Date rape cases still extremely hard to win

Pennsylvania law forbids the use of expert testimony to explain the behavior of rape victims...

That is horrible and really needs to be changed.  Most jurors haven't had a lot of pyschology courses, haven't been in similar situations, and don't have friends who have been in similar situations, so they don't have any point of reference to understand the psychology of rape victims. 

When thinking hypothetically about the situation, many people think they'd go straight to the hospital.  But in the horror of being used in such a way by someone they thought they could trust (through the emails leading up to the date) can make people do irrational things.  Denial is a common self-defense mechanism as is trying to change the situation so it seems as though it's on your own terms.  A jury needs to be educated about these things in order to make a good decision.

Learn more about Rape Drugs, visit: 

Please share a website that just might save your life...or someone you love. 

A worthwhile website to search out, called

Kookie Therapy com

Visit the WHY Page

Learn more! 

Looking through the article, the defense emphatically stated this guy was a playboy who had no problem burning bridges with his conquests, and all of the women were liars, generally the jury believed the accused. 

 Apparently this playboy defendant  kept computer records, a trophy sheet,  and when the FBI seized his computer, the FBI contacted all his prior girlfriends. So the trial is based on a complaint gained by the government taking great pains to create evidence, which was not present prior to the seizure.  This should alarm everybody, because if there was a true crime, the victim would ordinarily report the crime shortly after it happened and not weeks, months and years later.  Especially rape, some of the victims even going on dates with the same guy after a "horrific" alleged assault, which is how they got thier conviction. Therefore Im gonna say the victims have a motive for revenge.  They were tricked and duped  by a false doctor lover boyfriend, who pried their prize possession away from them, and now they are angry about the deception. However, if this guy had been a real bona fide doctor, they probably would have married him if he proposed..do I have this correct??? My main question is if the FBI got a warrant to take this guys computer, did they find any date rape drugs this guy did not have any authoriztion for? Did they run a scan for such a drug in the apartment??? I think that if they did not offer this as evidence then we can safely assume the FBI did not find any drugs, so the date rape drug  allegation is unsubstantiated and suspect.  However, for the victims, it is a great crutch to stand on, completely absolves them of any  responsibility for their behavior, which might have been conducive to consensual sex.  So they could have said yes, and done what ever pleased them, until after the fact, and then said, "oh we didnt know,that wasnt part of the deal, he is a fake, we were drugged!!!  the world is full of liars.  Let us see how the rest of the 3rd trial plays out, maybe on the third trial the lesbians can mount a significant attack and dildo this playboy into prison. Maybe we can skew the evidence too and stack the jury.  Never mind the fact that this is double jeopardy, try the guy repeatedly until you get conviction. What ever happened to the Constitution? Did we shred it or is it now toilet paper?  Somehow double jeopardy and FBI doing a search of your premises and your computer would seem to be a vioaltion of 4th amendment, and the double jeopardy amendment in the bill of rights.  I do not gain a sense of violent assault here unless they can produce evidence of a drug induced date rape,  or proof of resistence by non consensual physical evidence..scratches, bruises, etc.

Gotta prove it. We will see in the next trial, or the one after , or after that.

btw,

1. that is certainly not double jeopardy; that would be trying him for the same crime twice. He is being tried for different instances of rape. If you rob one house today and go to trial for it, and then rob a different house next week, you may be brought to trial again. Those are two different crimes and can be brought to trial as separate crimes.

2. The constitution does protect against unwarranted search and seizures, but there is such a thing as a search warrant, and if they have probable cause, police do not need a search warrant. Besides, it looks like they did find something: "Police had found a syringe of liquid diphenhydramine in Marsalis’s apartment, a drug that can cause powerful sleepiness, and theorized that he’d used expired medications he’d had access to at school or work. But testing was not completed and the syringe was not introduced as evidence." Furthermore, would you leave your date rape drugs lying about your house? I think you know where I'm going with this.

3. You state, "...if this guy had been a real bona fide doctor, they probably would have married him if he proposed..do I have this correct???" To answer your question, no, I do not believe you have the authority to say this, unless you have asked all of his rape victims and gotten a consensus. Speaking for myself, I can truthfully say that I would not want to marry a man solely because of his profession. I can go to medical school myself if I want. If you know of a study that corroborates that statement, please let me know.

4. The world is indeed full of liars, but if we write everyone off as a liar, how will we as a society move forward? And if this man is really brought to trial five times, as you suggest in your last statement, maybe the reason he keeps being accused should be examined. It's great to stick up for someone and believe in him, but be sure you are open to the arguments of both sides; moreover, that you are well educated about, not only the law, but the psychology behind liars, rapists, and victims.

Albeit I'm no lawyer howard hofelich introduces the interesting fact that the seized computer - which did not play an active part in any alleged rape - became the FBIs snitch for which women to contact, that a case (or three) could be brought against him.  Then from the computer information recreating alleged rapes and then contacting potential victims seems a little bass-ackwards to me.  Thought we slipped past 1984.

Just wondering if the defense had access to any diaries the alleged victims may have recorded their thoughts in?

This is what's funny, they say there was no evidence of drugs or rapes, but all the women tell a similar story about blacking out and not rememberng things.  8 people can't all make something up and tell the same story. 

This guy needs to befirend Lorena Bobbit.  Seriously.

You misunderstand the function of a jury. The jury's job isn't to look at both sides to decide which one is lying. The jury's job is to determine whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If they all have the general feeling that the victim is probably telling the truth, but don't feel it has really been proven, they must acquit. That's a foundation of our criminal legal system, and I doubt many would want to change it.

We all saw this in the OJ trial. Why are people so surprised to find that rape trials work just like every other criminal trial in that regard? The only difference in the OJ trial was that the victim was dead, so she didn't have to be present to hear all the slander against her.

Your description of the jury's thought process is almost certainly inaccurate as well. You, like the author, are assuming that the jurors believed the facts of the victims' side of the story but decided they "deserved it anyway" or had given implicit consent by acting like naughty girls. I VERY much doubt that's what the jurors concluded. They almost certainly concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to corroborate any part of the victim's stories, and without that evidence they couldn't in good conscience convict just on one person's say-so. How the victim acted afterwards might be that corroborating evidence.

Have you ever been on a jury? It's not an easy thing to take away half of someone's life unless you're not just pretty much convinced, but DAMN sure things went down exactly like the prosecutor claims.

Anyway, I  hope the Duke lacrosse team case will finish off for good the naive and utterly irrational notion that no woman would ever lie about rape.

To bring in the stolen TV scenario raised by the author, that hypothetical assumes that the TV is found in the perp's possession. Furthermore, consent absolutely WILL enter into it *IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE IT MIGHT BE PLAUSIBLE*. If the alleged TV thief is a neighbor to whom the victim frequently lends valuable tools or appliances, you can bet your bippy the victim will say at trial "He lent me that TV last week, now he's just mad (for whatever generic reason you can think of) and is bringing these farcical charges to harrass and punish me." But if most TVs are stolen by burglars, there's no reason to suspect that the owner might have given it to the burglar.

Likewise, in a rape case where the defendant, a total stranger, broke into the victim's house, tied her up, and tried to cut her throat when he left, I very much doubt you'll hear consent raised at trial - because it isn't plausible that any sane person would have consented to that. The question, again, is "Is the defendant's version of events plausible enough to constitute reasonable doubt? And is there sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that everything happened the way the victim said and not the way the defendant said?"

You misunderstand the function of a jury. The jury's job isn't to look at both sides to decide which one is lying. The jury's job is to determine whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're absolutely right about reasonable doubt, and about how that's why OJ got off.  None of us reading this article can be sure exactly what happened in the jury room.   And since we didn't hear exactly what the jury did, we can't really be sure why they went the way they did.  All I know is that based on what I read in the article, I do not have any doubt of this guy's guilt. 

If it were just a matter of physical evidence, there would be no need for witnesses. The testamony of the women is evidence and is to be taken into account by the jury to decide guilt. The jury is asked to decide if the testamony of the witness is the truth.

So, Bruce, I do belive you also lean toward "all women who cry rape are lying."

You can believe whatever nonsense you like, but that certainly isn't what I said or what I believe.

I believe *some* women who cry rape are lying. And of course the victim's word is evidence; the question is, if that's all you've got, whether it is so rock-solid and irrefutable that no rational person could admit even the possibility that she MIGHT be lying. That's pretty darn near impossible, unless you had your mind made up beforehand. What the crime at issue is doesn't really change that.

And of course you need witnesses - if nothing else, you need the victim to say she didn't consent (unless she has physical injuries nasty enough that no one could believe anyone would ever consent to it, which we can't determine here because she didn't have them examined).

