I'm not criticizing you, Jess, since I don't think you did anything wrong, but I think it's a bit.... well, odd, to say that the question of innocence hasn't been pretty much settled. The woman has come out and said she "isn't sure" whether she was penetrated or not. Despite the fact that this massively contradicts her previous statement, my own experience with rape is that, unless you're in a drugged state (and she claims nt to have been) you fucking well know whether you're penetrated. You know all you life, for that matter.

I'm very disappointed in this whole case. The retracted statements, the lack of any evidence to support her claims, the alibis and subsequent shifting time lines... sigh. This one will be brought up over-and-over again the next time someone actually is raped. It's a pretty bleak ending to the whole thing.

Now, feel free to post the emails of the nasty-grams you're been receiving so that we can all sign them up for women's literature. (grins)

THANK YOU SAMHITA.

last night i saw Bill O'Rielly and Dennis Miller talking about how these Duke kids should sue the prosecuter and the woman (yes, i said WOMAN, not "stripper," everyone deserves to be treated with respect) who pressed the charges. not that i expect anything intelligent to come out of either of those men's mouths, but wouldn't that be a lovely precedent to set? suing women who make rape allegations when they don't result in a prosecution, and the attorneys who actually take up these women's cases? the sad thing is how many people probably agree with them. yeah, no misogyny there at all.

Samhita - I agree with part of what you're saying, and in general, I think people who allege rape should be given a certain degree of leeway that is normal not afforded to people in our "presumption of innocence" system.

I applaud you and the other Feministing bloggers for standing up for this particular woman, and for acknowledging that yes, even to this day, we will never know what happened in the moments that these people were alone, and in some cases, intoxicated, in a frat-party atmosphere.

But I do object, on a certain level, to the idea that a rape charge always sticks against an accused individual. I mean, we have to admit the possibility that sometimes innocent people are accused of rape, and its unfair to slander them with that mere accusation without proof for the rest of their lives, otherwise unproven threats become lifelong stigmas.

What I want is a balance, wherein we encourage victims of rape to come forward and challenge their accusers, but we don't always assume guilt, and let the evidence, rape kit, and other factors speak for themselves.

In that regard, I do think it may have been the case that everyone, including myself, may have rushed to judgement on these individuals accused of rape.

It is true that NOBODY KNOWS what happened, and as a result, the presumption of innocence should have some meaning for the party accused, as well as a presumption of good faith on the part of the accuser. In that regard, I do think that we all were a bit too quick to assume the worst and potentially contribute to damaging a person, who as you say, may be innocent under our system of laws.

That being said, I do understand your emotional feelings about this issue, and I also understand that rape victims have often conflicting accounts of a very difficult moment, and we all want to believe this woman. I just don't want to harm these individual men with permanent slander if it is the case that they did not rape that woman. Otherwise, the mere accusation of rape becomes the punishment.

Best wishes,
steven

Typo: I should have said Samhita, not Jess. God, I'm tired.

Does it bother anyone else that the "vindicated" boys are using the language of "tragedy" and "injustice" to describe their experience? Did they even spend one night in jail? I really don't think that qualifies as an injustice or a tragedy. Try being a Black Panther in the 70s, or for that matter a Black man today.

Well I AM criticizing you. You hold completely opposite standards for causes you support and thos you don't. You'll cry why why why do people not believe women when they say they are raped. Then this woman is believed - and good that she was. If there was sufficient evidence a case should have been brought. But clearly the abuser of the justice system was the DA here. This never even made it to trial because there was not enough evidence for a cleafr thinking prosecutor to take this forward once the idiot Nifong was replaced. So now every woman who claims she was raped for a while now will be disbelieved on some level because of this nutjob - these kid's parents paid $5M to defend them against bull, and you claim that "we really don't know" what happened. Yeah we do - she lied, and you are lying now.

bunny - true but their reputations were harmed by this experience, since there will always be a percentage of Americans who believe they are rapist, even if prosecuters now believe that is not the case.

I do agree that the "right wing" of the country has kind of latched on to this experience as a kind of "i told you so" to Progressives and a subtle message that it's just another crazy woman making up stories. But I do think a rape-charge does cause harm to the accused even if they don't spend a night in jail.

Thank you, Samhita. For just everything.

Rereading, my eye caught this:

They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence. Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people. Ideally, it would apply to everyone but *a lot* of people are guilty at arrest, just for being who they are and where they are....So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.

I just know I'm going to get called a "concern troll" for this, but so be it: I have a huge problem with this statement and this sentiment. I have a problem with it for the same reason that I have a problem when I hear someone say that a guilty black man (*cough*OJSimpson*cough*) should go free because so many innocent ones were killed unjustly.

Two wrongs do not make a right, not even close. To say, basically, that even if they WERE innocent, they're still privileged fucks and it serves them right to get a taste of discrimination really makes my head spin. It's certainly not a type of "feminism" I identify with. If these men are innocent (and I think they are), then they have been treated unjustly by many. The fact that innumerable black men have experienced similar unjust actions doesn't make it right.

Samhita, this has passed and the verdict has been given and bitterness remains, but thank you for being a resounding and passionate voice for women of color. Your point is appreciated greatly, the constant objectification and resounding prejudice of this case echoes the compound problems of racism and sexism that WOC have internationally endured. Good on you for not backing down. You really inspire me.

All I've learned is that trying cases by blog is just as bad, if not worse, than trying a case "in the media." Speculating as to if they're "actually innocent" is a dead-end. All I know is that the special prosecutor declared them as such in yesterday's press conference, which was somewhat remarkable.

I for one am going to stay out of the pop-pscyhologizing of the alleged perpetrators or the victim and, of course, any sort of racial generalizations about anything.

I will say that shitty prosecutions only harm future victims in coming forward, thereby compounding what should be the true national story (underreporting).

This is just a rotten situation for everyone involved.

I do not believe that it is fair to the men that have been accused because of the wide spread media attention of this case and the harassment they must have incurred.
I do believe that if they had not been upper middle class white boys the problems in the handling of the case never would have been discovered

Whether or not the woman lied we will never know. There are many things that could have happened. Maybe she was drugged and raped elsewhere which could affect her long-term memory. Maybe, in their eagerness to make an example of the boys, her case stopped being her case anyway. People saw money when it came to this case and that's what it came down to. Not a woman's rights.

However the backlash already is ridiculous in this case. I heard a talk show host on TV ranting about how he will only call her a stripper and that the "exotic dancer" label was crap and now that she has proved herself to be a liar she deserves the more trashy name(his insight, not mine)

But like everyone has said and like my dad said while we were watching this
"This just is another nail in coffin in the belief that women do not make up rape because they are vindicitive bitches"

I already know that many police officers go into interviews with those alleging rape witih the intent to prove that they are lying. It's a sad world we live in....

There is a difference between being able to prove something in court and knowing it happened. There is no slander in alleging in good faith that a crime has been committed.

This is why less than 1% of rapes are convicted- NOT BECASE THEY DIDN"T HAPPEN, but because it is hard to fucking prove.

I just want to add a big AMEN to Samhita! You go, girl!

For buffythewhite--How do you know the victim lied? You do know that legitimate cases are dropped all the time due to things like insufficient evidence or police misconduct?
So, Samhita's right. Just because the charges were dropped does not mean that the men are innocent. Further, I find it hard to believe that the same men who wrote that horrible email about flaying the skin off of a dancer or prostitute, who live in a house with men that shouted racial epithets at two passing black women THAT SAME DAY (and that WAS documented and proved) didn't do ANYTHING. Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if the accuser "forgot" stuff because she was threatened. Look at what happened in the Kobe Bryant case. Plus, I was born and raised in NC, about an hour away from Durham. There are still plenty of crazy crackers there.

For Steven Guess: More people have doubted her story from jump than have supported her. It's a sad comment on the sexism and racism still rampant in our society, but it's true. So, I doubt very seriously that these guys will weather any real damage from this.

sami,

the true test of a person is how s/he behaves against all odds... you received a huge amount of flak from many quarters for your coverage of the case.

you took a strong stand and stood by your word... that's honesty if anything is...

i'd like to know, buffythewhite, exactly how you KNOW the woman was lying and exactly where samhita has contradicted herself or lied in reference to this case...

because, really, i think you're right that the way this case played out in the media is going to be really hard for future survivors of rape... especially when the scales of race and gender are so skewed...

however, i don't see how that destabilizes sami's point at all... i think, actually, that's the point she was making at the end of her post...

and, ej, i don't think sami's point was that it would be JUST for innocent white men to be assumed guilty, but that it is a reality for people who happen not to be white men... and on a regular basis.

there's nothing just about either of those situations... and i'll bet sami would agree that it's not a good thing for innocent people to be caught in criminal justice system or for guilty people to walk...

she was just nodding to the fact that many people go through the system without proper support and are assumed guilty off the bat... it's just more notable when it's a white guy.

all that said, i wanna big up sami once more and just say 'thanks' like all these other folks, for all the intellectual labor you're doing to set this world spinning right

heights and blessings,
puck

Colin Finnerty, one of the “vindicated� lacrosse players, may have been wrongly accused in Durham. But not in Washington DC, where he was convicted in 2006 in the beating of a man who Finnerty and his friends were hurling homophobic epithets at.

Nobody deserves to be falsely accused of anything. At the same time, if someone has been convicted of participating in the beating of someone, it shouldn’t be shocking that people would take a rape allegation against him seriously.

Finnerty’s conviction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100806.html

I don't want to comment on the case, but on Samhita's post and her strength in the face of nastiness. I didn't read Feministing for a long long time in part because of the crap she got as a WOC writing on this case. Do not be silenced or shamed, especially by so-called allies who can't deal with their own privilege and racism. You go on girl, and all the other Feministing ladies as well--thanks for what ya'll do, and try to do, every day.

And buffythewhite? The sandbox is thataway.

I agree with Samhita completely. The way this case has been covered is just incredibly rascist and misogynistic. Even though black men are falsely accused of crimes everyday, we don't hear about how hard it is until rich white boys claim they have been wronged. I'm sure they will have no problems "rebuilding" their lives, considering how many people are convinced they are innocent.

Yes, there's harm in being accused of a crime you didn't commit. It's unfortunate, but it happens, in ANY accusation. Even if there's an acquittal (I mean, just look at OJ). It's just an unfortunate result of a justice system that gives people the right of a trial by jury (rather than, say, by judicial fiat). Frankly, I would rather have the generalized risk of a little bad publicity than the risk of a secret trial in which I would have no guarantee of due process, but I'm all silly and lawyery like that. There's no reason to treat rape accusations as especially harmful -- the sentence and the stigma isn't worse than, say, murder, and there are definitely false/unproven accusations of murder. Yet (and maybe this is my memory malfunctioning) I don't remember even OJ or Michael Jackson whining the melodramatic sob story these little wusses are whining right now. I think everyone can agree that being accused of murder or child molestation is more damaging than being accused of sexual assault. Right?

These guys were accused, potentially falsely. They got a lot of publicity for it, and now they're sobbing about their poor tattered reputations.

Um.

These guys all but BEGGED for the publicity they got. They did media interviews OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. They whined and screamed the whole time that the simple existence of charges against them was itself discriminatory. And because they are rich and white, the MSM ate it the fuck UP. Make no mistake: these assholes WANTED the publicity. They MADE the publicity happen. Their LAWYERS made the publicity happen. This was a calculated media attack meant to intimidate the DA into fucking up, and guess what -- he did. Now, instead of taking their victory and going home, they want to re-write history and pretend that the MSM was against them this whole time.

I don't think I've EVER read an MSM story where a stripper was believed over a rich white guy she claims raped her. I read a few blogs supporting the woman in this case. Please, if someone could point me to an MSM article that ACTIVELY SUPPORTED THE NOTION THAT THESE PRICKS WERE GUILTY, I would really appreciate it. I'm not talking balanced articles. I'm not talking articles reporting the facts. I'm talking articles that came out and said "these scumbags did it. Listen to the stripper." I mean, crazy I haven't seen one, I know, Time and Newsweek print stories like that all the time, right?

I hope someday these whiny little asswipes will get theirs. Even if they didn't rape this specific woman, make no mistake, they are BAD PEOPLE. And, yeah, guess what people, I'm allowed to say spoiled snotty assholes are bad people when they are KNOWN to have uttered racist and sexist remarks, and have ACKNOWLEDGED that they demean women (though they wouldn't use that term). These fucks are bad people. They should take their fucking victory and GO THE FUCK HOME.

I can only assume Samhita and others have not followed this story closely. I hope that when the attorney general releases his report you all take the time to read it. To say that the accuser's story changed does not capture the thing properly. It changed at least 10 times and the changes were not small quibbles. One of the men she accused had an air tight alibi while the rape was supposed occurring. And the other dancer who was with the accuser at the house and left the house with the accuser called the story a crock.

Among the contradictions from the accuser's version of the rape:

*sometimes she had 20 people raping her; sometimes five; sometimes three; sometimes two

* Sometimes, she claimed rape; sometimes it was sexual assault; sometimes it was just “groping.�

* Sometimes, the attackers (Adam, Matt, and Brett) were each one person; sometimes Adam and Matt were interchangeable, and the three names described only two people.

* Sometimes, Dave Evans had a mustache; sometimes, he didn’t.

* Sometimes, Kim Roberts stole the accuser’s money; sometimes, she didn’t.

* Sometimes, there were three accomplices to rape who separated the accuser from Kim Roberts; sometimes, there weren’t.

* Sometimes, the accuser remembered the precise time the non-rape occurred; sometimes she didn’t.

Frau Direktor,

You wrote: "men that shouted racial epithets at two passing black women THAT SAME DAY (and that WAS documented and proved)"

What documentation and proof you have that this took place?

"The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened. Now for the rest of you that have such a die hard belief in the criminal justice system and evidence, well quite frankly I pity you."

Not everyone is as deliberately ignorant of the case as you are. One of the accused was seen on camera at an ATM at the time (well, one of the many different times) the accuser said the assault occurred. The accuser was told that everyone in the lineups she saw was on the lacrosse team, so there was no way her identification could be falsified--whoever she picked, even at random, would be demonized by people who think we can deny basic laws of physics about people being in two places at once because "we weren't there." The other two accused, besides the one who is absolutely innocent, were no more likely to have raped that woman than anyone she met that day—less likely in fact, since someone else’s DNA was found inside her. And this is only if in fact a rape even occurred, which is unlikely because the accuser constantly changed her story, accused a demonstrably innocent man, identified another indicted player (except that she claimed he had a mustache, or was talking about getting married which he did not and was not), had a picture taken after the rape that showed no facial bruising (even though she later claimed there was facial bruising), and had an incentive to fabricate a rape claim to be released from what was basically a forced mental-health commitment.

Really, you can't just assume everyone shares your ignorance of the topic. Just because you choose not to know basic facts about the case you repeatedly post about doesn’t mean everyone else has to pretend your opinion is wise or legitimate. In fact, it pretty much demonstrates the opposite.

This case has been one large embarrassment for radical (not all) feminists like yourself and race-baiting figures, including academics, nationwide. Your insistence in continuing to defiantly bring it up is not courage, but foolishness. You're ruining your credibility for the times that someone actually is raped. And by the way, those “ignorant� women’s lacrosse players were much more informed about the case than you even are now, and got information both from their friends, the accused, and from the biased, protesting feminists and race-baiters who wanted them summarily convicted, or at least expelled.

The closest analogy to this post is a religious fundamentalist who just refuses to believe, despite all evidence people try to show him to the contrary, that the world is no more than 4,000 years old. Is that the kind of comparisons to feminism that you want to promote?

