On the Kobe Bryant trial, Den Beste writes:
On the Kobe Bryant trial, Den Beste writes:
The defendant is guilty, simply because he’s a man. Whether he actually committed rape in this case or not, he surely did some other time, or will some time in the future if he thought he can get away with it, or he’ll harm women some other way. One way or another, he deserves to be punished. And his conviction symbolically convicts all other men, for they are all complicit.
This is not justice, it’s political theater.
Are you kidding me?
The Kobe case is an interesting one for so very many reasons: 1) African-American defendant versus white victim; 2) Celebrity versus mere mortal; 3) the rights of the accused to confront the accuser versus the rights of rape victim to privacy.
But in no way is this a showdown of men versus women — certainly not one where the men are destined to lose. After going through some specious argument about all the poor unheard male victims of domestic abuse, he then makes the laughable flying leap that men are, pardon the pun, screwed. Once accused they stand a ‘good chance of being convicted’ because they are men.
Actually, most experts agree that rape is one of the most underreported crimes and, one of the most difficult to prove. Take the Bryant case — here’s a woman who may have had sex with multiple people on the day that she says Kobe raped her — ideally, that sexual history shouldn’t matter, right? If she said yes four times that day and no once, that once is rape, no? End of story? Not even close.
Bryant’s defense, rightly so, should be able to show that maybe the injuries she says came from the rape really came from other sexual activity. But in the minds of a jury later, that could be extrapolated, wrongly so, to prove, ‘well, if she said yes, those four times, she probably said yes with Kobe.’
(Donating money, after all, is a very different experience than having one’s purse snatched.) But sadly, women who are perceived as “loose” or “easy” face an uphill credibility battle.
Further, rapes usually occur in remote or intimate places (a desolate alley or a hotel room). Which leads examiners to ask “why was she jogging at 4 in the morning?” or “why did she go up to his room?” Who asks an armed robbery victim, “why were you wearing jewelry or have money in your wallet.”
There are all sorts of societal mores and norms which color opinions on whether rape really occurred. The crime involves a third party untangling the circumstances of one of the most intimate acts — months, sometimes years after the fact. But once someone reports a crime, any crime, they are entitled to have their claims investigated, the accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and both are entitled to a fair hearing on the merits. No doubt, the victim’s life is inevitably changed by the process and the accused’s life, too, may suffer irreparable damage — but what is the alternative?
This isn’t political theater or entertainment of any kind, it’s real life.
It’s American justice.
P.S. I am heartened by Den Beste’s concern for male victims of rape in prison, because it is a problem that our society should address to ensure that inmates, can serve their sentences without fear of physical injury or increased risk of infection or attack.
October 24th, 2003 at 9:12 pm
Dawn, your comment about the armed robbery victim is similar to thoughts that I’ve had about rape as a crime. It is one of the few crimes (I hesitate to say the only crime, but it might be) where sympathy or lack of sympathy for the victim ends up playing a part in conviction of the perpetrator. In other crimes people will state their sympathy or lack of sympathy with the victims, but not let it interfere with a decision. For instance, robbery of homes. A juror may have intense sympathy for the person who has an alarm system and an attack guard dog and is still robbed and may have no sympathy for the person who leaves all of the windows open and a note on the door saying “the key is under the mat”. The juror may think (and even say aloud) that second person deserved to be robbed if ever anyone did — but would still convict the robber. But jurors who don’t sympathize with rape victims, for whatever reason, have a hard time convicting. Yes, she may have been stupid to walk down the street naked in a risky area of town — yes you may have absolutely no sympathy for her — but if a crime was committed the criminal should go to jail even if the victim is completely unsympathetic.