Bruce, you remind me of my brother, same name too.  Ignorant - yet thinking you know something about the law, what we call "jailhouse lawyer" only many "jailhouse lawyers" know more than he does.

I am speaking as a lawyer here, many people confuse the term "reasonable doubt" with "beyond a doubt".  If you reasonably believe the story of the victim - then the accused is guilty.

The problem with our system is that we get too many reasonable people eliminated to voir dure (where the atty's can knock people off the jury for having expert knowledge or knowledge or association with someone who was a victim of a similar crime).  I have often wondered why in rape we don't eliminate all males, because they fear being accused of such a crime?

"Anyway, I  hope the Duke lacrosse team case will finish off for good the naive and utterly irrational notion that no woman would ever lie about rape."

We then end up with jurors  like yourself, who confuse the terms.  It is a legal term of art - what would a reasonable person consider to be a reasonable standard of doubt.

You know, I have a suspicious, cynical nature, sometimes I have an extremely dark sense of conspiracy and wonder, could the incredibly inept, unorganized LA police dept have managed a conspiracy of vast porportions to "frame" OJ.  See this is beyond any doubt  (Nah, that is unreasonable - besides they probably liked him because he was a jock and that explains why he wasn't arrested at any of his previous domestic disturbance calls).

I don't see any reasonable doubt, where the police establish a clear and consistent pattern among 21 women, who don't know each other, (no reasonable person can believe that they conspired together to make this guy go to prison) find a vile of drugs.  They found evidence on his computer which kept "souvenir" names of the victims as sucessful assaults.

 To bring in the stolen TV scenario raised by the author, that hypothetical assumes that the TV is found in the perp's possession. Furthermore, consent absolutely WILL enter into it *IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE IT MIGHT BE PLAUSIBLE*.

Again, wrong standard of proof.  Might be plausible - gee it might be plausible that Paris Hilton will win an Oscar next year, not likely, but plausible.

Cynthia is correct, the jury is asked to decide if the testimony is truthful, and frankly expecting women to break down emotionally, or be frail and frightened in a rape trial is extremely sexist - and yes, even women can be sexist sometimes we are our own worst enemy (I assume there were women on the jury).

 Women who have been raped often become the toughest, coldest, emotionally closed off people you will ever meet.  After therapy, and lots of time, they may come to believe that they can try to trust someone again.  But it takes lots of time, it is a horrible violation, one I hope you never experience. 

Can you imagine, waking up in bed next to a guy - you work with and you decide to go out for a friendly beer?  Guys night watching the game?  Your bum hurts, got some leakage,  you know you wouldn't have done what has clearly happened.  How quick are you going to be to report?  Your first emotion will be nausea, second, anger or embarrassment, third whatever you didn't feel second.

Shame, will probably keep you from reporting because you don't want anyone to believe you might swing the other way.  Think about how your friends are going to treat you - stand offish I guarantee.  (For women it is because they don't want to be labeled promiscuous - which the jury pretty much decided for them here - proving them correct).

Oh, and just to explain why I know these things, before becoming a lawyer I had the misfortune to be date raped.  I never reported because the term didn't even exist then, we had "acquaintance rape" and I felt guilty for going out with a guy who would do that to me.  No reasonable man, could believe that a woman saying no, crying big ugly snotty tears, was enjoying it.  And I do cry ugly, with lots of snot.

I also have voluteered with various rape crisis agencies in my life, and most of the women, despite our offers of assistance, will not report the violation.  They are afraid of the shame, but need someone confidential to confide in about the horrible crime they experienced.

Have we had the occasional lying woman?  Yes, and thankfully they have been weeded out of the system - it is harder to get a case taken by the prosecutor than have a bad case taken.  In the  Duke case, the Prosecutor was overzealous and ignored strong exculpatory evidence, like having banking video and receipts putting the defendant in another place at the time, or that no ones DNA matched the sample taken.  The problem in that case was a Political Prosecutor, so no, it is unlikely that the vast majority women lie about this crime.

Again, problem is with jury selection these days, not facts presented.  Attorneys are both trying to weed out people with brains and thoughts of their own - because they want to fill your head with their thoughts.  They are looking for easily swayed people, because they want to sway you to their side.

And what this article was about, isn't just this case, but the fact that it is very difficult to win date rape cases, because of the prejudices about women and how they should behave as victims.

This case demonstrates the bankruptcy of our legal system, including the vaunted "jury of peers". When that jury is composed of socially alienated types who mostly get their information from TV and media, the end result is a disfunctional system.  Ideally, judge and jury should have an equal say on the whole matter and reach a just solution.    

I believe we are commenting on the article here. (Remember where you clicked the button to comment)  I was commenting on the articles "experts" who explained that in our soceity, we still expect a certain behavior out of women.  I do find that prejudicial.

As you and many other men have stated we have no idea what this jury said or didn't say. 

And, I think you are overly sensitive and I have to wonder why.  Famous Shakespeare quote: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."  (sign of guilt in the play).

I find your two friends, argument about as persuasive as the woman who is denying racism claiming to have friends who are which ever race she has just generalized has having the same traits (usually negative).

Oh and by the way, every lawyer brings a personal agenda into the courtroom - it is called fighting for our clients, whether we like them or not.  But in criminal law the prosecutor is fighting for the citizens of his/her state.

And as individuals we probably do bring a bit of our own beliefs into the justice system.  We are human after all.  Just as I assume you are when you aren't quite so angry.

Speaking as a woman who was raped and beaten as a four year old child, and left for dead in a ravine I find your comments offensive. The truth of the matter is that one in three woman have experienced UNWANTED sexual encounters. Would you be so quick to defend your friends if it was your daughter, sister, mother, or wife that had been raped.

I am not a man hater, but this mentality is why victims do not come forward. In this case there are numerous woman who came forward with very similar stories. I find it hard to believe that they are lying. Just because you know someone does not give that person the right to drug you and rape you. That's like saying a person has the right to beat their spouse, because they are married. Until people understand that this is a violent crime and that there is no excuse for it, it will continue to happen. Statistics don't lie.

• In the United States, 1.3 women are raped every minute. That results in 78 rapes each hour, 1872 rapes each day, 56160 rapes ech month and 683,280 rapes each year.
• 1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
• The United States has the world's highest rape rate of the countries that publish such statistics. It's 4 times higher than Germany, 13 times higher than England, and 20 times higher than Japan.
• 1 in 7 women will be raped by her husband.
• 83% of rape cases are ages 24 or under.
• 1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.
• 1 in 12 males students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape. Furthermore, 84% of the men who had committed such acts said what they had done was definitely not rape.
• 75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in acquaintance rape had been drinking or using drugs.
• Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police.
• http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

Thanks lynn, I am leaning toward believing that some of the most intense guys on this discussion board may be in that 84% who had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape - but these guys on the board don't just not believe their actions would be rape, but are afraid, because in their gut they know they are - but they want to cover emotionally with the "It was her fault" because they can't live with the behavior.

Smokeified - quotes these in response to lynn's statistics later in this commentary - I think it clearly outlines my thought that those who guys on this board who are the angriest are aware that their past actions fit the legal definition - and don't like that.

You prove my previous post about lynn's statistics.

1 in 7 women will be raped by her husband.

This is absolute BS.  It depends on if we are using the poor female victim definition of rape or the actual one.

You don't believe the legal definition of rape should apply.  The legal definition of rape is sexual act without the consent of the victim, or that he/she is incapacitated or otherwise unable to give consent.

Marriage is not property rights situation.  Husband doesn't have right to have sex if wife doesn't want it.  No more than wife has right to "rape husband in the bum" if he doesn't want it.

83% of rape cases are ages 24 or under.

I bet you could find a statistic that says that 83% of girls 24 or under have a habit of making stupid choices with their lives also.

So, it is only Womenwho make stupid choices.  That is quite misogynistic.

1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape

Usually when they are wasted and acting like the party slut.

Does this mean you have observed this before they were raped?  From your previous attacks you claim you are merely making impartial observations.  This poster has posted facts.  So I am assuming you have done an academic study which is completely impartial and found that most college girls who were raped were acting like the party slut. 

Which college did you go to and were you in a fraternity?  (see I am not making an impartial observation here, I am using stereotypes - like that all fraternity members are rapists).  Clearly I have never done a study on whether or not fraternity members rape more than other men - but it is a stereotype - and I wouldn't want to label all fraternity members with such an offensive label.

1 in 12 males students surveyed had commitedacts that met the legal definition of rape. Furthermore, 84% of the men who had commited such acts said what they had done was definitely not rape.