Sad.

bunny, I think this is the quote you're referring to:

"This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed." (said by one upper-middle-class white male)

granted, I haven't really been following this case - I've been turning a deaf ear to the MSM for quite some time now.

however, I can't help but feel like the verdict of this case is going to set a precedent for future rape cases (a.k.a. "is she faking it?")

...and I can almost hear the pundits now, talking about a woman accuser "pulling a Duke"...

...sigh.

The Law Fairy, I believe Newsweek did blast the accused men when the case first caught public attention. Or at least that's what I thought....

And how do you know they are scumbags? We would never know that. (except for Collin Finnerty) I read Collin Finnerty's statement, and it didn't sound like whining.

I would like to agree with Mark Adams about the lack of evidence and the inconsistencies in this case. If you lay out all the facts in this case, it would lean in favor of the accused. Maybe she just got stuck with a bad DA and they got good lawyers as Samhita said.

Wow, there's just so much more that's irrational about this post:

"They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence."

Untrue. The Attorney General said they were innocent, not just that there was insufficient evidence. So the charges were more than just dropped.

"Why do I say all this? Because the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here."

Wow, details don't matter? You sound like Bush and his "fuzzy math." I thought liberal bloggers were supposed to be wonkish and detail-oriented. I guess that applies only for "good" details. You cared a lot about details when you thought they guys were dead-on guilty.

"You know because people NEVER accuse (random) black people of crimes that they did not commit. I mean, seriously."

And your point is? Accusing innocent whites balances out accusing innocent blacks? How exactly?

"So what is the moral of the story? That much of the American public does in fact hold very racist and sexist beliefs and when given the opportunity to air these sentiments, goes ahead full force. "

And that a few radical feminists hate men, hate white people, and so really don't care if innocent white men go to jail. Again, is that the image of feminism you want to project?

"It is this same culture of racism and objectification of people of color in most sectors of our society that would create a situation where a black woman would potentially lie about a rape (which we don't know if she did). "

Huh? She had a reason to create a story about rape to get her out of a jam at the hospital. You mean the fact there are black strippers is the real injustice here? Funny, when conservatives point that out they're told to get rosaries off said woman's ovaries. Weird how Puritanical radical feminists can be (FYI, there are white strippers too. Some actually think it's, gasp, empowering. But I guess you want to wait to trot them out for a later post, attacking conservative moralists).

"And the same culture that would allow for the subsequent manipulation of her story for political gain."

Yes, by you and other race-baiters and other radical feminists. Those and certain leftist academics loved this story last March. But when facts became harder to manipulate, they by and large stopped. Thankfully.

cupcakesofdeath, Here is the whole quote from Reade Seligmann. I would think you find it admirable.

"This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, *it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves.* So rather than relying on disparaging stereotypes, or creating political and racial conflicts, we must all take a step back from this case and learn from it. This tragedy has revealed that our society has lost site of the core principle of our legal system, the presumption of innocence."

And one more thing. Is it okay for them experience the injustice black men go through everyday because they are white and rich?

The court system has flaws, but it doesn't mean they deserve to go through it because they are white, just like it's not okay for black men to go through unfair trials because they are black. This is racist.

Why do I say all this? Because the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here.

EXACTLY. You and Amanda Marcotte don't think that the facts matter - facts like whether or not these young men actually committed this crime. It doesn't seem to matter that the DNA of five other men were found in her panties; it doesn't matter that she couldn't identify a single man in a line-up; it doesn't matter that the cops changed their notes when she changed her descriptions of her rapist.

What matters, apparently, is that a female black prostitute said that those men raped her, so they are deserving of all the scorn, derision, and hassle that we can heap on them.

There are good reasons to defend your initial reaction. There are NO GOOD REASONS to defend her. These men were declared to be innocent by those who know the facts. The prosecutor may lose his license to practice law.

Bottom line: there are NO SET OF FACTS under which you would condemn a black whore for a false accusation of rape against a rich, educated, white man. Yeah, that's racist all right.

um, tom (and others)? are you actually reading the post here, for all your quotes? I think samhita's point that "the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here" isn't to say that details don't matter in this case or in a court of law - but that she is making a post about the LARGER ISSUES that this brought out - i.e. how quick people are to feel justified in the belief that women lie - and as tom seems to imply, lie to manipulate people.

i, for one, would rather live in a world where any woman's word is taken seriously in rape accusations, even if this means that some men are accused unjustly. that, for me, was something that was a bit heartening in this case. i'd rather have this happen, even if it did turn out that some men had damaged reputations as a result, than the current reality, in which so many women who are raped aren't believed, and whose cases are not taken seriously.

"Please, if someone could point me to an MSM article that ACTIVELY SUPPORTED THE NOTION THAT THESE PRICKS WERE GUILTY, I would really appreciate it. I'm not talking balanced articles."

That's the problem. To be "balanced" the New York Times and other MSM outlets had to pretend even into this year that there was a case, and a competent DA running the case, and proper procedure being followed, when in fact it was clear none of that was true. Durham in Wonderland pointed that out months and months ago.

People keep worrying that future rape victims won't be believed after this incident. That's why it's so important for those who want to help rape victims to actually accept truth, acknowledge facts--even detailed ones--and save their credibility for cases that merit it.

Well, Samhita seems to think that these people are still guilty, so why not point out that yes, the facts are relevant to that judgment? Sorry, she can't run around screaming, "I'm justified in this because they are probably guilty anyway!" and then say that the facts don't matter.

these comments make my heart hurt. and i don't know what else to say.

also, for posters who keep pointing out that there was evidence that this women had sex previously on that day - this fact is irrelevant. completely. she had sex with others (consensual or not) previous to the party at duke - not relevant. to the case, or the discussion here.

I am somewhat sympathetic with those who rushed to judgment. Looking at the people involved, rich lacrosse players at duke, and the stripper party, I immediately thought-These guys did it. It didn't help that nearly everyone pushing their side were people I can't stand. However, as the case unfolded, it was clear that there was little evidence of a rape. While it's true that they weren't found innocent in a court of law, nobody who is indicted and later has the charges dropped is. The NC representatives in this case came as close to doing that as is possible. It's sad for all involved. The woman appears to have had a rough life, and perhaps mental problems, and her case would have never been pushed forward (and thrust into this media circus) but for a zealous prosecutor seeking to win reelection. And if Nifong can behave this way to a bunch of well heeled white kids, imagine how he treats those with less in the way of resources, and without this kind of media scrutiny involved?

Oops, I guess I should have read more carefully. Especially the part where Samhita emphasized the larger issues that were brought out surrounding this case.

I would like to recant the part especially where I said the post was racist, but I still have to say two wrongs don't make a right as someone have said above.

I kinda got carried away by comments that were quick to call the three men "scumbags" etc.

"I think samhita's point that "the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here" isn't to say that details don't matter in this case or in a court of law - but that she is making a post about the LARGER ISSUES that this brought out"

The facts and details change how the LARGER ISSUES look. Feminists realized that last March.

"i, for one, would rather live in a world where any woman's word is taken seriously in rape accusations, even if this means that some men are accused unjustly. that, for me, was something that was a bit heartening in this case."

Does it carry no weight that most men would disagree?

"i, for one, would rather live in a world where any woman's word is taken seriously in rape accusations, even if this means that some men are accused unjustly."

This quote seems to justify racial profiling which bothers me. Ironic that Magnum is a woman of color.

"for posters who keep pointing out that there was evidence that this women had sex previously on that day - this fact is irrelevant."

I'm not sure that any posters "keep pointing [this] out" but the fact that semen was found inside the accuser is relevant for a couple of reasons.

1) It would explain why the examination by the nurse indicated she had recently had sex.

2) (More significantly) She said the men who raped her did so without condoms and that they ejaculated inside her. The fact that there *was* semen inside of her and that none of it matched the DNA of any of the lacrosse players hurts the credibility of her story.

Okay, confession time, ladies: who put out the troll food?

"i, for one, would rather live in a world where any woman's word is taken seriously in rape accusations, even if this means that some men are accused unjustly."
All rape allegations should be taken VERY seriously. It is an unspeakably vile crime. But if they don't stand up to scrutiny, they should be quickly dismissed, for the fact that it is such a horrible crime has awful repercussions for those falsely accused.

i wasn't justifying a line of thought along the lines of racial profiling.

this is what i am saying: today, many women who are raped (or abused) a) do not report the rape; b) are not taken seriously when they do report the incident.

ideally - these accusations would be taken seriously. if false? they would be found to be false. like they were here. granted, the DA dropped the ball in some major ways, but *that* is what i found heartening. i hope there's nothing controversial about that.

is this like racial profiling in any relevant ways? i don't think so. if it still is, i'd appreciate if you'd clarify.

Law Fairy-

LOL.

"who put out the troll food?"

I just wanted to see what feminist blogs were saying on the topic and I knew Feministing was a fairly prominent feminist blog.

i wasn't justifying a line of thought along the lines of racial profiling.

this is what i am saying: today, many women who are raped (or abused) a) do not report the rape; b) are not taken seriously when they do report the incident.

ideally - these accusations would be taken seriously. if false? they would be found to be false. like they were here. granted, the DA dropped the ball in some major ways, but the fact that the case was investigated seriously is what i found heartening. i hope there's nothing controversial about that.

is this like racial profiling in any relevant ways? i don't think so. if it still is, i'd appreciate if you'd clarify.

1) Women of color (and men of color) get a raw deal.

2) The Duke guys were pathetic excuses for human beings (no other kind requires strippers at parties).

3) The accuser in this case was a pathetic excuse for a human being. The accuser happened to be a women of color, which has no bearing on her status as a pathetic excuse for a human being. Pure coincidence.

4) We should throw the whole lot of them under the train tracks. The accuser deserves no support because she clearly is a lying pathetic excuse for a human being. The Dukies deserve no support because they're assholes who created their own situation and have been exonerated from the legal consequences of their assholery.

5) Next.

"i, for one, would rather live in a world where any woman's word is taken seriously in rape accusations, even if this means that some men are accused unjustly."

The lynch mobs of the South certainly thought that was a decent rule of thumb.

History and context can't be left out, and I think that's where Samhita is right to push past the smug self-satisfaction of those lashing back at her.

because arguing that a charge of rape should be investigated with respect and seriousness within the legal system is exactly the same as arguing that communities should lynch anyone accused of rape.

I Got Cixous's, thanks for clarifying what I was saying.

snarkiness aside, you're right - history and context can't be left out. couldn't agree more.

Look we don't know what happened that night, but we do know this: women and people of color are oppressed each and every day in this country by angry white men.

We know what to do about that, but does anyone have the guts?

Check this out grrl!

You and Althouse in agreement!

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/04/kos-hates-blogger-code-of-ethics-so.html

Oops, apologies, the last post is in the wrong room, this is "hating", I was looking for "abuse."

"Look we don't know what happened that night"

No, see, that's the thing. We do know what happen or at least we know what did not happen. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate there was a rape and there is plenty of evidence indicating there was no rape.

Regarding "troll food", I've been watching all day for a feminist blog to have the ovaries to post anything about this sorry episode. I'd guess a lot of other people have, too.

There's been nary a peep on Pandagon, nor Majikthise. I don't read other feminist blogs. All three of your blogs have had plenty to say about Imus.

You won't be shamed? Well, that's up to you. But you should be. You rushed to judgment. You had plenty of people telling you that the case stank, but you did not listen. You were wrong. You got taken by a false accuser, and by a scumbag DA who put his reelection above justice. It didn't take a brain surgeon to realize the case was fishy from early on.

IMO, you owe the Duke Lacrosse Women an apology. I have not read your archives, but I'd guess there are others you have derogated as "stupid", as you did them, or worse, for showing signs of doubt.

They ought to throw the book at Nifong.

Leonard: As of February, Miss Marcotte snarked that white men can't rape black women anymore. Hell will freeze over before she admits that she's wrong there.

Not just troll food...it's like troll food doused in Jim Crowe's Secret Sauce. Wtf? "Race bait"? Do you seriously yell that out when you're on the streets, guy? Do you think WOC feminists walk out with some ethnic food on a line just begging to be discriminated against so we have blog fodder? It doesn't fucking work that way, and you are dead wrong for thinking you can shame Samhita by using shameful, cheap language yourself. Actively looking to rub it in a feminist's face, huh? Maybe you can bring it up at the next Klan meeting, but not here.

seems to me like a messy, sad situation. i agree with a lot of what samhita has said here, as well as comments throughout here. a wrong accusation doesn't make anything right, and NO ONE deserves to be assumed guilty: not the accuser, not the accused, not black or white. but we're not there. we're somewhere where phrases like "black whore" are used like it's just the facts, and talking about taking rape accusations seriously and following up on them is being likened to support of lynch mobs, which is not such a hot place to be, huh? well, hot, maybe, but not in a good way.

"...there are NO SET OF FACTS under which you would condemn a black whore for a false accusation of rape..."

Yes, I see the trolls are out and oenophile's other personality is out too. Please remember this, y'all, when the warm and snuggly oenophile comes back out to play.

Samhita & the women at Feministing: I just wanted to commend you, you guys do an awsome job. You're the only blog I read daily.
It's shameful that the DA manipulated this case for his own political gain & that makes me very angry. it just feeds all the trolls here--"One woman lied about rape so ALL women lie about rape." These are probably the same people that were saying that strippers & sex workers can't be raped--Duh!
Ideally, we would live in a world where there were NO rapes. Until that happens, we'll have to take every case seriously. Maybe oenephile, Leonard et al have Spidey-Rape senses that the rest of us don't have--have you considered going on tv? Maybe you could help law enforcement.

Hey Samhita...

Since I remember what happened the last time you posted about this case, I wanted to voice my support before things go downhill. You're right that we don't truly know what happened, and I agree with TLF that these were not good people.

I've told you before that even though we are both brown women, I don't always agree with you on everything, but I always appreciate your perspective, and the passion you bring to your posts. I also appreciate your commitment to posting on international issues, because those are among my favourite posts on Feministing.

Thank you for trying to bring some perspective to this victory. I understand what you're saying, even if others choose to ignore the deeper message.

"it just feeds all the trolls here--'One woman lied about rape so ALL women lie about rape.' These are probably the same people that were saying that strippers & sex workers can't be raped--Duh!"

Huh?? What? Honestly, who the hell says that? Can you find me one person who says all (or even most) women lie about rape?

Samhita...
I and other's get it. And I support you 100%, and glad you're saying what others are not.

honestly didn't mean to be that snarky, mooserider.

it's just that those words themselves (again, without history and context) can easily float past the reasonable (what you have in mind) and settle over the execrable. i guess i meant to be commenting about the tragic nature of all our attempts to sort this out abstractly. i'm going to go have a drink.

It has nothing to do with magical insight. It has nothing to do with magically knowing who is lying and who is not lying. It has nothing to do with the idea that all women are lying.

It has everything to do with supporting the rapist during the initial period, then, when the evidence came out, stating that you were WRONG. Not partially right; not justified because in the larger sense, they may as well be rapists; but that supporting the accuser makes sense initially, but these boys are obviously innocent. Samhita's lack of ability to say, "I'm sorry" to those boys is what gets me. THAT is the attitude, IMO, that discredits every rape victim.

Charity: Yes, I do have a warm, snuggly side. It does come out to play. If there are no set of facts under which Samhita would support a white boy accused of rape by a black stripper, that's actually pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure why that upsets you, aside from being entirely logical and therefore contrary to your nature.

"Not good people" doesn't mean that their lives should be ruined. "Not good people" makes them about as deserving of a rape accusation as, say, getting drunk makes a woman deserving of rape. Yes, it's stupid to invite strippers over; that doesn't mean that they are rapists or deserve to be so accused.

