New at Reason

David Weigel | May 2, 2006

Cathy Young speaks some hard truths about the Duke rape scandal.

Comments

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 8:56AM|#

The other exotic dancer who was on the scene initially disputed the alleged victim's claims but then changed her story somewhat, and apparently made inquiries about profiting from her role in the case.

Hasn't their been some stories about the accuser accusing some people prior to this?

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 8:57AM|#

Haven't.
Hasn't.

I don't know. Leave me alone, it's early.

Ron Hardin|5.2.06 @ 9:02AM|#

It started going downhill when some judge decided in the 70s that it was possible for a man to rape his wife.

The correct result would have been that rape is a crime against female modesty, and it is not possible with a man's wife.

The charge ought to have been assault, not rape.

Then the question of female modesty could be brought up where it seems to apply; and perhaps even in this case, assault ought to be the charge.

|5.2.06 @ 9:04AM|#

"Haven't.
Hasn't.

I don't know. Leave me alone, it's early."

I didn't even notice that one - I was transfixed by "their" :) Not worth pointing out your own mistakes - it's not like you're getting paid to write here, is it?

And yes, I have read somewhere that there were similar accusations in her past. Which doesn't mean anything by itself, but given all the circumstanial evidence, I tend to agree with those who are predicting Nifong will drop the majority of charges, if not all, after he gets through election season.

MP|5.2.06 @ 9:07AM|#

Ron,

Why make the technical distinction between assault and rape? A he said/she said crime is difficult to litigate, regardless of the label one puts on it.

joanne mcneil|5.2.06 @ 9:15AM|#

Umm, you aren't exactly covered in a cashmere blanket and handed a cappuccino the minute you make a rape charge. It's a grilling process, salt is poured over open wounds -- and you're unlikely to see justice served anyway; so more often than not victims don't report it. Here in Illinois, a video-tape made by the defendants depicting the gang rape as well as the suspects ashing on the victim and writing slurs on her body -- that! -- that was still not enough to convict the two high school students. Noticeably, few talking heads chimed in at the "not guilty" verdict. Greater fuss was given to whether or not it was fair to let the accuser leave the room while the video was played for the jury.

I'm disappointed that the libertarian position on rape most often is the knee-jerk exact counter to the gender-feminists. We should aim for a more nuanced look at this very sensitive topic. While I don't disagree with any of Young's general statements; this approach seems to further obscure the very difficulty of ever taking rape to trial

|5.2.06 @ 9:20AM|#

Apparently the DNA results did not show any links between the lacrosse athletes and the alleged victim. Of course, DNA evidence is not necessary to win a conviction, but I guess Nifong would have a lot to overcome without it.

In this day and age, it's the 'CSI' effect. If you don't find the evidence, then maybe it's not the guy. (In 'CSI,' they always find the evidence, as a matter of course!)

As a prosecutor, you ain't likely going to tell a jury being gang-raped by three men wouldn't leave a single crumb of DNA material to be examined, no sir! Seems kind of damning to the prosecution case in my book.

|5.2.06 @ 9:20AM|#

As far as the justice system goes, they have to be assumed innocent. In every case of he said / she said I can think of, you can't convict in good conscience.

The court of public opinion may be something else altogether, but I kind of shrug my shoulders at that, too. It isn't that I'm insensitive to the topic, it is that I have no way of knowing what happened and neither does anyone else.

Tom|5.2.06 @ 9:25AM|#

Ron,

How is "female modesty" is the state's concern?

|5.2.06 @ 9:46AM|#

What we know so far: two strippers start dancing, the players get rowdy, the strippers get angry and start to leave, the players get angry and call them names as they head out, one of the strippers returns the taunts, the drunk accuser-stripper goes back in to retrieve her shoe (but may not have found it), second stripper is angry at the players and the drunk stripper, calls 911 to report name-calling, has someone else call 911 to report drunk woman in her car, cop arrives and sees drunk woman passed out, drunk woman is taken to a substance abuse center, realizes she may be in big trouble because of her past drunken criminal behavior (leading police on a car chase and trying to run down an officer), claims rape, is sent to hospital where exam reveals injuries 'consistent' with rape, points the finger at three men at the party, media and black leaders go crazy and play up race angle, DA - in a fight for political survival - takes the race bait and vilifies 46 men, some of whom weren't at the party, tests all but the black player, and despite no evidence charges two, later three, men with rape. Yet no DNA connected these men to the accuser; no DNA under her nails from trying to fight them off. No connection also means their DNA wasn't found on her, either.

