Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ANTI-VICTIM SUPPORT FOR KOBE BRYANT IS RACIST AND SEXIST
Using sexism as a strategic tool to ignite public furor in Kobe Bryant's case ensures the perpetuation of all prejudice in larger society.
ANTI-VICTIM SUPPORT FOR KOBE BRYANT IS RACIST AND SEXIST
The gender of pro-Kobe columnists like Cathy Young, Susan Estrich and Linda Chavez gives the misleading impression that Kobe Bryant must be innocent because women don´t support "real" rapists. But the fact is -- lots of women for political reasons, and criminal defense attorneys, for money, fame or out of a sense of duty, openly support guilty rapists and are not ashamed to exploit their gender as a trial strategy in the name of "defense at any cost".
The gender of columnists and defense counsel tells us no more about Bryant's guilt than Clarence Thomas' race tells us whether his opposition to affirmative action is "good" for minorities.
The simple objective truth is -- the prosecution has a very strong case against Kobe Bryant and if what the victim reported is true, Bryant committed one of the most degrading acts of sexual violence ever reported in an acquaintance rape context.
Here´s the nonsexist version of the case so far:
As concierge for a posh hotel, the victim agreed to give Bryant a tour and escort him to his room. She brought a pen and paper to get his autograph.
Who wouldn't?
Bryant told her she'd have to come back later to get his autograph. He asked her to meet him in the hot tub. She said no and got up to leave.
Hardly evidence she was hoping for more.
Bryant imposed himself on the victim with an unrequested hug. She hugged him back -- then he kissed her. So she kissed him back.
She wasn't the aggressor - he was.
He put his hands under her clothes. She backed away and tried to leave. He blocked her way then grabbed her neck with two hands and directed her to a chair. Bryant bent her over at the waist and held her head down with one hand. His force bruised her chin. He used his free hand to lift the victim´s skirt and pull down her underpants.
She never claimed he tore her clothes.
Standing over six feet tall, Bryant held his victim's head face down in the chair while he raped her vaginally from behind. The victim was crying. She said "no" at least twice. Stories about the victim not saying "no" are untrue. In her first narrative to the police, the victim was asked what happened. She had no reason to describe what SHE said or did because her focus was on HIS brutal act of violence. When asked at the end, "why didn´t you say `no´", the victim replied that she said "no," "at least twice" including while she was crying.
The victim provided police with precise details of what happened, most of which were not rebutted during the preliminary hearing. She explained how in only five minutes Bryant literally sliced into the her vagina causing multiple painful paper-cut like rips. The victim started bleeding as a result of the friction and force of Bryant's assault. Her blood was found on the bottom of Bryant's T-shirt.
The injury is consistent with the type of harm seen in 40% of sexual assault cases where some form of vaginal trauma is inflicted. This is because desired sex, unlike rape, produces vaginal lubrication which prevents harmful friction on dry skin. She obviously was not "into it," as some claim.
After Bryant was done, he warned the victim not to tell anyone. He admonished her to get herself "cleaned up" and said "no one will believe you over me." He made her promise not to tell anyone - - then he sent her away like a piece of trash.
After leaving the room, the victim encountered an older male administrative employee with whom she had no working relationship. Having just been threatened by Bryant not to tell anyone what happened and no doubt in shock from the crime, she said nothing and did not "seem" upset.
Minutes later, the victim reported the crime to the bellman, a young college student with whom she worked regularly at the front desk. He described the victim as very shaken up and terrified.
The next morning, the victim told her parents and they called the police. The victim's statements were scrutinized and credited by numerous professional law enforcement officials with extensive experience assessing sexual assault claims. The victim also submitted herself to a rape kit examination at a hospital.
With commendable candor, the victim told police she had consensual sex two or three days earlier. There is no evidence her prior sexual encounter produced any physical injuries to her vagina. "Bombshell" allegations of the victim having sex with "three men in three days" were proved false when Bryant's attorneys' effort to persuade the judge there was such evidence was rejected on the second day of the hearing.
The judge ruled the case is strong enough to send Kobe Bryant to trial for rape - even though the victim did not testify in person. The judge also found the vaginal injuries consistent with force and nonconsent.
