Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rayssd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!rayssd!hxe From: hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US* Message-ID: <782@rayssd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 13:01:25 EDT Article-I.D.: rayssd.782 Posted: Mon Jun 10 13:01:25 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 07:43:45 EDT References: <209@timeinc.UUCP> Organization: Raytheon Co., Portsmouth RI Lines: 90 This is me: > > > >2. Not that I ever want to discuss this again, but the Big Dan's gang > > rape case in New Bedford Massachusetts, in which a woman was raped > > by 4 men and "fondled" by 2 more for two hours in a bar, surrounded > > by a crowd of cheering onlookers, was a hotbed of "what was she > > doing in that bar in the first place?" crap. In fact, there were > > marches where thousands of people marched *in support* of the > > *rapists*!!!!! The men were convicted, but given reduced sentences > > due, I'm sure, to the public pressure. That case was two years > > ago, well within your ten-year time limit. Ross Greenberg: > Heather, from what I recall of the case, it was proven during > the court hearing that, although she was raped by either one > or two men (and these were the men who were convicted), there > was no "cheering" going on, and that this was just a sensationalist > story that the victim first told that was immediately > picked up by our trustworthy media. In fact, she was raped by four men, who were convicted, and held down and "fondled" by two more, who were not convicted. The onlookers (yes, not everyone in the bar, but a significant number surrounding the pool table) were 'encouraging' the rapists. > I really would rather not get into this again, but please get > your facts straight. Any rape is bad enough, but the > New Bedford one raised two many raw nerves due to each > "side" in the net.women argument choosing to believe their own facts. I have my facts straight. I *live* here, two towns over from New Bedford. We got a *lot* of coverage that wasn't presented on any national media. I had to live with this case day and night for months, including all sorts of opinions from male coworkers that made it very difficult to be a non-man-hating woman. (I succeeded.) > Additionally the parade was because the people in the community > felt that this was an issue of ethic prejudice (being a mostly > Portugeese township, and the women being American). They > were marching because they felt that the men were going to be > railroaded due to their nationality and ethnic backround. Yes, it's true that they felt that it was somehow a Portuguese issue rather than a straightforward rape case, but the reasons presented for letting the men off were suspect at best. Few of them denied that the men had engaged in intercourse with the woman; their protest was that the defendants shouldn't have to pay for "one little mistake" and that "she asked for it." Yes, even young Portuguese women were questioning the victim's right to be in that bar. As it was explained to me by many of my Portuguese friends (who were embarrassed by this misplaced Portuguese 'pride'), there is a strong cultural bias against women doing anything but "women" sort of things; ergo the poor men were only doing what anyone would do with that sort of woman in that sort of situation and thus shouldn't be singled out. The fact that there is a cultural history doesn't excuse the rape or the defense of the rapists. Also, not often pointed out on the national news, is the fact that the jury was almost completely Portuguese, so the racism argument should have been tossed out the window. All I know is that the gut feeling brought on by the sight of a candlelight march *IN SUPPORT OF CONVICTED RAPISTS* is one I hope none of you ever have to share. > As for a jury deciding to almost let a rapist off: > What do you suggest as a better alternative than twelve > people deciding the rapists fate? The victim? She might be a little > biased. The jurors have their own biases too, but that is what > jury trials are all about: being tried by a small segment of > society. I'm not sure what you mean here. In the Big Dan's case, at least, the jury convicted four of the six men. It was the Judge who passed a reduced/light sentence. It is my understanding that the jury never passes the sentence. And yes, I still believe that the jury/judge justice system is best (although I have flamed about the *quality* of juries based on the fact that aware professionals always get out of jury duty leaving who knows what to fill in). I also believe that *most* judges pass fair sentences, and are much more qualified to do so than juries or anyone else. In this case, specifically, I felt that the judge bowed to public pressure when passing sentence. -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron