Wow! Kobe Bryant criminal case dropped!

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
So I take it that you have no problem having a man's name drug through the mud for rape before it's even determined if a rape has taken place? Why is that?

This is a high profile case. Did we ever hear about Koby's sexual history like we did the victim's? He cheated on his wife once, was it with other women too. Not that it would personally matter to me. I just think that the public is more likely to slap the "scarlet letter" on the woman's chest as opposed to the man's, regardless of the evidence or factual information.

You are a succesful woman. Do you think that everything is really equal out there as far as how the system treats men and women, or only in theory?

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

LisaSt - I agree with everything you posted up until the end. There is no double standard that I can see. A man who if falsely accused is allowed to sue his accuser.

"So whats good for the goose is good for the gander until it is somethig like this then forget it not correct and I think AFR is correct it shoulf be changed.”
Your point seems to be directed at women who make false accusations. What about the real victims?


Police and prosecutors are very skeptical people. They are always looking for false accusations. A victims’ credibility is challenged from day one because law enforcement officials know that a false rape accusation is such a horrendous thing. The person’s life can and most likely will be destroyed. One of the Special Victim Units in New York City has a newspaper article hanging in their waiting area. It’s about a girl who made a false rape accusation. The girl’s father went out and killed the person who she accused. Then she said she made the whole thing up. The father was convicted and sent to prison.


Maybe a thread on the Kobe Bryant case is a poor forum to get my point across. Was she or wasn’t she raped, I don’t know, nor do any of the posters on this board. Maybe the Kobe Bryant victim is not very sympathetic. However, please understand the impact that sexual abuse has on a person.

People (not just women) who are sexually abused often suffer from what people refer to as posttraumatic stress disorder. It goes without saying that a sexual assault is a traumatic event. Victims feel ashamed, depressed, embarrassed, fearful, act erratically, and so on and so on. Victims often require extensive counseling / treatment in order to function properly in society.

I met a man in his fifties who was abused as a child. By comparison, to what I have heard, his abuse was minor, (touching, no penetration). He told me that there is not a day that goes by that he does not think about his abuse. He has led a successful but incredibly tortured life. This is how many people in our society live. I guarantee you know people (probably a few) who have been sexually abused and have not told anyone for whatever reason. How many men do you know that have been falsely accused of rape?


Rape shield laws are there to protect the privacy rights of victims. Give the police and prosecutors some credit in doing their jobs. They do an outstanding job in weeding out false claims. If someone is going to make a false accusation, having their name publicized will most likely not be a deterrent. Rewriting the laws will not stop false accusations. Rewriting the laws will be a step backward and will make an underreported crime, even more underreported.

So what’s good for the “goose” (a real rape victim) is NOT good for the “gander” (the real rapist).

 

[AirForceRocks]

So what’s good for the “goose” (a real rape victim) is NOT good for the “gander” (the real rapist).

And until the trial is held, we don't know who the real victim is, do we?

I stand by my belief and nothing is going to change my mind on it. Alleged victims of other crimes are identified, and there is absolutely no reason IMO that alleged rape victims should be treated any differently. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the myths about the victim "asking for it".

 

[LisaSt]

P&P and AFR I agree with a few statements made and whole heartedly agree than in any case the victim should be named if they are brave enough to mae the acusation they are brave enough to be named. It is after all 2004 and equal rights yada yada so why the old system for this It does not seem fair wrongfully accused or not that the man should get his name out and the woman does not. If the woman wants to remain anonamous (sp) then so should the man until he is found guilty after that plaster his name all over for all I car but untill then he should have the samy anonimity as the woman. Or she should be made public just as the man is.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
The number is completely irrelevent. Are you saying that it's OK to ruin the reputation of innocent men since it won't happen very often? That's disturbing.

I think this whole "protect the poor woman" concept used in rape accusations smacks of paternalism.

The number is not irrelevant. What is more important, the needs of the many or the needs of the few. (I sound like Spock.)

I hate statistics but they show that over 300,000 women are raped / sexually abused in the US in a year. Even if the number if way off, that's a huge number.

The laws are there to protect not only women but men and children. A man gets sodomized. Do you think he wants that publicized? A child gets sexually abused. Do you think they want everyone in their school to know about it?