All this evidence notwithstanding, some still see the case as a "he said - she said".
In fact, if we focus on Bryant´s conduct rather than the victim´s, it´s fairer to call the case a "he fled - she bled."
Bryant immediately took off for California the day after the incident - earlier than planned. This is at least suspicious behavior if not overt consciousness of guilt.
Bryant was not a "family man" on the night in question. Newsweek reported he was on the outs with his wife and was contemplating divorce.
Bryant's first statement to the public was outright denial -- then it changed to an admission of "adultery." Truth doesn't change.
Bryant was only too happy to use his celebrity to announce publicly that he was "innocent" and "didn't force [the victim] to do anything against her will." But he wouldn´t make those statements under oath or subject himself to
cross-examination.
Only two people know exactly what happened - but only one of them allowed their statements to be scrutinized at the preliminary hearing. Kobe Bryant had the right and the opportunity to tell his story but he refused. Given that the victim's statements came in through the hearsay testimony of a police detective, Bryant had a good chance of winning an outright dismissal of the charges if he had taken the stand in person because live testimony tends to be stronger than hearsay. The problem is, his story would have to make sense and be credible. That he did not take the stand tells us what his lawyer thinks of Bryant´s story.
Hardly a show of confidence, Bryant's lawyers filed a special motion to have the statements Bryant gave to the police hidden from the public and submitted to the judge in chambers. Bryant's lawyers were only too happy to fill the public trough and potential jury pool with irrelevant and outright false information about the victim's prior sexual behavior, but they insisted that Bryant's statements about the crime itself be heard in secret.
When only two people know the truth and one hides his story from public view -- it's obvious where the truth lies.
Notwithstanding the obvious, Bryant´s victim has endured outrageous attacks on her integrity because she had consensual sex days before the rape and because semen from that encounter seeped into the clean underpants she wore to the hospital (semen can stay in the body for five days or longer).
Criticism of the victim is an irrational manifestation of the same sexism we complained about thirty years ago -- and thought we´d fixed with rape-shield laws.
The truth is, we didn't fix much. Shield laws served as statutory band-aids that pushed sexism underground and changed the language but not the behavior of defense counsel. Instead of stating openly that a woman's past sexual
behavior shows she consented on the night in question, defense counsel today make up pretextual reasons for why the evidence is relevant to show "motive or bias" or to "explain a physical finding."
And because victims have no voice in the criminal justice system, pretextual claims that exploit gender bias are often successful because no one is present in court to argue zealously on behalf of women as a class.
Worse, there are no sanctions when defense counsel blatantly violate rape-shield laws and even intentionally lie about a victim´s past.
The illegal conduct of Bryant's lawyers, including that they ignored a clear court order not to use the victim´s name at the hearing, has been celebrated by some as "brilliant" strategy. But any idiot can violate the law and lie about a victim in the name of winning. It doesn't mean you´re a good lawyer -- it means you're a jerk.
The real issue is -- would we feel the same way about the "defense at any cost" philosophy if the victim was black, the defendant was white and a defense attorney claimed the victim was not credible because of the color of her skin?
Prejudice is prejudice. And Bryant's lawyers are playing the gender card in a big way. Even those who could care less about sexism need to care when defense counsel exploit bigotry because if gender prejudice is fair game in this case -- then religious prejudice is fair in the next case and race prejudice after that, etc.
Ironically, some who criticize the victim's credibility based on gender prejudice also claim to care about the fight for civil rights and social justice. The problem is -- judging the victim based on false, inflammatory and irrelevant personal information serves the very ills civil rights activists claim to disdain.
We can't have it both ways. Using sexism as a strategic tool to ignite public furor in Kobe's case ensures the perpetuation of all prejudice in larger society. Kobe must be proud to know that his trial strategy is making it even easier for black men to be disproportionately targeted for prosecution, incarceration, etc.
Wendy J. Murphy
New England School of Law, Boston
The gender of pro-Kobe columnists like Cathy Young, Susan Estrich and Linda Chavez gives the misleading impression that Kobe Bryant must be innocent because women don´t support "real" rapists. But the fact is -- lots of women for political reasons, and criminal defense attorneys, for money, fame or out of a sense of duty, openly support guilty rapists and are not ashamed to exploit their gender as a trial strategy in the name of "defense at any cost".