Meaning that the legal definition of rape probably varies a bit from the actual definition.  Also of those 84% of men who do not feel that they committed rape, 90% of them probably did not, and the other 10% fail to be properly educated.

So what is the actual definition of rape?  Is it the definition according to smokiefied952?  Do we have other laws in which you get to define the  actual definition because you don't like the real definition?

75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in acquintance rape had been drinking or using drugs.

Once again, a little personal accountibility would solve this problem if JUST THE WOMEN were to make better choices.  Everyone should make the right choice, but it is not feasable to expect that to happen in reality.  Therefore if you just worry about worrying about yourself and making the right choice, you do not have to worry about somebody victimizing you because you were making bad choices.

Yeah, because it so much easier to tell the victim to behave better, because men in reality (according to you) can't help but make bad choices.

You must be rather old because we threw out that version of "reality" over 30 years ago.  Most men I know don't believe in blaming the victim for her choices.  We are all aware that the person to be held culpable in a crime is the one committing the crime.

And the 84% of unreported rape victims end up in the forums @!$%#ing about laws and systems that they failed to use properly.  It is always easier to blame than it is to take responsibility, right ladies?

Well, I see that again, you believe we women should be blamed, even though you have announced that there is and actual definition of rape which differs from the legal definition,    so exactly how can we complain not complain about the laws not working when posters like you don't even believe in the law.  Women are not stupid - we are aware that there are some people like you out there, and not only men, but some women as well - so we aren't always anxious to put ourselves through the humiliating experience of cross examination, and exams, when we know there is a strong possibility that someone will persuade the rest of the jury that the actual definition of rape as opposed to the legal definition did not occur in our case.

That is why it goes unreported - why expose yourself to emotional rape for nothing?  The guy may walk, and all you are remembered for is your painful graphic testimony.

Oh and by the way - you attribute a quote to me (or at least insinuate that I share the same view) which I didn't write.

This is what's funny, they say there was no evidence of drugs or rapes, but all the women tell a similar story about blacking out and not rememberng things.  8 people can't all make something up and tell the same story. 

This guy needs to befirend Lorena Bobbit.  Seriously.

So it is not ok to rape a woman, but it is ok for a woman to seriously disfigure a man.  How is it that you do not understand why it is that there is such a global bad opinion of women?

I don't condone mutilation.  I wil stop responding to you.  However, I didn't want to be misquoted, especially for such a violent suggestion.

I was on a jury a few year ago. The charges were kidnapping, assault resulting in serious bodily harm and sexual assault. (There was no rape charge because, by the victim's own testimony, there was no penetration.) The state made a very good, clear case on the assault charge, the state made a very good case on the kidnapping. The female victim's testimony on the sexual assault was moving and seemed genuine.

The jury was 7 men and 5 women. 1 black woman, 4 white, all white men. The defendant and the victim were black. The men on the jury were ready to convict on the assault charges immediately. We did ask the judge for clearer instruction on the difference between first degree and second degree kidnapping, (we wound up convicting him of first degree kidnapping.) We could have been done in 2 hours, tops.

The women were rabid! They insisted that it was wrong not to charge him with rape and would not stop talking about it. Finally, we had to go back in front of the judge, (a white woman), who told the women that rape required penetration and the victim testified there was none. It took us 8 hours to convict this guy because the women wanted to wrangle and argue about a rape charge that didn't exist. 

I would submit that women should not be allowed on the jury of rape cases under any circumstance. If those women on that jury are any example then every woman is ready to believe the worst about any man, even in the face of testimony to the contrary from the victim.

I do not necessarily condone "mutilation" either, even though I was the one who made the comment.  I just think that it would be fitting for him to lose what he is so proud of.  Even better would be have done to him what he did to those women.

It still floors me that a jury, did not beleive all those victims.  I still say that many women cannot be lying.  And why would they lie?  How could he have that many women sleep with him, and then regret it, and want to exact revenge by taking him to court? 

No matter how far we have advanced, it's still a man's world.

Let me further clarify my earlier post about this guy befriending Ms. Bobbitt.

I did not mean to seem to be supporting violent acts against someone.  But it is frustrating that this man can do this vicious act to many women, and their is no justice for the victims.

I meant it tongue in cheek, but if anyone had hurt me in anyway, I have a father, and a brother, and friends who would want to make this person pay.  It would be really hard to stop them from doing anything crazy. 

But they way i was raised, you don't do this to another human being.  And even if he doesn't get his in this life, he will have to answer for this in the next. 

I apologize for offending anyone if i did, I'm not really that type of person.  But i do beleieve that you are accountable for your actions, and you get what you give. 

I did not attack anyone in my post.  How dare you presume to know me, and attack me when you have no idea who I am.  You know nothing about me.

Have a happy Thanksgiving, and I will be praying for you.

"responded properly"?  There is no "proper" response to being raped or sexually assaulted.  There is the response that will make things easier for the police and for a trial and conviction, but our psyches don't always work that way.  Personally, I think tha tthe perponderance of claims against him should have had a lot more weight.  Is the US Antidoping Association can convict Marilyn Jones of steroid use using a "non-analytical positive" and no direct evidence of doping, why can't they use 21 women's claims of rape as cause for conviction?

Let's just lock ourselves in a room because we might not "respond properly" to being anally raped. "It was actually my fault, I had to go to the bathroom mid-meal. My bad." That's ridiculous.

Well said, excellent post

I don't know if the police can legally release information about people, but try checking and seeing if there is any sort of criminal record on them or straight out ask them for thier criminal record. I'm fairly sure the police can give a person thier own criminal record.

There is a resource out there for this, though not all crime databases are integrated, and of course, some predators won't have been caught and convicted yet.  It is http://www.criminalsearches.com/.  In some jurisdictions it includes traffic tickets, so you have to look at what the offense was.

Family watchdog is a collected sex offender registry:  http://www.familywatchdog.us/.

Both of these are free to use.

A person can usually access public records to determine if there has been any court activity.  A date that I had looked  me up before dating me.  She found eight court cases in the last year with my name on them.  I was the plaintiff in a number of evictions involving rental properties I owned.  She is a psychiatrist who knows enough about human nature to be wary.  Most women don't have daily contact knowingly with the criminally insane, so are not as suspicious.  If jurors don't have any prior knowledge about how rape victims act, neither do the rape victims.  A traumatized person doesn't pull out a checklist and start collecting evidence.

I am guessing that exeder is a man, not to slam you or put you down.  Seriously, not a good response, but when you have been violated in such a way - not alot of men have outside of prison - most don't immediately go to police - because from being a little girl soceity trains us that "good, nice girls" don't get raped.

If you were raped - you don't feel like a "good, nice girl" anymore, you feel pretty dirty and blame yourself, because of the same things you say here about personal accountability.

My rapist had been a friend, in high school, we all hung out together as friends.  I found out 5 years later he had raped to other girls as well. I found out from a mutual friend who I confided in 5 years later, she reported the other girls confided in her too.

As to smokified:

Do we make murder victims personally accountable for being in the wrong place at the right time?

Do we hold mugging victims accountable for dressing in successful attire - so the defendant can reasonable assume his wallet is valuable?

Do we make homeowners personally accountable for not having security guards or alarm systems when they left their home locked up tight?  But it was in a upscale neighborhood, or the thief could see their T.V. through the window?

You know there is an old saying "When you can't base your argument on facts, attack the other personally".

To be fair to you, I won't do that.  Granted there have been some odd sensationalized headlines of homeowners being found civilly responsible for booby traps or other odd devices.  Of the other cases, they are generally overturned on appeal - and that doesn't make for good headlines so you don't hear about it again.

What kind of evidence do you expect to find in a rape case that would satisfy you?  Viewing it happen contemporaneously?

And no, you are wrong, often mugging cases are determined on the id he/said/he said or whatever because the mugger ditches the wallet once he/she has gotten the cash.

Opinions are fine, state them as such, facts are a whole other ball game.

Most of your facts - are not substantiated - therefore opinions.

And please do quote where I attacked someone personally.  Disagreeing is not attacking.  If I agree with any of your quotes I will apologize.

Telling me I am  a lousy lawyer, that is attacking.

We need to adopt the Islamic evidentiary standard that requires two witnesses to substantiate a rape charge, otherwise she's stoned to death as an adultress. That's the old, He said, she's dead rule. Does anyone see any reason why that wouldn't work?

smokified952:

You MUST be smoking too much "chronic". Or you're just in need of attention-the wrong kind of attention, I must say. Your responses are so out of the realm of logic that the only thing that comes to mind while reading your comments is: pass this person (guy) up.

Statisitcs Don't Lie:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

You prove my previous post about lynn's statistics.

