Drinking habits of rape accuser raised at Naval Academy

[NNN0LHI]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Academy_Sexual_Assault.html

WASHINGTON -- Witnesses testified Monday that a U.S. Naval Academy midshipman who has accused the school's former star quarterback of rape was often seen drunk at an Annapolis bar and would aggressively pursue men.

The witnesses said she was obviously intoxicated in the hours before Midshipman Lamar S. Owens Jr. came into her room early Jan. 29.

"She didn't need to drink any more from my point of view," said 2nd Lt. James Winston.

Owens, 22, of Savannah, Ga., is charged with rape and other offense and could get life in prison. His attorneys say that the sex was consensual and that Owens stopped when he realized the woman had passed out.

[redqueen]

1. *sigh*

[ThomCat]

2. Grrrr! Of course they have to smear her.

It's her on trial. He's a victim. If she likes to go out and drink (perfectly legal) and flirt (perfectly legal) that's permission for anyone to come in and rape her (not legal). Didn't you know?
:eyes:

[northzax]

4. his defense is that he didn't rape her, though

he says it was consensual, and when she passed out he stopped. If true, he should get the boot from the academy at least (hardly judgement worthy of an officer) If she has a habit of getting drunk and hooking up with men, it does cast a shadow of a doubt on her story. And frankly, means she doesn't have the judgement to be an officer either.

honestly, what other defense can you use? she says she was unconscious through the whole thing, he says she wasn't. kinda flimsy evidence to send someone to jail for the rest of their lives, don't you think? (and yes, raping a fellow officer is likely to get you a much stronger sentence in the military than in civilian courts which too often wimp out on rape cases.)

[redqueen]

7. oh yes, i know... get that ladies? if you drink and flirt...

then any man you flirt with can rape you with impunity.

:nuke:

[Judi Lynn]

74. Apparently rape only really happens to women who don't drink! n/t

[northzax]

3. and yet, it does seem to be tied into his defense

the defense is saying that he had every reason to believe it was consensual, and stopped when she passed out. If that's true, it's certainly wrong, but not so wrong to spend a lifetime in Leavenworth breaking big rocks into smaller rocks.

[redqueen]

10. excuse my french, but BS

no one with a functioning brain thinks that intercourse with a clearly intoxicated person is consensual. at least that's how all the people i associate with view the issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Is having sex with an intoxicated MAN "rape"?

Is the appropriate punishment for having done so jail time and registration as a sex offender?

Is a drunk person responsible for thei contractual arrangements? Is a drunk person responsible for crimes they commit? Is a drunk person legally insane? If not, being a chronic drunk would seem to be a good strategy to avoid much of our grownup responsibilities.

Few of us are good enough mind readers to determine when grownups can and cannot make their own decisions.

IMHO if she agreed to sex, he's innocent - whether or not she remembers it or regrets it. She has a right to say no, but not retroactively.

[redqueen]

28. yeah, i would say so

regarding the merits of the case, i don't wanna get into that... i don't know

what i do know is this sexist defense is utter BS!

[northzax]

44. wait a minute

he was drunk too. So technically...under your terminology, she is a rapist too, the fact that she doesn't remember doing it should not be a defense. I say jail them both.

it's the problem with the 'just because someone is drunk they cannot consent' theory.

the point is that she cannot actually say she said no, because she blacked out from alcohol. if he can put ten people on the stand who say that, under the influence of alcohol, she said yes, doesn't that kinda make his defense more resonable?

[redqueen]

45. is he charging her with rape?

does he claim he had sex against his will?

you're all over the place trying to obfuscate the actual issue that has people upset: that this is a
SEXIST defense tactic, that by definition, cannot be used against men.

[northzax]

49. what do you mean it can't be used against men?

the entire charge can't be used against men, since it is based on alcohol and memory.

and she doesn't claim to have had sex against her will, she claims she doesn't remember giving consent because she was too drunk. and the legal case is that even if she did give consent, she was too drunk to actually do it. whole different story than someone who didn't give consent in the first place.

and yet, if there was a history of him going to bars and getting women drunk, you don't think that would have been introduced? same thing, no?

[redqueen]

52. i object to them using her history of being sexually agressive

sorry, no sale.

i made the mistake of bringing up intoxication. mea culpa.