The gender of columnists and defense counsel tells us no more about Bryant's guilt than Clarence Thomas' race tells us whether his opposition to affirmative action is "good" for minorities.
The simple objective truth is -- the prosecution has a very strong case against Kobe Bryant and if what the victim reported is true, Bryant committed one of the most degrading acts of sexual violence ever reported in an acquaintance rape context.
Here´s the nonsexist version of the case so far:
As concierge for a posh hotel, the victim agreed to give Bryant a tour and escort him to his room. She brought a pen and paper to get his autograph.
Who wouldn't?
Bryant told her she'd have to come back later to get his autograph. He asked her to meet him in the hot tub. She said no and got up to leave.
Hardly evidence she was hoping for more.
Bryant imposed himself on the victim with an unrequested hug. She hugged him back -- then he kissed her. So she kissed him back.
She wasn't the aggressor - he was.
He put his hands under her clothes. She backed away and tried to leave. He blocked her way then grabbed her neck with two hands and directed her to a chair. Bryant bent her over at the waist and held her head down with one hand. His force bruised her chin. He used his free hand to lift the victim´s skirt and pull down her underpants.
She never claimed he tore her clothes.
Standing over six feet tall, Bryant held his victim's head face down in the chair while he raped her vaginally from behind. The victim was crying. She said "no" at least twice. Stories about the victim not saying "no" are untrue. In her first narrative to the police, the victim was asked what happened. She had no reason to describe what SHE said or did because her focus was on HIS brutal act of violence. When asked at the end, "why didn´t you say `no´", the victim replied that she said "no," "at least twice" including while she was crying.
The victim provided police with precise details of what happened, most of which were not rebutted during the preliminary hearing. She explained how in only five minutes Bryant literally sliced into the her vagina causing multiple painful paper-cut like rips. The victim started bleeding as a result of the friction and force of Bryant's assault. Her blood was found on the bottom of Bryant's T-shirt.
The injury is consistent with the type of harm seen in 40% of sexual assault cases where some form of vaginal trauma is inflicted. This is because desired sex, unlike rape, produces vaginal lubrication which prevents harmful friction on dry skin. She obviously was not "into it," as some claim.
After Bryant was done, he warned the victim not to tell anyone. He admonished her to get herself "cleaned up" and said "no one will believe you over me." He made her promise not to tell anyone - - then he sent her away like a piece of trash.
After leaving the room, the victim encountered an older male administrative employee with whom she had no working relationship. Having just been threatened by Bryant not to tell anyone what happened and no doubt in shock from the crime, she said nothing and did not "seem" upset.
Minutes later, the victim reported the crime to the bellman, a young college student with whom she worked regularly at the front desk. He described the victim as very shaken up and terrified.
The next morning, the victim told her parents and they called the police. The victim's statements were scrutinized and credited by numerous professional law enforcement officials with extensive experience assessing sexual assault claims. The victim also submitted herself to a rape kit examination at a hospital.
With commendable candor, the victim told police she had consensual sex two or three days earlier. There is no evidence her prior sexual encounter produced any physical injuries to her vagina. "Bombshell" allegations of the victim having sex with "three men in three days" were proved false when Bryant's attorneys' effort to persuade the judge there was such evidence was rejected on the second day of the hearing.
The judge ruled the case is strong enough to send Kobe Bryant to trial for rape - even though the victim did not testify in person. The judge also found the vaginal injuries consistent with force and nonconsent.
All this evidence notwithstanding, some still see the case as a "he said - she said".
In fact, if we focus on Bryant´s conduct rather than the victim´s, it´s fairer to call the case a "he fled - she bled."
Bryant immediately took off for California the day after the incident - earlier than planned. This is at least suspicious behavior if not overt consciousness of guilt.
Bryant was not a "family man" on the night in question. Newsweek reported he was on the outs with his wife and was contemplating divorce.
Bryant's first statement to the public was outright denial -- then it changed to an admission of "adultery." Truth doesn't change.
Bryant was only too happy to use his celebrity to announce publicly that he was "innocent" and "didn't force [the victim] to do anything against her will." But he wouldn´t make those statements under oath or subject himself to
cross-examination.