1 in 7 women will be raped by her husband.

This is absolute BS.  It depends on if we are using the poor female victim definition of rape or the actual one.

You don't believe the legal definition of rape should apply.  The legal definition of rape is sexual act without the consent of the victim, or that he/she is incapacitated or otherwise unable to give consent.

Marriage is not property rights situation.  Husband doesn't have right to have sex if wife doesn't want it.  No more than wife has right to "rape husband in the bum" if he doesn't want it.

83% of rape cases are ages 24 or under.

I bet you could find a statistic that says that 83% of girls 24 or under have a habit of making stupid choices with their lives also.

So, it is only Womenwho make stupid choices.  That is quite misogynistic.

1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape

Usually when they are wasted and acting like the party slut.

Does this mean you have observed this before they were raped?  From your previous attacks you claim you are merely making impartial observations.  This poster has posted facts.  So I am assuming you have done an academic study which is completely impartial and found that most college girls who were raped were acting like the party slut. 

Which college did you go to and were you in a fraternity?  (see I am not making an impartial observation here, I am using stereotypes - like that all fraternity members are rapists).  Clearly I have never done a study on whether or not fraternity members rape more than other men - but it is a stereotype - and I wouldn't want to label all fraternity members with such an offensive label.

1 in 12 males students surveyed had commitedacts that met the legal definition of rape. Furthermore, 84% of the men who had commited such acts said what they had done was definitely not rape.

Meaning that the legal definition of rape probably varies a bit from the actual definition.  Also of those 84% of men who do not feel that they committed rape, 90% of them probably did not, and the other 10% fail to be properly educated.

So what is the actual definition of rape?  Is it the definition according to smokiefied952?  Do we have other laws in which you get to define the  actual definition because you don't like the real definition?

75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in acquintance rape had been drinking or using drugs.

Once again, a little personal accountibility would solve this problem if JUST THE WOMEN were to make better choices.  Everyone should make the right choice, but it is not feasable to expect that to happen in reality.  Therefore if you just worry about worrying about yourself and making the right choice, you do not have to worry about somebody victimizing you because you were making bad choices.

Yeah, because it so much easier to tell the victim to behave better, because men in reality (according to you) can't help but make bad choices.

You must be rather old because we threw out that version of "reality" over 30 years ago.  Most men I know don't believe in blaming the victim for her choices.  We are all aware that the person to be held culpable in a crime is the one committing the crime.

And the 84% of unreported rape victims end up in the forums @!$%#ing about laws and systems that they failed to use properly.  It is always easier to blame than it is to take responsibility, right ladies?

Well, I see that again, you believe we women should be blamed, even though you have announced that there is and actual definition of rape which differs from the legal definition,    so exactly how can we complain not complain about the laws not working when posters like you don't even believe in the law.  Women are not stupid - we are aware that there are some people like you out there, and not only men, but some women as well - so we aren't always anxious to put ourselves through the humiliating experience of cross examination, and exams, when we know there is a strong possibility that someone will persuade the rest of the jury that the actual definition of rape as opposed to the legal definition did not occur in our case.

That is why it goes unreported - why expose yourself to emotional rape for nothing?  The guy may walk, and all you are remembered for is your painful graphic testimony.

Most of your "facts" are just as unsubstantiated.  The difference is that I am not trying to take a side, I am only commenting objectively on the possible reasons why this man may have been found innocent of these charges

Please see above and determine whether or not you believe the veracity of smokeified's postings.  He accuses every woman who disagrees with him as being biased.  Yet, he has tried to present himself has "objective". 

90% of them probably did not, and the other 10% fail to be properly educated.

So women are responsible for their own rape because they "acted like a party slut" or whatever, but men who commit rape do so because they are not "properly educated"?

So when a woman gets raped, it's her fault.  When a man commits the crime of rape, it is because someone has failed to teach him how NOT to rape?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life, and I just pray you are not as dangerous as you are making yourself sound here...

(this was for smokified952)

Meaning that the legal definition of rape probably varies a bit from the actual definition.  Also of those 84% of men who do not feel that they committed rape, 90% of them probably did not, and the other 10% fail to be properly educated.

By this statement, you are giving the impression that the rapist is not culpable for his actions.  "10% fail to be properly educated"??  Explain to me what you mean by that exactly, since you say I am taking you so out of context...  The 10% that you claim actually committed rape did so because they weren't "properly educated".  So please explain... I'm pretty curious.

Then you state over and over that if a woman would just act a little smarter, she could prevent being raped.  Now obviously we all do stupid things sometimes...both men and women.  We all act out of character occasionally... do things we know we shouldn't.  Does that mean we should be victimized? 

So if a woman walks up to you and decides to, for no reason other than you ticked her off a little, shoot you.  Her reasoning is "Hey... he ticked me off.  He knew that being angry sometimes leads to violence, and I felt like being violent today."  Does that mean you are to blame for getting shot because you had an off day and acted like a jerk?

Just because a girl goes and makes out with a guy (and in a lot of cases these women don't even do anything but go on a date in public, and then have their drink tampered with...no making out...no getting "drunk") then by your reasoning, she should just expect to be raped because making out sometimes leads to sex.

So we should all just go with the guys we date to well-lit public places, never eat, never drink...which rules out going to dinner, the movies, etc, because they all involve eating, drinking, and/or sitting in a dark place.  We should never show our men affection... at least nothing more than a peck on the cheek, until we absolutely plan on having sex, just incase he may decide we have no right to say "no" when we want to stop...That way, we'll always be safe!

You don't know anything about me yet you are passing judgement based on comments that you obviously do not understand. 

Isn't that what you are doing?  Assuming you know something about these women who have been victimized...?  You weren't in any of their situations...so how do you know they could have prevented anything?  What makes you think that my date wouldn't have drugged me had we gone to a more public place?  That WAS the original plan afterall... He planned on taking me to a very public place to get a milkshake.  How do you know he wouldn't have drugged that?  He obviously had it planned in advance...he came prepared.  While I agree I made a stupid mistake going to his room... I firmly believe it would have happened regardless.

Some of the women in this story did nothing more than go to dinner with the man... He drugged them, somehow got them to a more private location while they were incapacitated, and then raped them.

I apologize for making the comment about you being dangerous... You are right.  I do not know you.  But I think your attitude about the situation IS a dangerous one.  Suggesting that women be more careful so that they can (hopefully) prevent SOME of these situations is one thing... but to imply that they brought it on themselves is something else altogether...

Smokified952,

Wow, you are one angry person. Did I touch a nerve? And, you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to me and my life. I am a survivor a date rape. You can not understand what the situation is if you have not lived it. The aftermath of a rape is a bad as the rape. When you go through a rape exam, then maybe you can understand why a woman would not want to have one done. If you have never been as totally betrayed as one is when a date rape occurs, you cannot possibly understand why a woman would be confused and even contact the person who did the rape. And when drugs are involved, the confusion is worse.

I do realize this is a waste of time replying to you. you will not change your way of thinking, and your anger will be your undoing. However, someone who is rational, might get something out of this response.

A complete waste of time indeed...

Wow, you managed to write an entire post with out swearing at anyone. Good for you.

Your form of logic and insulting others does not instill a need or want to continue with any more communication. I hope you can learn to have happiness in your life. Your venom speaks of a very unhappy life.

I agree. If they started making examples of date rapists men would think twice before doing it.

Do accused date rapists deserve the same fair trial as accused murderers, drug dealers, and jaywalkers or should we just string them up without troubling with the formalities in order to send a tough message to would-be rapists?

I know! Obama is going to take all the terrorists out of Gitmo - we can just send accused rapists there to be tortured while languishing in prison with no trial and no rights! Serves 'em right for daring to be accused of something they may or may not have actually done! 

Bruce has some mommy issues. 

More like some moron issues.

Unless you can come up with a sensible argument for why it's okay to "make examples" of people acquitted of crimes in court.

Don't hurt your little brain too hard trying.

I think Bruce also has some lingering McCain/Palin issues...get over it and move on.

It'd be interesting to hear the jury deliberations in the first case against this guy.  How a jury could possibly construe the testimony of so many women from different walks of life as invalid makes one wonder what they were thinking of.

So what is Bruce saying? His mama is a moron, or he let's little Bruce do all his thinking?

See #3.5

Using precautions makes sense, but that is still blaming the woman for being vulnerable.  Going out with a group on a first date will thwart the impatient rapist, but a lot of guys are well-known to the victim.  The scenarios in this story took place in normal social settings that  people experience many times over a lifetime without incident.  I don't see anything that the victims did to encourage the situation, other than possessing female genitalia.