[northzax]

56. but intoxication is relevant

if she goes out every weekend (and I have no idea, jsut theoretically) and goes home with men while drunk, it lends credence to his claim that the sex was consensual before she passed out, right? you can, in fact, black out and appear fairly functional but have no memory of the events at all. that's the only reason it could be relevant.

remember, the claim isn't that she didn't consent, it's that she couldn't consent because she was too intoxicated. if you can demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that, in fact, she consents to sex while drunk and regrets it later, that is reasonable doubt, in this case.

because she has no memory of the events in question, it makes her patterns of behaviour in similar situations in the past relevant. if she could testify, under oath "I told him 'no' and he kept going" or "I was unconscious the entire time" then this would be irrelevant. but she can't. all she can say, under oath, is "I don't remember what happened" that is a flimsy line to put someone in jail for life on, don't you think?

[redqueen]

70. i give up

try to get china_cat to explain it to you

i don't have the stomach for it

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. Neither of us know the merits of this case.

Your previous contention was that, in general, consent given while intoxicated makes it rape and not sex.

No one should have the right to retract consent after the fact, and I think it's unreasonable to expect the average person to know that their agreed partner "should know better" than to consent to sex with them.

Your apparent expectation is that a man who agrees to sex with a woman should first appraise her fitness to make prudent decisions before engaging in consensual sex with her. I find it interesting that the people who object most strenuously to the patriarchal system don't see the irony in punishing men for not knowing better than women what's good for them.

It serves no one to have a system in which women are assumed to have a diminished decisionmaking capability.

[NNN0LHI]

30. I am a man

And if I was intoxicated to the point that I was passed out and someone came and stuck something inside my body yes I would feel like I had been raped. Hell yea I would. And yes I would want the person who did it to have their name on some kind of list too.

Wouldn't you?

And by the way. Rape ain't sex.

Don

[LostinVA]

76. Thank you very, very much

I sincerely mean it. I know I, as well as other women on DU, very much appreciate it when men like you comment on sexual abuse and rape threads.

Seriously, I mean it: thank you.

[taught_me_patience]

85. Not the issue at hand...

"His attorneys say that the sex was consensual and that Owens stopped when he realized the woman had passed out"

[lukasahero]

87. Your subject line says it all "I am a man"

In the truest, most honorable sense of the word apparently. Thank you.

Ok, so I couldn't find a "hats off to you" icon, but I tried. :)

[bobbolink]

91. Thanks for being a human being, who also happens to be a man!

Forty years ago, I thought men like you, who GET IT, would be common place.

Unfortunately, I've come to realize at these forums that we are so very far from that. :cry:

It's totally discouraging.

So, thanks from someone who needs to know there really are men who GET IT.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. We're not talking about forced sex.

The previous poster asserted that sex in which the consent was given while intoxicated was rape.

If you tire of strawmen and wish to address the point, tell me if you'd think it rape if you had given drunk consent to the act you later regretted.

I agree with your basic point. Rape isn't sex. My basic point: between adults, consent precludes rape.

Regret doesn't change it into something else.

[Recursion]

34. Was he drunk too?

And if so, should she be charged?

[NNN0LHI]

36. Why did she stick something inside of his body while he was passed out?

I don't think he has accused her of that.

Don

[Recursion]

42. If that's all it means to you, ok

But I don't think penetration is the only important question.

[unpossibles]

37. why would she be charged if he were drunk also?

I don't get it.

[Recursion]

40. Suppose they were both drunk

Both too drunk to legally consent. We still can't overcome the women-as-shrinking-violets and men-as-sex-hungry-primates stereotypes. If both parties are too drunk to consent, the man can be accused of rape and the woman can't. The man can be kicked out of his college and the woman can't. Even if the woman was the one who was acting as a predator, and the man was minding his own business and was jumped by the woman. If there's a case to be made for that, the defense attorney should make it.

:
The argument I'm seeing is that even if she did not say no, the fact that she was too drunk to legally consent makes this rape. We haven't even established that he was sober enough to consent, though, so I'm curious why the legal charge would only point towards the one with the penis.

[unpossibles]

59. I see what you're saying but look at it this way

first of all, as the penetrator, the one with the penis can generally more easily take advantage of the situation.

Is it even possible for a man (hypothetically speaking) to be nearly passed out drunk to the point of not being able to say no and get it up against his will, so to speak? Not sure if that made sense or not....

I guess I am trying to say that in this situation, the alcohol made for bad decision making on both their parts at the very least - hers in that she let him into her room (which is legal), and his for possibly forcing himself on her (which is not legal). I don't know - it's up to the jury to decide, but I'd say that there is truth to the claim that a lot of people will blame the victim of rape, and I can understand being sick of it.

[bobbolink]

92. *sigh* indeed! Who knew, 40 years ago, we'd still be fighting

this shit????

Isn't there a statute of limitations on wilful ignorance????