Only two people know exactly what happened - but only one of them allowed their statements to be scrutinized at the preliminary hearing. Kobe Bryant had the right and the opportunity to tell his story but he refused. Given that the victim's statements came in through the hearsay testimony of a police detective, Bryant had a good chance of winning an outright dismissal of the charges if he had taken the stand in person because live testimony tends to be stronger than hearsay. The problem is, his story would have to make sense and be credible. That he did not take the stand tells us what his lawyer thinks of Bryant´s story.
Hardly a show of confidence, Bryant's lawyers filed a special motion to have the statements Bryant gave to the police hidden from the public and submitted to the judge in chambers. Bryant's lawyers were only too happy to fill the public trough and potential jury pool with irrelevant and outright false information about the victim's prior sexual behavior, but they insisted that Bryant's statements about the crime itself be heard in secret.
When only two people know the truth and one hides his story from public view -- it's obvious where the truth lies.
Notwithstanding the obvious, Bryant´s victim has endured outrageous attacks on her integrity because she had consensual sex days before the rape and because semen from that encounter seeped into the clean underpants she wore to the hospital (semen can stay in the body for five days or longer).
Criticism of the victim is an irrational manifestation of the same sexism we complained about thirty years ago -- and thought we´d fixed with rape-shield laws.
The truth is, we didn't fix much. Shield laws served as statutory band-aids that pushed sexism underground and changed the language but not the behavior of defense counsel. Instead of stating openly that a woman's past sexual
behavior shows she consented on the night in question, defense counsel today make up pretextual reasons for why the evidence is relevant to show "motive or bias" or to "explain a physical finding."
And because victims have no voice in the criminal justice system, pretextual claims that exploit gender bias are often successful because no one is present in court to argue zealously on behalf of women as a class.
Worse, there are no sanctions when defense counsel blatantly violate rape-shield laws and even intentionally lie about a victim´s past.
The illegal conduct of Bryant's lawyers, including that they ignored a clear court order not to use the victim´s name at the hearing, has been celebrated by some as "brilliant" strategy. But any idiot can violate the law and lie about a victim in the name of winning. It doesn't mean you´re a good lawyer -- it means you're a jerk.
The real issue is -- would we feel the same way about the "defense at any cost" philosophy if the victim was black, the defendant was white and a defense attorney claimed the victim was not credible because of the color of her skin?
Prejudice is prejudice. And Bryant's lawyers are playing the gender card in a big way. Even those who could care less about sexism need to care when defense counsel exploit bigotry because if gender prejudice is fair game in this case -- then religious prejudice is fair in the next case and race prejudice after that, etc.
Ironically, some who criticize the victim's credibility based on gender prejudice also claim to care about the fight for civil rights and social justice. The problem is -- judging the victim based on false, inflammatory and irrelevant personal information serves the very ills civil rights activists claim to disdain.
We can't have it both ways. Using sexism as a strategic tool to ignite public furor in Kobe's case ensures the perpetuation of all prejudice in larger society. Kobe must be proud to know that his trial strategy is making it even easier for black men to be disproportionately targeted for prosecution, incarceration, etc.
Wendy J. Murphy
New England School of Law, Boston
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
You Stated Kobe Bryant left back to Los Angeles or skipped town the very next day which would be July 1st on a tuesday. You Forgot to mention his knee surgery and he in fact did go back and left the day after the surgery. This leads to another question about blood on his shirt. Who Else Had Access to Bryants room the morning he went in for surgery. But no who would think that a Girl who is unstable and sleeps with two other partners within a short period of time why was their sex consensual and Kobe's Was Rape.Why does Kobe get so much support every where he goes. Cause People aren't stupid enough to believe a victim who is female and the courts are to sympathectic in allowing this travesty of believing a "White Women's Word That A "Black Man" Raped Her.I think you write very well by the way it's too bad though your semen leak does not even cut it and ruins your credibility. What did their rubbers bust
or do you really hate men. That's the most ludicrus obvious fabrication you can't get around to prove your point. You Know it is to. Im sure I won't be the first to question the leaky semen statement. But it still could have happened. Oh really. I don't think so.
or do you really hate men. That's the most ludicrus obvious fabrication you can't get around to prove your point. You Know it is to. Im sure I won't be the first to question the leaky semen statement. But it still could have happened. Oh really. I don't think so.
The KB story is not about race. Its about rich sports guy vs a hotel worker. If this woman made these claims against another (but black) hotel worker, that worker would probably be in jail now.
I have absolutely no opinion on whether or not KB committed rape and think that in terms of proof this type of rape is hard to prove.
I do beleive though that money talks and rich guys walk.
I have absolutely no opinion on whether or not KB committed rape and think that in terms of proof this type of rape is hard to prove.
I do beleive though that money talks and rich guys walk.
On the issue of rape, *guys* walk, rich or poor, so it's not just economic class.
Check out this stat (and others on http://www.rainn.org) on the minute number of successful prosecutions.
"Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists -1 out of 16 - will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free." [Probability statistics compiled by NCPA from US Department of Justice
statistics. See http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html]
Martin Dufresne
Montreal Men Against Sexism
Check out this stat (and others on http://www.rainn.org) on the minute number of successful prosecutions.
"Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists -1 out of 16 - will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free." [Probability statistics compiled by NCPA from US Department of Justice
statistics. See http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html]
Martin Dufresne
Montreal Men Against Sexism
For more information:
http://www.rainn.org
"Factoring in unreported rapes"
Well, gee, what the fuck. If you don't report crimes, it's kind of hard for the police to solve them.
In other news, 100% of unreported murders remain unsolved. The most frequent cause of this problem, 99.4% of the time, is that the victim is dead, and therefore, unable to tell anyone who murdered them.
Well, gee, what the fuck. If you don't report crimes, it's kind of hard for the police to solve them.
In other news, 100% of unreported murders remain unsolved. The most frequent cause of this problem, 99.4% of the time, is that the victim is dead, and therefore, unable to tell anyone who murdered them.
The point about non-reporting is that it's part of the continuum that explains why so many rapists walk, contrary to what the guy above wrote.
But when you unpack why victims - female and males - often don't report, you find that it is partly a consequence of the kind of victim-bashing frenzy the media (and unethical lawyers) indulge in whenever they decide to question a victim's word, which is damn often in sexual assault cases.
Hence the interest of Wendy Murphy's essay and the need to protest the kind of anti-victim support blindly given to Bryant.
(More on this statistic)
• 61% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison.[1999 NCVS]
If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists—1 out of 16— will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free.
(For more statistics and links to all primary sources, see RAINN’s Statistics Archive at http://www.rainn.org)
But when you unpack why victims - female and males - often don't report, you find that it is partly a consequence of the kind of victim-bashing frenzy the media (and unethical lawyers) indulge in whenever they decide to question a victim's word, which is damn often in sexual assault cases.
Hence the interest of Wendy Murphy's essay and the need to protest the kind of anti-victim support blindly given to Bryant.
(More on this statistic)
• 61% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison.[1999 NCVS]
If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists—1 out of 16— will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free.
(For more statistics and links to all primary sources, see RAINN’s Statistics Archive at http://www.rainn.org)
And there is a name for people who presume to decide who is entitled to due process and who isn't.
There is a whole movement busy winding down the civil rights of people who are said to be "boggng down" the system with their claims, or being "punitive" towards men who were just acting out, or being "vindictive" with "allegations", etc. etc. The gatekeepers can draw from a full vocabilary of rethoric.
Whole categories of people are being shunted away from legal aid and access to justice in general. Family law is quietly being gutted. This is being justified by new "protocols", mandatory "mediation", so-called "therapy", whatever will provide the system with a helf-credible excuse to reserve recourse to the justice system for the rich and the State.
There is a whole movement busy winding down the civil rights of people who are said to be "boggng down" the system with their claims, or being "punitive" towards men who were just acting out, or being "vindictive" with "allegations", etc. etc. The gatekeepers can draw from a full vocabilary of rethoric.
Whole categories of people are being shunted away from legal aid and access to justice in general. Family law is quietly being gutted. This is being justified by new "protocols", mandatory "mediation", so-called "therapy", whatever will provide the system with a helf-credible excuse to reserve recourse to the justice system for the rich and the State.
