually abusing twenty children. Parents wearing “Believe the Children” buttons packed the courtroom for the trial. Journalists played the new daycare horror story for all it was worth. A jury convicted Michaels. She spent the next seven years of her life in prison.
The trouble was Kelly Michaels was 100% innocent.
MADem
(135,425 posts)punch in a code and see their precious little Fauntleroy hitting his classmate with a Tonka truck. Or whatever....
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)A horrifying tale of false allegations and police and prosecutor misconduct that just boggles the mind.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)And fully investigate, with no bias. And don't try to excuse away shit.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)We are sympathetic to them as a whole and on a personal level we don't question them, but if you have any kind of institutional power or responsibility you have to treat the person accused as innocent until proven guilty.
Accused of rape don't have a rough period, they are social pariahs. It is one of the worst crimes in our society. That the author thinks that a person who the evidence would show is entirely guilty should be treated in such a way until the outcome of the trial is known is disgusting. We do not treat any other crime this way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Without a guilty verdict, it's unfair to punish people in these ways - it's always possible they were wrong. They should investigate, and while charges are pending, there should be no difference in the accused's life. I'm not going to think much differently of Bill Cosby, because no one sought charges and no one proved a case. I hate when people won't believe a victim or will discount her story due to the old fashioned clothing and the like arguments. I also hate the idea of treating people like they are guilty from accusation alone. It is true that anyone can make an accusation.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I didn't know him personally, but I knew who he was.
He was 18 years old and a 15 year old girl accused him of raping her. He was arrested and sent to Los Angeles County jail. About a day later the girl recanted her story, but by then some other inmates had beaten him to death for his alleged crime.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)But it seems that currently the default position is to assume a rape victim is lying.
I can't help but think of the football player case awhile back. From the very beginning people disbelieved her - the cops tried to dissuade her from filing charges and then they "lost" the initial filing and she had to go through the process again. The man admitted to having sex with her but he maintained that it was consensual. The woman was bruised and bleeding, the accused's semen was inside her body, the doctor who examined her said she was "almost certainly assaulted" and yet it was determined that there was not enough evidence to prosecute and he went on his merry way. If that wasn't enough evidence then I guess it's no wonder that rapists are rarely convicted.
Shantana
(1 post)From "automatically" to "generally". See url text and actual headline.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)After a Missouri case when a man was acquitted of rape, I pointed out that the guy was in fact, legally innocent, and I was accused of "standing up for a rapist." One person, whom I won't name, happened to be on MIRT at the time and tried to get me banned over it.
I have to admit that I mostly believed this story when it came out in Rolling Stone, but I had to remind myself of the Duke case when pretty much everyone here had them tried, convicted, and sentenced. Unlike the Duke case, which has pretty much been exposed for the outright lie and judicial fraud that it was, there are still a lot of questions to be answered in the UVA case. However, this is a reminder that we can't let our outrage overrule the facts and that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