[lukasahero]

5. Is this supposed to surprise us any more?

Wow, questioning the behavior of the woman who was raped, what a surprise. :eyes:

[ThomCat]

9. Unfortunately, no.

I was waiting for this, and a bit surprised that took this long. How sad is that. :grr:

[Solly Mack]

6. Some days I just wanna smack the ever loving shit out of some people

it doesn't make a rat's ass bit of difference that she pursued men or was drinking(which is nothing more than the "good girl/bad girl" and the "she was asking for it" sexist bullshit reasoning to excuse sexual assault on women)...none of that means she wasn't raped.

and before the defensive tweak that chip on their shoulder and the little person in their head decides I said the male is automatically guilty, I'm addressing the sexist/misogynistic thinking used to discredit and marginalize victims of rape.

edit to add

Does being drunk impair your reasoning abilities? Then how can you really give consent?

Taking advantage of a drunk person isn't exactly ethical, decent behavior. Know what I'm saying? But then maybe some folks think it's OK to have sex with those too impaired to stop it.

[redqueen]

11. good point...

before everyone gets all defensive and assumes we're all automatically believing the guy is guilty:

WE'RE NOT! of course we don't have all the factcs... his guilt or innocence is for the jury to decide.

what's disgusting and outrageous here is this stupid 'vilify the victim' routine

[Solly Mack]

14. I thought I'd pre-empt that strawman. Someone will come along

and address something that has not been said in order to avoid the point we are making (sexism inherent in the defense).

Damn shame we even have to make this point.

[northzax]

54. tell me

if the defendant had a history of going to bars and buying women drinks to get them to sleep with him, and this was brought up in the trial (I'd think it's relevant, right? shows a pattern of behaviour?) is that sexist as well? or just good prosecuting? if his patterns of relevant behaviour are acceptable, why not hers?

this is a strange case because the accuser does not recall what happened. not because she was drugged, but because she drank herself into a stupor. If the defense can demonstrate that she has a pattern of doing this, and then having consensual sex with men, it lends credence to his claim that she consented, then it becomes a 'he said, she doesn't remember' thing. and that's fragile.

[Solly Mack]

Doesn't matter if she was turning tricks on the parkway

that has nothing to do with whther or not she's a victim of rape now.

Doesn't matter if she had sex with every man in the Navy but the accused...that still doesn't mean you can claim she wasn't raped because she had sex with everyone else.

That's just the sexist "she's a slut so she can't be raped" thinking.

Women, still, in this day and age, have to prove that they somehow didn't ask for it (as if anyone ask for rape)...women still have to prove they somehow didn't cause the rape by their actions...that's blaming the victim...and just plain stupid...no one causes their own rape.

When you hear people say "rape victims are raped twice...once by the perp and once by the justice system"...this is why that is said.

The sexist and misogynistic thinking in America is directly related to the treatment of women.

That's why our outrage.

Feeding a destructive way of thinking that does nothing but harm women isn't something I'm going to applaud.

A possible predator's behavior is relevant...it's called an MO.

If the perp had a history of taking advatange of drunk women, then yeah, that is important...but no one is claiming he did.


But to claim that a woman who drinks and "pursues" men is somehow incapable of being raped is outrageous. And that's exactly what the defense is trying to do.

[northzax]

65. that's not the point at all

he says she consented, right? and she says she doesn't remember consenting, in fact, remember anything. Without her testimony that she didn't consent (which she can't say on the stand because she doesn't remember) is it not reasonable to point to her pattern of behaviour?

remember, she cannot say she didn't consent. if the defense can show that this is a pattern of behaviour for her, it shows that his defense that she did, in fact, consent, is more plausible, right?

I think he should get booted from the Academy for conduct unbecoming, even if acquitted, since having sex with someone that drunk doesn't show good judgement, but it makes a difference legally.

[Solly Mack]

71. No, her drinking doesn't matter

and it doesn't matter if she got drunk 1000 times and had sex each of those times with 1000 different people...

She was too drunk to remember..whereas he was obviously, from his own testimony, lucid enough to recall events(that is his claim...that he can remember her giving consent)...so his actions, being the sober one or even the more sober one, is what matters...

He had sex with someone not capable of giving consent...if a woman is that drunk...leave her alone. It's really quite simple.


and while my outrage at the sexism inherent in such a defense might not be YOUR point at all..it's been my only point throughout this thread.

[Solly Mack]

61. duplicate/delete

[readmoreoften]

64. No, it's just the opposite. It's evidence that she probably was attacked.

If she is a sexually forward girl who enjoys sex, and has never accused anyone of rape before, wouldn't it go to show that she knows the difference between the two? If a girl goes out and has sex with a different partner every day of the week, and then another man who she thinks is her friend, smacks her down and rapes her, he is guilty of rape-- period. If she is drunk at a party and he inserts something inside her after she passes out-- he is guilty of rape.