Mark Adams,

Don't expect a rational response to that request. Seriously, don't. It undermines the basic feminist theory: "I know what you REALLY mean, and I have psychic powers that let me see your evil thoughts."

The phrase "black whore" is what upsets me, as does your general use of offensive language on this site - language like "bitch" and "whore," as if that should even need explaining. Do you forget what you type right away or something? You could always go back and read it, if you don't believe me. :)

Thank you again, Samhita and Feministing, for your posts on this topic.

I still maintain, as a rape victim myself, that anyone who can claim to have been raped (but not drugged/dazed/drunk/unconscious) and yet say that they "aren't sure" whether they were penetrated is lying.

Now, I grant you: I haven't been raped in every possible situation by every possible type of person, so maybe there's some detail here that is escaping me. But, by god, I remember my rape down to the tiniest detail and when someone shoves a penis into your vagina without your permission, you take note. Maybe you're fuzzy on the time of the rape, on the faces, on what they'd been talking about earlier, on whether they had a moustache or not. I can believe that, to a point. But to come out and say that you're not sure if a penis was involved at any point is ridiculous.

Personally, I feel very strongly that the case should be investigated further. If it can be conclusively shown that she was lying, then I think she should be prosecuted for filing a false police report. The damage "fake rapes" do to real victims is staggering and it needs to stop, here and now.

That's my 2 cents.

One of the things that none of the duke defenders want to address is this:

their live's aren't ruined. They are rich, upper-class white boys, and, even had the alligations been proven, their lives would not have been ruined. Rape of a lower-class woman isn't really that bad to these people. That goes double when it's a lower-class black woman, and triple when it's a lower-class, black, female sex worker.

The rallying of support for these cretins has, throughout, been indicitive of the vast amounts of sexism, classism, and racism still existant in this society.

They aren't going to suffer any more than a temporary inconvenience. They will get their jobs by virtue of their class and connections, not their merit or actions.

I Got Cixous's - I was referring to my own snarkiness. Thanks to you (and a few others) for discussing this with thoughtfulness.

Oh, and, according to the reports, EJ, the accuser had drugs and alcohol in her system

Jenna, I accept that but in her initial statement, she was apparently aware of details down to whether or not the accused had worn condoms (she said they hadn't).

I fail to understand how someone can be certain that they were raped by a condomless penis (as opposed to a condom-wrapped one) and yet fail to be certain whether penile insertion actually took place. It's just damned confusing to me.

The rallying of support for these cretins has, throughout, been indicitive of the vast amounts of sexism, classism, and racism still existant in this society.

Given that there's a very good chance that those "cretins" were innocent all along, I'm not sure how support of them would be sexist, racist, or classist. I mean, we should support innocent people, regardless of whether or not we like them.

I don't think they are probably very good people either, but that doesn't mean that they should be accused of rape and tried by the press. Justice is not (or, rather, should not be) a popularity contest.

Exactly, Jenna. And thank you, Samhita, for continuing to stand up for the most disparaged and hated and abused members of society.

And don't let the bastards get you down.

Huh?? What? Honestly, who the hell says that? Can you find me one person who says all (or even most) women lie about rape?
Actually, when the story broke & people were questioning the truthfulness of these allegations, trolls at several forums voiced those opinions.
Oenophile--here's a library-card. Go to the library, look in the card catalogue under "feminist theory" & read what you find there. After you do that, take a quarter, buy a brain & come back here. Then, maybe we'll take anything you say seriously.

I don't want to engage the non-listeners here (that's a polite term for "troll"), but I'm just gonna say this.

Funny how you all get high and mighty about defending the poor "innocent" accused when 1) it's for rape and 2) the accuser happens to be a black stripper. Tell me, do you all rush to the defense of EVERY accused person? What about retarded people who are accused of murdering their parents? Women accused of abusing their children? Black people accused of drug dealing? Hispanic people accused of illegal immigration?

Where is your sense of moral outrage for them? Where were you when the media tried and convicted Michael Jackson -- only to have him acquitted by an ACTUAL JURY rather than by a prosecutor trying to save face? Where were you when Andrea Yates was lambasted in the media as simply a hysterical, overly emotional woman who was morally culpable for killing her kids? Where were you (fuck, where ARE you) when Lisa Nowak was accused of stalking a purported romantic rival??

Not here, that's for sure. You are all a bunch of MOTHERFUCKING HYPOCRITES and you make me sick to my stomach. You contribute NOTHING OF VALUE to this discussion.

Samhita. You GO.

One of the things that none of the duke defenders want to address is this:

their live's aren't ruined. They are rich, upper-class white boys, and, even had the alligations been proven, their lives would not have been ruined.

Jenna, that is an ignorant, sexist, and bigoted statement. I suspect you are an ignorant, sexist, and bigoted individual. Revolting.

Disgusting to hear in 2007.

Carry on.

Samhita, i'm glad you are standing to what you said , even though the boys are innocent. However, I still feel that you should apologize for attacking the Duke girls who were merely defending their peers and friends. These aren't people who advocate rape, they're just students that are supporting their friends. These Duke girls probably thought these boys were innocent. I mean, they know them more than we do. All we heard was news and news analyst saying that they were accused of rape: OF COURSE THAT SOUNDS BAD. Of course it makes them seem guilty, even i thought they were guilty. But forensics and the court have claimed them innocent. I dont' want you (Samhita) to feel like I'm shoving this 'you're wrong" thing in your face. But you also attacked other people who didn't even do anything. That was the worst thing you said of the matter.

Where were you (fuck, where ARE you) when Lisa Nowak was accused of stalking a purported romantic rival??

WTF? The diaper astronaut with the 2lb hammer and the knife and the wig and the pepper spray and the bb-gun made to look like a hand gun and the black gloves, and the rubber tubing, and the plastic garbage bags?

Where do you want me to be?

Where are you on that?

read her whole comment, jerry.

TLF,

I don't know where to start. I ghost Feministing when I can, and I usually think you're a spot-on poster and 100% coolness, so I'll try my hardest not to make you upset at me.

That said, I think you're off the mark here. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone in this thread who is defending the accussed is racially motivated as you imply. Nor have I received the impression that they would be less likely to defend an innocent person falsely accused of murder.

Maybe I've overlooked a post like that - if so, I apologize.

What *I* see, however, is racially motivated posts saying that rich white people deserve a good harmless dose of false rape accusations because it doesn't really do any harm and it helps to even out all the times black people are falsely accused. Okay, no one's said it quite that crudely, but that's the impression floating around. As a lawyer yourself, surely you must see the harm in that? If we allow our justice system to be perverted into some sort of engine for "righting" racial injustice by falsely railroading innocent defendents, what's to become of any of us?

I think that that kind of hypocrisy is the danger here, not the kind you are speaking about.

One last thought to everyone, and then I'll sign off for the evening: Do we need to call everyone with a different viewpoint a "troll"? I don't agree with everyone here 100% of the time, but they're obviously not trolls. Mark and Tom have not been rude here that I've seen, but they've been referenced as "trolls" a few times already (or so it seemed to me). I think that's a bit worrisome in the blogosphere - how can we rationally discuss points of views when all opposing points are "trollish"? I understand when someone's being rude, but I don't feel like Mark and Tom have been. That's just my crapilicious thought for the evening.

Peace out.

P.S. I totally agree with everything Justice4All just said.

"The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night".

You can repeat that lie as many times as you want, but it will not live forever. Actually, the the attorney general of North Carolina came forward and flatly declared the three young men "innocent of these charges." We also know as a matter of public record that the accuser lied about several dozen statements... each of which were proven to have been impossible.

That said, I think you're off the mark here. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone in this thread who is defending the accussed is racially motivated as you imply.

People who defend them are mostly white.

Thanks EJ. And for the record, phrases like "black whore" are not acceptable.

I think that's a bit worrisome in the blogosphere - how can we rationally discuss points of views when all opposing points are "trollish"?
I call them trolls b/c they're on a feminist blog & don't seem to understand the basic tenets of feminism. I wouldn't go to a blog about something that I'm ignorant about (say, car repair) & then go blasting my opinions without reading the basics.
Mark & Tom have been pretty respectful, but people like oenephile post here constantly yet just reveal their total ignorance of feminism. It's not our job to educate every ignorant person--there are about a bazillion books on the subject, hell, you can Wiki "feminism" & get a decent definition.

“Can you find me one person who says all (or even most) women lie about rape?�

Here’s one person: Glenn Sacks, a columnist, radio host, and occasional Fox News guest, who wrote a 2004 column entitled “Research Shows False Accusations of Rape Common�, which you can read here: http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075

The article mentions an Air Force study and states that up to 60% of rape allegations were false. It also mentions other studies that state figures of 50% or 40% as rates of false accusation.

These are high numbers. I would call 60% “most�. This is a guy who is on TV. His highest number, 60%, is attributed to "independent reviewers" who are not named.

I think it’s a problem when a guy on TV is saying that 60% of rape victims are lying.

Fair enough ccall. I was not aware of such opinions.

I should say then that I certainly don't think that the Duke case means that all or most accusations of rape are false.

Donna, I totally need to borrow your crystal ball sometime. But even if you were right, it doesn't prove anything. Regardless of the color of the defenders, it's pretty clear that there was a miscarriage of justice here. If only white people are willing to defend innocent white college boys, that says something, but not the something that you seem to think it says.

Mark, agreed. I didn't like the "black whore" comment either, and I certainly wasn't defending that poster's right to not be called a troll. But I felt like you were being lumped into that category and it worries me.

Moxie, one does not have to be a feminist to post on a feminist blog. I also hasten to point out that there are as many breeds of feminism as there are feminists, and to claim that a dissenting point is "ignorant of the tenants of feminism" is to ignore the fact that there are no ironclad tenants of such. Case in point, I often disagree with posters here, but that doesn't mean that either I or they are "bad" or "ignorant" feminists, anymore than I was a "bad" feminist when I disagreed with Ann-Whats-Her-Face over her "right" to disparage Jessica's breasts. But I digress.

EJ-
You said:

Moxie, one does not have to be a feminist to post on a feminist blog.

That maybe true, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see that it says "by and for young feminists."

I agree that there are many types of feminism, but some people come onto this blog and call commenters "bitches" and "whores," and that is totally inappropriate on a feminist blog. I think it is fair to call them trolls because they are obviously anti-feminists just trying to get a rise out of people(and they are obviously not who this site is for! if anything these sort of people DISCOURAGE actual feminists from coming to this site).

EJ, I didn't say that non-feminists or ignorant people couldn't post. They can, but they're going to be called out on idiocy.
& actually, there are some basic tenets of feminism that feminism is based on--mainly, the social, political, & economic equality of the sexes. If someone said, "Well, political & social equality is fine, but damn, women shouldn't be economically equal," then clearly, they just don't get it.

(Apologies this is super long but I think it is important)
Some of you are creating a false dichotomy between supporters for the accused and the accuser.

When I first heard about this case I did not rush to defend the Duke players, in fact I assumed they were guilty. However I did point out that time that innocence was a possibility and there was no need to jump to concluions. I did not claim they were innocent, just that they *could* be, even though I personally believed they probably were not. That does not make me sexist or racist. I have never called the accuser a bitch, a whore, or anything of the sort, and I find that sort of talk disgusting. I don't think that rape victims are liars - only that false allegations are a fact of life.

Law Fairy, you are correct to point out that some people defended them simply because they were white males. That is true, but it is not true of everyone, and it isn't fair to accuse the posters here of that.

There were people who rushed to defend the Duke boys a little too quickly - those people were wrong and may have been motivated by racism and sexism. However the people who continuously attacked them, and continue to do so even now, are also wrong, and also appear to be motivated by racism and sexism, only against white males instead of black females.

Admitting you made a mistake is not a shameful thing. Everyone makes mistakes. The shameful part is refusing to admit that errors were made and then compounding those errors.

I see a lot of rationalizations: The facts don't matter. It was never about just the case. These guys are bad guys. Their lives would not have been ruined even if found guilty. They got a taste of our justice system that normally screws over minorities.

Those are weak excuses. If a black man is accused of a crime he didn't commit, we don't say "well, he's probably a bad guy so who cares?" In fact, that is a problem with our justice system today! That people who *look* bad, or who have an unsavory history are not given a fair chance.

True conviction is not dismissing opinions you disagree with - conviction is dismissing flawed thought patterns, even when they work in your favor.

This means rejecting racism, sexism and classism in general, not just when it pertains to yourself or your allies.

To say this:

"They are rich, upper-class white boys, and, even had the alligations been proven, their lives would not have been ruined."

That is sexism, racism and classism. Imagine if I said this:

"They are poor black men. They were probably guilty of something else just as bad or would have been thrown into jail for some other reason anyway."

Horribly racist and classist right?

I reject racism and classism - regardless of which race or which class it is. If the allegations had been proven they would probably have gone to jail. And whether or not their lives were irrevocably ruined or not is entirely beside the point.

I believe that everyone - rich, poor, black, white, male, female - should be granted the presumption of innocence, and furthermore that false allegations against *anyone* are a bad thing.
---

This is a time to reflect. Why were some people so quick to call the accuser a bitch, a liar, a whore?

Now ask the opposite question: why were some people so quick to call for the pitchforks and torches? Why was their language racist, sexist and classist? Why do they continue to attack the accused after they have been cleared of all charges?

This *is* about racism and sexism - but not just of the "bad guys" but of your own as well.

"What is relevant is that certain folks are very quick to jump on the offensive when there is a little bit of evidence that perhaps a black woman lied about a rape."

What is also relevant is that certain folks are very quick to jump on the offensive when there is a little bit of evidence that perhaps a white, upper-class male comitted a crime.

If you are going to ask other people to examine their behavior, you should do the same of yourself.

You are wrong, Samhita about the innocence of the falsely accused Duke students.

From N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper's statement in the Winston-Salem Journal:

We have carefully reviewed the evidence collected by the Durham County prosecutor's office and the Durham Police Department. We have also conducted our own interviews and evidence gathering. Our attorneys and SBI (State Bureau of Investigation) agents have interviewed numerous people who were at the party, DNA and other experts, the Durham County district attorney, Durham police officers, defense attorneys and the accusing witness on several occasions. We have reviewed statements given over the past year, photographs, records and other evidence.

The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.

See that - the prosecutor who has access to all of the evidence in the case states that, "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges".

Innocent, Samhita. Innocent.

Who is this guy?

Anyway, EJ. What are you talking about? I didn't say I support this sort of reverse racist treatment of white folks by the criminal justice system. I am saying that this happens every day to certain people and no one gives a rats ass. It is when some white boys from Duke get it, they are have been savagely beaten by the system and innocently accused by a money hungry woman.

Like I feared everyone is super harping on the details of the case, where I am making an argument that we don't know (except ParsonJim who does, even though we don't know who he is) and the bigger issue isn't the innocence but what this tells us about larger systemic issues on how we as a society, culture, media and clearly blog talk about these highly racialized moments.

This "they are innocent", isn't about their innocence, unless you are all hardcore prison abolitionists, it is about white people feeling just in their own racism. If they are innocent then what else is true? What are the logical leaps? Take it as you will.

For the repeated desire for my apology, I didn't even say anything bad. I never said anyone was guilty and I never *marred* anyone's reputation. Please read the archives before you start slinging vitriol. I am interrogating systems of power, the way we talk about these issues, how I see them and the sentiments they bring out in people.

And it ain't pretty.

From the top post, Samhita:

They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence. Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people.

We have a Constitution in this country, and a Bill of Rights, in case you didn't know. They apply to all people, not just certain people....