Now isn't that a crystal-clear case of rape?

|5.2.06 @ 9:54AM|#

Appearing on the Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor, Monika Johnson-Hostler of the North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault declared that her role was "to support a woman or any victim that comes forward to say that they were sexually assaulted."

To O'Reilly's question, "Even if they weren't?" Johnson-Hostler replied, "I can't say that I've come across one that wasn't."

So I guess when Johnson-Hostler watches "To Kill a Mockingbird," she cheers the fact that that no-count rapist Tom Robinson gets what's coming to him, notwithstanding that he got that hot-shot lawyer Atticus Finch to try to get him off by putting the victim on trial.

|5.2.06 @ 9:54AM|#

I also wonder why the victim's modesty has any bearin on whether a violent crime occured or not. I'm a married woman, but I'm also a litigation attorney, which is hardly a 'modest' position. Also, can't men be modest? I have two sons; if some creep rapes one of them as, say, fraternity hazing, is that a crime? Ron reinforces the horrible old double standard, that 'good' women don't ever have sex and men want sex at all times in all places with whomever they can grab. How can treating half the population as timid dimwits and the other half as raging beasts ever be a good thing?

|5.2.06 @ 9:55AM|#

The second paragraph in my last post should have been italicized as well.

|5.2.06 @ 9:55AM|#

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh charmingly referred to charges that lacrosse team members had "raped some hos."
Too bad he's not a rap 'artist,' huh? A drunken prostitute by any other name would smell as sweet.

Better estimates show that 40-60% of rape allegations as false:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Tidbit: "Alan Dershowitz (1993) reports that he was accused of sexual harassment for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations."

|5.2.06 @ 10:07AM|#

I'm disappointed that the libertarian position on rape most often is the knee-jerk exact counter to the gender-feminists. We should aim for a more nuanced look at this very sensitive topic.

I'm not sure about the first claim, if only because I doubt there is anything that rises to "the libertarian position," but I am sympathetic to the second claim.

The problem is that criminal justice is a sort of zero sum game. Afford greater protections or deference to an accuser and you decrease the protections and deference to the accused accordingly.

Case in point, various shield laws protect accusers but not the accused. I don't deny there are good reason to shield actual victims of rape from inappropriate publicity, but that further strengthens the potential power of a would-be false accuser.

Point two, defense attacks on the allegation of non-consent, a required element of the offense, cannot generally raise prior conduct to impeach the accuser's testimony. Again, I don't argue against the rationale for this prohibition, but the net effect is to occasionally prohibit genuinely probative information from the jury. (I expect to get scathing responses to this denying that prior conduct is relevant to the truth or even the believability of the accuser's charge in a rape case. For what it's worth, I agree that it is not probative of the ultimate truth of the charge but it certainly can be probative of the believability of the accuser.)

Whatever "the libertarian position" on rape may or may not be, certainly anyone interested in ensuring both that actual crimes be successfully prosecuted and that innocent persons not be convicted should recognize the difficulty in balancing these conflicting concerns.

Finally, I find Mr. Hardin's argument that a return to the common law notion that rape is per se legally impossible inside marriage to be frankly absurd. It was merely part and parcel of the even broader maxim "At common law the husband and wife are one -- and that one is the husband." Is that the understanding of marriage to which he would have us return?

|5.2.06 @ 10:07AM|#

I take no position on any aspect of this stupid case except to note that I was appalled that the police used a photo line-up that consisted solely of Duke lacrosse players. Somebody who audited a Basic Criminal Procedure class could tell you that would produce a legally defective identification in most instances.

|5.2.06 @ 10:08AM|#

Arguing about cases like this is pointless because so much fuel is added to the flames and people say things that have absolutely no bearing with the issue.

These guys might be asshole rapists, they might be dump rapists, they might be asshole innocents or dumb innocents.

It is important to defend the interests of women as victims, but not to go so far as to accord women complaining of rape a presumption of honesty and objectivity."

This Fletcher guy at the end of the article hits the nail on the head - surely you have to presume innocence on the part of the accused. Anything that takes away from that presumption is politiking.

|5.2.06 @ 10:12AM|#

I'm disappointed that the libertarian position on rape most often is the knee-jerk exact counter to the gender-feminists.

Well, I don't think it's so much that as the fact that libertarians tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against people who want to dismantle our constitution.

I heard representatives from an anti-rape group (a fairly major group that goes around to high schools and such) actually say the exact words "People accused of rape should be guilty until proven innocent." I responded, "Isn't that unconstitutional" and she said "Well, that's just a piece of paper. We're talking about PEOPLE."

|5.2.06 @ 10:17AM|#

I heard representatives from an anti-rape group (a fairly major group that goes around to high schools and such) actually say the exact words "People accused of rape should be guilty until proven innocent." I responded, "Isn't that unconstitutional" and she said "Well, that's just a piece of paper. We're talking about PEOPLE."