October 24th, 2003 at 9:12 pm
Dawn, your comment about the armed robbery victim is similar to thoughts that I’ve had about rape as a crime. It is one of the few crimes (I hesitate to say the only crime, but it might be) where sympathy or lack of sympathy for the victim ends up playing a part in conviction of the perpetrator. In other crimes people will state their sympathy or lack of sympathy with the victims, but not let it interfere with a decision. For instance, robbery of homes. A juror may have intense sympathy for the person who has an alarm system and an attack guard dog and is still robbed and may have no sympathy for the person who leaves all of the windows open and a note on the door saying “the key is under the mat”. The juror may think (and even say aloud) that second person deserved to be robbed if ever anyone did — but would still convict the robber. But jurors who don’t sympathize with rape victims, for whatever reason, have a hard time convicting. Yes, she may have been stupid to walk down the street naked in a risky area of town — yes you may have absolutely no sympathy for her — but if a crime was committed the criminal should go to jail even if the victim is completely unsympathetic.
October 24th, 2003 at 9:12 pm
Dawn, your comment about the armed robbery victim is similar to thoughts that I’ve had about rape as a crime. It is one of the few crimes (I hesitate to say the only crime, but it might be) where sympathy or lack of sympathy for the victim ends up playing a part in conviction of the perpetrator. In other crimes people will state their sympathy or lack of sympathy with the victims, but not let it interfere with a decision. For instance, robbery of homes. A juror may have intense sympathy for the person who has an alarm system and an attack guard dog and is still robbed and may have no sympathy for the person who leaves all of the windows open and a note on the door saying “the key is under the mat”. The juror may think (and even say aloud) that second person deserved to be robbed if ever anyone did — but would still convict the robber. But jurors who don’t sympathize with rape victims, for whatever reason, have a hard time convicting. Yes, she may have been stupid to walk down the street naked in a risky area of town — yes you may have absolutely no sympathy for her — but if a crime was committed the criminal should go to jail even if the victim is completely unsympathetic.
October 24th, 2003 at 9:54 pm
I think the real issue here is that Kobe really does not deserve that much credit for the filandering and off-the-court dilly-dallying that occurs in the NBA, and the only reason that he’s getting so much press is because the liberal media wants to see a Black one-guard go down in flames.
Ooops. Sorry. It was the pain killers speaking.
I agree with many of your points, and, if forced to caste my lot between you or Den Beste, you win hands down. But I think you miss a legitimate point that he was probably trying to make as ineptly and offensively as most men do is that the laws under which Kobe will be tried have changed. Largely for the better and rightfully so. Rape is something whose horror was known mostly only by women yet inexplicably analyzed and measured by men. So we changed the laws. If she said “yes” a million times before, it’s irrelevant. She said “no” at the time at issue. She wore a halter top, mini skirt, stilletos, drank a lot, and fell all over you? If she said “no”, no matter.
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know? Then is it really fair, in measuring the sum of his knowledge at that time, to exclude all of his prior knowledge? His frame of reference for analyzing that critical moment? In many instances, that is now what the law requires.
Look at another issue. Terminology. Kobe is the “accused.” His acts are “alleged.” But the woman, as often as she is the “accuser”, is also the “victim.” Her being a victim implies that there was a crime committed against her. This presumes that facts have been weighed and a determination made. And that means there has been a trial. But there hasn’t. Casting her role further dilutes the “innocent until proven guilty” theory that is so often a joke.
Reformulating the laws forced society, or at least parts of the justice system, to look closely at what is permitted to be done to women based on male outlooks on life. But it really rasied the stakes when making a decision that could mean lifetime incarceration for someone when, at the end of the day, you don’t know what happened.
As to the other comments about the trial so “interesting”, well maybe even less agreement. They are all critical factors, but I have to label them (again, the power of the label) as “troubling.” High-profile rape cases too often have Black defendants. Did we ever see the face of a single soldier from the Tailhook incident? Hugh Grant’s ivory-on-ebony interlude was a joke that got him on the “Tonight” show and has not affected his marketability (even in moveis about adult-child relations, no less). (And don’t even get me started about what that says about Black women.) Maybe Black men should get their own rape sheild laws. How about trying them without the jury s
October 24th, 2003 at 9:54 pm
I think the real issue here is that Kobe really does not deserve that much credit for the filandering and off-the-court dilly-dallying that occurs in the NBA, and the only reason that he’s getting so much press is because the liberal media wants to see a Black one-guard go down in flames.
