Wow! Kobe Bryant criminal case dropped!

[POOH&PIGLET]

AirForceRocks - Read the rest of my post.

You are refering to a rape shield law as hiding "behind some medieval veil of secrecy lest someone know that her honor has been violated." The laws are not medieval and have nothing to do with honor.

Ignorant is defined as: (1) Lacking education or knowledge (2) Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge (3) Unaware or uninformed.

Your posts show that you are "unaware or uninformed" as to why these laws were enacted and display a "lack[ of] education or knowledge" (not in general but on the specific reason for the laws).

Ignorant is not a bad word. I do not use it in a negative sense. I use it because it fits what I see. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And this is the point that I think we are trying to make about your arrogance on this subject. Why do you assume that because we disagree with you that means that we are ignorant or that we have misconceptions about rape and rape victims?

I'm not ignorant on the subject and I don't have misconceptions about rape and rape victims. I just think it is fundamentally WRONG to allow a woman to drag a man's name through the mud while she hides behind some medieval veil of secrecy lest someone know that her honor has been violated. It's ludicrous, IMO.

If you really feel this way you should volunteer at a women's shelter for domestic violence victims. The courts and the judicial system is still antiquated to a certain extent when it comes to rape, and domestic violence. It's rare to hear someone that is as knowlegeable and sympathetic as Pooh&Piglet who works in the system. It's not arrogance, and it's totally understandable after reading your posts on this subject.

It's ludicrous to think that a rape victim is just worried about her "honor being violated."

 

[AirForceRocks]

Ignorant is defined as: (1) Lacking education or knowledge (2) Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge (3) Unaware or uninformed.

Thanks, but I'm well aware of the definition of ignorant.

Your posts show that you are "unaware or uninformed" as to why these laws were enacted and display a "lack[ of] education or knowledge" (not in general but on the specific reason for the laws).

Nope, not at all. You've stated repeatedly that the reason these laws are in place is to encourage women to report cases of rape. And you contend that if these laws were repealed, women would hesitate to report cases of rape. With me so far? Now, why would women not report rapes if their names were publicized? Because of some ridiculous notion of embarrassment or shame. And why is that? Because of this medievel notion of someone's honor being defiled by the rape. So in fact, these laws are, IMO, just what I've described. A medieval veil of secrecy lest someone know a woman's honor has been violated. If this isn't the case, then why would their repeal result in fewer women reporting rapes?

Ignorant is not a bad word. I do not use it in a negative sense. I use it because it fits what I see. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.

Your condescension is simply amazing.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

If you really feel this way you should volunteer at a women's shelter for domestic violence victims. The courts and the judicial system is still antiquated to a certain extent when it comes to rape, and domestic violence.

can't speak for AFR but I have volunteered at women's shelters for years. In fact I was a volunteer on a Rape crises hotline for an extended period. I'm not sure how I feel about repealing current name-shield laws but I'm definately in favor of giving the accused to remain just as anonymous as the victim.

And I also agree that the idea that anybody that has been victimized by a crime should somehow feel "shamed" by the event is an outdated societal concept that needs to change.

The courts and the judicial system is still antiquated to a certain extent when it comes to rape, and domestic violence.

As horrific as the crimes of rape and domestic violence certainly are, the court system must still abide by the basic premise of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would hardly call such a concept "antiquated."

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Toby's friend that is really interesting, what you wrote.

I think that a lot of police officer's still don't deal with domestic violence and rape very well. I think the training has gotten better, but it isn't where it should be yet.

I also attended several PFA hearings as a volunteer. What I witnessed sometimes was a lot of apathy from the judge and the system in general. How many PFA's actually prevent the abuser from harming the victim again? I don't have as amny answers as P&P but, I think things could be better.

 

[AirForceRocks]

It's not arrogance, and it's totally understandable after reading your posts on this subject.

Sorry, but it is absolutely is arrogance to assert that I'm ignorant of a subject just because I don't agree with him.

It's ludicrous to think that a rape victim is just worried about her "honor being violated."

Then what would be reasoning behind the assumption that women won't report rapes if their names are made public?

 

[Crankyshank]

I have volunteered extensively at rape crisis centers and womens shelters. I have seen first hand the effects of rape and have experienced it myself.

I am not ashamed of what happened to me. However there is still a stigma attached to rape and I definitely do not think the confidentially laws should be overturned. So few a percentage of rapes are actually reported/pursued as it is, this would make things worse.

I do also feel that the name of the accused should be kept confidential until s/he is found guilty because the accusation of rape, if not proven, can be absolutely shattering to someone's career and reputation.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Sorry, but it is absolutely is arrogance to assert that I'm ignorant of a subject just because I don't agree with him.



Then what would be reasoning behind the assumption that women won't report rapes if their names are made public?

Well everyone that I saw at the shelter was female, and had some type of bruise or injury. No abused men came in the whole time that I was volunteering. Most of the women had been threatened with death, or violence so they wouldn't try to leave,or tell anyone. Maybe putting their names out in the public would endanger them even further.

Who are the famous casew that have been proven to be fake? OJ Simpson, That Kennedy Smith guy? (ugh)

 

[AirForceRocks]

I do also feel that the name of the accused should be kept confidential until s/he is found guilty because the accusation of rape, if not proven, can be absolutely shattering to someone's career and reputation.

I would certainly support something like that. It should be one way or the other - either both are identified or neither are identified.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

AirForceRocks – I’m not being condescending and I’m sure you know what “ignorant” means. I was trying to make the point that I’m not trying to offend anyone. Some people equate the word "ignorant" with "stupid." I am enjoying this discussion and I don't want people to think I am being rude or calling you names.



“Then what would be reasoning behind the assumption that women won't report rapes if their names are made public?”
This is not an assumption. It is a fact that some women will be less likely to report a sexual assault if the believe their name will be publicized. I have learned this from first hand experience talking with victims and from my studies. You can ask any expert in the field and they will tell you this is a fact, not an assumption.

I guess that your rejection of this fact is why you can’t understand my point of view. I don’t have a problem with an accused rapist having some privacy. (The media might disagree with this. ) However, the privacy rights of an accused rapist and an accuser are not the same.

I understand your point about the “medievel notion of someone's honor being defiled by the rape.” As Toby’sFriend wrote: “And I also agree that the idea that anybody that has been victimized by a crime should somehow feel "shamed" by the event is an outdated societal concept that needs to change.” Unfortunately, this is the reality of our society. When society changes then maybe the law will become unnecessary. But for now, they serve us well.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

I'm about to pack for my weekend trip. Its been an interesting discussion. Everybody have a good holiday weekend.

Good luck & God bless to everyone down in Florida.