Agreed! It really upsets me that these jurors cannot wrap their minds around the fact that sexual abuse to women is very real.  Date rape is very common in the U.S. and it amazes me that none of these jurors, regardless of their gender, had any friends or relatives that were raped.  Why would anyone waste their time in court and testify to being raped, especially multiple women, if it weren't true? Do they think these women, who didn't even know each other, all somehow conspired to convict someone of rape when it didn't happen? Seems that we, as women, have a long way to go when it comes to getting justice from the courts.  Truly sad, and upsetting that jerks like this can go back and rape more women. 

I believe they said in the article that a big part of the problem with getting convictions is that the lawyers let any prospective jurors go if they've had any prior sexual assault experience. So, anyone who would have any grasp of how horrible this crime can be is dismissed from the jury as predjudiced.

Also, to a previous post, many of these women did not go out to get drunk; they had a couple of drinks with dinner. The main subject of the article had two drinks over the course of four hours, and then the rapist ordered a carafe of wine. Regardless, even if they were plastered on purpose, it's obvoiusly not okay to rape them.

I know what you've gone through, been there, done that, and I am sorry for what you went through.  I hope you're doing better, but I'm scared of dating for this very reason, especially online dating.  I hope that these jerks contract AIDS.

oh my god i feel for you so much i truly do, but please dont hate me for saying this but i really wish you'd reported them, they might still be at it and that scares me. its such a shame you dont have a supportive family and cannot talk to them, i hope you have a friend you can confide in, and dont let these men bring you down

and because they are so hard to win more evil men will think they can get away with it!!!

Cases where a crime was committed should be easy to win; cases where a crime was not committed should be hard to win.  To single out date rape cases as needing to be more difficult than other cases is inappropriate.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that in cases where there is no real evidence, it should be difficult to convict. And yes, it does mean that evil people will use the date situation to commit rape or accuse of rape. It's a bummer.

"and because they are so hard to win more evil men will think they can get away with it!!!"

And because we're letting terrorists out of Gitmo evil terrorists will think they can get away with it!!!!!!!

"Cases where a crime was committed should be easy to win; cases where a crime was not committed should be hard to win."

Ummm... El Jefe... I hate to break this to you, but no one except the accussed and the victim can know which of those is true until AFTER the trial is finished. Or do you propose some radical new technique to tell the innocent from the guilty before trial? And if so, why bother wth trials at all?

Pop quiz time: You're a cop. Fred walks up to you on the street and says, "Joe over there just mugged me for $20. I have no injuries and no one saw or heard anything, but as you can see my wallet is empty except for a couple of $1s, and if you search him you will find my $20. No, I can't remember anything unique about it, it was just a $20 like any other"

You search Joe and he is indeed in possession of a $20 bill - several, in fact.

Has a crime been committed?

Having a rape kit done is like recording the serial number on your $20. No one will blame you for not doing it, but if you don't, they'll be missing a valuable, possibly crucial piece of evidence.

But Bruce, that's just it -- people are blaming these women for not having rape kits done. They are blaming the victims for the aquittal of the rapist.

Bruce, what if a LOT of people who didn't know each other claimed that they were mugged by the same person?  This case is NOT a simple he-said/she-said!

Yes, that is a strong argument for his guilt. But you're getting a very slanted perspective here: the victim's story, plus the author's disapproving account of small parts of the accused's story. I don't like to second-guess juries on the basis of a very brief and one-sided description of the trial.

And the blame is the assumption of the author. None of the jurors said they blamed her, just that it made it less easy to believer her story than if she had. The jury's job is not to sympathize with one party or the other, it's to try to determine the truth by examining the available evidence - which in these cases was all but nonexistent.

I wonder how many people here have been on juries for felony charges and know how it feels to hold another human being's fate in their hands? It's not easy to send someone to jail for decades, and you need to be pretty damn sure he's guilty if you ever want to sleep nights again.

Rape kits are meaningless.  I had on taken in August, I went to the hospital IMMEDIATELY, my case gave another woman we know the courage to come forward with the EXACT same sexual assault  by the same person one month before he assaulted me. All of this and NOTHING will be done to him.  Evidence is EXTREMELY easy to manipulate and get rid of.

I'm NOT saying that women shouldn't get them...DO IT.  Turn these predators in even no matter what!

I understand the way our criminal justice system currently operates, but going on and on about the Duke case doesn't change the fact there are horrible disgusting crimes against women that can be committed and these men can get away with it EASILY.  That is WRONG, no matter what angle you approach it and something MUST be done to help these women and punish the predators!  Don't just say "bummer" because our courts can't currently convict them.

Trisha, what do you propose doing about it? Keep in mind that anything you propose must also be used in trials for murder, assault, and shoplifting.

Talking about the Duke case DOES change the discussion about men getting away with such crimes, because it provides a hypothetical test case: if a given proposal to alleviate the problem would convict more of the guilty, would it also have convicted those innocent boys? If so, I fail to see that as an imporvement; in fact, it's a much worse state of affairs.

Guilty people going unpunished is a bad thing. No one disputes that. What I am trying to get across here is something our founders believed very passionately: that sacrificing liberty and civil rights, including having innocent men rotting in jail when the mistake could have been avoided through proper procedure, is a much WORSE thing.

This is nothing new; people have been getting away with the most horrible crimes since time immemorial. And it's nothing unique to rape; as I posted above, the conviction rates for assault and carjacking are lower than for rape.

You can't think in terms of "rape is bad, therefore anything we do against rape must be good." That's the logic the Bush administration has been applying to terrorism for seven years now, and look where it leads.

See my previous postings - maybe we should eliminate most men from rape juries - because they have a fear of being accused.

What kind of evidence do you expect?  Do you really not believe in date rape?

I wonder why?  Have you taken advantage of someone who was drunk - not rape in every state - but considered rape in mine.  Part of the statute - spelled out quite clearly.

Bruce, again wrong, the same terms or jury instructions are not the same in all cases.  Please post your source for the carjacking and and assault rates.  

To Bruce and Shawn,

Maybe perhapse because you are real men who would never think of hurting a woman or child it's hard to believe that rape does indeed happen. If anything, I have learned from all these post is rape is much more common than false reports of rape.  Many of the women posting here today have been sexually assaulted. Does this jump out at you? For every good man out there, there is a monster lurking in the corner waiting to take advantage of a physically weaker person. Statistics show that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows. Knowing a person does not negate rape.

Also, ladies, these men are right. There are woman out there that do lie. This is why we must listen carefully to both sides.  My brother was accused by his 14 year old step daughter of molesting her. After several exams both physical and mental the girl admitted she lied, because she wanted to live with her real father. My brother has a very distinguishing birth mark. Had he done the things she said he did she should have been able to identify it. This little girl cost my brother a good paying job, several thousand dollars in legal fees, spent over a month in jail, and he almost lost custody of his other children. Had it not been for a good social worker the girl may have never told the truth.

Yes, these things do happen in child custody cases, and sometimes a child is coached by a parent wanting to gain advantage in custody.  But it wasn't just a good social worker here, the system worked.

And I sympathize that it is horrible that he had to pay thousands to prove his case - probably why the system worked - public defenders often are not given the resources by government to fight on equal turf as the DA's.

But this doesn't mean that every child lies, not does it mean every child doesn't.  And that is why we weigh the testimony of each witness, without bias - hopefully.

At no point in my post did I say that the way our jury trial system currently operates should be completely changed.  In fact, I explained that I know exactly how and why it works the way that it does.  What I meant was that just because our criminal justice system operates on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle doesn't mean that we should just say "oh well" when we're raped because reasonable doubt can be established.  Along with that, I was emphasizing that in many of these situations, women go directly to the hospital (like I did) an the evidence doesn't matter.

Bruce, I completely disagree that anyhing done to increase the efficiancy of convincting rapists has to be carried over to other crimes.  You're over generalizing.  I am by no means arguing that our court system in general is flawed, but on many other levels it certainly is.  I know women lie.  I have been on both sides of this fight through a good friend of mine and now unfortunately my own experience.  What frustrates me is that you and many others seem to be implying that a lack of "evidence" means that we're falsly accusing our attackers.  The purpose of my original post was to emphasize that I did go to the hospital immediately, I have evidence, I have an ADMISSION....and none of that matters.  Just like thousands of other women, there's nothing I can do criminally.  Does that mean we give up?  We give up on exposing and punishing our attackers because other women lie?  We just say "bummer" and "bad things happen, oh well" because it happens all of the time?  Certainly not, and yes, there are absolutely things that can be done outside of altering our rights to a fair trial or violating civil rights. 

