's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

When there has been an alleged sexual assault...(23 posts)

When there has been an alleged sexual assault...94Nole
Jul 21, 2003 11:27 AM
does the indentification of the accused prevent a fair trial? Why is the accused identified but not the accuser? Yes, I just heard another news report re: Kobe Bryant and his unidentified accuser.
Why would it?TJeanloz
Jul 21, 2003 12:03 PM
Presumably the Jury will know her identity. And they're the ones that matter.
Accuser AND accused should be identified.OldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 6:24 AM
It's sexist and paternalistic to 'protect' women from the 'horrible stigma' of having people know they've been assaulted. What the hell did the woman do wrong? Reminds me of sending girls out of town to homes for unwed mothers to bear their shameful babies.

Additionally, public identification of the accuser makes it less likely that false accusations will be made under the claok of anonymity.

All in all, the whole idea of creating a special class of accuser stinks.
not paternalisticDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 7:58 AM
The women can always waive their right and go public. So, it's not paternalistic in the sense that anyone is forcing them to keep silent.

I think the reasoning is that but for some privacy, many victims would never report the crimes for fear, right or wrong, of public humiliation.

Man, where is your compassionate Liberalism?

You always miss the fact thatOldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 8:03 AM
I'm not nearly as doctrinaire in my leftism as you are in your rightism. ;-
*You* always miss the fact thatDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 8:28 AM
I'm not even a rightist... ;-)
Hey, I was trying to use aOldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 8:30 AM
relative NICE term for what you are! ;-)
Jul 22, 2003 8:38 AM
But I'm not sure you know what I am. You conveniently link me with your generalized view of conservatives, but I'm not willing to be pigeon-holed there, any more than you are with most Liberal positions (well, maybe you would be -- I can't speak for you).

Also, in this two party system, you gotta pick a side. While I'd love to see a real Libertarian in office, we all know it ain't gonna happen. To be even the slightest bit pragmatic, then, we need to pick the side that is least offensive to our thinking. To me, that's the Republican side, as I see them far less paternalistic (arguably, I realize) than the Democrats -- a major issue for me. So, yes, I suppose it's somewhat fair to lump me in with all Republicans or Conservatives, as I support and vote for them, but they are actually far from my ideal candidates or spokes persons.

Would you call yourself aOldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 9:15 AM
Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian? Or do you not accept that as the fundamental dichotomy in America's politics?
I'll go with TomDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 9:31 AM
That is one of the dichotomies, yes.

Generally, I'd worship at the Jeffersonian alter. Limited government, strict construction, etc.


Me too.OldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 9:44 AM
I'm an agrarian individualist at heart. Son of a yeoman farmer and a yeoman farmer myself. And a revolutionary. Jefferson believed that one generation should not saddle another generation with its own laws, so all laws should expire every 20 years. Each generation starts fresh. Perpetual revolution! Mao would smile at this. And this:

Jefferson also has a deep Southern planter's distrust of commerce, banks and business (and businessmen) and monetary policy designed to concentrate wealth in their hands. I'm all over that. Hamilton was a big pro-business, pro-commerce, pro-captalist kind of guy, a lot like TJean. Cut the capitalists loose and watch the country prosper! (Or at least watch the capitalists prosper. To Hamilton, the capitalists WERE the country. Didn't give a damn about the yeomans.)

I'm sure you will note problems with this dichotomy.
so where do modern Liberals fit in? nmDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 10:05 AM
Well ....OldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 10:13 AM
That is the problem I figured you'd notice. Where indeed do liberalism-conservativism fit?
that's why I really am not eitherDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 10:27 AM
Problem is the modern dichotomy is based more upon preservation and weilding of power than political or philosophical theory, much less purely so. That's what I've been trying to say over this last year or so, but I keep getting pegged with a label that doesn't fit -- maybe you, too, but then you say you are proud to be a "Liberal."

I hate liberals (politically) (they're generally nice PEOPLE)OldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 10:35 AM
I think they're largely timid reformists and whiners. I think they need to de-victimize themselves. I'm a rear-up-on-your-hind-legs-and-fight leftist, and we generally find liberals pitiful and useless as tits on a boar hog in a political fight.