I wish there was more we could know about this case. I wish we could know how badly this case was mishandled by the prosecuter. Because with all of the news we have heard regarding abuse in the judicial system, I cannot help but wonder if the victim in this case hadn't been abused twice- once by the situation, however it played out, and once again by an overzealous prosecuter.

That said, I am bias in this particular situation. I have a friend who is due to give birth to her second child any day now. Her husband is currently in prison, having been convicted of sexual assault on a minor- a student of his. I can't say there is no possible way he is guilty, but the news articles were brutal, sometimes factually incorrect. The victim could not even name the month, let alone date, the accused abuse had taken place, making any alibi to the accusation impossible. The case as a whole is so sad and difficult, and decisions made by the judge- edited statements manipulating comments he and his wife made to police and other things made me lose complete faith in the justice system.

In the community, he was guilty the second the police took him into custody and he lost his job, his home, everything, before the trial even began.

If the victim isn't lying than I pray she'll overcome this ordeal. If the victim is lying, I pray my friend and her husband can overcome this.

Justice is so complicated- the rules of law that can protect us can also be manipulated by an overzealous prosecuter or judge. It's a human problem, but it makes me pause before I make any judgements regarding the guilt or innocence of anyone accused of anything.

No one in this thread who is defending the accused is racially motivated, huh? Even when "black whore" is substituted as a label for the accuser? She's casually discounted, in a way only those truly entitled by power so effortlessly do.

To me, the majority of the comments in defense of the accused seem classist, racist, and sexist.

And I would be delighted if people didn't seem to purposely misread the post and comments and then go off with righteous indignation. There's a big difference between saying

So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.

AND

If we allow our justice system to be perverted into some sort of engine for "righting" racial injustice by falsely railroading innocent defendents, what's to become of any of us?

Samhita certainly is not suggesting we routinely railroad innocent defendents--PLEASE. Just that, since they did experience, apparently, some sort of miscarriage of justice, then they might have gained some insight into the reality faced by the less powerful on a far more regular basis.

Stating that white, wealthy, educated, straight, physically able males are more powerful in our society is not a racist or bigoted statement. Talking about the power structures and the injustices therein is not racist.

Indeed, without this discussion we will never move toward a more egalitarian society.

No one in this thread who is defending the accused is racially motivated, huh? Even when "black whore" is substituted as a label for the accuser? She's casually discounted, in a way only those truly entitled by power so effortlessly do.

To me, the majority of the comments in defense of the accused seem classist, racist, and sexist.

And I would be delighted if people didn't seem to purposely misread the post and comments and then go off with righteous indignation. There's a big difference between saying

So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.

AND

If we allow our justice system to be perverted into some sort of engine for "righting" racial injustice by falsely railroading innocent defendents, what's to become of any of us?

Samhita certainly is not suggesting we routinely railroad innocent defendents--PLEASE. Just that, since they did experience, apparently, some sort of miscarriage of justice, then they might have gained some insight into the reality faced by the less powerful on a far more regular basis.

Stating that white, wealthy, educated, straight, physically able males are more powerful in our society is not a racist or bigoted statement. Talking about the power structures and the injustices therein is not racist.

Indeed, without this discussion we will never move toward a more egalitarian society.

"it is about white people feeling just in their own racism."

It appears to me that for you and/or some of the commenters, it is about *you* feeling just in your own racism, sexism and classism.

"For the repeated desire for my apology, I didn't even say anything bad. I never said anyone was guilty and I never *marred* anyone's reputation."

This is quite obviously false. From a previous posting:

"The university has no objection to this, but you know damn well if they were wearing armbands reading, "Kill those Nazi rapists," they would. But really, this is not only an example of how (white in this case) women are complicit in their own oppression but also involved in the silencing and vicitimization of women of color. I mean they are making themselves look so stupid to stand in solidarity with accused rapists. "

So you said the Duke women look stupid when in reality they were quite correct. (They don't look so stupid now...) In addition you equated "innocent" with "Kill those Nazi rapists" which is simply absurd. The Duke Lacrosse women did not wear bracelets that called anyone names, they didn't advocate killing anyone. "Innocent" is not inflammatory. Isn't it possible that some of the female LAX players knew the male LAX players and were supporting their friends, who they thought were most likely not guilty?

The female LAX players supporting the men were no more stupid than people supporting the accuser. They were no more uninformed either - in fact they were most likely much MORE informed.

To your credit you did not outright state or imply that the Duke players were guilty, which puts you ahead of many commentators on the issue. However you do appear to owe the female lacrosse players an apology.

A few observations from a (mostly liberal) white, male, criminal defense lawyer:

Rape is a horrible, heinous crime.

An accusation of rape deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness and carefully investigated--irrespective of the race and/or social status of the complainant, as well as that of the accused.

For one who is in fact innocent (as distinct from being merely presumed innocent), to be accused of rape is a horrible injustice--as many black men have found out at the business end of a rope.

For a prosecutor to vouch for the innocence of a previously accused person is truly extraordinary.

For a writer to suggest that "the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here" is as reprehensible and repugnant to morality as either rape or lynching.

First of all, I would like to thank Samhita in standing by what she has said. I think it is the larger issues here that matter and what is being caused by the events of this case. I would also like to say that it is almost impossible to prove rape in this justice system, and in fact I can relate to what it must have been like for this woman (yes I do believe she was raped, perhaps not by these men, but just becuase there isn't DNA, bruises, or a cohesive story (like someone said before there were mind-altering substances found in her)does not mean she is lying). Also, LOL Law Fairy about the troll food.

The big issue I really want to mention is what people are now saying in regards to this case. First, they published who she is. This scares me into thinking that if I am raped, but can't prove it everyone will know who I am and that I "made the whole thing up". I can't imagine what life is like for her now.

Second, people are actually talking about removing the "rape shield" laws we have in place to protect the rape victims (I use this word, because a majority 97-98% perhaps even more, are rape victims, not just accusers). I know this is some of the very far right talking, but I can imagine some legal action that will take place in the future that will make it harder to convict rape. This is a very scary thought.

Again, that you Samhita.

And p.s. to all those claiming we are racist, sexist, and classist. We cannot be, becuase those are things reinforced by institutions. Institutions and laws that uphold these institutions are racist, sexist, classist. People are prejudice. Please refer to any sociology theory for this one.

did ParsonJim truly just suggest that Samhita's ironical statement about "certain people" being innocent until proven guilty be taken literally?

Didja read the whole post, man? Shit.

Alarming Female:

oenophile used "black whore", but he does not speak for everyone. I find his comments distasteful and innapropriate. Mark Adams has been perfectly civil and I believe I have as well.

It is a mistake to make this a two-sided issue. My thoughts are not the same as oenophile's, and your thoughts are not the same as Law Fairy's or Jenna's.

"Just that, since they did experience, apparently, some sort of miscarriage of justice, then they might have gained some insight into the reality faced by the less powerful on a far more regular basis."

The problem here is that you seem to be spinning this as a positive - rather than a horrible ideal it was a learning experience!

It is perfectly true that what they experienced is something often experienced by minorities and the poor. However your wording could be more carefully chosen. The way it was phrased you both seem to be discounting the seriousness of what happened.

That is the overall tone of the original post and many of the comments here - because the falsely accused in this case are white upper-class males it really isn't something we should feel bad about or lose sleep over.

I think it would be very innapropriate, when a woman was nearly raped, to say "well, now she got some insight into the reality faced by prison inmates." Even though that would be technically true, it is a nasty thing to say right after the person has gone through a harrowing ordeal.

Samhita certainly is not suggesting we routinely railroad innocent defendents--PLEASE.

No but I think it is pretty fair to interpret her remarks as implying that she is indifferent to the unfair prosecution of white, upper class, males, and that seeing injustice done to them doesn't bother her too much (or at all).

Just that, since they did experience, apparently, some sort of miscarriage of justice, then they might have gained some insight into the reality faced by the less powerful on a far more regular basis.

And as I stated above, one of the accused explicitly acknowledged this: "This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves. So why not give Reade Seligmann a little credit? He's pretty much saying if it can happen to us rich white boys, no telling how many poor minorities are in jail because of an unscrupulous DA.

Oenophile--here's a library-card. Go to the library, look in the card catalogue under "feminist theory" & read what you find there. After you do that, take a quarter, buy a brain & come back here. Then, maybe we'll take anything you say seriously.

...and I'm the one who is disrespectful and condescending. Sorry, babe. Engineering degree. Legal education. But apparently, I'm dumb, because some twit thinks that only pro-abortionists are smart.

Samhita - I agree. It's not just about this case, but about what the MSM reaction to the case revealed.

This case, this rotten, awful, no-good-for-anyone case, has served as a litmus test of sorts. It showed us who people believe the "victim" in a rape allegation is - the raped or the rapist. Regardless of what we know now, in those first days following the allegations, not one of us could possibly know what the outcome of this case would be.

Most of us chose sides, regardless of our inability to know for sure the facts of what happened that night.

Some of us, who believe that the victim in a rape allegation is the person who has been raped, believed the accuser.

Those who believe that the "victim" in a rape allegation is the purported rapist, assumed the accuser was lying.

The actual facts and actual outcome of this case are pretty much rotten and don't serve anyone well.

Do I think it's a shame this woman leveled a false accusation against these men? Yes. Do I think it was wrong of her to do so? Yes. That doesn't stop me from thinking all of this hand-wringing about how these men's lives are "ruined" is, well, bullshit. In five years, ten at the most, no one will remember their names in relation to this case. And until then, their money and their connections will protect them. They will have jobs that pay them so they can live as they are accustomed to living. They will have friends and family who stand by them. Their lives are changed, yes, and will be harder for a time, yes. But ruined? Hardly.

The same is not true for the vast majority of people of color who are falsely accused of crimes. For many of them, not only are their lives ruined, but their lives are actually /lost/ after being falsely accused, tried and convicted of crimes they did not commit.

So pardon us, if we don't wring our hands or fall to our knees begging "Why Oh Why!" of the skies, worried about the fates of the young men accused in the Duke case.

It's not right that it happened, but of all the people in the U.S. (and the world) who are falsely accused of crimes, the Duke men will recover a thousand times better than most.

And it is thus, secure in the knowledge that these men's lives are changed and inconvenienced, but far from "ruined", that we can adjust our gaze and take a look at what this case and its treatment in the public sphere reveals about the culture we live in.

That is what Samhita is addressing here, and that is why the facts in the case itself are no longer germane.

Liz:

I am aware of the theory that those without power cannot be racist, sexist or classist. I reject that theory. That is not what the words commonly mean in everyday vernacular. If you want to pretend I called people "prejudiced" instead you can, although that doesn't change the point at all. Prejudice is not a good thing.

That said, I agree it is unfortunate that people are trying to make this into a broader point about rape shield laws, false accusations, and things of that nature. False accusations happen from time to time, but this single case doesn't indicate that it is any sort of huge problem. Ultimately the law worked - the players were not convicted. It's not as if they were executed and then we found out they were not guilty.

If there was a problem it was the media, blowing up the case and letting out the names of both the accuser and the accused.

I also don't like it when people call the accuser a liar. Maybe she was confused, maybe she was drugged, maybe she is crazy, maybe she has a bad memory - it doesn't really matter. The players have chosen not to launch their own suit against her so in the eyes of the law she is not guilty of anything either.

I am curious about this statement of yours:

"I do believe she was raped."

I think some feminists want to believe she was raped because it confirms their world view - rich white men taking advantage of a poor black woman is a microcosm of feminist theory. But if you get past why you *want* to believe it, what reason do you really have?

None of us know her well enough to know if she is credible. False accusations do happen. Samhita says that we can't know for sure that she wasn't raped, but certainly we can't know for sure that she *was* either.

That said, I agree it is unfortunate that people are trying to make this into a broader point about rape shield laws, false accusations, and things of that nature. False accusations happen from time to time, but this single case doesn't indicate that it is any sort of huge problem. Ultimately the law worked - the players were not convicted. It's not as if they were executed and then we found out they were not guilty.

I would think that this, if examined properly, could STRENGTHEN the arguments that most women are not lying about rape. There were so many inconsistencies in her story; so many things that could not be true (ex. one accused at an ATM); exculpatory evidence (DNA from other men, but not them), that it is nearly impossible to believe her version of events.

If that is what false accusations look like, well, they aren't hard to spot. That's a good thing! Then we can argue that all of the "he-said/she-said" garbage of date rape trials ISN'T he-said/she-said. It's the fact that very few people falsely accuse, and those who do have stories so easily discredited that it never even gets to trial.

Backing up the accuser at this point does nothing to help women in the future. Believing her strains credibility; why associate her with women who are raped and trying desperately to prove it?

Ok, some things some of you don't seem to be getting (femalechauvanist, etc.). As someone trained to work with survivors of sexual violence, I can tell you /most/ cases of abuse won't hold up in court. Statistics show that 1 out of 4 women my age (about 20) have been sexually assaulted. An informal survey of many of my friends would seem to indicate this statistic as pretty reasonable. When professional surveys are done without using the word "rape," 1 out of 5 husbands nationwide admit to forcing sexual acts on their wives. Before these things were all even illegal (a lot of sexual assault laws didn't come into being until the 70s) we had an incredibly biased culture. We still do. As someone who is trained to work with victims of sexual violence, most women do not report, and those who do are nearly always far from comfortable and confident about it, not because they're lying, simply because there's such an element of shame and taboo surrounding the whole thing.

Now as to these "boys" and whether or not they were good people. Well, I think 'good people' is a relevant term. I do know a guy who went to a very small high school with several of the Duke lacrosse players (and he was rich and white, which makes him objective, right?), and he said that they were huge misogynistic bullies back in high school. Go figure?

Now I agree with what Samhita originally said about how we do not know for sure what exactly happened in this case. Because of the DNA evidence, the woman may not have been penetrated by any of the Duke men. Does that prove they weren't sexually harassing or assaulting her in other ways? Not really. And Mark Adams made some flippant comment about how some women do things like strip because they think it's empowering. Sure, some women do... just like some people do all sorts of things for a variety of reasons... but most strippers don't do it for empowerment. It's a tough business; the general population won't respect you, often business managers mistreat you. If this women didn't come from a family with money, she was probably doing it for the money. Didn't someone say she actually had DNA from 5 different people in her underwear? Maybe this woman does whatever she wants. However, going by the average sex worker, I think it's far likelier she has had a very difficult life.
And I do think it's fair to say that simply through hiring a stripper these Lacrosse boys are exhibiting some of their attitudes, and it already puts her in a position the woman may not like being relative to these guys (no matter that she does the work regularly). If she made up her story and the guys were falsely accused, this case would be an anomoly among many other that go exactly the opposite direction. Yet, it is the one most people who have never had to deal personally with rape of themselves or a loved one will draw their generalities from. Before the case was even resolved, some colleges thinking of letting the lacrosse boys transfer there did polls of their students and the students were overwhelmingly willing to accept the lacrosse boys in. Life bites all the time, but no, I don't really think the boys' lives are ruined by this by any stretch of the imagination.

Mark Adams: you said you'd been waiting around looking for feminist blogs like this one to bring up the case so you could attack. That seems to be a bit much to me. I can only assume there's something more personal going on. What did the evil feminists do to powerless poor you to cause you to feel so threatened?

oh, and in the second paragraph I meant to say that I think 'good people' is a "relative term", not that it really matters

And Mark Adams made some flippant comment about how some women do things like strip because they think it's empowering.

I never said any such thing. Please review my comments and you will see that.

Ninapendamaishi excellent points overall, but why does it matter if these guys are good people or not?