Ooops. Sorry. It was the pain killers speaking.
I agree with many of your points, and, if forced to caste my lot between you or Den Beste, you win hands down. But I think you miss a legitimate point that he was probably trying to make as ineptly and offensively as most men do is that the laws under which Kobe will be tried have changed. Largely for the better and rightfully so. Rape is something whose horror was known mostly only by women yet inexplicably analyzed and measured by men. So we changed the laws. If she said “yes” a million times before, it’s irrelevant. She said “no” at the time at issue. She wore a halter top, mini skirt, stilletos, drank a lot, and fell all over you? If she said “no”, no matter.
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know? Then is it really fair, in measuring the sum of his knowledge at that time, to exclude all of his prior knowledge? His frame of reference for analyzing that critical moment? In many instances, that is now what the law requires.
Look at another issue. Terminology. Kobe is the “accused.” His acts are “alleged.” But the woman, as often as she is the “accuser”, is also the “victim.” Her being a victim implies that there was a crime committed against her. This presumes that facts have been weighed and a determination made. And that means there has been a trial. But there hasn’t. Casting her role further dilutes the “innocent until proven guilty” theory that is so often a joke.
Reformulating the laws forced society, or at least parts of the justice system, to look closely at what is permitted to be done to women based on male outlooks on life. But it really rasied the stakes when making a decision that could mean lifetime incarceration for someone when, at the end of the day, you don’t know what happened.
As to the other comments about the trial so “interesting”, well maybe even less agreement. They are all critical factors, but I have to label them (again, the power of the label) as “troubling.” High-profile rape cases too often have Black defendants. Did we ever see the face of a single soldier from the Tailhook incident? Hugh Grant’s ivory-on-ebony interlude was a joke that got him on the “Tonight” show and has not affected his marketability (even in moveis about adult-child relations, no less). (And don’t even get me started about what that says about Black women.) Maybe Black men should get their own rape sheild laws. How about trying them without the jury s
October 24th, 2003 at 9:54 pm
I think the real issue here is that Kobe really does not deserve that much credit for the filandering and off-the-court dilly-dallying that occurs in the NBA, and the only reason that he’s getting so much press is because the liberal media wants to see a Black one-guard go down in flames.
Ooops. Sorry. It was the pain killers speaking.
I agree with many of your points, and, if forced to caste my lot between you or Den Beste, you win hands down. But I think you miss a legitimate point that he was probably trying to make as ineptly and offensively as most men do is that the laws under which Kobe will be tried have changed. Largely for the better and rightfully so. Rape is something whose horror was known mostly only by women yet inexplicably analyzed and measured by men. So we changed the laws. If she said “yes” a million times before, it’s irrelevant. She said “no” at the time at issue. She wore a halter top, mini skirt, stilletos, drank a lot, and fell all over you? If she said “no”, no matter.
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know? Then is it really fair, in measuring the sum of his knowledge at that time, to exclude all of his prior knowledge? His frame of reference for analyzing that critical moment? In many instances, that is now what the law requires.
Look at another issue. Terminology. Kobe is the “accused.” His acts are “alleged.” But the woman, as often as she is the “accuser”, is also the “victim.” Her being a victim implies that there was a crime committed against her. This presumes that facts have been weighed and a determination made. And that means there has been a trial. But there hasn’t. Casting her role further dilutes the “innocent until proven guilty” theory that is so often a joke.
Reformulating the laws forced society, or at least parts of the justice system, to look closely at what is permitted to be done to women based on male outlooks on life. But it really rasied the stakes when making a decision that could mean lifetime incarceration for someone when, at the end of the day, you don’t know what happened.