Men who don't rape you are entitled to due process. Men who rape you are not. If somebody rapes you, kill him. If somebody tries to rape you, kill him. If you don't, the next time he rapes somebody, it's partly your fault.
that was written by a man who was raped once. Yeah, it does happen. It happens to about one out of ten men. Hadn't considered that, did you?
Nice essay..
It seems that the fight to win a case in the court of public opinion has caused some lawyers to seek new lows....with the media happily reporting and rehashing every sordid detail....what effect this might have on future victims of celebrities can only be imagined..
Wish that the judge would issue a gag order until the actual trial.
You quoted a study that indicates jail time in only 16% of rape cases...a travesty..
But equally chilling is the number of false rape reports..see the following link:
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html
It seems that the fight to win a case in the court of public opinion has caused some lawyers to seek new lows....with the media happily reporting and rehashing every sordid detail....what effect this might have on future victims of celebrities can only be imagined..
Wish that the judge would issue a gag order until the actual trial.
You quoted a study that indicates jail time in only 16% of rape cases...a travesty..
But equally chilling is the number of false rape reports..see the following link:
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html
Hmmm… this website seems to be mainly about defending a yogi and his sect from sexual abuse accusations. (« they have tried to convince the courts and the public that Kriyananda is a spiritual charlatan, guilty of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, and that Ananda itself is an abusive cult. »
The extremely flimsy « research » quoted - by one retired anthropology professor, Eugene Kanin - is more than fifteen years old, not peer-reviewed, and based on a very minute sample (45 cases) from a small midwestern city. Even more problematically, the author equates « false allegations » with the «recant» of rape charges, women « admitting » the charge was false (the vocabulary used is enough to sink the author's credibility!).
Now, there are many reasons why such retractations can happen: reconciliation (most assaulters are known to the victim); pressure from the assaulter and/or family and/or authorities, e.g. university staff; the feeling that the assaulter has been taught enough of a lesson; guilt at making too much of a fuss; inconclusive evidence in the context of a procedure where the only way to stop the process is «recanting», etc.
Unfortunately, Kanin limits the possibility of false retractations to what he calls « desire to avoid a ‘second assault at the hands of the police’ » and offers far too summary tests of such false retractations, such as complainants’ refusal to buckle under threats (« In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. »). Therefore, his claim that « False rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases » simply doesn’t hold water.
Indeed, what is « chilling » is the ease with which such bad science gets broadcasted far and wide. In the Columbia Journalism Review, Dick Haws pointed out, a few years ago, how « unsusually high » Kanin’s figure was compared to the more generally accepted figure of 2%: « some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables." (« The Elusive Numbers on False Rape ») - His own piece makes for more interesting reading. Check it out: http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp
Martin Dufresne
Montreal Men Against Sexism
The extremely flimsy « research » quoted - by one retired anthropology professor, Eugene Kanin - is more than fifteen years old, not peer-reviewed, and based on a very minute sample (45 cases) from a small midwestern city. Even more problematically, the author equates « false allegations » with the «recant» of rape charges, women « admitting » the charge was false (the vocabulary used is enough to sink the author's credibility!).
Now, there are many reasons why such retractations can happen: reconciliation (most assaulters are known to the victim); pressure from the assaulter and/or family and/or authorities, e.g. university staff; the feeling that the assaulter has been taught enough of a lesson; guilt at making too much of a fuss; inconclusive evidence in the context of a procedure where the only way to stop the process is «recanting», etc.
Unfortunately, Kanin limits the possibility of false retractations to what he calls « desire to avoid a ‘second assault at the hands of the police’ » and offers far too summary tests of such false retractations, such as complainants’ refusal to buckle under threats (« In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. »). Therefore, his claim that « False rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases » simply doesn’t hold water.
Indeed, what is « chilling » is the ease with which such bad science gets broadcasted far and wide. In the Columbia Journalism Review, Dick Haws pointed out, a few years ago, how « unsusually high » Kanin’s figure was compared to the more generally accepted figure of 2%: « some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables." (« The Elusive Numbers on False Rape ») - His own piece makes for more interesting reading. Check it out: http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp
Martin Dufresne
Montreal Men Against Sexism
Anytime a victim withdraws her complaint, or the police lack evidence, or the DA chooses not prosecute, or the police don't believe the victim, the case may be "unfounded." This is very different from "false."