I was at a party a year ago with friends of mine. I don't drink often so I didn't realize how drunk I had gotten. At one point, I realized that I could barely stand. My male friends didn't rape me. They helped me to the sofa, got me water, and called a cab. This whole notion is absurd.

Just because a women is sexually active doesn't mean she doesn't know what rape is. Just because someone eats a lot doesn't mean that they don't know the difference between going on a dinner date and being force fed.

30% of women in the military have been raped during their military stay. Military women in Iraq were ending up hospitalized from dehydration. Why? They stopped drinking water because their fellow soldiers were raping them in the latrines.

[northzax]

68. then it's a bad defense move

that's their choice.\

and remember, she doesn't remember what happened. what if, by the way, you had taken off your clothes, unzipped your friend's pants, and climbed on his lap while that drunk? does that make him a rapist, or jsut really poor judgement? I mean people do stupid things while drunk.

[readmoreoften]

75. well, if she doesn't remember then that should be evidence enough.

the history of how much consensual sex she's had has nothing to do with this.

[ThomWV]

8. Stopped When She Passed Out

That was decent of him.

[ThomCat]

12. It's a nice PR statement.

But that's irrelevant! Because if she did not consent then he shouldn't have been there at all.

It is a nice, unverifiable claim designed to make him sound like a nice boy who shouldn't have his life ruined by this kind of accusation.

[porphyrian]

13. Because it's OK to rape drunk people? - n/t

[China_cat]

15. Only if they're women.

[porphyrian]

16. Oh, I get it now. Whew, I was worried for a minute there. - n/t

[sgxnk]

17. victims

"I'm addressing the sexist/misogynistic thinking used to discredit and marginalize victims of rape"

the issue is - IS she a victim

that is the POINT of the trial

if she is a victim of rape, he is guilty

if she is not (he says it was consensual) he is not

so, you are begging the question. assuming as fact, the very question. is she, in fact, a victim

it sucks that ALLEGED rape victims can have their credibility impugned, but last i checked - ANY witness (and alleged victims are witnesses) can have their credibility impugned. there is nothing holy about rape victims vs. other witnessess

trials are, in a sense, a search for truth, and then an administration of justice pursuant to the revealed truth

rape is odious. so is false accusation of rape, and so is somebody going to jail for what they did not do

like it or not, our system of justice bases on a principle - it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man

[porphyrian]

18. I don't presume to find any guilt or innocense before the end of the trial

...however I do take issue with tactics employed in attempting to discredit witnesses, which are very much the same a presuming guilt before innocense is proven. So, my stand is actually consistant.

[sgxnk]

21. the method

of our justice system (the best int he world imo) is adversial

that means that BOTH sides get to "attack" so to speak

and any witness who gives testimony is subject to crossexamination

any evidence is subject to review (and possible discreditation ) by either side

like it or not, a person's past acts, character, etc. ARE relevant

the juror is the 'finder of fact' in any trial, and they cannot do their job effectively if the defense cannot investigate the witnesses

here's a little hint. sometimes (gasp) witnesses LIE
memories are faulty.
etc. etc.

by complaining that a VICTIM is being attacked (which was the Orig claim), one is thus ASSUMING she is, in fact, a victim

that fact is the very fact that the trial is intended to prove

trials are messy, icky, uncomfortable things

i stand by my assertions. it is THAT important that we do not convict the guilty (although no system can accomplish this - we can lessen the frequency), that we allow the defense a vigorous one.

and any defense that cannot investigate the very witness against them is not given a fair shake

alan dershowitz put it best. rape is simultaneously the most underreported and the most overreported crime

his point is that a much higher %age of rape victims do not report the crime to police vs. most other part I crimes

however...

a much higher %age of rape accusations are false vs. most other part I crimes.

furthermore, in most other part II and many Part I crimes, a false report does NOT result in a false prosecution (think insurance fraud on a burglary) and somebody falsely imprisoned.

that IS the case in a crimes against person like rape, and it is a terrible thing

i am NOT joking here. i think convicted rapists should be castrated. period. unconstitutional, but that is how i WISH it was

however, i similarly do not want to see anybody falsely convicted of ANYTHING

[porphyrian]

29. I think were mostly in agreement. - n/t

[redqueen]

32. the problem is with the double standard

if men were demonized for not being chaste and pure, it would be an issue for a lawyer to go after him for those reasons. as it is, i would think they don't... because men are not subject to the same standards of behavior.

the double standard allows a female victim to be susceptible to more attacks than a male victim would. do you agree or disagree?

