Replies

Some nitpicking and general ruminations (a bit off the beaten path, maybe, but) :

(1) How did the surveillance camera see what was taking place inside a dorm room? The authorities were looking for something else, and just “accidentally” discovered an alleged rape?

(Given the recent concerns about a Big Brother state,
that explanation sounds chilling.”Yeah, we weren’t looking for YOU; so we didn’t have a warrant; but we just happened to notice something suspicious while we were lawfully looking for something else...”)

(2) Whenever I read that the media has a policy not to name rape victims, I have to ask why it names the accused before they are convicted. I’m assuming these guys
are guilty; but too many names get wrecked by media frenzy (think Duke lacrosse).

Some nitpicking and general ruminations (a bit off the beaten path, maybe, but) :

Okay, lets go...

(1) How did the surveillance camera see what was taking place inside a dorm room? The authorities were looking for something else, and just “accidentally” discovered an alleged rape?

That's a fair question. I guess you live in the dorm room with the camera by choice. I'm not a big fan of this. We're allowing too many cameras to be placed just about everywhere these days.

(Given the recent concerns about a Big Brother state, that explanation sounds chilling.”Yeah, we weren’t looking for YOU; so we didn’t have a warrant; but we just happened to notice something suspicious while we were lawfully looking for something else...”)

No, I think you've got a point. I'm not wishing these guys could get away with something they shouldn't have, particularly of this nature, but the cameras should have been addressed at the time when they went in, or when the year started, or some time other than now when it's too late. I'm sure they'll still try to address it now, but when a crime of this nature is involved, it's going to make it very difficult to win an objection. We'll see. I may be wrong.

(2) Whenever I read that the media has a policy not to name rape victims, I have to ask why it names the accused before they are convicted. I’m assuming these guys are guilty; but too many names get wrecked by media frenzy (think Duke lacrosse).

The naming of guy's names is important for several reasons.

You believe it is unfair to the guys. What if the guys weren't named, and the trial was run relatively quietly, and these guys were railroaded because of that? It seems to me there is something to be gained by naming them. The victim isn't named, because she has already been violated. Would it be proper to name the woman who was abused in this manner, so everyone in the community would know she had been sexually abused in this manner. That seems like a double hit on her. She then has to walk down the street somewhat shamed for what she endured. She will be thinking everyone knows, and are whispering about her. That would be pretty tough after enduring the abuse in the first place.

How would it be if she were named, and then set upon by fans, students, alumi...?

I do think there is some inequity in this. I don't honestly know what the answer to it.

You may have a good suggestion.