In the last few weeks I've learned a number of valuable lessons. Among them:
1) Apparently if you are poor, you should not expect to be taken seriously if you accuse someone who is not poor, of sexually assaulting you (or trying to).
2) Similarly, if you are powerless, you should not expect to be taken seriously if you accuse someone who is powerful of sexually assaulting you.
3) If you are intoxicated -- at all -- you should not expect the judicial system to take you seriously if you accuse someone of sexually assaulting you.
4) If you are worried that you are in a vulnerable state -- intoxicated or otherwise -- and therefore worried that you could find yourself in danger (of sexual assault or other bodily harm), don't call the police.
5) If you do call the police, and they take advantage of you, don't expect the judicial system to take your complaint seriously. (See numbers 1 through 4.)
I would like to thank the two (former) New York police officers who were supposed to be coming to the aid of an intoxicated woman, but instead admitted to "cuddling" with her in bed (but not "assaulting" her), for teaching me these valuable lessons. I'd also like to thank the jurors who acquitted them of the most serious charges they faced, stemming from that night. And lastly, I'd like to thank the defenders of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for driving these points home through their endless efforts to trash and -- and when that didn't seem to work -- buy off his accuser and her family (allegedly).
The treatment of both of these women -- in one case, by the legal system and in both cases, by the media wild west of cyberspace -- has left me with one question: Is there such a thing as a credible rape victim? Does she exist? Is there any woman on the planet whose word, reputation and behavior is considered beyond reproach enough that she can accuse someone in power of assaulting her and have a real shot at being taken seriously? Or should we just save ourselves some time and just make a rule right now, that only wealthy, tee-totaling nuns should be allowed to make sexual assault claims? Meaning the rest of us, should we find ourselves in harm's way, will just be out of luck? (Click here to see a list of celebrities convicted of sex crimes.)
Now before I get inundated with scolding e-mails, yes I know that there are women who make and have made false assault claims. I find anyone who would do such a thing appalling and believe she should face serious punishment (including jail time) for doing so. But statistically we know that the pendulum tends to swing much further in the opposite direction -- meaning many more sexual assaults go unreported than go over-reported, (despite the media frenzy that cases like the Duke Lacrosse scandal can generate.) The "cuddle cops" case is yet another reminder why so few survivors are willing to come forward.
The best-case scenario -- the scenario that the officers' own defense wants us to believe -- is that police officers that were called to get a vulnerable woman home safely engaged in "cuddling," groping and other inappropriate physical contact with her, while she was so intoxicated that she became sick. Despite the fact that one officer was caught on tape confirming to the accuser that he used a condom, he was acquitted of rape. I'm not exactly sure what he would have needed a condom for if he didn't engage in any sexual activity with her, but I guess I wasn't in the jury room to hear how this little detail was rationalized by those who acquitted him of the rape charge.
I can already hear the judgments of some. "No woman should be so intoxicated that she can't fend for herself." I will take this thought a step further and suggest that it's probably best that no human being, male or female, get so intoxicated that he or she can't fend for him or herself. Forget sexual assault. What about wandering into a street and getting hit by a car? And yet if a man were brutally beaten and mugged on his way out of a bar, why do I get the feeling that a jury wouldn't have a tough time convicting the guys who were eventually caught with his wallet, regardless of how many drinks the victim had before they took it?
But the demonization of the victim in this case is not its most disturbing legacy. The trust that these officers have destroyed between future victims, and the men and women all of us should be able to trust the most -- police officers -- is. While I applaud the NYPD for swiftly terminating Officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata for disgracing their uniforms, I fear the damage has already been done. I know I'm not the only woman who will now think twice the next time I'm alone, it's nighttime and I need help with anything, including getting home safely, and I see two male police officers.
After all, I'm not wealthy. I'm not powerful. I'm also not a nun. So chances are my word isn't worth very much.
This piece originally appeared on TheLoop21.com for which Goff is a Contributing Editor.
www.keligoff.com
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
The rape statistics are heartrending and shockingly staggering. When you consider that maybe half of all rape victims do not even report their rapes, the numbers become mind blowing.
You cannot cure a rapist. They will repeat their crime. So, the jail time they do get does absolutely no good. When they are released, they commit another rape.