In this particular case, they are victims. Blaming the victim is always uncouth. When someone is robbed or assaulted we don't talk about how much they deserved it, or how little lasting impact it may have, or how bad the victim is.

Whether or not their lives are ruined is totally irrelevant. Whether or not they are nice people is also totally irrelevant.

Some rape victims are not nice people. And? So what? That is just another tired iteration of the blame the victim mentality.

Nobody deserves to have a crime committed against them, and nobody deserves to be falsely accused of a crime. Whether or not these guys spend their spare time torturing kittens has nothing to do with anything.

Well for one thing, I am not one to equate laws directly with morality. I am not sure that being a misogynistic asshole is some how less "wrong" than being falsely accused of something that will gradually blow over over time. If in fact they had even been sexually harassing the stripper, or assaulting her in other ways (which we may never know, of course) I think perhaps they would deserve to be convicted of /something/.

And of course I never said that false accusations are "right"

Rather, as I hope you do not want to detract from, I am supporting the OP's point about how sad many of the larger implications from this are in the media, etc.

Mark Adams: I just realized I had been thinking the name posted at the top of the post was the poster, as opposed to the bottom. (these were like my first posts on this site) So if it wasn't your comment, it was somebody else's.

What did the evil feminists do to powerless poor you to cause you to feel so threatened?

I was once in love with a feminist. She rejected me and broke my heart. I've held an irrational animus toward feminists ever since.

An interesting article, and a very interesting set of responses. I would like to take issue with one of the points made by 16oz, since I see no reason Samhita should apologise to the Duke women's lacrosse team. I'm sure she was right to suggest that if they had chosen to wear 'guilty' armbands or t-shirts stating that 'no means no' the university would have had a very different reaction (though I accept that her language in the original post was stronger than mine here). Moreover, in wearing armbands stating that the men were innocent, the women's team were doing more than showing support for their friends: they were -- at the least -- stating their complicity in a frat-boy culture in which it was entirely acceptable for a university sports team to be engaging in the objectification and exploitation of women by hiring strippers for a team party. I wouldn't personally have used the term 'stupid' but I don't believe the women's lacrosse team look any more or less stupid now that the players have been declared innocent -- they still look like they went all out to make a public declaration of support for a group of racist, misogynist homophobes (see ccall above), and a culture of sexual aggression and exploitation.

The post, and many of the commentators, keep saying the details of the case don't matter--but then insist that "we weren't there" and don't know what happened when, if you examined the details, you would have a very good idea what happened.

They say that the accused didn't really suffer because they weren't jailed. But then they rightly point out the harassment that feminist bloggers face. The accused were likewise harassed. People marched in Duke with signs that called for their castration. They were unable to stay on their campus. The three have millions of dollars of legal bills that are yet unpaid. This suffering is not trivial, and it is hypocritical for those on this site to say so.

They say that the Duke women's lacrosse team was "uninformed," but don't realize that they were more informed from the start--from various sources on the ground, including their friends--than almost any commentator. It might not be coincidental that they were right. Nor did they comment on the "culture" of the lacrosse team--innocent clearly referred only to the rape, kidnapping, and assault charges, no matter how much some want to change the focus of the topic now.

They say this case was somewhat of a positive because a woman's rape accusation was taken "seriously," but that's not what happened. The lineup was fraudulent, the DNA was withheld from the defense, and the rape charge was dragged out until after an election. That's not treating a charge seriously, and there is no positive here. The premature judgment of this case, fueled by the prosecutor's misdeeds, is what will actually hurt future rape victims. That's why these commentators should stop claiming there's a larger vindication for them, or that details don't matter. If a woman is raped, details do very much matter.

For now, we should be happy that three innocent men were cleared. That is a victory, not for white men or wealthy people or white folks, but for everyone.

I have a big problem with the they-were-probably-guilty-anyway attitude implicit in Samhita's post. Any serious look at the history of American criminal justice makes clear that this is exactly what puts the poor and the brown, disproportionately, into prison.

I know that it's frustrating to be left with nothing more than "not proven," but what do you propose to do about it?

Tom: When I (and others) have described the state of the handling of sexual assault in this country, it is to point out that millions of women are not treated justly as-is. If this case makes things even worse, I would prefer to blame that on the unfortunate attitudes of so much of the American public (and if anyone has personal experience with assault of themselves or someone they know, they are not allowed to sit on a jury for sexual assault cases, FYI) rather than blame that all on one stripper, who will have a tough time of things as-is. (I mean, if the Duke lacrosse players got threats, I'm /sure/ this woman has gotten threats. And she will have fewer resources with which to protect herself).

Also, most people who have ever been involved personally in a trial, will realize that our justice system is far from airtight, that things are unintentially mishandled all the time. Once again, even if the men didn't rape her, they /did/ hire a stripper, they /were/ mean to a lot of people less priviliged than themselves in high school (whether it be torturing kittens, disrespecting girlfriends, harassing other boys etc.) I would not be surprised one bit if they had at the very least called the stripper by disrespectful terms.

I don't feel very sorry for these boys. That's not saying I think false accusations are right. It's just that, there are so many social injustices in this world you'd be exhausted if you tried to get emotional about each and every individual case. Shit happens to everyone, sooner or later. I'd rather feel sorry for the millions of women who are sexually assaulted and either don't recognize it for what it is or do and either way don't get justice. Heck, as a young woman I also feel sorry for the many more millions of women who put up with boyfriends or husbands that disrespect them or expect to have their own desires fulfilled first all the time. I am slightly suspicious of anyone who is fueled by this case to have tremendous sympathy for these lacrosse boys. If a lot of evidence that they didn't penetrate the woman or bruise her face is important to you, we also have a lot of evidence that these boys were not your average feminist's idea of people who make the world a better place for everyone. If that doesn't matter to you and your concept of justice, at least come out and say it.

I am a female Duke student and I take issue with this article and some of the comments posted here. I often read this site and find it really interesting and a great forum for discussion; however, I have very strong feelings about this case. I was most disturbed by Law Fairy's comments about how "everyone" believed that the boys were innocent and that the stripper (I did get so tired of her being referred to as a stripper instead of a woman) was lying. This is just not true, especially initially and especially on Duke's campus. I personally believed the story and I think many, many students (particularly the female students) believed that the lacrosse players were guilty. Later on, when more facts came out, is when we started to lose our complete certainty. Yes, maybe certain media outlets were more supportive of the players, but if you try hard to remember the general feelings right after the event occured you will realize that the accuser had a lot of support. Also, Law Fairy's comment about how the players "begged" for publicity is not true- unless you confused the players with Mike Nifong. Yes, the players did a few interviews, but if you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you want to speak as to your innocence? Mike Nifong is the one who catapulted this case into the national spotlight, preying on the reputation the South has as a racist, sexist culture. I completely agree that just because the lacrosse players are innocent of rape does not mean that they are "good" guys- just because they didn't rape the accuser does not mean that they did not 1) hire a stripper in the first place and 2) use racist and sexist epithets. But please, to claim that these men "milked" the media for publicity and that no one believed the stripper is not true. As a Duke student, I am just relieved that the case is approaching its end and hopefully Duke and North Carolina's reputation can be repaired.

I haven't (and won't) comment specifically on any particular case such as this because going over the evendence doesn't achieve anything. What can be gained is an analysis of the sexism of the reporting and commenting. What is interesting is that there are plenty of people who think that a woman is all or partly responsible for her rape due to her clothing, sexual history and drinking in our society (as found by amnesty international), but no curcumstance whereby an accused is all or partly responsible for any false claims made against them.

Society has a predisposed bias against the victim when ever an rape case makes it to the press and addressing that bias is important and that is what feministing has acheived.

Thank-you. Just... thank-you.

Sara, if it's any consolation, I don't think there is lasting taint on Duke's reputation itself. I get that impression as an outsider.

--

Since I tend not to be eloquent on this topic, I'll just say "what Garrett said". Word.

Once again, even if the men didn't rape her, they /did/ hire a stripper, they /were/ mean to a lot of people less priviliged than themselves in high school (whether it be torturing kittens, disrespecting girlfriends, harassing other boys etc.) I would not be surprised one bit if they had at the very least called the stripper by disrespectful terms.

And calling a woman a bad word, or even several bad words, deserves a rape allegation? I guess that makes them both even: He called her a nasty name and she leveled the full weight of the justice system after him for something he didn't do.

And that kind of attitude is why rape victims are accused of making things up to get back at people for minor things.

Sorry if you didn't mean to say that, but both of your posts about how these guys DID hire a stripper (which makes them human scum apparently) seems to lean heavily in that direction.

The characterization of Finnerty's scuffle in DC is incorrect. It was not homophobic and he didn't hit anybody.

"I haven't (and won't) comment specifically on any particular case such as this because going over the evendence doesn't achieve anything."

Well, it doesn't help you achieve your agenda.

"What can be gained is an analysis of the sexism of the reporting and commenting."

Sure, but there was also a rush to judgment by many on the left. You can choose what lessons you want to learn, but that says more about your predisposition than the actual case.

"What is interesting is that there are plenty of people who think that a woman is all or partly responsible for her rape due to her clothing, sexual history and drinking in our society (as found by amnesty international), but no curcumstance whereby an accused is all or partly responsible for any false claims made against them."

First, we all agree that it's wrong to say those things about rape victims. Second, that's a bad comparison. No one here wants alleged rape victims jailed. But when the weight of the criminal justice system goes against someone, we should cut the defendants more slack. Biased coverage of a case can, as it did here, give cover for a prosecutor to drag out an illegitimate case.

To respond to some of the above: you don't have to like, feel sorry for, or get emotional about the lacrosse players. You can say they were "asking for it" a little by hiring strippers. I just wish feministing wouldn't post misleading, unreasonable messages about the case. That will get people interested in responding.

"Actually, the the attorney general of North Carolina came forward and flatly declared the three young men "innocent of these charges."

You cannot be fairly termed INNOCENT or GUILTY without a TRIAL. You are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty (as per the Constitution, ParsonJim) or aquitted. Actual innocence or guilt may never be known, save by those directly involved in the events. Legally proven guilt, or innocence by aquittal requires a trial by jury. Anything else is an OPINION. The AG saying the boys were innocent means fuckall to me. He may know more than most of us about the case and seen all the evidence, but unless he magically morphs into 12 separate people with different attitudes, perceptions and life experiences, he's not a jury, and these men have NOT been tried. His statement is "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges." Were all you folks quoting him so excited about the "innocent" part that you missed the "believe"?

"Lack of evidence" means just that. It doesn't mean innocent. Nor does it necessarily mean guilty. Sometimes innocent people get convicted, based on supposedly reliable "evidence." Sometimes guilty people go free due to a lack of it. A big part of a cop's job is doing everything by the book in an investigation to ensure that the charges stick. DAs have to go through a similar set of hoops. There's a whole lot of room for someone somewhere along the line to fuck up and queer the whole case. In some cases, the type of crime and the evidence available make the process even more complicated. It's not a remotely simple matter, or a simple either/or scenario.

The bottom line is, we don't know for CERTAIN what happened. I don't. Samhita doesn't. The AG doesn't. I don't care if you've memorized every fact of the case, or seen every scrap of evidence--you still don't know exactly what happened that night. The only people who do are the ones who were there. We only have opinions, suspicions, assumptions, etc. on what we think happened. We will never know. It's interesting that some people here are apparently outraged by others saying "These men MAY be guilty" and yet have no qualms about making statements like "these boys are obviously innocent." News flash: You don't know, either.

"It undermines the basic feminist theory: "I know what you REALLY mean, and I have psychic powers that let me see your evil thoughts."

Are you claiming you know what all feminists REALLY think?
Oh, the irony!

"But to come out and say that you're not sure if a penis was involved at any point is ridiculous."

I'm not sure I'd go that far. I've never been raped, but I do know that people sometimes block out memories that are too painful or traumatic for them to cope with. It's a psychological defense mechanism called fugue. There's a good 3 years of my childhood that's just plain *gone* for precisely that reason. I've regained only a handful of vague, fuzzy images over the years, and I'm sure if I had to testify to what I remember in court, I wouldn't be terribly convincing. Just because one person recalls a traumatic event with crystal clarity doesn't mean everyone will.

If a black man is accused of a crime he didn't commit, we don't say "well, he's probably a bad guy so who cares?"

Don't we? I think the high number of black men incarcerated in our prisons suggests otherwise.

LF- "Duke Rape Case" is one of the most popular brands of troll food! Haven't you heard the jingle? "Tear open a bag, and the trolls come a-runnin...!"

Incidentally, if anyone is wondering what my opinion is on this case, the answer is, I don't have one. I haven't done enough research on it to form an educated opinion, and I don't really care enough to bother. But I do think that Samhita made a pretty good point with this post, though many people seem to have missed it. If anyone is unfairly treated due to a presumption of guilt, we should be outraged. So why are we outraged by how the men in this case were treated, but accept the fact that the same treatment is perpetrated on PoC EVERY DAY with a yawn and a shrug? That thought hadn't occurred to me prior to reading this post, but now that I've been presented with it, I think it's dead on. There's something very wrong with that, too many of us have failed to see it, and we need to take a long hard look.
I'd like to offer my thanks to Samhita, for sharing her insight, as well as my admiration and respect--it took courage to stick your hand back into the fire again. Well done. A hat tip to Garrett and chem_fem as well; I think we're all on the same page.

...but no curcumstance whereby an accused is all or partly responsible for any false claims made against them.

Excuse me? So...they were asking for by virtue of their behavior? Well...we really have come full circle.

Personally, I'm crazy enough to believe that just as no one deserves to be raped, so also does no one deserve to be falsely accused of rape. Even the bastardiest bastard doesn't deserve a false accusation. That's just me.

Warren Farrell is another writer who insists that most rape charges--he sets it at 80percent--are false (jealous ex-girlfriends, etc.).
Samhita, while your points about sexism/classism, etc. are valid--certainly a bunch of poor black guys would have had a much worse time of it if charged--arguments like "the facts don't matter" and "we don't know what happened" just sound pathetically defensive. And I'm quite sure if the guys had been convicted and anyone said the same thing ("No matter what the jury says, we'll never know what happened that night.") you'd be outraged.
Maybe the women who supported the team were selling out; maybe they had a better view of the case than you. To argue that it's irrelevant whether the guys are actually innocent is nonsense.
And the idea that keeps cropping up on this thread that if the false accusations bring the players more awareness, some good has been done is just creepy. It's the same logic TV shows use with prison rape—"Hey, we couldn't get the death penalty for that guy, but at least he'll be raped a lot behind bars!"

"But I do think that Samhita made a pretty good point with this post, though many people seem to have missed it. If anyone is unfairly treated due to a presumption of guilt, we should be outraged."

I really don't see that point in her post, and I don't see any "outrage" in it about three innocent people being treated unfairly. And your points about us not being able to accept video evidence that someone was not present during an alleged crime just because 12 jurors didn't see it is bizarre. The jury is a safeguard, not some magical process by which, and only by which, we can understand the truth!

This is my first response on this topic -

And many here will agree that my opinions are 50/50 split with the cult leaders here at feministing, and their very loyal following. (kind a fiddler/rat type thing goes on here a lot)

That being said - I think a lot did miss the point. This should be an eye opener for a lot of people.

Take yourself out of any presumptions for a moment. What if this was you? Being that it does happen every single day, why are we so shocked it happened here?

Lets reverse the situation - Lets take white woman black male. How quickly would he have been locked up in spite of any real evidence?

How many black men have been set free (and white, but not nearly as much) due to DNA evidence (20 years after rotting in jail)?

Now, how many have paid the price and will never be proven innocent?