There is no "protect the poor woman" concept. Many people who are sexually abused need protection. Why shouldn't we protect them?

Besides, how is getting rid of a rape shield law going to benefit a falsely accused man? It's not.

 

[AirForceRocks]

As I said before, there is no way to change my mind on this. If the woman makes the accusation, she should have her name revealed.

 

[LisaSt]

Here in Canada you can't publicise the childs name until they reach the age of 18 or you have consent from the legal parent or guardian. Same thing if it was a man acusing a woman let them both be named.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And until the trial is held, we don't know who the real victim is, do we?

But without the laws, in many cases, we will never get to the trial. Then the rapist is free to victimize others.

I stand by my belief and nothing is going to change my mind on it. Alleged victims of other crimes are identified, and there is absolutely no reason IMO that alleged rape victims should be treated any differently. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the myths about the victim "asking for it". [/B]

As I said before, there is no way to change my mind on this. If the woman makes the accusation, she should have her name revealed.

Some people are closed minded and will never change their views. They are not even open to the possibility of it.

I don't want to know the answer to this but have you ever been sexually abused or spoken in depth to someone who has? If not, then you don't know how they feel. Rape victims don't want their names in the papers. We should focus on what they (the victims) want.

Why do we protect a rape victims' names. So the crime gets reported and the guilty get punished. The goal of the law is to put guilty rapists in jail. The law helps in doing that. I don't see what is to be gained by changing the law.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Some people are closed minded and will never change their views. They are not even open to the possibility of it.

On this issue, you're right. I believe that some things are fundamentally wrong, and I think shielding the name of an alleged rape victim is wrong. And when I believe that something is fundamentally wrong, I'm not going to change my mind about it.

 

[poohandwendy]

People (not just women) who are sexually abused often suffer from what people refer to as posttraumatic stress disorder. It goes without saying that a sexual assault is a traumatic event. Victims feel ashamed, depressed, embarrassed, fearful, act erratically, and so on and so on. Victims often require extensive counseling / treatment in order to function properly in society.

You were right when you said you did not know any of the posters on this board and you should have kept it at that.

For some reason you seem to think you have more information or insight than others regarding this subject.

What you have is a different opinion. Period.

So what you are saying is that a car accident victim should be allowed to collect money for pain and suffering but a crime victim shouldn't. Want to rethink that one?

No, I don't. Criminals should be handled in CRIMINAL court only, IMO.

You don't hear about it because it isn't newsworthy. Do you really expect to read about lawsuits in the newspaper or see it on TV? You hear about celebrities when the a charged with any crime.

Oh come on, Joe Schmoe isn't sued because no lawyer is going to waste their time trying to get blood from a stone.

You have no clue. How many women are raped / sexually abused? More than you and I will ever know. How many innocent men are falsely accused? Very few.

I am sure you think you are the authority, but we will never know. It doesn't matter how many, that isn't the issue anyways.

The criminal justice system is well equipped to decide the fate of criminals. When a civil suit is filed, it greatly decreases the chance of conviction, even in the Joe Schmoe scenario.

It should be left up to the criminal justice system imo.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
For some reason you seem to think you have more information or insight than others regarding this subject.

What you have is a different opinion. Period.

For about four years of my life, I was a sex crime prosecutor. I have been to more hospitals, police stations, and crime scenes than I can remember. I have more than just a different opinion.

No, I don't. Criminals should be handled in CRIMINAL court only, IMO.

Why deny someone with a legitimate claim the right to sue for their pain and suffering? Are you saying that someone who has to suffer life-long mental anguish shouldn't be allowed to seek damages?

Oh come on, Joe Schmoe isn't sued because no lawyer is going to waste their time trying to get blood from a stone.

Agreed but the building Joe Schmoe broke into gets sued all the time. It's not publicized because it's not newsworthy.

I am sure you think you are the authority, but we will never know. It doesn't matter how many, that isn't the issue anyways.

It is the issue. Laws are written to protect people. Should we repeal a law that protects so many people? Why? You can't tell me of one benefit from repealing a rape shiled law. Even if repealed, it will not stop false accusations.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

You were right when you said you did not know any of the posters on this board and you should have kept it at that.

yes, I agree. Pooh&Piglet, you really need to get over your assumption that anybody that doesn't agree with your POV must be ignorant and surely just doesn't know what they are talking about. If it makes you feel any better, I sadly am all to acquainted with the healing process of violent and sexual crimes and the nightmares that last for years. Beyond that is simply none of your business.