Are you from the UK?
Your way of thinking is why I probably treat nice men badly sometimes when I turn down a drink they have offered me. I already know in the back of my mind that they expect something from me. Even if its just my attention. His problem is that he expects something, and I don't owe him anything
Ill stick to never taking drinks from strangers. :) Its easier as a women to assume they are all bad lest I get raped and then someone tells me I'm at fault for being naive or taking things from strangers.
Men should think carefully about what they reveal about the male mind. Considering all my other female experiences, its easier to assume all men are trying to get something from me, then to assume they are decent human beings who just want to know who I am. Its easier to assume they don't see me as another human with thoughts, dreams, and goals. Its the safe choice.
Im responsible for everything that happens to me right? Why don't men ever think about what they can personally do to prevent rape? Stop defending eachother and stop thinking that rape is rare. All men are capable...just like they are all capable of standing up to other men they know, who treat women like trash.
Rape is not rare. If you were closer to more women you would know that. Its often perpetrated by someone you know and trust already. Women often move on and never report it. I have many men in my life I love and trust, friends, brothers, a wonderful father...they have told me who men really are. I convey this to the women in my life and lead by example.
I dont need a man for monetary purposes. I have a PhD in a hard science, not one the limp ones..lol! This makes my dating pool small because most men prefer unbalanced relationships, not their equals. You lack information. Thanks for the vote of confidence and for calling me a bigot. Men like you are asking women to foot the bill, have the kids, clean the house, cook the meals and stay pretty lest I get cheated on. Sounds great for you..not so much for women. To be real...if a man asks me to dinner and expects ME to pay for it...he's an idiot. He'd be lucky to ever hear from me again.
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/
http://www.abolishslavery.org/
“No means no, if you're drunk or you're sober,” "No means no if you're in bed in a dorm or on the street, no means no even if you said yes at first and you changed your mind."
“No matter how much she's had to drink, it's never, never, never, never, never ok to touch her without her consent,” “This doesn't make you a man, it makes you a coward. A flat-out coward.”
~Vice President Biden
A case in California with some teens who took turns with a drunk teen convicted the teens because she was too drunk to consent. These are police officers, are they who you would want to help out your mother, sister or daughter if they were in need and alone at night?
That may be true, but it's because we MAKE it true.
MOST rape claims are actually TRUE...which means, logically, we should be siding with the women who are allegedly raped moreso than the person who is accused of said rape. But the more money/power a man has, the less likely we are to do so.
But to take another track on your statement...
Shouldn't claims by men who say they didn't rape a woman when they actually did, hurt the credibility of those men who didn't rape a woman but was accused of doing so?
I agree with the sentiment that these NYC cops should have been fired and that what they did was terrible. If true, they should have been convicted too.
But I think that the author comes to the irrelevant conclusion that her word "isn't worth as much" as some unnamed rich and powerful booge yman. It's not that her word isn't worth as much. It's that, in many cases, her word is all that cops and jurors have to go on. So an accuser has to convince a jury solely by her testimony that her attacker is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a really hard thing to do, or at least it can be.
I mean, I work as a lawyer in the judicial system. I've seen cases where I was sure it was consensual and the jury voted to convict, and vice versa. So maybe this woman in NYC wasn't credible in the jury's eyes. It's very, very difficult to see that unless you are there. All it takes is one juror for a mistrial, unless you're in Louisiana or Oregon.
Girls, go to the hospital and get a rape kit done ASAP!
As far as the rape kit, it has to be done pretty soon after the attack and many police departments are not that willing to fit the $1,000-$1,500 bill if they don't beleive the alleged victim. They are always the best chance to catch the perp though.
from the estimates i've read, about one out of twenty allegations is false. you'd think judges and juries might consider those odds when they consider the other facts of a case. however, most juries aren't well-educated and don't think too coherently either. attorneys tend not to like jurors who can think for themselves.
to address the former point, i understand the foundation of reasonable doubt to include a consideration of the likelihood of a given event occurring in general, which may be presented in the context of expert testimony. (e.g. is it reasonable to assert that a particular woman is the one out of seventeen alleged victims who is lying?)
From what I have seen of all of your posts in this thread you are taking the position that there is no such thing as rape.
I pity your wife.
Reprehensible!