Some research has been completed on the issue of "false allegations" of rape. Certainly we should be skeptical of the research that shows false reporting from the 1950's to the 1970's. E. Kanin's research appears to show a scrupulous concern for the truth. He covers in detail how the women were the ones to withdraw from prosecution. He doesn't describe the police methods used in the investigation--but the victims can. Scan through these articles for information on so-called "false reporting."
Below you will find articles that describe how a complaint can be withdrawn or disposed of as a "false report". I have attached links to the entire articles.One is over 400 pages!
1. Blame, Shame, and Community: Justice Responses to Violence Against Women
by Mary P.Koss
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/koss/koss.shtml
2: THE LEGAL PROCESS AND VICTIMS OF RAPE
http://www.justice.ie/80256996005F3617/vluFileCode2/flJWOD4RYHAL/$file/rapevic.pdf
3.A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s
by Jessica Harris and
Sharon Grace
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors196.pdf
Some research has been completed on the issue of "false allegations" of rape. Certainly we should be skeptical of the research that shows false reporting from the 1950's to the 1970's. E. Kanin's research appears to show a scrupulous concern for the truth. He covers in detail how the women were the ones to withdraw from prosecution. He doesn't describe the police methods used in the investigation--but the victims can. Scan through these articles for information on so-called "false reporting."
Below you will find articles that describe how a complaint can be withdrawn or disposed of as a "false report". I have attached links to the entire articles.One is over 400 pages!
1. Blame, Shame, and Community: Justice Responses to Violence Against Women
by Mary P.Koss
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/koss/koss.shtml
2: THE LEGAL PROCESS AND VICTIMS OF RAPE
http://www.justice.ie/80256996005F3617/vluFileCode2/flJWOD4RYHAL/$file/rapevic.pdf
3.A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s
by Jessica Harris and
Sharon Grace
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors196.pdf
Do Women Now Fear Being Kobe’d? Colorado Rape Reports Plummet - Oct 17
Colo. School Sees Drop in Assault Reports
By COLLEEN SLEVIN
Associated Press Writer http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKN_BRYANT_CASE_ASSAULTS?SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
GREELEY, Colo. (AP) -- Sexual assault reports have plummeted at a university once attended by the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape, prompting speculation that the high-profile case has made victims fearful of coming forward.
Attorneys for the basketball star have attacked the woman's credibility by questioning her sexual history and bringing out evidence indicating she had sex with another man shortly before the alleged attack.
"If I were a victim of sexual assault, and I heard and saw things going on in the media with Kobe Bryant, it would certainly make me think twice about reporting it," University of Northern Colorado's Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldschmidt said this week.
Deana Davies, interim coordinator of the university's Assault Survivors Advocacy Program, said the Bryant case can confirm victims' fears that they may not have community support or that their reputations will suffer if they report an attack.
The woman who accused Bryant of rape attended the University of Northern Colorado earlier this year but did not return for the fall term.
In addition to the graphic details revealed during Bryant's preliminary hearing, two men have been charged with threatening to kill the woman.
An Eagle County judge hopes to decide by Monday whether Bryant should stand trial. Bryant, 25, is accused of raping the woman June 30 at a resort where she worked. The Los Angeles Lakers guard has said the sex was consensual and remains free on a $25,000 bond.
At the University of Northern Colorado, 12 women reported being sexually assaulted through mid-October last year, according to the assault survivors program. In 2001, the same number of women reported being assaulted during the same time period.
This year, only three anonymous reports had been made in the same time period by women who said they were attacked but did not want to offer details or seek help.
"I'd hope it would be that it's not happening as much but I don't think that's the case," said Jordan Reck, 20, a volunteer with the university's assault survivors program.
On the Net:
Assault Survivors Advocacy Program http://www.unco.edu/asap/
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network http://www.rainn.org/
Colo. School Sees Drop in Assault Reports
By COLLEEN SLEVIN
Associated Press Writer http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKN_BRYANT_CASE_ASSAULTS?SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
GREELEY, Colo. (AP) -- Sexual assault reports have plummeted at a university once attended by the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape, prompting speculation that the high-profile case has made victims fearful of coming forward.