[LostinVA]

77. Bingo n/t

[sgxnk]

82. i disagree

in many court cases, men's past sexual behavior *is* relevant too

like in sexual harassment trials.

paula jones ring a bell?

rape is a crime of violence, perpetrated through sex. most of the (non-prison inmate) victims are women. so, most of the "demonization" obviously happens to women. that's an issue of circumstances
sexual history is NOT automatically admissable. in fact, it's RARELY admissible. it may be admissible for impeachment, etc. but that is RARELY in rape cases.

women are not "demonized" in these trials for being promiscuous... but it may (or may not) be relevant (sexual history) based on other factors, but RARELY

if you want to talk double standard, talk about the radically difference sentencing structure for male statutory rape predators vs. female ones

letourneau got friggin probation for her first offense (she was later thrown in prison after being caught in flagrante delicto while on probation).

show me all the 35 yr old male teachers who get probation for schtupping a 13 yr old student

i'll stand by :l

[Solly Mack]

83. That's incorrect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/national/main648870.shtml

"(CBS/AP)
Letourneau was a married mother of four when she began a sexual relationship with the then-12-year-old Fualaau after meeting at an elementary school in 1996, when she was 34. She was pregnant with Fualaau's first child when she was arrested in 1997 and ordered to serve a six-month sentence for second-degree child rape.



One month after she was released(from jail), Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car. She pleaded guilty in 1997 to two charges of child rape, and gave birth to the couple's second daughter while serving her 7½-year sentence."

[sgxnk]

100. I stand correct.

and that's always a good thing. means i learned something

she WAS sentenced to 6 months (the rest of her sentence of 7+ yrs was suspended).

i mistakenly thought the ENTIRE sentence was suspended on the conviction. that was wrong. i was wrong. it was all but 6 months that was suspended, not the entire 7+ years

i also stand corrected on the 13 yr old victim statement. vili was actually TWELVE when they started schtupping. not 13. just discovered that

i stand by my assertion (the gender double standard) in that i am not aware of cases where a male teacher in his 30's was sentenced to a mere 6 months in jail upon being found guilty of rape of a 12 yr old

the issue of disproportionate sentencing via gender bias in statutory rape cases stands

[sgxnk]

101. typo: I stand correctED

my bad

[Mugu]

95. A well written voice of reason.

Thank you,

Mugu

[Solly Mack]

20. Since you're quoting me, though responding to a different post

It's safe to assume you're addressing my statement.

Whether she is a victim or not in no way means using misogyny and sexism to discredit a woman is acceptable.

People who fall back on such tactics are doing nothing more than perpetuating the attitudes that such thinking is acceptable.

It's despicable and it only serves to make matters worse for women. The accuser's case can be rebutted without resorting to misogynistic stereotypes that have done nothing but harm women throughout the ages. Resorting to sexism and and misogyny makes the defense lawyers part of the problem of sexual assault against women. Instead of actually attacking the evidence of the case, they are relying on sexist (harmful) attitudes against women...

no different than a white jury convicting a black man based not on evidence but on racism..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, yes, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind due process and I am a big fan of it...when applied equally and fairly, as I believe it should be. America's brand of due process can't make the claim of being fair and equal though.

And golly gee, yes, I know the assertion behind America's due process is that the guilty will sometimes walk to protect the innocent...

And yes, I think the accused is entitled to a good defense...

However, none of that changes my point...

You're not going to convince women that misogyny - you know, the hate of women - serves the purpose of due process.

[sgxnk]

22. see my other post

the JOB of a criminal defense is to discredit the case against the defendant

period

rape is not some kind of holy exception

read my other post. i feel strongly about this. frankly, i think convicted rapists should be castrated (which is unconstitutional, but assuming it wasn't )

a vigorous defense and thorough investigation of an ACCUSER (note: accuser, not victm) is not misogyny

it's called a righteous defense.

in many cases, a witnessess (accusing or not) past history IS relevant. a jury is the 'finder of fact' and they are crippled in that pursuit if both sides do not vigorously pursue the avenues available

sometimes, (gasp) witnesses LIE
have faulty memories

etc.

and there are plenty in prison RIGHT NOW because of that reality

rape victims are not and should not be exceptions to the ability of a criminal defense attorney to investigate and vigorously defend their client

not in a society like ours that prizes the rule of law

[ThomCat]

23. There is a problem with your generalization.

If people get robbed they are not questioned about how often they leave windows unlocked, and whether or not they have ever allowed anyone in the house, how well they maintain the house, etc. They are not put on trial for having been robbed.

Rape victims are almost alone in having their entire life put on trial.

Most of the stuff that gets brought up to smear the victim has no bearing on wether or not she was raped. It is brought up solely to smear her and make her look like a slut. Because apparently it's legal to rape sluts.