You so dramatically mentioned our country's founders and what they believed.  Think about how they accomplished this and what the circumstances were at the time.  They were a small group that believed in something very strongly and they had to fight for it little by little.  This is all I am trying to say.  There has to be something that can be done to these predators without sacrificing other men who are falsly accused.   Laying down just because, as you said "This is nothing new; people have been getting away with the most horrible crimes since time immemorial.",  is not the answer. 

Attitudes like yours are part of the reason why women do not come forward when they've been raped.

In response to "I hate to break this to you, but no one except the accussed and the victim can know which of those is true until AFTER the trial is finished. Or do you propose some radical new technique to tell the innocent from the guilty before trial? And if so, why bother wth trials at all?":

Bruce, you are speaking on behalf of the judicial system when you make a statement like that, defending it and trying to encourage that it retains what it believes is its integrity.  But what is the point of the criminal and justice systems in these types of cases?  Are they to provide a deterrent to those who are considering committing these crimes?  Date rapes, if they have decreased in frequency, are more likely to have dropped from changing social norms than changes in law, so scratch that.  Are they to provide justice for victims?  If date rape cases almost always yield a he said/she said set of evidence, then that goes out the window, too.  Are they to provide social stability and a sense of justice from the community?  That's definitley not the case here, as demonstrated by the multitude of comments here.

So, if the justice system, in its current form, does not fulfill any functions well other than due process for accused persons (which *is* a value in the US, I agree -- but can we say penny wise, pound foolish???), then yes, another system would be more appropriate.

To put it more academically, the type II error (false negatives, or acquittals when a rape *occured*, as opposed to when anybody or their cousin accused someone) is very high in date rape cases for the US system.  People complain that by decreasing the type II error, the type I error (false positives) would be way too high, but all of the evidence shows the type II error to be much higher than the type I error (but granted the type I error is > 0).  If we value the type I error more than the type II error -- fair enough -- then that's fine, but that conclusion is equivalent to saying that the US system is not good in these types of cases, which was my point to begin with.

Or an analogy:  If a medical test rarely shows that someone has a disease *when they actually have that disease*, regardless of how often (well or poorly) it says someone has a disease *when they don't have the disease*, then it is a sucky test!

Furthermore, it seems like one side of the discussion here is saying that the type II error (not enough convictions in legitimate cases) is high, and another side is saying that the type I error (false accusations) is dangerously high as well and would only be increased if we reduce the type II error.  So, we're saying the same thing:  The current system is not a very good one in these types of cases.

Do I have a magical solution to eliminating both types of error?  No, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for one.  And admitting that we (as a society) have a problem is the first step...

Goldminor,

I can see someone taking matters into their own hands and would paint the picture as such: Take a good-looking gal who slightly knows the guy. Get her to act accordingly so that he sets up a date for a drink or two. The gal has a couple of friends waiting outside undercover. As the perpetrator calls for a taxi with the gal stumbling in his arms, our friends then walk up. One takes the gal and brings her to a place where she can recover. The other two guys take the perp out to the desert and then plant him into the ground. Story over.  No other women have to go through this type of situation with this man again and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny.

Sounds like a good episode of CSI........

What do you do when it turns out six months later you had the wrong guy?

Bruce-                  It doesnt sound like there was any question of identity here.

Wise words Gairzo

If this was a matriarchy, we'd still be living in caves.

Forida Kes, you are rude. And obviously illiterate.

Why is Florida illiterate? You're the one who mispelled "Forida" (sic)

Oh nice. I left out the L. How trite of you. I meant illiterate in the fact that he/she obviously has never taken history of religion or women's history.

Genital mutilation? Articles such as these always brings out a few angry feminists.  In this 'Utopian' matriarchy, how would you punish a female teacher who has sex with a 13 year old boy?  Would this feminist fantasy land eliminate due process for a man accused of such a crime? 

Have you ever been raped? Ever been sexually abused at all? I only ask because you seem to have no idea of what goes through a womans head (and what fails to go through a woman's head) after that kind of trauma. It's a horrible loop. Like in this case, juries are unlikely to convict a date rapist because they don't think there's such thing as "date rape." Obviously, if the woman was on a date with they guy, they must have had consentual sex, right? Women know that a lot of people don't think that date rape exists, and even if it isn't date rape, even if there is evidence, a lot of people think "it could have been rough sex" or "she was asking for it"...people are too quick to blame the woman. It seems that men are so unable to control their sexual urges that all a woman has to do is have a drink or bend over to drive the man wild with lust, and she knows this, so she shouldn't have had a drink, or bent over, or said "hi," or tried to go on a date, or taken the L home. Whatever. Anyway, since women know that a lot of people think this way, and that conviction rates for rapists are ridiculously low, they don't see the point in reporting it. If you have never been sexually abused in any way, you have no idea of the shame, embarrassment, and all the crazy thoughts that run through a woman's head. So much more so with date rape. People are more likely to blame the victim. The victim is more likely to blame herself. And I don't know of anyone who would like to subject themselves to testifying at a trial where a slimy defense attorney will stand there and call you a slut, and a liar, or a vindictive @!$%#....all with the rapist sitting by the attorney, smirking at you and undressing you with his eyes, and the jury sitting in their seats, staring at you, trying to decide whether or not you really are just a vindictive @!$%# who decided after the fact that she didn't like the sex, or a slut who got drunk, passed out, and then decided to make up a story about her date for...for what, fun?

Victims of sexual abuse are actually more likely to become victims again. I don't know why. Maybe it's the shame, fear, and vulnerability. But if there were higher conviction rates, if people didn't still have these stupid ideas about date rape, there would be fewer s***heads out there victimizing their dates because they can, or because they think that because a girl is unconcious and can't say no, that passes for consentual sex.

When I was a little girl, I was sexually abused by a man who I trusted, who my parents trusted, a man in my church. I was too embarrassed and ashamed to tell anyone until 10 years later. My parents, aunt and uncle sat in court in my place, to make sure I was at least a presence there. My mum watched as the slime of a defense attorney tried to convince the jury that I, as a 6 year old girl, seduced this grown man. That I asked for it. And that the other girl he abused had asked for it. He got off with 18 months time served and 2 years probation.

Rapists, child molesters....they don't deserve to live. What makes me so angry is the fact that even if these women had "done everything right" (as if these women could think after such an experience), this man would most likely have still gotten a slap on the wrist. The same thing happens with spousal rape. People don't think it happens, but it does. People like this sorry excuse for a worm are getting off scott free, and everyone blames the victim -- not always saying that she asked for it, but often saying that it's her fault the rapist wasn't convicted, because she didn't "react properly" to the worst violation, the worst psychological trauma they have ever experienced. That is backwards thinking. You can tell women how to protect themselves, arm themselves to the teeth. They can do that, and still be victimized. And worst of all, after this horrible trauma, they can be blamed for it. They will be told what they should have done. They will be told how many women were raped during the time she took to report the rape. The will still be made to relive the worst event of their lives, and they will still be blamed, in some part, for it occurring, or for the aquittal of the rapist.

I've been ranting too long and now I feel sick.

Bull@!$%#, bull@!$%#, bull@!$%#. You completely misread what Hate said. No one (apart from all the busy little straw-man builders) has said that there is no such thing as date rape, that women who are raped deserve it, or anything like that. What you are missing is that we are looking at a jury that is being offerred two contradicting accounts of what happened, and trying to decide of one of them - the defendant's - is so inherently implausible that no reasonable person could believe it. Anything that might make it look like his story is a little more likely to be true and hers a little less, is a reason to find reasonable doubt and acquit.

That's not to say that no woman who maintains a relationship with the accused can possibly be raped. It's to say that it's just one more factor making her story a litte less plausible, and thus his a little more so.

You miss that because you've already decided he's guilty. Well, maybe he is, but you're not in the shoes of the jury. If they already knew he was guilty, there would be no need for a trial.

It's just the same as concluding his guilt from the number of similar victims' stories. Is it absolutely impossible that any man could be falsely accused of rape by a number of different women? Is every cad automatically a rapist too? No, but it's pretty implausible, and that's one more factor to take into account when weighing the credibility of his story.

"A number of different women?" 21 different women, strangers, all decide to falsely accuse this guy of rape. I'd say that's pretty damned implausible.

"in far too many instances, juries don’t believe date rape exists. "

That's directly from the article. I'm not jumping to conclusions.

The job of a defense attorney is to come up with an alternative story that is as plausible as possible. The fact remains that people are much more inclined to believe "a man whom a court appointed psychologist would decide met the legal definition of a violent sexual predator" than they were to believe a group of 10 women who faced them and told them remarkably similar stories of date rape.