The problem still exists regardless of the outcome, or situation -

Our arrest/conviction/legal system has some serious flaws. Waiting until you find yourself on the short end (or someone like you) of the stick, is not the time to get upset. Now is the time to change the system. Blacks and other minorities have dealt with the pain and suffering for all too long, and white america should really be ashamed it takes an injustice to one of their own to really care.

Actually, I feel disgusted I never really cared until this case. And so should many of you. It proves just how selfish and self-centered many of us can be.

Props to the original poster on this. Good, heartfelt points in your logic.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/13/duke.lawsuit.ap/index.html

And all the bashers need to read the 4 line in the summary at the very top

"Experts say case may have merit; prosecutors usually have immunity"

None of us are the experts in this matter. They may be guilty. They may be innocent. Who the hell really knows? Only them.

But, just like the bride who cried kidnapping, should we use that as fodder to take kidnappings any less seriously?

People make false police reports and claims all the time. This is why there are laws against it. If they are caught, they will be punished accordingly. Accept the fact, that in a free society, some people abuse the system for their gain, and may not get caught. It happens.

We have no right to accuse her or the boys of any wrong doing. We can only have our opinions.

The laxers are innocent, says the AG, who's seen the evidence.
Juries don't say people are innocent. Juries say people are "not guilty", the unspoken point being they may be guilty but the prosecution hasn't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the state is forbidden to punish them. We can have our opinions, as with the OJ trial.
In this case, a guy who, with his staff, has looked at all the evidence, did not say anything about "not guilty" or "insufficient evidence". He said the evidence is that the guys are innocent.
Opinions are free, and worth the price, but they don't match facts.

If this post's concern were really about sexual violence, we wouldn't see the lack of interest in another rape in Durham, this time with a black perp and a white vic.
Larry Moneta, that disgusting subhuman speaking for Duke, said that people in this age group frequently engage in social experimentation and sometimes pay a price. In other words, shit happens, lady.
And, of course, the Knoxville case of kidnapping, rape, torture, mutilation and murder isn't getting much ink, either.

Nope. For some, race is the issue and the other stuff is either a disguise or secondary.
If the lineup is right, white perp, black vic, raise the roof. Reverse theh lineup and it's.... Nada.

I agree with the article for the most part. I really do believe that this case has had a dramatic effect on how the public views rape accusations.

I'd like to bring up a personal story that very much relates to this.

When I was younger, my father was accused of raping and beating his girlfriend. For about 2 years he battled in court loosing hundreds of thousands of dollars. He nearly lost his career as he was unable to travel..yadda yadda lots of restrictions.

There was very little evidence to support the claim that she had been raped. Ultimately the charges were dismissed and the case was thrown out, about 2 years after the inititial arrest. Last I heard he was considering sueing his accuser.

Whether my father was guilty or not, I dunno. I do know it wasn't the first time he was accused of assulting a woman. Other times the women were strangers or aquaintance.

My beef is, that too many times this shit happens. Too many times there's lack of evidence (duh unless someone was beaten senseless there's never much evidence)Too many times these cases just get dismissed!

Now then, my point-

I am terribly worried that the accused will begin sueing their accusers once they cases are dropped. It scares me to death because I do believe that too often , rape victims never see justice. To have them further victimized is horrendous to think about.

First of all, EJ, it's ridiculous to say Tom-- whose posts have been liberally doused with terms like "race-baiting" and who has disparaged "radical feminists" and "academics" for daring to discuss issues of race--has not been "rude." (Not sure if there is more than one Tom by now...the earlier Tom posts.) Maybe not a "troll" in the sense of being deliberately provocative for its OWN sake...I get the sense these are his genuine beliefs, and well, that makes him a bigot blinded by his own privilege, if not a troll.

Second of all, Samhita HAS been making a very legitimate, and very brave point about the context in which this case has played out, and unless you're working really hard not to read that in what she's written, it's very clear in my reading of her post. It's not just a matter of one man, Nifong, creating an epic and whipping the whole nation into a frenzy all by his little lonesome. The reason we're all so aware of the utter minutiae of this case and still talking about it so heatedly is that the accused were privileged white guys and the accuser was poor and black and a stripper, and this struck on a lot of longstanding cultural myths and stereotypes and painful legacies all at once.

Yes there were many who may have "sided" with the accuser right away (probably because many of us regularly encounter the frightening sense of entitlement of certain privileged others every day and see how this can and does lead to dehumanization and violence), but NOW--now, the incredible sense of moral outrage on these guys' behalf--specifically and uniquely these guys-- is quite telling. There was a recent (very brief, very missable) story on a news program about a working-class black man convicted of a rape, pre-DNA-testing-era. (No, the victim was not lying about his identity or having been raped, the perpetrator was masked or something and, well, whatever, look it up yourselves.) ANYWAY, he served 10+ years and the courts initially denied his requests for DNA analysis (when the technology had finally caught up), for no good reason. He was eventually, finally cleared and compensated by the state, and now works as a prison advocate. Where was the moral outrage on his behalf, he who was wrongfully CONVICTED, and lost a decade or more of his life? Where was the publicity? Where was the complaining about the system and its potential abuses of power THEN? Oh, you didn't even KNOW about that case? Right. That's the fucking point.

The Duke players MAY have gotten a taste of something other than the "good life," but it's really only a taste, and I don't think we can assume it will change their worldview for good. It's not completely analogous to what impoverished, marginalized, PoC experience when wrongfully accused or profiled, because the Duke players had a shitload of resources, parents with powerful voices, and each other. They had an accuser with the kind of background their attorneys and conservative pundits could get a lot of mileage out of. I also wouldn't take their inspirational, quotable quotes without a large grain of salt, considering the larger PR context they're operating in. I mean, really.

"Experts say case may have merit; prosecutors usually have immunity"

Scilian,

This does not refer to the case against the three men. It refers to lacrosse players' possible civil case against DA Nifong.

"You will not shame me."

Well, that's obvious. Some people just don't have it in them. It's not their nature.

Justice was served.

The accused will probably benefit from this in the long run (I can only imagine the doors this will open for them in the white corporate world).

Nifong will become a verb like "Bork" ("they're getting Nifonged").

And unless the accuser has some kind of disorder (which is how some legal analysts heve interpreted the AG's decision not to pursue charges against her), she will be the one wearing the scarlet letter.

Just curious; do we think the late great Ed Bradley was a racist misogynist too (his 60 minutes peice was the beginning of the end of this debacle)?

You cried wolf, even after the facts no longer supported it. You may not be shamed, but you have lost much credibility (not that you care - your Coulteresque style will always be popular among the true believers).

oh yea sorry, I forgot to add this to my point-

which is why I agree with what Samhita says about the social and political immpact of this case is so much more important than the "evidence". I'm paraphrasing but at least that's what I got from the article. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

"Yes, I see the trolls are out and oenophile's other personality is out too. Please remember this, y'all, when the warm and snuggly oenophile comes back out to play." FOR REAL,
just go read the recent abstinance threads if you want an example of "woe is poor oppressed me" oenophile...and as to her/his engineering degree & law training, that has naught to do with feminist threory, as you can comfortably sail through almost any university with nary a Women's Studies course...

And for god's sake, this whole "but it makes it harder for real victims to be believed" argument is SO not the point, and frankly, a strawman. Yeah, for some asshole sexist bigots, I'm sure it does make it harder. But, as Scilian just mentioned about kidnapping, it is not the case with ANY OTHER criminal offenses that ALL victims have to be on their very best behavior just to be believed, nor is it the case with ANY OTHER criminal offenses that the credibility of EVERY accuser depends on the credibility of EVERY previous accuser. The particulars of any one case, unless there's some landmark judgment that goes into the books as an important legal precedent, should not have any bearing whatsoever on any subsequent, different accuser's credibility. And don't say, well, you're right, it's not fair but it's just "reality." Reality is something we all create together, and we can all challenge together, not something that is static and set in stone. The higher burden society presumes rape victims should bear in order to be credible and believed is an offensive and outrageous situation and if you want to assign blame for it, it should be assigned to the broader culture and the system as a whole, not to individual people who lie. Guess what? Individual people lie all the time, in every possible context, without sweeping generalizations made about all mambers of their social or occupational or other demographic group. Women and rape, though, for "some reason" that's an exception, and too many people are complicit in it.

Hey there.

I'm pretty confused about this whole case. Didn't the woman/accuser have her fingernails ripped off? Weren't there pretty obvious signs of a "struggle"?

These guys are big losers. Maybe they aren't rapists, maybe they are. But that email about skinning the women, and yelling racist things at women walking by-that's bad. BAD. These aren't "nice guys" who got screwed over by the system. These are not nice guys at all-so why are so many people rushing to their defense? I have no doubt that something happened that night. I just don't know what it was. And neither do any of us. The only people that know are the people that were there. Who knows-maybe some day one of these men will come forward with the truth. The truth of WHATEVER bad thing happened there that night.

And, if the accuser was totally and completely lying about the assault-well, I still think those are bad guys. There is definitely enough evidence for me to convict them of being asswipes, sexist and racist piggies. And I hope women know enough to stay away from that house, and from those men.

As for the accuser, I wonder what will happen to her? I wonder if she'll get treatment, I hope so. Whatever she went through, she deserves support. If she did just make the whole thing up, she obviously still needs help.

But I have to agree with the non-trollass posters, this is bigger than one woman vs. 3 men. This is about race, class and gender issues. Remember the Kobe Bryant case? It still makes me sick that that rapist is out there making millions of $$, and has a huge fan base.

I also have to HIGHLY disagree with the posters who say that during a rape, you are 100% aware of what is happening to you. Maybe that's what your experience was like-and of course I would never minimize that or take that away from anyone. However, to suggest that YOUR experience of rape is the ONLY experience is absolutely appalling. I was raped when I was drunk and dissociating, so there are large parts that I don't remember AT ALL. So, are you calling me a liar? Saying it didn't happen?

NOthing came out about this woman that made me feel like she was a bad person, but PLENTY came out about these men that made me feel that they are bad people.

I don't know whether this case "should" cause us or others to view claims of being raped with more scepticism.
But it will.

Just to make it clearer, let's have a hypothetical situation where the next ten high-profile rape cases are shown to be the results of clearly demonstrable false accusations.

How could that not affect public perception of the next rape claim?

The question is what to do about the issue.

One suggestion is to hammer the false accuser hard. This would have the effect of deterring future false accusers, thus decreasing the number of false accusations and gradually increasing the credibility of future accusations.

It is in women's interest to be believed when they have a valid accusation of rape. It would seem reasonable to think women would be, therefore, energetic in stopping false accusations.

I don't know the answer, but not addressing it will not help women with valid accusations.

"And calling a woman a bad word, or even several bad words, deserves a rape allegation? I guess that makes them both even: He called her a nasty name and she leveled the full weight of the justice system after him for something he didn't do.

And that kind of attitude is why rape victims are accused of making things up to get back at people for minor things."

Actually, rape victims are not accused of making things up to get back at people because of opinions like mine. They were generally accused of that long before feminism and the general attitude that women don't deserve sexual harassment ever became remotely popular.

And if you will reread my post, I did not say he deserved a false rape allegation. In fact, I'm fairly sure nobody on this thread did (the OP said it would teach them what it's like to be discriminated against, which is totally different than saying /anyone/ /deserves/ to be discriminated against).

I am merely suggesting perhaps being a misogynistic asshole /should/ be illegal. Have you ever been a woman and/or experienced a high level of sexual harassment? I don't think being accused of a crime is nearly as bad as actually having one committed against you, no. I don't think it's necessarily fair for anyone to be falsely accused, but I do think these boys will get over it and probably have fine lives. I think the woman in the case will have a much harder life, and that would be the case whether or not she ever made these allegations. But are govt is really not interested in taking care of poor people and sex workers to a great degree. I simply don't see this case as an out-and-out win or a victory for America.

And to whoever said that suggesting these boys may be guilty of something is what puts poor, brown people in prison. It really is not. The argument with colored people being discriminated against in the legal system is that rich, white men hold most of the power in this country and are over-represented in the legal system, so your average jury and general public is more likely to make a presumption of innocense of rich, white men, and guilt against poor, black men and women. It happens all the time. And if you have difficulty believing it, I think perhaps you have never had anything real happen to you. If things were switched and poor, black people were in power, then I'd agree it was the same thing. A wise professor once said: Privilige is invisible to those who have it.

But really, to those who are glad about the way the case was resolved and not at all bothered by the way it was handled in the media:
Ask yourselves -have you experienced a lot of sexual harassment, or have you ever harassed someone else? Have you been discriminated against? Do you think women sometimes deserve harassment? Are you inclined to believe women who allege rape or not?
Scary shit goes on in this country; if the saddening statistics about crimes against women and the rampant incarcerations of black men for minor things were true for white men, you bet your arse are government would be taking steps to try and reduce these societal problems. I mean, if 1 out of 4 20-yr-old white men experienced rape, would one little case with a possibly false allegation have been characterized this way, as the ultimate battle of good vs. evil (false allegation)?

"I am merely suggesting perhaps being a misogynistic asshole /should/ be illegal."

I AGREE!!!!!!

"I am merely suggesting perhaps being a misogynistic asshole /should/ be illegal."

Good luck with that. I don't think you'll find much support for thought crime, though.

"How could that not affect public perception of the next rape claim?

The question is what to do about the issue.

One suggestion is to hammer the false accuser hard. This would have the effect of deterring future false accusers, thus decreasing the number of false accusations and gradually increasing the credibility of future accusations."

You don't get it. You do not have experience with rape of yourself or a loved one. The majority of actual rape cases will not get a conviction in court, because it's damn hard to prove. False accusations are not nearly as common as true ones in court. It's scary as shit to report a rape. It's not something most women would do just to get back at someone. You all who think it's so important to target individuals in this (somewhat unique) case, you who are looking for a witchhunt. You can find many, many cases where someone who according to the evidence probably should have been convicted and either isn't or is given a lighter sentence than one might expect. Poke around the feministing.com site for awhile and you'll find some noteworthy cases. Do you get all into a huff everytime a sexual perpetrator gets off easy? I hope so, because I will repeat, being a victim of a sexual crime is a heck of a lot worse and the effects are last longer than being a victim of a false allegation.

Thought crime? lol-I mean when people actually take actions based on hating women. Like, when a man harasses me on the street, I think that should be illegal. Just as one little example.

...and I'm the one who is disrespectful and condescending. Sorry, babe. Engineering degree. Legal education. But apparently, I'm dumb, because some twit thinks that only pro-abortionists are smart.
A degree doesn't make a person smart, you're living proof of it. Now, go out & read The Feminine Mystique, The Second Sex, or anything by bell hooks, then maybe we can have a normal conversation. Babe.
And no, I'm not pro-abortionist, but I do believe women should have physical autonomy with what they do with their own bodies. Oenophile, I promise, the next time you get pregnant, I'll support whatever choice you make.

"Thought crime? lol-I mean when people actually take actions based on hating women."

I'm no lawyer, but I think we already have laws against that.

But thanx for clarifying your previous comment.

This thread's getting out of control, but for what it's worth, I want to clarify my previous comments on this (I think some may have misunderstood).

A LOT of people are using their purported "moral outrage" at the "injustice" here as a smokescreen for their real agenda: normalizing the sexual abuse and harassment of women. It's fortuitous for y'all that you won this one -- now you're all being disgustingly bad sports and rubbing our faces in your tiny victory. Oh noes, a false accusation! Those never EVER happen, except and especially in RAPE cases!

Give me a fucking break. False accusations happen every fucking day, for all kinds of crimes. It's the NATURE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Don't like it, talk to your legislator. Make it impossible to prosecute crimes. That'll work well.