[sgxnk]

25. ridiculous

in any trial, the VERACITY of the accuser is on trial

unlike in (msot) rape cases, there is no clear nexus between the victim of robbery and the suspcet. in a rape case, there is often a nexus which increases the possibility and motivation for lies/false accusations

i am sorry. ALLEGED rape victims are not holy relics immune from questioning, from cross examination, and from scrutiny

you are also wrong that many other victims aren't investigated vigorously. insurance companies have MANY investigators whose sole job is to surveil ALLEGED crime//injury victims on the assumption they may be LYING

because... wait for it... people lie

all the time

even alleged rape victims

it happens

being falsely convicted is odious. a way to diminish that possibility is for there to be a thorough investigation

you can't have a thorough investigation if u don't investigate the accuser

[ThomCat]

26. Not at all rediculous.

I understand that you're reading from a textbook somewhere and aren't referring to the real world but...

In the real world most cops and prosecutors will tell you, if you've ever slept with someone in the past, ever, you can never get a rape conviction. They have permission to rape you for the rest of your life.

If you got pregnant and had a child out of wedlock, you might as well not bother charging anyone with rape.

If the guy who raped you has friends who can claim you've slept around with them, you'll never get a rape convictions.

Why is this? Because judges AND juries punish the woman and resist punishing the guys. Any woman who wasn't a virgin, wasn't violently beaten, didn't fight with all of her strength, and didn't scream at the top of her lungs must have consented. That is the truth in rape cases, and anyone who has worked with rape victims will confirm it.

It would be nice if your text-book information was true. But it's not. There is a big difference between theory and reality.

[sgxnk]

27. i am not

i am not speaking from a textbook

i USED to be a fulltime cop

i am currently still a reserve officer (i now trade fulltime)

i have investigated DOZENS of rapes

i have special training in rape investigation

i am just reading from a "book" lol

[taught_me_patience]

90. sgxnk you are completely right on this issue

naysayers are not understanding the argument here.

[sgxnk]

99. i appreciate that

the fundamental disconnect seems to be that people think the following

if you do not ASSUME that an accusation of rape is in fact a *valid* accusation, and if you ever question a victim of rape's veracity, you are "anti-woman" or some such rubbish

despite the fact that i am/was in law enforcement, i do not automatically assume an accuser is telling the truth, or that the accused is guilty. far from it

furthermore, i 100% believe the job of the cops is to IMPARTIALLY gather evidence, whether that evidence turns out to be exculpatory or inculpatory. it is *at least* as important to protect the innocent and falsely accused, as it is to bring the guilty to justice.

the courts (specifically the juries) are the "finders of fact".

cops, prosecutors, etc. are not

there is a place for victim's advocates, but victim's advocates are naturally biased towards believing the accuser is, in fact, a victim. that's a design bias of the system iow if your a hammer, everything looks like a nail

rapists are complete scumbags and like i said i fully would support castration of a convicted rapist.

it does not therefore follow that i am assume that somebody accused of rape is in fact guilty, nor do i deny a defense attorney the right to conduct a vigorous defense

[LostinVA]

78. You're completely right, ThomCat -- thanks! n/t

[Solly Mack]

24. I already read it.....changes absolutely nothing

Obviously you are unaware of the misogynistic thinking behind such attitudes.... using such arguments as "pursuing men" and "she was drinking"

You seem to be unware of the history of rape case prosecution in America and how sexism has been used to demean women even more....

being the case...

sigh

[China_cat]

46. He's a cop. He's one of the biggest parts of the problem.

[sgxnk]

62. nice stereotype

CLASSIC bigotry.

you are no different than a racist or a homophobe

because of my (former) profession, i am part of the problem. lol

i've brought over 20 rapists to justice.

what have YOU done for rape victims?

[China_cat]

69. Established People Against Rape

the shelter for abused women and the crisis hotline.

Not to mention being in the forfront of getting the death penalty abolished in the case of rape. It was one of the reasons we had such a hard time getting convictions. No jury wanted to convict knowing that it would lead to execution.

So I've probably been responsible for a lot more convictions of rapists over the last 30 years than you will ever be.

[sgxnk]

73. quite possible

i give you one internet muffin

whomever told me i was "part of the problem" deserves a kick in the nads, tho

[etherealtruth]

60. I am very aware of the history of rape prosecution ...

...here and worldwide.

It continues to make me ill ... that we have to argue the point of cultural misogyny.

It is so difficult to make a point when the cultural bias is so deeply ingrained (yes even here on DU, though we admittedly have a large number of enlightened men ).

[China_cat]

43. There is no other crime where the VICTIM'S

past history is relevant.