Those guys must be pro Guantanomo too.

|5.2.06 @ 10:23AM|#

There was University funded organization at college that actually frequented dining halls on Saturday and Sunday mornings, looking for dissheveled, hungover girls. They'd approach and start talking, trying to find out if the girls had "hooked up" while drunk the night before.

If the unlucky girl answered yes, this organization would invite her to their office with the offer of a nice free lunch. There, they would try to convince her that she was raped.

A friend of mine had been a member of this organization and quit when she had an epiphany one day. I asked her why they would implement this tactic, and she said that they wanted to change social norms. I asked if they felt any remorse for the hell they put the accused people through, especially any that got convicted. Her reply was that to them, the "price" was worth the ends. When I said that they actually weren't paying the "price", she agreed and noted that's why she left.

It's the ultimate in statist thinking: This goal is so important I'm willing to force others to pay for it.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 10:31AM|#

I didn't even notice that one - I was transfixed by "their" :) Not worth pointing out your own mistakes - it's not like you're getting paid to write here, is it?

Note to self:

DO NOT POST AFTER PULLING AN ALL NIGHTER

|5.2.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Not to beat the drum yet again, but cases like this make handgun control especially pernicious. The justice system, if everything is functioning correctly, SHOULD let those accused without supporting evidence walk.

On the other hand, self defence is a fundamental right. More women should carry firearms.

Especially strippers.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 10:45AM|#

On the other hand, self defence is a fundamental right. More women should carry firearms.

Especially strippers.

Considering the state of intoxication and state of mind or the accuser and her, hm, accomplice, I think the last thing this case needed was a stripper with a handgun.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 10:48AM|#

One can only hope that when this is done with, some Duke Lacrosse players are going to be handsomely rewarded by the courts at the expense of the legal system in North Carolina...

|5.2.06 @ 10:52AM|#

I have seen and prosecuted more rape cases than I would want to see. Rape is a unique crime in that proving the crime took place is often harder than proving the offender. In contrast, in say a theft case, it is pretty obvious someone stole something, the hard part is proving who stole something. In rape cases, it is of course often just the opposite. If there was a rape, we know who did it, but it is very hard to tell if there was a rape. More importantly, a woman's behavior can create reasonable doubt as to whether she consented. If a woman accuses a complete stranger who broke into her home of rape, it is a pretty good bet she didn't consent. What about if the woman was on a date with the accused and was drunk and seen hanging all over him all night as well as giving him oral sex in the back of a car but later claimed that he raped her? (a real case) What about if the woman is friends with the man and admits under oath that although she was raped she had sex with the accused three days after the alleged rape? (another real case) Of course just because the woman was drunk and consented to some sex acts should not mean that she could not say no. At the same time, if her word is the only evidence and we know from other witnesses that she was giving him oral sex earlier in the night, doesn't that create reasonable doubt that she may have consented? Saying that, however, has the practical effect of making it so that every woman who consents to a sex act consents to any sex act because her initial consent creates reasonable doubt on her consent to any other sex act. In addition, a lot of experts on the subject of victim behavior will swear to you that a rape victim will often do completely nonsensical things up to and including having sex with the perpetrator. These cases are a mess and damn near impossible to figure what happened let alone prosecute or give either side any sense of justice.

Ultimately, you either have to get rid of the presumption of innocence in rape cases, a thoroughly terrible idea, or we have to convince woman to be more careful around men, i.e. not getting drunk and going off alone with men or not agreeing to come strip in front of a bunch of drunken frat rats.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 11:05AM|#

i.e. not getting drunk

Ding!

fyodor|5.2.06 @ 11:18AM|#

"Well, that's just a piece of paper. We're talking about PEOPLE."

Proving once again why we NEED that piece of paper and need to take it seriously.

joann mcneil,

With all due respect, I think you're countering the knee-jerkers with your own knee-jerking. The only "libertarian" position on rape is that it's wrong and actionable (ie, subject to state punishment). Beyond that, I imagine if you ask any ten libertarians what they think of any of the other myriad aspects of the issue, you'll likely get ten answers. We may all have thick glasses and chew tobacco, but we're still unique individuals!!

|5.2.06 @ 11:26AM|#

"One can only hope that when this is done with, some Duke Lacrosse players are going to be handsomely rewarded by the courts at the expense of the legal system in North Carolina..."