No injustice was perpetrated against these snot-nosed kids. They were accused of and charged with a crime. The prosecutor later determined that there was insufficient evidence to go through with a trial and drop the charges. Happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

And yet, you people take issue with THIS ONE case. Suddenly, in spite of the fact that charges are brought and dropped EVERY SINGLE DAY in EVERY STATE in this country, somehow THIS one is SO HORRIFICALLY AWFUL that it's an "injustice" and an "abuse of the system."

I question the motivations of anyone who is railing against the injustice in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, who didn't also rail against the injustices in the other cases I've referenced. My criminal law professor used to be a defense attorney in Arkansas. He told us stories that chilled me to the bone. A defendant CLEARLY incompetent to stand trial allowed to argue a full forty-five minutes with the judge at a bail hearing (denied bail, of course, because he stated on the record that the judge was a demon who was punishing him for being God's messenger of light). Mentally retarded defendants sentenced to life in prison without even understanding what the charges against them were. Indigent defendants receiving, effectively, no defense whatsoever because of the pay structure for public defenders (IIRC, while he worked there they got the equivalent of payment for about 8 hours of work TOTAL per defendant, no matter how long or how complex the case) -- and not having the means to pursue their valid malpractice claims.

THAT is fucking injustice. THAT is something to get outraged about. You have people spending their LIVES IN PRISON. You have people BEING SENTENCED TO DEATH. Who never even got a fair trial. They're not rich enough to get the kind of media exposure (and subsequent outrage) that these kids got. This wasn't injustice. This was a relatively good day in the life of our flawed justice system.

That you focus on a RAPE case makes it clear why THIS CASE is so much more important than the actual injustices that occur in our system every day. It's because you think rape is overcriminalized. As someone who has seen the LIFE-RUINING effects of "date rape", this makes me sick to my stomach.

Don't be naive. This media exposure HELPED these boys, who are generally acknowledged to be racist, misogynist pricks. YOU guys are the ones who should worry about which people you stand behind -- if THIS is the best example you can find of injustice, well. Then our system looks to be in pretty fucking good shape, I'd say.

And that's probably the worst injustice of all.

Richard Aubrey, you have completely missed the point and your argument (if that's what it is) is a strawman. The question is not "what to do about the issue" of false accusers, as if coming down on them somehow makes it all fine and just and easy for "real" accusers. The real question is why we allow rape accusers to be treated as ONE HOMOGENOUS GROUP in terms of their potential credibility and righteousness and "worth" as victims, while this is not the case for the accusers / victims of any other crime / offense. It's ridiculous, which apparently you are unable to see, and you are perpetuating it.

And more generally, can you perhaps accept that you are not an expert when it comes to women's lived experience? I mean, can you try to wrap your head around that one? I commend you for any honest discussion and dialogue you may come to engage in, but when actual women are telling you something about the experience of women, maybe you could try to listen.

law fairy, i think i love you :)

"I question the motivations of anyone who is railing against the injustice in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, who didn't also rail against the injustices in the other cases I've referenced."

Amen to that.

This case brought out the loons on both sides. You had the "lying slut" crowd, and the "raping bastards" crowd. The evidence was irrelevant to both groups (as Samhita was honest enough to admit - "Because the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here").

But I also question the motivations of anyone who railed against the injustices in those other cases you mentioned, but didn't also rail against the injustice in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

Both groups are equally hypocritical.

wow... talk about a runaway thread...

charity, nina, TLF, sami, and so on... y'all are doing a bang up job... but it's only worth writing if the folks responding to you read what you wrote.

no one on here cried wolf... pretty much from the get, sami has only written in regards to the coverage of the case as opposed to any actual guilt or innocence...

no one ever argued that these boys deserved anything at all, just that they got a taste of injustice, which, if you put your thinking cap on, implies that they suffered an injustice.

oh. my. fucking. god.

but, hey, all y'all mrm folks can keep arguing up your strawmans and enjoying the privileges of being white guys with nothing better to do than invent your own victimization and pretend you're a rebel...

it really sucks, though, because dialog - real dialog - would bring us to a place where, maybe, justice could actually be carried out once in a while.

but that wouldn't work out so well for the folks on top, so i guess that's not an option...

rev rev rev

Law Fairy, I...I think I love you. ^.^
Seriously, you want to get worked up about false accusations? Do some research about the West Memphis Three. THEY have had their lives ruined.
I'm not condoning false rape allegations. I think the truth of the case lies somewhere in between what both sides are claiming.
What makes me lean in favor of the defendant are several studies that I've read regarding male behavior in groups--like fraternities or sports teams--and how the close-knit nature of the group can lead to terrible behavior & how it's difficult for group members to stop the behavior from within.
I come from NJ & in 1989 a group of football players from Glenn Ridge raped a mentally retarded teenage girl. I'm pretty sure this has been made into a Lifetime movie & there's a book about it called Our Guys. What's disturbing about the case is how pretty much the whole town rallied around the football players, how their boys could never do something like that. I saw something similar happening with the Duke case & that really influenced my opinion.

Charity--if the names are at the bottom of the post--I do listen to women telling me about their lived lives. I'm related to quite a number of them. The only story faintly unsettling is one who had to tell a guy "no" twice while on a date in college.

Speaking of Duke, which we were, I believe some research at Duke found that one in four women in college would be raped during their stay. It was done by survey. Turned out the women in question mostly didn't know they'd been raped. The researcher had arbitrarily called "rape" any slightest uninvited groping no matter how quickly stopped and no matter how obsequiously apolgized for. Some women found they were actually dating their very own--by the researcher's definition--rapist. Imagine that.
Uninvited groping may not be laudable dating behavior, but it isn't rape and it is normal.
The one-in-four number got people's attention and then the methodology disgusted them. Redefining an offense to punch up the numbers risks hauling in skim milk that will impress nobody, or impress them negatively, once the secret is out.

I intervened in two assaults where rape might, or might not, have been on the program. Do I get an attaboy, or am I working against the activists by artificially reducing the numbers?

I have apparently been remiss. I haven't raped anybody and the only guy I ever heard who might have been telling the truth--he lied a lot--about something that might have been rape went to jail shortly thereafter for something having to do with federal fraud issues.
And I'm sixty-two. I've been a jock (lax, football, judo), a frat boy, and an Infantryman.
I guess I've been in the wrong place at the right time, a lot, or something.

You can't insist that false rape claims never happen. So they must happen at some rate. The question is what effect they have on the public and legal perception of rape claims. It can't be nothing. What can be done?

It seems to me there is a fear that working to reduce false claims raises the possibility of publicizing the issue, thus making things worse. That's possible, but if it happens, it would be short-term, and, the effort, if successful, would more than make up for it.

Richard, you just did a really stupid, stupid thing. You posted:

[i]Turned out the women in question mostly didn't know they'd been raped. The researcher had arbitrarily called "rape" any slightest uninvited groping no matter how quickly stopped and no matter how obsequiously apolgized for. [/i] Either you are stupid, lazy, or a liar.

Which one is it?

Tom said:
"The jury is a safeguard, not some magical process by which, and only by which, we can understand the truth!"

This is true. Unfortunately it is not what I said. I said only those directly involved in an incident can ever know The Truth, so the best the rest of us can do when their stories conflict is attempt to come up with an official, legal version of the truth, which we determine by means of a jury trial. Why do you think the legal system is so complex? It's certainly not perfect, as I stated in my previous post, but what else is there? The court of public opinion is extremely biased, because it's based on opinions. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to harm others with impunity, but neither should law-abiding citizens be subjected to false criminal accusations. So what do we do? We have a trial, in which not one, but twelve different people--who have been deliberately segregated from any influence of public opinion--must reach an unanimous conclusion.
My point, since you clearly missed it, is that until a trial has taken place, there is no official determination of guilt or innocence. Therefore, when we apply labels like "guilty" or "innocent" to a person, we are stating our OPINIONS. I don't have any problem with someone stating their opinion on this case. I take issue with people acting like the guilt or innocence of the accused is a given FACT when there has been no trial. A jury is not "some magical process by which...we can understand the truth," but I'm afraid it's more reliable and less likely to be biased than the "magical process" by which some commenter on a blog came to their conclusion, and as such, carries a bit more weight with me.

"And your points about us not being able to accept video evidence that someone was not present during an alleged crime just because 12 jurors didn't see it is bizarre."

Funny, I didn't argue this either. So, are you saying that the fact that one of the men who was accused wasn't present at the time of the alleged rape (according to a videotape) means that NONE of them were? Would that make them "innocent by association"?

You and the rest of us still don't know what happened. We never will know exactly what happened. There still has been no trial, so there is no official, legal determination of what happened. There will never be one, now. Therefore it is inappropriate to refer to the accused as either innocent or guilty as if it were a certainty. If you are going to lambast others for saying "GUILTY!" then it would be wise to curtail your own cries of "INNOCENT!" Or take a hint from the AG, and preface your opinions with "I believe." I don't care what anyone's opinion is--I only object to people stating those opinions as fact.

That was, and is, my point.

Scilian - I'll add you to my list of hi-5s. I think we're on the same page. Actually, you articulated my secondary point better than I did, and more concisely. Thanks.

Honestly, I wonder how many of these comments are rooted in people's desire to do the victory dance and shout "Ha-ha, in your FACE!" to the "losing" side? If you're just here to gloat, please do it and move on. If you expect anyone to grovel in abject apology for being "wrong," forget it. It wasn't that decisive a "victory." In any case, your self-indulgence is obscuring the real point of this post, which is to question why we ignore injustice until it falls on the heads of the wealthy, white and privileged. It's a point that deserves discussion, unlike the Duke case, which has by now been rehashed to death, and can be put to bed.

BTW, in case anyone is interested in why Mr. Audbry is either stupid, lazy, or a liar, the Koss study, which he doesn't name while he maligns it, used the LEGAL DEFINITION of rape. Many of those surveyed didn't call their experience rape. It was rape nonetheless.

"last night i saw Bill O'Rielly and Dennis Miller talking about how these Duke kids should sue the prosecuter and the woman...who pressed the charges. not that i expect anything intelligent to come out of either of those men's mouths, but wouldn't that be a lovely precedent to set?"

Um, yes, actually. That people (not just women) who attempt to ruin innocent people's lives by making false accusations will pay consequences for it. And this woman was, not incidentally, trying to gain from all of the women (and men) who really HAVE been victimized by rape.

And I agree with concealing the identity of an accuser, but if you do that you MUST also conceal the identity of the accused; otherwise, it's a free-for-all for anyone with a grudge to accuse someone of a crime (s)he didn't commit. Those of you who think what happened to these lacrosse players wasn't a big deal: would you enjoy being accused of a crime -- say, child molestation -- and have your name splashed all over the media (where it will be forever etched into search engines, regardless of the outcome of the case)? Would you like to hear that, because child molestation is a serious matter, your cries of innocence should automatically be discounted?

EJ, you have my sympathy and support for your horrible ordeal, and also my thanks (the same goes for all of you with similar views) for being clear-headed enough to see that fighting violent crime and fighting false accusations are not mutually exclusive goals.

Jenna, don't forget the part where he (Richard A) called uninvited groping of women "normal." COMMON does not make it "normal," Richard. There's a rather key distinction there. And the part where he tellingly insinuates that "activists" secretly want more rapes to happen to drive up the numbers and prove how oppressed we are. That's an argument of desperation if I've ever heard one.

Richard, we can't have a real discussion when you don't actually read what we post (to quote puckalish). No one's arguing that false rape accusations never occur. You put that in our mouths. Go back and read what was written already, I'm not going to waste more of my time repeating it.

Thank you for your service. I've no doubt you have some areas of knowledge and expertise; however, you've amply demonstrated that anything to do with this issue is not among them.

"Speaking of Duke, which we were, I believe some research at Duke found that one in four women in college would be raped during their stay. It was done by survey. Turned out the women in question mostly didn't know they'd been raped. The researcher had arbitrarily called "rape" any slightest uninvited groping no matter how quickly stopped and no matter how obsequiously apolgized for. Some women found they were actually dating their very own--by the researcher's definition--rapist. Imagine that.
Uninvited groping may not be laudable dating behavior, but it isn't rape and it is normal.
The one-in-four number got people's attention and then the methodology disgusted them. Redefining an offense to punch up the numbers risks hauling in skim milk that will impress nobody, or impress them negatively, once the secret is out.

I intervened in two assaults where rape might, or might not, have been on the program. Do I get an attaboy, or am I working against the activists by artificially reducing the numbers?"

Find me the exact wording of that survey. I'm sure it didn't use the word "rape" but I'd be surprised if it included merely groping. Irregardless, many more comprehensive, professional, /government-commissioned/ surveys have been done that also show a 1 in 4 statistic. Yes, the unfortunate reality is that many women date men who do not respect their boundaries, or presume sexual rights to their bodies. It's not okay. Historically, culturally, it has been considered okay by a lot of people, but that does not make it okay. Even unwanted groping. Being born with a vag doesn't somehow make it seem more natural or less psychologically disturbing when you suddenly become a teenager and suddenly start dealing with these things on a personal level.

So you stopped what might have become sexual assaults? Good. It's what I'd expect /any half-decent individual to do/.

And for the record, so many women don't talk frankly about their negative sexual experiences, /especially/ to men. I don't think being a 60 some-odd male who has known some women makes you an expert on most women's experiences.

There's a problem with that, bmmg39. There are cases where rape occurs, but is very difficult to prove. If the woman is subdued and cannot fight (or is too frightened, or is drugged, or drunk, etc. etc. etc.) there may be little physical evidence. If he uses a condom, there will be no semen. There are any number of other reasons why this is a difficult crime to prove in many instances.

If a woman is brave enough to file charges against a man who really raped her and then has the charges dropped due to lack of evidence, what would happen then? She would be subject to further victimization from the very man who raped her. He would work to "clear" his name, even though he was guilty. And she would continue to suffer through no fault of her own.

You don't see how this would work to even further reduce reporting of this already-under-reported crime?

I was drugged at a party and sexually assaulted. I never bothered to report the crime because by the time I had come back to myself enough to know what had really happened, I wouldn't have been able to prove it. I spoke to a cop friend of mine from out of state who said that by the time I was ready to talk to someone, the drug would already have passed out of my system. And because I was so out of it, I didn't fight him and there were no physical signs on me.

So. We have women who really are sexually assaulted and raped who can't do anything about getting their attackers punished. Should we then further punish the women who were brave enough to try, but didn't succeed, just because a few women don't tell the truth?

bmmg39:
I will answer you. As someone who also knows victims of child molestation. It would not be fun to be falsely accused, but the last thing I would do is become very angry with my accuser. Because I know these things happen, and are horrific. Even if it wasn't be who committed the molestation, maybe somebody else did, and so this person's trauma is real. If I am innocent, I will probably be proven innocent, given how hard it is and how good your evidence has to be to get a guilty verdict anyway. Yes, I'm sure it might affect my reputation some. But I can tell people I'm innocent, and the court found be innocent, and I do not thing it would be the worst thing that has happened in my life so far. (And adding to all that, the lacrosse players had a lot of the American public strongly supporting them, something people accused of child molestation do not often get)

*must not get into flamewar with rape apologist*

*must not get into flamewar with rape apologist*

*must not get into flamewar with rape apologist*

....*deep breath* Right, I'm okay now. I'm good.

Kimmy,

Note: When I say "rape" in the next two paragraphs, I mean either forced vaginal or anal intercourse. (I recognise that my proposed rule does not apply to very egregious forms of sexual assault that are basically rape.)

