Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site lzwi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!pegasus!lzwi!cja
From: cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Why men worry about being falsely accused
Message-ID: <169@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 19:57:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.169
Posted: Thu Jun  6 19:57:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 04:12:08 EDT
References: <809@mtgzz.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft
Lines: 89

In article <809@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
> Finally, angry people call for ways to make rape convictions
> easier, to ease off on the victim, to allow the evidence to be
> weaker for a conviction.

What you don't seem to be acknowledging here is that rape
cases historically have had a much different standard than
other crimes--in rape cases, victims were put on trial & made
to corroborate their evidence in a way that was never true for
any other kind of crime, violent or otherwise. Many of the
pleas to change the laws re: rape are pleas to treat
rape victims and suspects like victims and suspects in other
kinds of crimes.

> I was at one point accused of an esstentially subjective crime -
> a disorderly persons offense revolving around the amount of noise I made
> in my upstairs apartment.
You were falsely accused of a misdemeanor. As I mentioned in
another posting, the rate of false reporting of rape is the
same as it is for other kinds of serious crimes. (This is
statistic refers to saying that a rape occurred when one did
not, and to inadvertently misidentifying the suspect.)

> I have one point and one point only: just saying someone committed
> a crime, ANY CRIME, can never be enough to convict them. 
This (conviction on one person's word alone) is not the case with rape 
now nor is that what most reformers want. As the Webb-Dotson case 
indicates, the prosecution invariably brings in other kinds of evidence 
when rape cases are tried.
For instance, many women who are raped feel the need to
cleanse themselves immediately afterwards. This is not a good
idea because unless a victim presents herself to a medical
examiner with evidence of semen on herself and on her clothes,
no charges will ever be brought against anyone. Also, because
rape is a violent crime, victims very often have bruises, torn
vaginas and other physical marks on their bodies after the
attack. Often, there is fiber evidence as well.
The kinds of evidence most reformers want to keep out of rape
trials are the evidence that the defense is allowed to
produce--such as whether the woman was a virgin or not,
whether she was generally faithful to her husband or not,
etc.
Look, I was attacked by an absolute stranger when I was
walking back from the library. If they had ever found the guy,
in some states the fact that I was not a virgin at the time
would have been admissible evidence for the defense. In fact,
the defense could have asked me at great length about my sex
life--and they could go back as far as they wished in asking
questions. Now the point of that kind of defense is not even
to create a *reasonable* doubt in the minds of the jury, but to
feed on their prejudices about proper behavior & their
prejudices about nice girls not getting raped. But it would
have nothing to do with the *facts* of the case. In NO other
kind of crime case does the defense attempt to do that, nor do
judges allow it.

> What I have said goes for rape as for all other crimes. It goes
> for all kinds of rape - Date rape, wife rape, stranger rape.
> Cases must be decided one at a time based on the evidence. Punishement
> must be appropriate to the magnitude of the crime. 
I don't believe in capital punishment, nor do I think
that castration is a good (or constitutional!) punishment.
It might give me some emotional satisfaction if I could
castrate the man who tried to rape me, but I would never
seriously advocate that as a justifiable punishment.
But the question of guilt or innocence is a different one than
the question of punishment. They are decided at different
times & by different people under our legal system.
I'm not sure why you're talking about the two of them together.
Are you saying that punishments for rapists should be minimal
or not so severe because a convicted rapist may nonetheless be
innocent? Isn't that true for any other kind of crime?

> It is extremely easy to sit on the sidelines and urge that harse
> punishment be meted out to "criminals." It is only when we sit
> down in court and listen to different cases that we realize
> the difference between being in jail(or dead in the chair), and
> being free may rest on the word of some pretty dubious characters,
> and some pretty flimsy evidence. 
That's why in many states, punishments are discretionary--that
is, judges are given a range of punishments from which to
choose. The push for mandatory sentencing comes more out of a
conservative anti-crime movement & less from any specific
attitudes re: rape.
> Dale

C. E. Jackson
...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above 
[lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)