I'm also personally acquainted with knowledge where teachers and others have been falsly accused of horrendous crimes. I can assure you that their careers and life are left in ruins. The numbers may not be the same, but the road definately goes both ways and the law should be equally concerned with protecting all victims.

 

[poohandwendy]

For about four years of my life, I was a sex crime prosecutor. I have been to more hospitals, police stations, and crime scenes than I can remember. I have more than just a different opinion.

Good for you, you have an opinion that is more than just different. I disagree based on my and other loved ones personal experiences.

Why deny someone with a legitimate claim the right to sue for their pain and suffering? Are you saying that someone who has to suffer life-long mental anguish shouldn't be allowed to seek damages?

Funny how those 'damages' only seem to be an issue when the 'criminal' has very deep pockets.

Agreed but the building Joe Schmoe broke into gets sued all the time. It's not publicized because it's not newsworthy.

And THAT is yet another example of the twisted litigation process in this country, IMHO.

It is the issue. Laws are written to protect people. Should we repeal a law that protects so many people? Why? You can't tell me of one benefit from repealing a rape shiled law. Even if repealed, it will not stop false accusations.

Actually, I would be happy with having the 'accused' be kept unidentified until proven guilty. As it stands, it is an unfair playing field, IMHO.

 

[LisaSt]

Another thing that gets me is if somone breaks into your home and injures themselves they sue you and you are liable for that. IMHO that is wrong as they are the ones in the wrong hell if they didn't break into my house to steal the stuff I have worked hard to purchase they wouldn't have fallen and gotten hurt. Some laws are just stupid IMHO and the not revealing a victims name is one of those.

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

Originally posted by Toby'sFriend
yes, I agree. Pooh&Piglet, you really need to get over your assumption that anybody that doesn't agree with your POV must be ignorant and surely just doesn't know what they are talking about. If it makes you feel any better, I sadly am all to acquainted with the healing process of violent and sexual crimes and the nightmares that last for years. Beyond that is simply none of your business.

No it doesn't make me feel any better. I am not trying to pry into anyones lives. My frustration arises from the public's many misconceptions about rape and rape victims.

I'm also personally acquainted with knowledge where teachers and others have been falsly accused of horrendous crimes. I can assure you that their careers and life are left in ruins. The numbers may not be the same, but the road definately goes both ways and the law should be equally concerned with protecting all victims.

It is a shame that people are falsely accused. But tell me how that will change if rape shield laws are repealed?


I don't care if people agree with me or not. But when people get frustrated about the Kobe Bryant case and have a knee-jerk reaction about repealing very useful laws, I speak up.

 

[AirForceRocks]

My frustration arises from the public's many misconceptions about rape and rape victims.

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.

 

[poohandwendy]

well said Brenda...I TOTALLY agree!!!

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm trying to be part of a discussion.

How is a woman who was raped reporting the rape to the police dragging someone through the mud? If someone is a victim of a crime, any crime, I hope they report it to the police.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
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.

Your statement that you are "not ignorant on the subject and I don't have misconceptions about rape and rape victims" is contradicted by the above quote.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of laws that shield a rape victim's name. It's not medieval or about protecting honor. It is all about getting crimes reported to the police. People who want to repeal such laws are advocating (whether intentionally or not) something that would lead to less reporting of crime. I'm pretty sure that is not what people want.

 

[browneyes]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
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.

Even more victims will shy away from trying to prosecute their assailants if they can't find some form of anonymity though. Innocent victims will only be further victimized if their names are published. How many people, men or women, do you know that would be comfortable if people came up to them and said "Oh yeah, you're the man that I read about that was raped the other night." Heck, I'd get embarrassed if my name was published for being the victim of a robbery! I can imagine how I'd feel if I'd been raped and my name was out there for any and everyone to read about it.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by POOH&PIGLET

Your statement that you are "not ignorant on the subject and I don't have misconceptions about rape and rape victims" is contradicted by the above quote.

Ah, and here we go again - I don't agree with you, therefore I'm ignorant...gee, I'm shocked.

Not.