""A number of different women?" 21 different women, strangers, all decide to falsely accuse this guy of rape. "

The jury probably doesn't get to know that. That's not peculiar to rape cases, it's a general rule of evidence applicable to all cases in both criminal and civil law, with some exceptions. That's why they wanted to try the 6 (or was it 7) together, so the jury would at least get those other accounts at the same time.

""in far too many instances, juries don't believe date rape exists. "

That's directly from the article. I'm not jumping to conclusions."

True, you're quoting an author who's jumping to conclusions. Does she offer a single example of a juror who said at any point that he or she doesn't believe date rape exists? Of course not; that's just her assumption based on the acquittal.

"The fact remains that people are much more inclined to believe "a man whom a court appointed psychologist would decide met the legal definition of a violent sexual predator""

Again, the jury probably didn't get to hear that - the prosecution generally can't offer evidence as to a trait of the accused for the purpose of proving he acted in conformity with that trait in the matter at hand -and he probably hid it well, they usually do. Perhaps he charmed the jury just like he charmed his victims.

For all the rape survivors here, I am so sorry for your pain.  No matter what anyone else says, you did the very best you could-it's the SYSTEM which is broken and at fault, not you!

For those men who believe innocent men are convicted of rape, let me tell you this:

Fewer than 2% of all rape cases reported go to trial and fewer than 2% of rapes are reported.

You do the math.

The idea that innocent men are going to prison by a lying ex is a sexist, harmful, disgusting lie. 

This case in point: 21 women weren't enough to convinct of rape...

Please stop spreading these sad destructive lies...It only hurts women and doesn't help to fix the broken system.

Peace.

Fewer than 2% of all rape cases reported go to trial and fewer than 2% of rapes are reported.

Maybe there's a reason why? I mean, other than men are monsters?

Yes, there is. But I'm sure if you were anally raped you would stand right up and tell the whole world, right after it happened. Right? Even if it was by your father or friend. Of course you would. And then everyone would tell you that you are lying.

The U.S. criminal justice system is simply not capable of processing rape and sexual assault cases effectively -- that is, until we have streaming Web cams grafted to our heads Strangedays style.  For there to be consequences to these violations, victims should use "other" systems and networks.

Oh, by the way, anybody see The Sopranos lately?!?

agree with above - if my son were accused by 21 women I would have to be suspicious...also most of these women were not "ex-girlfriends" of any kind...

: Bull@!$%#. RAINN says 40%, not 2%, of rapes are reported, and 6% of all rapists are sent to prison, not 0.04% as you imply (2% x 2% = 0.04%). For one thing, the number that go to trial is irrelevant: for any crime, most people who are guilty and know the cops can prove it plea bargain; they are convicted and serve time but never come to trial.

The Justice Department says the rape conviction rate is around 8.9%, as compared to 7.7% for house burglaries and 7.3% for carcjackings. If anything's broken, it isn't rape prosecution, it looks like it's the whole system. Murder is higher at 12.6%, but then murder usually leaves pretty irrefutable evidence in the form of a dead body with bullet wounds or poison in it. Dead bodies don't heal or bathe but living rape victims do, that's why rape kits are important.

And even if only 9% of rapes are punished, so what? That tells you nothing whatsoever about the number of false accusations or, more likely, mistaken identifications in there. Sure, the Duke lacrosse team stripper might have actually been raped at some point, but the evidence clearly shows that if so it was not by the three boys she accused. I guess in your preferred world they'd all be facing 30-year jail sentences since we know that false accusations are a myth and everyone accused of rape is guilty so we can just dispense with silly little things like trials and evidence.

What a bunch of crock. Thank God people like you don't run this country - the motto of our criminal justice system would be "better a hundred innocents rot in jail than one guilty man go unpunished."

ElJefe: "For there to be consequences to these violations, victims should use "other" systems and networks."

Yeah, the Klan did a bang-up job of dispensing instant justice to wicked men accused (and therefore, we must presume, guilty) of rape, didn't it? Are you saying we should bring that tradition back? Oh, this time we need to get them to hang white guys too, of course; then it will be all fair and dandy. We'd hate to have unfair lynchings.

To pdxer, I don't care what kind of math problem you present and snappily ask me to "do" - one innocent man equals one innocent man.  That is why the burden of proof is always on the accuser, and why it must remain there.  Reasonable people believe that it is better for a guilty person to "get by with it" than for an innocent person to be punished for something that they did not do.  If the truth was always clear, there would be no need for trials or juries.  But since we have to rely on a legal system to try and make sense out of evidence (or no evidence) and conflicting stories, it has to lean in favor of the defendant.

Bruce, I think that community responses initiated by the victim (not by the communities themselves) is a very intriguing idea for these types of crimes!  Thank you for the suggestion!!!

The "rape" is before, during, and after the trial, by character assasination. I think you already know that, though.

Let's not belittle the experience of being raped by equating it to character assasination.  For those not already in the choir, it makes the point sound histrionic.

and he definitely wont be asleep while its happening

Madeline,

My heart breaks for you and I know how you feel...Have you ever joined a support group?  Healing is a long process, but it can happen...sending you good energy for your healing... 

I wish that sexual orientation will result in a conviction, but I doubt it.  A few years ago 2 friends of mine were drugged and raped at the same time, by the same predator.  Despite the fact that both were lesbians and had never slept with men, the DA wouldn't even bring the case because the drugs had cycled so quickly out of their system that by the time they had the rape kit there was nothing to report.  Their internal injuries were so severe that they had to have surgery and you know what their rapist said?  Oh, they both wanted it.  Yea, a lesbian virgin wants injuries so severe that she is bleeding for weeks. 

The SYSTEM is broken and we all need to work with Congress and the President to enact laws to change this.

I wish your daughter the very best and commend you for your support of her.  It's a hard topic and too many women try to offer criticisms, believing that it was the fault of the victim, but that they would do it differently.

The truth is, rape is a crime of violence, just like any other.  You don't ask a near homocide victim what they were wearing or judge them for having a cocktail.  The same should be true for all violent crimes.

If we all work together on this, the laws WILL change...!  Write your representatives and sentators and tell them this is important and you want them to enact stricter legistlation to help protect victims of rape.

The system is simply not designed for this kind of thing.  Relying on changes in the law to make it better is like adding wheels to a couch and hoping that it turns into a car.

pdxer, no one asks consent in a homicide case because (a) consenting to homicide is almost unheard of, while consenting to sex happens millions of times every day, and (b), it wouldn't matter anyway, because legally one cannot consent to homicide, it would still be murder even if fifty witnesses saw the victim give oral and written consent.

The first is what makes rape different from most other crimes. People just don't consent to being beaten or robbed or shot or having their houses broken into nearly as often as they consent to sex, so claiming consent for the first three is a pretty long shot unless there's a pretty darn compelling and plausible scenario WITH evidence. Of course people consent to trade away their cars and TVs and money all the time too, so mere possession of something that used to belong to the accuser won't get you far in a prosecution unless there's evidence of the break-in or whatever. Particularly if the accused is your friend to whome you've often sold or traded stuff in the past.

Of course, with rape you quickly reach a point where the degree of injury makes it unlikely, and that's always going to be a judgment call. Lots of people like rough sex; very few like bleeding-for-a-week sex.

As for the "She couldn't have consented, she's a lesbian!" Riiiight. Just like Larry Craig couldn't have solicited sex in the men's room, he's straight!

Funny, there's been like a dozen false accusations in the past couple of decades and some say they're playing "devil's advocate" by bringing them up. I believe the number of rapes that result in conviction, added to the accusations that end in aquittal but shouldn't have (like those in this article), plus the number of rapes that are never reported render the bringing up of false accusations down right insensitive. You never hear about someone being aquitted for murder and people bringing up all the time about someone who was falsely accused (and how many death row inmates have been released because of DNA testing). So why is it okay to say "oh, well, they're probably lying anyway" when it's rape?

Insensitive?

So according to you, because so many true rapists are not convicted and so many rapes go unpunished, it is perfectly fine for a woman to send an innocent man to prison. In your eyes, destroying the life of an innocent man is perfectly OK because so many innocent women are victims of rape. As long as someone is punished, whether they be guilty or innocent, justice has been served . . . right?

I don't think the poster was saying it's okay.  I interpreted the post as - people have been falsely accused of other types of crimes (e.g., murder) but we don't just give up on all the cases because of it.  Also, sure one can point out false rape accusations but they are a small number compared to both reported and unreported cases of rape.  Personally I am just as much against a false rape accusation (which I feel should be punished) as a rape.  But the actually rapes happen much more often.  By playing devil's advocate you might appear to be trying to diminish the severity of the cases that have happened.