Attorneys for the basketball star have attacked the woman's credibility by questioning her sexual history and bringing out evidence indicating she had sex with another man shortly before the alleged attack.
"If I were a victim of sexual assault, and I heard and saw things going on in the media with Kobe Bryant, it would certainly make me think twice about reporting it," University of Northern Colorado's Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldschmidt said this week.
Deana Davies, interim coordinator of the university's Assault Survivors Advocacy Program, said the Bryant case can confirm victims' fears that they may not have community support or that their reputations will suffer if they report an attack.
The woman who accused Bryant of rape attended the University of Northern Colorado earlier this year but did not return for the fall term.
In addition to the graphic details revealed during Bryant's preliminary hearing, two men have been charged with threatening to kill the woman.
An Eagle County judge hopes to decide by Monday whether Bryant should stand trial. Bryant, 25, is accused of raping the woman June 30 at a resort where she worked. The Los Angeles Lakers guard has said the sex was consensual and remains free on a $25,000 bond.
At the University of Northern Colorado, 12 women reported being sexually assaulted through mid-October last year, according to the assault survivors program. In 2001, the same number of women reported being assaulted during the same time period.
This year, only three anonymous reports had been made in the same time period by women who said they were attacked but did not want to offer details or seek help.
"I'd hope it would be that it's not happening as much but I don't think that's the case," said Jordan Reck, 20, a volunteer with the university's assault survivors program.
On the Net:
Assault Survivors Advocacy Program http://www.unco.edu/asap/
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network http://www.rainn.org/
(Two paragraphs from an Op-Ed in The Washington Post, Oct. 31, 2003)
You can't argue as many rape cases before a jury as I did during my time as a New York City prosecutor and not understand that our society harbors some deep-seated rape myths -- cultural misconceptions about sexual violence that interfere with our adequately addressing the prevalence of sexual assault. In recent years, most of these rape myths
had gone underground, seemingly because it would have been unpopular to express them. But now, distressingly, the Kobe Bryant case has granted them all permission to resurface.
(...)
It is fundamental to our criminal justice system that at this point Bryant be presumed innocent. It is apparently not fundamental, though, that a person who reports sexual victimization to the authorities be
entitled to that same presumption.
(To read this excellent article in full, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A49317-2003Oct31&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle)
You can't argue as many rape cases before a jury as I did during my time as a New York City prosecutor and not understand that our society harbors some deep-seated rape myths -- cultural misconceptions about sexual violence that interfere with our adequately addressing the prevalence of sexual assault. In recent years, most of these rape myths
had gone underground, seemingly because it would have been unpopular to express them. But now, distressingly, the Kobe Bryant case has granted them all permission to resurface.
(...)
It is fundamental to our criminal justice system that at this point Bryant be presumed innocent. It is apparently not fundamental, though, that a person who reports sexual victimization to the authorities be
entitled to that same presumption.
(To read this excellent article in full, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A49317-2003Oct31&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle)
Why would she give him a "tour" she wanted him and she deserves to be fired! She was leaking semen from another guy when she went to the hospital, what a hoe! she just can't get enough. There are women who are really getting raped daily, why should we spend so much time on this ho when there are women who REALLY need help!
Obviously, with the end of the preliminary hearing, Wendy Murphy has been proven wrong on numerous issues.
just before you critize people look into what somone has to go though to report and in the end not much is done...to report rape or assault i will tell you what needs to be done
just before you critize people look into what somone has to go though to report and in the end not much is done...to report rape or assault i will tell you what needs to be done. as a woman...the police will show up and not believe you and then you get the hospital...you will hear what they do in detail for all of you that think women just descide to make up rapes or assaults .....you get to the hopital and it does not matter what evidence you have you will be put though the whole thing...witch is almost as bad beacause you are also answering questions about what happened, meanwhile you have someone collecting your statement.....then the Best comes the clinical collection of evedence...this in gennerall takes 3 hours and is very humiliating ..not only have you been asaulltd you get someone to come your pubic hair and look up in you .so anyone that thinks a woman would actually do this for other that what may have happened is mistaken
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$325.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network