As to the other comments about the trial so “interesting”, well maybe even less agreement. They are all critical factors, but I have to label them (again, the power of the label) as “troubling.” High-profile rape cases too often have Black defendants. Did we ever see the face of a single soldier from the Tailhook incident? Hugh Grant’s ivory-on-ebony interlude was a joke that got him on the “Tonight” show and has not affected his marketability (even in moveis about adult-child relations, no less). (And don’t even get me started about what that says about Black women.) Maybe Black men should get their own rape sheild laws. How about trying them without the jury s
October 25th, 2003 at 7:01 am
Mary B
One thing that makes a rape charge trickier than a breaking-and-entering charge is that the basic act (sexual intercourse) is one that in another context would be completely legal. Absent obvious outward signs of struggle, a jury must make their determination based on assumptions about the defendant and plaintiff’s state of mind.
In other words, breaking and entering will always be obviously criminal. A sexual encounter may or may not be.
October 25th, 2003 at 7:01 am
Mary B
One thing that makes a rape charge trickier than a breaking-and-entering charge is that the basic act (sexual intercourse) is one that in another context would be completely legal. Absent obvious outward signs of struggle, a jury must make their determination based on assumptions about the defendant and plaintiff’s state of mind.
In other words, breaking and entering will always be obviously criminal. A sexual encounter may or may not be.
October 25th, 2003 at 7:01 am
Mary B
One thing that makes a rape charge trickier than a breaking-and-entering charge is that the basic act (sexual intercourse) is one that in another context would be completely legal. Absent obvious outward signs of struggle, a jury must make their determination based on assumptions about the defendant and plaintiff’s state of mind.
In other words, breaking and entering will always be obviously criminal. A sexual encounter may or may not be.
October 26th, 2003 at 6:16 pm
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know?
This hypothetical does pose an interesting dilemma, to which I would add the recent decision that a defendant can be guilty of rape if during intercourse his partner says no and he doesn’t stop right away.
These are very close calls, but my general sense (I haven’t done any field study) is that most sexual encounters don’t end in rape charges. When they do, it’s rare enough that if there’s probable cause we owe it to ourselves to investigate and if warranted go forward with a trial. Otherwise you’ll have rendered rape a never proveable crime, except for the very horrible violent “stranger” cases. A twisted result since, on some level, we should require more of the people we trusted enough to go on dates with, or visit in a hotel room or *gulp* marry.
October 26th, 2003 at 6:16 pm
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know?
This hypothetical does pose an interesting dilemma, to which I would add the recent decision that a defendant can be guilty of rape if during intercourse his partner says no and he doesn’t stop right away.
These are very close calls, but my general sense (I haven’t done any field study) is that most sexual encounters don’t end in rape charges. When they do, it’s rare enough that if there’s probable cause we owe it to ourselves to investigate and if warranted go forward with a trial. Otherwise you’ll have rendered rape a never proveable crime, except for the very horrible violent “stranger” cases. A twisted result since, on some level, we should require more of the people we trusted enough to go on dates with, or visit in a hotel room or *gulp* marry.
October 26th, 2003 at 6:16 pm
But what if she didn’t say no? What if just got quiet? Or what if she kept acting the same, but then left very quickly? What if it comes down to a matter of what the accused SHOULD have known, as opposed to what he did know?
This hypothetical does pose an interesting dilemma, to which I would add the recent decision that a defendant can be guilty of rape if during intercourse his partner says no and he doesn’t stop right away.
These are very close calls, but my general sense (I haven’t done any field study) is that most sexual encounters don’t end in rape charges. When they do, it’s rare enough that if there’s probable cause we owe it to ourselves to investigate and if warranted go forward with a trial. Otherwise you’ll have rendered rape a never proveable crime, except for the very horrible violent “stranger” cases. A twisted result since, on some level, we should require more of the people we trusted enough to go on dates with, or visit in a hotel room or *gulp* marry.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Deja Vu looks pretty interesting. Kilmer and Denzel are some of my favorite actors.