Skip to comments.DATE RAPE! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?
Posted on 10/15/2003 10:05:10 PM PDT by carlo3b
DATE RAPE! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?
Did he or didn't he? Has our compassion for an alleged victim in a particular type of crime, allowed our Bill of Rights to go past due!
Did she or didn't she? It appears there are more the a few Americans that are now beginning to rethink the compassionate laws that awarded unquestioned protections, to unproved accusations. It has become obvious that these well meaning measures may have gone too far. Has today's culture allowed itself to believe only one side of a conflict where a woman is considered, without ever hearing the other? Are all men sexual brutes?
Would a woman lie?
"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses (of men) exhibit their tyranny."
-James Fenimore Cooper
Men, I learned early on were by nature, bigger, stronger, and much more aggressive than women. The men in my life, great grandfather, grandfathers, uncles, and even neighbors were our protectors, safe keepers, and providers. They were to be emulated, learned from, looked up to. Men were a defense against anything that threatened us. Most men that I knew were good. They loved us, even if they never really said so. I loved the men in my life, because they were good, because the women in my home wouldn't allow them to behave any other way.
Where all men good, and by default, were all boys nice guys? Of course not, and I found that out the hard way.
"If you can learn from hard knocks, you can also learn from soft touches."
I was taught from birth, that women were always looking out for my best interest. My mother, grandmother, great grandmother, aunts and yes even my teachers were all there to help me. I didn't always agree with them, but I never for a moment doubted their veracity. Women were the soft ones, the good smelling, caring and tender people in our lives. Why would they want to hurt me, I loved them and they all loved me.
Were all women, and by default all little girls, always good? Well, as I grew up, I began to discover that girls much like boys, are not always nice. So what happened to make things change? That came later.
"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"
Although women were smaller, and mostly weaker in a physical sense, they were not pushovers. Our mothers, and all adult women in our family were the benevolent dictators over everything within the home and family, and that included the men and boys. I didn't have any sisters, but my friends did and they became wiser, a lot sooner in the ways of the world where females were concerned than I did. What I didn't grasp until much later was that not all females were like my mother, and that mothers, acted like females to other people, but never us.
"We create an environment where it is alright to hate, to steal, to cheat, and to lie if we dress it up with symbols of respectability, dignity and love."
-Whitney Moore, Jr.
Can and do men and boys take advantage of smaller and weaker people? Yes, of course. Does that include women? Absolutely! Does that include sex? Without a doubt.
Ergo, all men always take advantage of everyone, especially women, in every case, without question, were sex is concerned!
That is absolutely absurd, and would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. However, in most states in The United States of America, in the case of an accusation of sexual assault, a man is considered guilty, and is treated as such, until and if he can prove otherwise. However, he must never accuse the accuser of any motive other than of that misinterpretation of his disgusting intentions.
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not a chance. Presumed innocence? Not in the current court of public opinion, and not in too many criminal courts of law either. A man is not allowed to proffer any questions or produce evidence of a pattern of behavior that casts any doubt on the accuser.
Thus, a man must present a defense that casts him as unethical, uncaring, and a vicious beast who perpetuates the accusation, promotes the stereotype, and confirms in public the appearance of guilt, beyond a shadow of doubt.
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Does it happen, that men, evil men, not only can and in some cases, do rape and brutalize women? You bet they do and when proven, the law should treat them in the strongest punishments allowable by law. A woman should be given an unencumbered opportunity to bring to justice anyone, that takes advantage of them and their bodies. They should be allowed to bring into court any pertinent evidence that casts the perpetrator in as damaging a light as the law allows.
It is true that filthy crimes of this nature are seldom committed in public where witnesses can collaborate an accusation. However, this is true of most serious crimes, and that unfortunate fact, does not change the burden of proof.
A man, or a woman for that matter, presumably enters court innocent until proven otherwise. In such cases the accuser can bring into court any past behavior or a propensity to commit such a crime. Thus is the character of our court system, and the reason we have juries of our peers, to weigh the facts, and dispense the entitled punishment, or exonerate. Nothing should interfere with the process that we have in place.
This is not a unique position that I propose.. It was the law of the land...
Wouldn't be the first time Colorado was in the news for all the wrong reasons.
I really hope your wrong, and hope springs eternal, but I fear we are experiencing a sequel in the making.. ugh!
Even if the girl had intercourse with one hundred men in the previous one hundred hours it would not negate her right to refuse intercourse with ANYONE.
That is a fact indeed, but having said that isn't it also true that she could be celibate and still lie for whatever reason she has in her heart.
My point is there may exist motives and a proclivity for lying, that are also possible, and in the nature of a thorough defense the accused must not be muzzled by political expediency.
It is inherent in the fabric of common law that a defendant in entitled to a vigorous cross examination, no matter the accusation. However in this age of political correctness, the inference of sexual misdeed, scuttles a defendant's right to search out any motive or pattern of behavior that contribute to finding the truth.
Great catch.. It's funny that I still cringe when I see truth and Clinton used in the same sentence. Now add the word Security, and I start looking over my shoulder!
Gossip, (and slander) is like mud thrown against a clean wall; it may not stick, but it leaves a mark.
That is certainly true, but misleading.
Her RIGHT to refuse intercourse with Mr. Bryant is undisputed.
The state, however, must prove that she DID refuse, not that she had the right to refuse.
And her propensity to consent to intercourse with strangers (if proven) is a material fact which bears on the state's ability to prove, in this instance, that she refused.
But it would certainly cause me to doubt her claim that any vaginal swelling,bruising or redness was caused by the one fellow she refused.
I would also be curious about why she said yes to 100 Joe Averages, but said no to the one celebrity with millions of dollars.
Did you read my post?
I don't know anything about this case. The complainant, for all I know, is a nun.
What I do know is that if a complainant alleges nonconsensual intercourse such that the state charges a defendant with a felony, the state must prove the charge-must prove that she did not consent.
In this regard, her testimony is important but not conclusive-otherwise, why have a trial?
What facts would you suggest the defense be able to use to create reasonable doubt of nonconsent?
Your suggestion, of having intercourse with a hundred men in a hundred hours, would certainly be part of a reasonable doubt defense.
Do you disagree?
He, the defendant, is allowed to produce any relevant information to contradict her allegation. In this case 100 or 1 other is prima fascia evidence that there is/was someone else that could have contributed, and thus casts doubt! Even in Colorado.
If you play with matches, who is to blame, the match or the one who lit the match. You can flame me all you want, but it's about time for both men and women to take some responsibility. Rape is horrible. That goes without saying. But the concept that all you have to do is say NO at the last moment and all is well is insane. That's like standing in front of a freight train, whispering "Stop." Just don't stand in front of a freight train.
I have worked in a hotel. It's against all regulations to enter a room where you don't have business, and if you are working in room service, maintenance, housekeeping, or a bellhop, you never close the door of a room while in the room. This is not only to protect the patron and the employee, but to protect against false claims of rape.
Men should treat women as ladies, but women need to behave as ladies.
There is a very heavy price to pay for adultery. Broken families and ruined lived, often leaving a path of destruction. Having intercourse with someone you don't know puts you at risk for diseases, fatal attractions, and claims of rape. It's high risk behavior. Not to mention pregnancy with someone you don't want to spend the rest of your life with.
The rules have behavior have changed and there are too many mixed messages. I don't envy men who have to figure it all out and then end up in the wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.