[Recursion]

38. Yes, if a woman has sex with a man...

...who is too drunk to consent, she will never be charged with rape. But the man may well be, if the woman was also drunk.

[China_cat]

39. You missed my meaning completely.

Also, a man who is too drunk to consent is usually too drunk to perform.

[Recursion]

47. I guess I did miss your point

I thought you were saying that the law turns a blind eye to raping passed out drunk women.

If that's not what you mean, my bad.

But if that is what you mean, I will still point out that if a man and a woman are both very drunk, and they have sex, the man can be called a rapist the next morning and the woman can't, even if neither said no at the time. It wouldn't get past trial, like people point out, but the man will usually be kicked out of college (since that's where this seems to happen). Even if the man wishes it hadn't happened too. Even if he didn't really want to do it at the time either. Even if she was a lot more sober than him.

[China_cat]

50. I was saying that there would be a full out hue, cry

and outrage if it was a man raped while drunk instead of the 'oh, she must have asked for it but just doesn't want to admit it' that you get with ANY woman over the age of 11 and under the age of 65.

I am defining rape as the insertion of any object, bodily or otherwise, into any orifice of another's body without that person's express consent.

[Recursion]

53. Right, in both cases...

You're assuming the predator will be male. That there's something magic and powerful about a penis that makes its owner be in full control of any situation where that penis goes into something. Men do have sex that they don't want to, with women. Maybe I just take this whole discussion way too personally, being a male victim of sexual abuse, but the idea that any erection and penetration is desired or asked for by the man who is erect bothers the hell out of me.

[China_cat]

57. Please read what I said again

nowhere will you find the premise of the predator being male.

I said "I am defining rape as the insertion of any object, bodily or OTHERWISE, into any orifice of another's body without that person's express consent." I know very well that women weild broom handles, bathroom plungers and other items.

Just that the defense would not even be allowed to use the 'he was drunk and asking for it' tactic, as they do with women.

[conflictgirl]

55. The man may be accused in that case

But rarely convicted. Remember that accusation does not equal conviction.

I wish I could find the stats again on the percentage of rape trials that lead to conviction (I'll keep looking). It's a pretty small percentage, if I remember correctly.

[Recursion]

58. But

Remember that accusation does not equal conviction.

But, like I said, this often happens at a college, and it does tend to mean his getting kicked out of school.

[China_cat]

66. Not if he's on one of the sports teams it doesn't.

It doesn't even get reported to the real police if the woman goes to any college officials about it first...or to the school infirmary. They'll cover it up every time.

[Hosnon]

31. So I can see from most replies that we are supposed to believe the

accuser 100%...hey..who needs a justice system?

I got a great idea...accuse someone of something and they go to jail..and as a bonus, anyone that questions you is ridiculed.

I think her past activities MOST DEFINITELY weigh either for or against her regarding credibility.

[redqueen]

33. no, you didn't read the replies

or if you did, you didn't understand them.

[Hosnon]

35. Yes I did. There is the explicit sentiment that her past activities should

have no importance in the matter and the implicit sentiment that he is guilty, as in: "It's ok to rape drunk people?"

[redqueen]

41. that's a criticism of the tactic being used by the defense n/t

[Hosnon]

48. How so? If by "defense" you mean "legal defense as opposed to

prosecutor" then I have no idea what you mean. No defense attorney wants his client assumed guilty and the accuser's questionable behavior disregarded.

I'm not quite sure I follow you.

[redqueen]

51. it is a defense based on the premise

that women who are not 'ladylike' are 'asking for it'

it is rooted in sexist ideology.

[etherealtruth]

67. All women (nuns, grandmothers, strippers, ....) seem to be vilified ...

... in order to provide an "aggressive defense."

[LostinVA]

80. Bingo, and anyone who doesn't get it doesn't want to get it n/t

[China_cat]

63. Ok, follow this

I'm a woman who has been raped. I call the cops, I go to the hospital, as is recommened. I haven't been beaten up so the worst of the visible injuries are torn clothes.

Two cops come in to interview (we're talking real world cops now, not the ones you see on tv).

"Please tell us what happened"

"I was raped"

"Where were you?"

"I was leaving club xyz to go home" (at this point both cops look at each other and roll their eyes and the questions don't even begin to address rape)

"How much had you had to drink? Are these the clothes you had on? How often do you go to club xyz? Do you always go there alone? Do you always leave alone? Do you have a steady boyfriend? When was the last time you had sex?"