To try to answer your question, I wouldn't mind a rule where proof of intercourse is enough to protect a woman from charges about bringing a false accusation. If she can prove that sex occurred (either DNA of the alleged rapist or, if he used a condom, vaginal trauma indicating recent sex) that would be a per se shield to anything the alleged rapist might try to charge her with.

It's a very low standard and would only allow really egregious false charges (i.e. where no sex occurred) to be prosecuted. It would provide a small measure of comfort to men who never even had sex with the woman. If they had sex, it is per se reasonable to say that there could have been, at the very least, a misunderstanding about consent. (This does not mean that all rape is mere misunderstanding - it's just the lowest possible threshold, IMO, for a reasonable charge of rape!)

Of course, there could be other legal protections for women who bring rape charges as well (such as dropping the charges does not automatically mean that he can file suit against her, or having other methods of proving some not irrational basis for bringing the charges), but a per se rule would go far in protecting women against yet another layer of hardship in bringing forth charges. Of course, it would also protect men, too (I know y'all hate to hear, "What about the men!!") - because what's good for women has a really odd way of being good for society as a whole.

"no one on here cried wolf... pretty much from the get, sami has only written in regards to the coverage of the case as opposed to any actual guilt or innocence..."

A brief search turned up these quotes:

"Furthermore, in terms of white women being complicit in their own oppression, several of the women interviewed in this piece when asked about the rape responded with things like, " well she was a stripper. . ." Which, in their frame of mind, obviously makes it okay to rape her. Apparently some types of rape are just better left overlooked."

Asking people about "the rape" (instead of "the accusation" or "alleged rape") seems to indicate that she believed "the rape" occurred.

And how about this one in a post discussing how she was attacked for declaring the accused guilty:

"We will continue to speak our truths."

The truth being, of course, that the accused are guilty.

And let's not forget the "kill the nazi rapists" post where she called the Duke Women's Lacrosse team stupid for being right about the case.

But if you mean that she didn't cry wolf because she was right (and the accused are guilty), I can't help you there

oenophile, requiring that sex be shown still doesn't really work, though. I'll give an example.

Let's upgrade my experience to full vaginal rape, just for the argument. Now, the previous night I had sex with the guy I was at the party with (the one who eventually pulled me out of the car and kept it from being worse in the first place, but I digress).

Anyway, I'd had sex less than twenty-four hours before my attack. So how could anyone prove that any indications I had were of the rape, and not of my consensual sexual experience? And you can't argue that the rape would necessarily have been more violent. Especially with a drugged victim. Not all rapists are violent with their victims, particularly when they don't have to subdue them. So it might not have left any different evidence than my consensual sexual experience.

I know that I'm not the only woman who's ever been assaulted within a day or less of a consensual sexual experience. So requiring evidence of some kind of sex doesn't protect anyone. The defense lawyers would just say that the evidence was from the consensual sex, that my charges were totally unfounded, etc. etc. and we're back where we started.

There's no way you could manage this so that victims aren't in danger of being further victimized. And, as you said, that still does nothing to protect victims of sexual assualts that don't involve full penetration.

However unfortunate the unfolding of this case, as a white upper-middle-class woman who attended Ivy League schools, I have to say there was an undeniable grain of truth in Samhita's original post way back when (which got obscured in the excessively emotional WOC good/white man bad rhetoric that this board unfortunately falls back on too easily). There is a subset of women in colleges who are so desperate for men's approval that they will blindly support the men whether it's fair and rational or not. This does play into issues of race and also class, and the desire to be on the inside by identifying with these men who are part of the power elite. And yeah, sorry to say it to all the sexually liberated readers here (of which I am one), but the hook-up culture that teaches men to devalue women is part of this equation too. There is a steady supply of willing collaborators, so the men do not have to tolerate any women with feminist or otherwise "difficult" viewpoints. Basically as a woman in this social circle (by which I mean lacrosse players and their ilk, which fortunately is far from the only social circle in most schools), you are expected to put up or shut up, at least until you're in your late 20s when hopefully both sexes have more confidence and more conscience and people begin to stand for what they really believe.

oenophile,

I don't usually use the term, but that is such an ignorant, ignorant idea. (Again, my perspective as someone trained to work with victims). Many women do not want to go to the hospital right after an attack. The procedure by which medical staff collects DNA is a long, invasive one that takes a few hours. Furthermore, many women do not even realize what has happened to them was illegal until too long after the attack to get evidence. I am not sure if the same is true for older women, but so many teenagers and young women do not realize all of their sexual rights according to the law. Something may happen to them that doesn't seem right, somehow, and it is only quite awhile later upon talking to an advocate or a counselor that they finally feel comfortable calling it assault. The evidence collection system is currently set up so that if a woman /does/ go straight to the hospital to get DNA collected, the evidence can be preserved for many months in case the woman eventually decides she wants to press charges. Of course, the ability to make a case weakens over time, but the point is even our current justice system recognizes the rights of people to press charges without doing everything perfectly to collect evidence. Punishing accusers who don't win a trial is the worst thing I've heard. Did you know that that is the way it works in some middle eastern countries (I'm thinking Afghanistan, but I don't quite remember)? Recently I saw a U.S. news article lambasting the country that had that law. But of course, we also wrote into the Iraqi constitution that 1 out of 4 govt officials in Iraq have to be female. America as an institution is incredibly hypocritical.

Kimmy,

It would provide very incomplete protection to men who were falsely accused, yes.

In your example, you would be shielded from a countersuit for filing a false police report, EVEN IF you could not conclusively demonstrate that you had sex with this particular guy or that this particular guy (not your boyfriend) caused any damage.

If your concern is one for men who, under my rule, could not bring valid suits, I understand your complaint. I envision the rule as applying whether or not you can prove that you had sex with THAT particular person: in short, you should not be held to a courtroom-like standard of proof of your claim in order to fight off a counterclaim.

You would, in your scenario, simply demonstrate that you had sexual intercourse within the time frame of the (alleged) rape in order to be shielded from a counterclaim on false charges. There would be no requirement to prove that it was with that particular person. If you claimed that he used a condom, you would not need DNA evidence.

Yeah, a few decent men would be prevented from seeking justice under that rule, but it would at least add a solid layer of protection for women.

Am I making sense? I'm running on two hours of sleep and a caramel macchiato.

“I'm pretty confused about this whole case.“ - Buggle

Obviously.

“Didn't the woman/accuser have her fingernails ripped off?� - Buggle

No. A few of her fake nails were found in the bathroom garbage can. There was no evidence that they were “ripped off�.

“Weren't there pretty obvious signs of a "struggle"?� - Buggle

There were no signs of a struggle in the bathroom, nor on the accuser.

“These guys are big losers. Maybe they aren't rapists, maybe they are. But that email about skinning the women, and yelling racist things at women walking by-that's bad.� - Buggle

The email was not written by the accused. Kim (the second dancer) made the call to police about yelling racist things to people on the street. She admitted that she was lying. For the record, there is no evidence that any of the accused used racial slurs (although it seems others, including Kim, did). The idea that these guys deserved what they got because there friends MAY have said some inappropriate thing is ubsurd.

“BAD. These aren't "nice guys" who got screwed over by the system. These are not nice guys at all-so why are so many people rushing to their defense?� - Buggle

I don’t really care if these are nice guys. I have met enough frat / athlete types to know that I PROBABLY wouldn’t like these guys, but that doesn’t mean they should be falsely accused of rape.

“I have no doubt that something happened that night. I just don't know what it was. And neither do any of us.�

There is conclusive evidence showing what didn’t happen, though.

**********

“I haven't (and won't) comment specifically on any particular case such as this because going over the evendence (sic) doesn't achieve anything.� – chem._fem

Actually, going over the facts achieves a lot. You chose not to because the facts don’t further your agenda.

“What can be gained is an analysis of the sexism of the reporting and commenting. What is interesting is that there are plenty of people who think that a woman is all or partly responsible for her rape due to her clothing, sexual history and drinking in our society (as found by amnesty international), but no curcumstance (sic) whereby an accused is all or partly responsible for any false claims made against them.� – chem_fem

You seem confused. No one is saying that sexual contact occurred but that she was responsible in some way. We are saying that there was no sexual contact, no assault, nor kidnapping.

**********

It is apparent now that the facts don’t mean anything to many of you, here. When they don’t support your views, you simply cast them aside and start talking about “larger issues�. As such, there is no reason to continue this argument any further, other than to correct basic factual errors. Those here who refuse to give up their already debunked positions will obviously never do so no matter what happens. Those of us interested in the truth will have to be content to watch them continue to make fools of themselves while they try to re-write history to fit their views.

Anyway, this is the only post I intend to write on this thread, so I would like to end with a message to Samhita: While I obviously disagree with you, and think you have been a willing part of this train wreck, I do hope people will stop writing you threatening emails and that any who already have are punished. No matter what you have said, you do not deserve that, and it only goes to show that there are villains on both sides of this issue.

Just a little note to hc:

I'm interested in your post b/c I think I may be in a similar college envt.

"And yeah, sorry to say it to all the sexually liberated readers here (of which I am one), but the hook-up culture that teaches men to devalue women is part of this equation too."

I understand there can be problems with the hook-up culture, but I honestly am not sure that women are necessarily devalued more than they are under any previous cultures (I know men who hookup who value women as people, and those who probably do not) I think this is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802532.html

Not necessarily right, but perhaps raises some questions.

Nina. You are remarkably sanguine about child molestation charges. Look up Amirault, or Little Rascals. Or the mass case in the Pacific Northwest--forgot the town--which could certainly serve as an updated "Crucible".

I don't know if the previous post will ever surface, so there may be some repetition here.
I've been involved with left/lib groups since a couple of civil rights summers in Mississippi. One thing I've learned, speaking of being an expert, is to never trust an activist's numbers. Especially when they get caught trying to make something out of nothing.

Kimmy. Good point about the problem with women who can't make a case about something that happened. Problem is, for them the perception that women sometimes lie is one of the obstacles.

There are some good points about how some cases will never have any forensic evidence. What's left? An accusation. That accusation is pretty thin stuff, all by itself. Supporting it by working against false accusations would seem like a good thing.
The problem with selling the underreported pitch is that we only have people's word for it. If it's underreported because it can't be proved, then it can't be proved. It might even be true, but if it can't be proved, what are we to make of it?
An unsupported accusation to send somebody to jail? That rape is unique in that it may well be the only evidence is an unsupported accusation doesn't mean an unsupported accusation should be given more weight than in other crimes. And the perception of false claims is a serious handicap.

But, anyhow, has everybody recharged their moral outrage? There's still another rape in Durham to attend to. No white privilege, no money, no upper-class bozos--except the vic whom Moneta says may as well have been looking for it.
Drop the laxers and concentrate on something real.
Or not. And wonder what people think when they see the double standard.

oenophile, you're not reading me right. I'm not particularly concerned about the few men who get falsely accused at this point in time. My argument is that you cannot adequately shield women who were raped but who can't prove it. Too many possibilities for exceptions, too many problems. Too hard to prove that someone had sex if there's no physical damage done. Too much that's too hard to prove.

Those things already interfere with rape prosecution. Let's not make it worse by making women afraid that these drawbacks will count against them twice (once while trying to prosecute the rapist, and again when he tries to prosecute her).

Richard Aubrey, I'm glad you can so easily shrug and dismiss rape cases that way. My whole point is that you can't prove that a rape charge is false just because the case was dropped. Insufficient evidence doesn't make for a false charge.

If I'd brought charges against my attacker, it would have been dropped for insufficient evidence. But it would NOT have been a false accusation.

So how, exactly, would you be able to tell when you were cracking down on false accusations and when you were persecuting victims who've already suffered enough? Oh, that's right. You can't tell that at all.

You can't really argue that sexual assault and rape often go unreported. We could start a poll on this very site to see how many women just among the posters fit the criteria. And when the case would be difficult to prove, why would someone report it? But that doesn't mean it isn't happening, and that doesn't mean that you couldn't scare even more women away from reporting it. Which would, in case you're confused, be a BAD thing.

Women lie sometimes. So do men. About rape, or theft, or adultery, or their taxes, or their insurance. The problem is that people make such a big deal out of the few women who lie about rape (even in cases where you can't know for sure whether she lied or there just wasn't enough evidence).

Why is it different for rape? Because it's a "woman thing". And the ones who stand to get hurt by rape accusations are men. Handy, isn't it?

Richard Aubrey,

I feel you do not appreciate the fact that some of us have experienced rape of ourselves, family members, or close friends, and that we take the fact that it is usually not possible to win a trial on this issue very, very seriously. Again, I think if this was an issue affecting rich white men in great numbers, are govt would have found a way to make the legal system more effective.

I am not being sanguine about child molestation. As I said, I know some people who it affects -personal family members effed up by it, as a matter of fact. I simply think that between being accused and having a crime committed against you, the latter is clearly worse. And I would not be enraged at an accuser about a false accusation, and I would not think it reason to try and punish people who accuse. I am aware of the flaws in the legal system, on all sides. Hell, if you look at how hard it is to get /actual sex offenders/ to register like they're supposed to; if you look at how easy it is for someone to apply for jobs or have girlfriends who never know their past legal history... Having a legal record sucks, but there are worse things. Sure, I'm aware there are some child molestation cases that caught like wildfire in the mass media and probably made the accuser's life a lot harder, but those are the cases where most public opinion is turned against the person. That's not what happened in the case with the lacrosse boys.

The people who run this site are very aware of ALL SORTS OF CASES ALL THE TIME. They post about them. They are not ignoring other cases and only focusing on ones exactly like this. Perhaps you are ignoring those other cases, if you are not aware that there is always debate going on? This one is unusual for political reasons though. Whether or not feministing existed it would be an unusual case with big media attention. So it got posted about. I for one have had my eyes opened wider by the # of people who jumped on this board to talk about and defend this one case in particular than I have by many other aspects of it.

Please, if you think covering of other rape cases is important, stick around, and voice your opinions on some of the other ones.

I also have to HIGHLY disagree with the posters who say that during a rape, you are 100% aware of what is happening to you. Maybe that's what your experience was like-and of course I would never minimize that or take that away from anyone. However, to suggest that YOUR experience of rape is the ONLY experience is absolutely appalling. I was raped when I was drunk and dissociating, so there are large parts that I don't remember AT ALL. So, are you calling me a liar? Saying it didn't happen?

Buggle, it disturbs me when people don't read my posts carefully before responding to me. I specifically said that being drugged/drunk/unconcious/dazed would clearly impair one's ability to remember the rape. However, in this case the accuser made it very clear to the police that (a) she had not been drugged and (b) she had been aware of the details of the rape down to whether or not the men wore condoms.

To come out now and say she "isn't sure" whether a penis ever touched her is the height of ludicrousness. The only way you couldn't be sure of a penis being forced into your vagina or not would be if you were in an altered mental state, which would preclude your remembering other such details as condom usage.

And before you get too "appalled" I clearly stated that my rape was not the only type of rape and that I could, of course, be mistaken. So feel free to tone down the moral outrage.

Richard:

I still want to know. Are you stupid, lazy, or a liar?

You owe the women here an answer

Just unbelievable with this line of thought. Did you not hear what the NC DA said in that no charges should have been filed in the first place? There was total incompetence on the part of Nifong, yet you REFUSE to admit this woman was a lying scum who destroyed the lives of 3 innocent men.

Then you come back with this comment that was insane.
"So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system."

Oh well who cares if they are innocent people who were victims of a whacked woman, now they get to see how others feel now.

My God are you even reading what you are writing and truly believe this? If this is what you truly believe I think you might want to go seek some professional help.