Actually, I am not trying to diminsh the severity of the case at all . . . I think rapists should be punished even more than they are now. And I completely agree with you that false rape accusations should result in a similiar punishment.

However, it seems so many people in this forum believe that all women are good, and all men are evil. They don't care about evidence, they don't care about "innocent until proven guilty", they don't care about trying to find the truth. It seems everyone here will blindly follow and believe any woman merely because she is a woman. Furthermore, they defend the conviction of innocent people by justifying it in their own minds and saying that false accusations happen less, so it's OK that they happen. Granted this may be true, but it is scary how easily they justify the destruction of an innocent man's life. But that is the American way . . . as long as somone, anyone, gets punished, then justice is served.

Again, I do NOT support rape or rapists . . . at the same time, I will NOT believe that all women are honest and good at all times. It would be foolish not to realize how vindictive women can be. Thus, I support evidence as the path to truth.

I see your point, but don't you see how many women's lives have been wrecked by rapes that they either are unable to "prove" in court or are scared to report?  Also, rape can happen to men - I don't think that it's a man vs. woman thing.  In fact I don't even believe most men are potential rapists.  But I do think it's a societal problem involving all of us - women and men - men not just as victims of rape, but as fathers, brothers, friends and partners of rape victims.

Also, a lot of posters here are victims or family members of victims who have not had justice served to them. 

The case in question didn't appear to be a he-said/she-said... there were dozens of victims involved who probably didn't know each other and yet had the same story to tell.  People are good and bad irregardless of whether they are men or women, but rape still happens and it is difficult to take it to court especially in cases where the victim knew the rapist prior to or drugs were used in the commission of the crime.

I completely agree with you. My question is more of an overall question about the justice system. How do we make it easier to convict actual rapists, while keep innocent people out of prison? It seems that everyone is so quick to judge, that they don't care about actual evidence.

Again, how do we distinguish between the true rapists, and the innocent people who are falsely accused? Do we simply throw them all in jail, and just say "oh well" to the innocent men?

Exactly! 

I think the way to prevent more rapes from occurring is to educate both men and women about the seriousness of date rape and the importance of reporting the crime.  This can't be accomplished from just television ads or seminars.  People need to hear from their friends and family that they will still respect love, respect, and support them even if they are the victim of a crime.  I think that is what women fear the most, being judged by those they know over the incident.

Launching accusations of the justice system being fraught with misogynism and gender bias will not prevent another person from being raped. 

T. Miller: "I interpreted the post as - people have been falsely accused of other types of crimes (e.g., murder) but we don't just give up on all the cases because of it."

Right, but no one's saying "give up on all cases" - they're saying that the risk of false convictions is significant, which means we shouldn't be so hasty to dismantle the safeguards we've put in to try to prevent them. It seems a lot of people here seem willing to accpet more convictions of innocents as long as it gets more guilty people convicted - or are in denial about the fact that innocent people are convicted all the time, with all sorts of crimes.

I disagree.

well said. i was going to bring this up too.

i was sexually assaulted last year while my 87 year old Mom was in the hospital. the attacker is was( i reported him)a preacher, family friend and in his 80's. the first question the police officer asked me was, "what were you wearing?" then, "is there a relationship between you two?" ick! ewwwwwwwwwwwww.

does that matter? should it matter? i told the bastard to stop, he didn't. he assaulted me, not the other way around.

tell me howard, should i have stayed home like a good woman(your words)and maybe, possibly my Mom get raped instead? she was afterall 87, in the hospital, and God forbid, only wearing a hospital gown. should she have been raped too?

men(and i use that term loosely)like you make me violently ill. you think since you have the penis, you have the brain--NOT!!!!

These are the very kind of women-hating comments I refer to in my post.

If you're joking or not I forgive you, Howard--but a little part of me wishes that Satan has his way with you, and that you contract HIV, Herpes, Gential Warts, Syphillis, and Ebola from it, or worse, you meet someone like Jeffrey Marsalis in the next lifetime, and are victimized in the worse way unimaginable.

I hope to god that you do not have a daughter, because she will be the one that pays for your ignorance. 

Your mind set is almost as bad as one of a rapist. 

What is your real issues with women?  Who wronged you to make you feel this way?

Howard obviously has women issues. 

I wonder how many women turned him down before he started hating on them.

Lots.

Innocent till proven guilty. Its the law of the land.

 I know you men haters want to twist the law to your own devices. 

 I have never been unkind or rude to any woman I know.  I just will not subjugate myself to lesser beings.

Howard sounds like someone with mommy issues.

But you sound like you are putting all woman in the same catagory.

Not all woman are "men haters" you are sounding as you are a "woman hater" unless that woman is your subservient.  That is from the old school.  Sounds like you would critize me for working outside the home when I look at it as there is only so much house work that you can do so why should I stay at home when my husband is working his tail off to support us.  When I am just as capable as he is in making a living.  Doesn't sound like your defination of a good wife would work outside the home.

I don't feel that most of the woman on here are men haters. 

I agree that there are woman out there who are out to you know what whomever they can, but not all.  Your comments are not helping your case any.  Stop with the bashing and make your point another way.  You might be surprised who will agree with you. 

Have a quality day.

Please stop dignifying HH's comments with responses!  They look absurd if left alone...

If you  have that many issues go talk to a shrink. You need to.

Since when are women lesser beings?  A women bore you. You may be physically stronger than a female but you could not even begin to fathom the strength a woman has within herself.  You hate women because you are mentally weaker.  You haven't been rude or unkind to women you know that you are aware of.  Yet you go out your way to be completely insensitive and disrespectful to women in this forum. That makes you a weak individual.

You are the kind of jerk that can talk a big talk till someone is in your face then you pretend you have no issues because you are too much of a coward to express your true self. Afraid to accept the consequences?

Talk all you want in here, it's your right but I'll be damned if you're going to spew that kind of venom about women and not have others respond in kind. We all know everyone talks a big talk online.

howard is obviously just trying to get some people mad. Let's not encourage him.

So that's what it is--we're all either whores or good girls, and life would be just perfect if we just stayed barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

I'll bet you're about 5 foot 2 and 110 lbs, with cystic acne, a bad combover, 4 in long erect with a very rapid trigger. I'll bet you couldn't get a toothless bag lady to sleep with you if you gave her $500. And your mother is most likely a hypercritical domineering shrew who constantly asks you when you're getting married, which you never will do because no woman will look at you twice.

great comeback! LOL

Are you aware that quite a few prostitutes are raped every day?

She agreed to a normal transaction then is brutally violated over and over again, often with an object?

She doesn't complain because she wasn't paid, she is generally seriously injured if they prosecute at all.

So prostitution doesn't alleviate savage lust - which by the way has long since been dispelled as the reason for rape.  It is a crime of violence and domination.  Not lust.

And would we not convict the men who murder prostitutes as well?  Again, proving this has nothing to do with desire - but a demented mind.

Well your first two sentences are true enough, anyway. Where is it written in our law that the penalty for burglary or carrying an illegal gun or maybe even tax evasion should be particularly brutal rape by your fellow inmates? That ought to be just as much a national scandal. Our prisons are "Escape From New York" on a smaller scale: the warden just wants to stay out of the papers, the guards just want to keep the lid on, the toughest and most ruthless inmates are the kings of the jungle, and everybody else is their bi*&h.

Please read my original posting to your first comment, # 2.7.

I would agree with you here.  I speak out against this all the time, it is terrible that a man convicted of check fraud is essentially raped.  Our prisons are in need of serious overall.  It is disgraceful that advocates for prisoners tell ingoing inmates that survival depends on marrying yourself to a bigger man, rather than waiting for rape.

I know a social worker who deals with male prisoners in the county jail, in our county they haven't been subjected to rape yet (at least that is what he tells me).  He was outraged at the packets being distributed which advocate subjugation rather than the system providing true security for inmates.  (Truly outrageous in my state where the guard make upwards of 6 digits a year, and have the strongest union).

This social worker, defied the draft, but didn't run.  He went to court when  they turned down his conscientous objector application.  He lost and was sent to prison.  He had a fellow inmate tell him that what he needed to do to survive was just do straight time.  Which apparently meant, making no allegiances, doing no favors, asking no favors etc.

Because of his behavior he was warned that two different gangs or factions were going to fight with him/over him (how this works I don't know) for rights to him.  He spent that night basically deciding he would fight to the death rather than be raped.  (See pretty horrible crime).

He was extremely lucky, he didn't know that his family had been pulling every friend with political connections to get him out of prison - and that morning he was released from prison - due to Goldwater.  He thanks the semi-corruption of politics to this day. 

I don't think, and neither does he, that someones safety should depend on political connections.