And 50 more in this vein before they even ask you if you know the person (which opens a whole new can of worms...if you knew him, he couldn't have raped you) can you describe him, what he actually did to you. Before they go back to dismantling YOUR sexual history to try to decide if they should treat this as 'founded' or 'unfounded'. If unfounded, no further investigation will be taken. And it WILL be considered unfounded in most cases where there is not a lot of physical trauma, you knew your rapist, you had ANYTHING to drink, you were wearing less than a bourqa and chastity belt and you were in a 'bad' part of town.

Still. Today. This didn't die out 30 years ago the way people try to make out that it did.

[bliss_eternal]

93. Wouldn't it be interesting if robbery victims were asked

the following:

"Were you walking around with your wallet out, counting your money...?"

"Were you flashing big bills while walking down a dark alley, wearing all the jewelry that you own...?"

"Did you leave your possesions out in the open in your home, where anyone could see them if they broke in...?"

If it is not ok to ask victims of theft such questions, why is it ok to ask women victims of assault such things.

I wonder why people don't ask themselves where they get these ideas? If they took the time to think about it, they would realize it is a certain sort of conditioning--teaching them to think of women as somehow being capable of inviting rape and assault.

Just like any other form of bigotry, it is taught and learned--no one is born with it.
:hi:

[LostinVA]

79. Nope, not what one person on this thread EVER said

But hey, it's strawman used on every single rape thread on DU. Major kudos for being the first one to throw it up there.

[readmoreoften]

88. So women who have active sex lives are not credible victims.

And don't say that that's not what you're saying. It is *exactly* what you are saying. Certainly she should be vetted for credibility: does she have a history of pathologically lying? does she have a history of bringing frivolous lawsuits to trial? does she have any reason to smear the defendent (financial motivation, etc.)?

Those are fair outlets. Whether or not she is a flirt or wears tight clothes or has sex with *other* men is not a *past activity* that should be considered.

[lukasahero]

89. Perfectly said and an outstanding analysis. Thank you. eom

[readmoreoften]

72. Her sex habits and drinking habits are not legitimate evidence.

If I was this judge I'd throw this so-called "evidence" out of court. It is irrelevant whether or not she has slept with other men or whether or not she "aggressively flirts".

The only criteria that should be used to discredit her is (1) evidence that she is a pathological liar (2) has direct emotional or monetary reasons to try to harm the defendent (she's getting back at his girlfriend, she blackmailed him after, she has a history of blackmail.)

Who she sleeps with and how often is none of the courts business and will shed no light on whether or not she was raped. It is unethical. It's one step away from the "short skirt defense." No, actually, it is the "short skirt defense."

[ThomCat]

81. And yet, so few people agree with this very obvious

perspective. It's scary how many people think that her sex life needs to be examined in such fine detail, but nobody is asking about his.

If her life gets picked apart then let's get every girl and woman he's ever had a date with up on that stand and ask them if they think he's capable to rape. IMHO, guys who rape often leave a trail of date-rape behind them.

[ismnotwasm]

84. It's another disgusting example

Of the way rape victim's are treated. Bringing up their sexual past.

Back in my hard drinking days, I knew men who KNEW the women who would get "too drunk" By them drinks and wait for the opportunity to rape them. Sometimes more than one man. Only they didn't consider it rape. I don't recall a single instance where the assaulted woman would bring charges, even if she very clearly should have.

I also went to drunken parties/bars where the sex *WAS* consensual, so I'm very aware of the difference. And the difference is very clear.

This woman is saying she was raped. Her drinking and sexual history is irrelevant. The facts of the case are.

[readmoreoften]

86. And why *this* one guy, if she wasn't?

Clearly she isn't regretful and confused after a night of passionate sex if she goes out and has sex all the time. Straight women who have bar sex all the time know very well the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex-- because they have a lot of practice consenting. Now if they want to research into the possiblity that there is something more to this scenario-- she owes him money, etc-- those are reputable avenues for the defense, IMO.

If every disgruntled guy who didn't lay her gets a say in the trial, then every girl he's hit on in a bar should be fair game too.

I find it disturbing that so many DUers don't see the irrelevance of her sexual history. Her sexual history has nothing to do with her credibility. Her CREDIBILITY (whether she has a history of lying, etc.) is fair game. But not her sex life.

[Nevernose]

96. Her HABITS are irrelevant; what she'd done that night is

This is purely Devil's Advocate here, but what she did that particular night is relevant. If she was intoxicated beyiond all recognition, reasonable doubt as to her recollection could be raised. I remember the Brown civil suit in which the woman was drunk, consented to sex, and then claimed that the man should have known that she was too drunk to consent. Nothing legal happened, but he was thrown out of school.

Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, the guy seems guilty as hell, and his defense is apparently the best that money can buy.

[NaturalHigh]

94. Verdict is in.

Acquitted of rape...

guilty on two other counts.