That said, I'm a pragmatist in my old age, and I want to get stuff done. So I side with the Liberals for a lot of the same reasons you side with the Republicans -- if you want to be in the game, you gotta join one gang or the other. Liberal Dems are the only gang I can stomach, so here I am.

Doesn't mean I'm totally happy about it, and accounts for some of the odd positions I take and harsh things I say about liberal ideas every now and then.
probably just anti-Republican post-Reconstruction spite nmDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 10:43 AM
Like it or not, there is a stigma attachedAlpedhuez55
Jul 22, 2003 7:58 AM
A guy sleeps with 100 women and he is a stud, but if a women does it, she is a slut. THe same unfortunate sterotypes will apply to a rape victim. There will always be idiots who will see her and say "I bet she really wanted it" or worse. And in a high profile case like this, it will save her from harrassment by media and fans.

Our society still applies stigma to rape victims. Hpefully that will change. Too many rapes go unreported because the women feel too ashamed to do so. Hopefully that will not be the case some day. But for noe, anonymity should be a chouse for the victim/accuser.

Mike Y.
Understood, but the best way to banish the stigmaOldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 8:06 AM
is to lift the veil. However well intended, these policies perpetuate the notion there's 'shame' attached to being the victim of a sex crime.
Understood, but the best way to banish the stigmaAlpedhuez55
Jul 22, 2003 8:12 AM
I think a lot of victims have come out after the fact in recent years. You have heard of several celebrities come out and tell their ordeal. Maureen O'Boyle and Tori Amos come to mind. I know there have been several others. THat will do more to lift the veil more than anything else.

But I think Rape and sex crimes a type of crime unlike others and the victims should have a right to privacy.

Mike Y.
Certainly a defensible position. nmOldEdScott
Jul 22, 2003 8:21 AM
but if that's the way they feel...DougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 8:32 AM
If women are less likely to come forward, for whatever reason, then that's the way it is. If a privacy law allows them to feel better about coming forward, then that puts more bad guys in jail. That's a good thing. The good in putting away rapists exceeds the bad of less publicity. Maybe to be fair, they shouldn't reveal the accused name, either.

Keep in mind that everyone connected with the case knows who she is, they just can't put it in the public media.

Your bucket has a lot of holes in itStarliner
Jul 23, 2003 3:35 PM
When laws are created to protect a certain group of people from being hurt by presumed social assumptions and beliefs, yet similar laws do not exist to equally protect another group of people from being hurt by similar social assumptions and beliefs, something's not fair. More bluntly put, it's wrong.

Your post is an example of how unsupportable your position is. You base things on assumptions that are not facts. You may think the guy you talk about is a stud, another might think he's a cad. You might think she's a slut, another might see her as a liberated woman, a Madonna.

What is really scary is how much rope you give the accuser in this matter of rape, and how little slack you give the accused. Clearly, you don't know what it's like to be falsely accused of something, with the accuser remaining anonymous while your life is hung out to dry on the public clothesline.

You somehow forgot to mention the social stigma that hangs over someone who has merely been accused of rape. Even if Kobe gets off, his marketability as a product spokesman is in serious jeapordy. And please don't say it would be because of the fact that he committed adultery - according to your thinking, we'd all be calling him a real stud for that...
re: When there has been an alleged sexual assault...Alpedhuez55
Jul 22, 2003 7:39 AM
I have dated a couple of rape victims. It is a very traumatic and private experience. Both told me before they would have sex and both seemed like they were expecting me to end the relationship then and there.

The accuser is already having her name dragged through the mud in public. The same thing happenned in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial a few years ago. Should she be subject to being on the page of every nespaper and tabloid? Should we publish her adress and phone so every halfwitted Laker fan can send her hate mail and make crank calls and Jack Nicholson can can whack her car with his six iron???

If the accuser wants to protect her identy, it should be her right. If it is proven that she made false accusations, then let her be made a public figure. The jure should be the only ones that it matters to.

Mike Y.