A coworker's brother got assaulted by the defendent prior to this case. Him and his asshead friends started a fight with him and his friend outside a bar in Georgetown because he was dressed nice, and thus, a faggot. A bunch of broken bones later, said defendent got probation. He was still on probation when the alleged rape occurred. That, coupled with the creepy "I'm gonna kill her and cut all her skin off" e-mail, makes me believe that the prosecutors could be forgiven for not giving this guy the benefit of the doubt that you or I should receive.

fyodor|5.2.06 @ 11:31AM|#

Ron Hardin,

I really don't know how you commit a crime against someone's modesty, because there is no right to modesty, not in the sense I think you mean it, anyway. Rape is a crime for the same reason assault is, because you own your body. Rape is merely a type of assault, a particularly aggregious type. I don't see how one's circumstance relative to the perpetrator affects that.

|5.2.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Ultimately, you either have to get rid of the presumption of innocence in rape cases, a thoroughly terrible idea, or we have to convince woman to be more careful around men, i.e. not getting drunk and going off alone with men or not agreeing to come strip in front of a bunch of drunken frat rats.

As a father with a couple of daughters, one additional element is that we aspire to bring people up to treat each other appropriately. I am largely anti-feminist, and surely there are the tail ends of the Bell Curve to consider, but how about once a woman says no the request is respected?

|5.2.06 @ 11:40AM|#

I really don't know how you commit a crime against someone's modesty

I know a guy who turned up at a wedding reception with his dong in a hot dog bun and ketchup over the top asking anyone if they fancied some wiener?

I'm not a legal man but if that's not a crime against someone's modesty then I'll eat a piano.

|5.2.06 @ 11:42AM|#

fyodor: exactly.

I fail to see how a marriage certificate gives a man "special priveleges" when it comes to forcing a woman to have sex with him. I've seen out-of-wedlock relationships that were extremely sexually open and dedicated; at the same time, I've seen plenty of marriages where the idea of sex seemed more foreign than did most out-of-wedlock relationships.

Procuring a marriage certificate with another person doesn't, as far as I can see, necessarily transform the sexual relationship of those involved.

|5.2.06 @ 11:43AM|#

Mark,

There can certainly be offenses against modesty---the question is whether offending modesty should be an actionable offense on the part of the State.

The Owner's Manual|5.2.06 @ 11:52AM|#

That...a stripper at a party with athletes [is no longer] viewed by many as fair game...surely makes us a more decent society.

Chortle. Yes, indeed, Cathy. Decenter by the day.

|5.2.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Reading all these comments makes me wonder if part of the problem is that we don't expect boys to be sexually responsible. Behaving like rut-crazed bighorn sheep always has unpleasant consequences, even if something less than a criminal record.

I have two sons, and I intend to emphasize to them that sex is something very special, not to be used with people one has just met or barely knows. If you want to avoid a misunderstanding that lands you in jail, save it for long-term or permanent relationships. (Also, save long-term relationships for sane people, but that's another story.) Being a gentleman won't guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen, but it makes such things vastly more unlikely.

|5.2.06 @ 11:58AM|#

Rape is merely a type of assault, a particularly aggregious type.

This is a common meme in libertarian circles. Indeed, I used to use it myself, but I am no longer comfortable with it and have become suspicious about the work this sort of reductionism is supposed to accomplish. By the same logic, premeditated murder is just an aggregious type of homocide, mayhem is just an aggregious type of battery, kidnapping is just an aggregious type of crimes against persons, etc. All these are true, none is particularly enlightening.

Certain sorts of crimes against persons are so aggregious they merit separate and special terminology and treatment because at some point difference in degree becomes difference in nature.

|5.2.06 @ 12:02PM|#

I actually understand why some people want the accuser to be presumed correct. I think that many of the people saying that are in situations where they work closely with rape victims, counseling them and supporting them. In that sort of role, where your goal is to help somebody, you have to presume that the story is true.

The mistake they make is thinking that the same assumptions should apply in court, where the issue is whether or not somebody should be sent to prison. For that sort of issue, a very different sort of presumption is necessary. Sadly, that different presumption means that we'll often err on the side of letting bad guys go free and victims will not see justice done. As much as I sympathize, a look around the world shows what happens when you don't have that presumption in place.

As to how people should conduct themselves, I don't really disagree with anybody here: Men and women should obviously be more careful about what sort of situations they get into, what sort of decisions they make, what sort of signals they send, how they interpret signals, etc. But the bottom line is that "no" is a one syllable word that everybody understands. There's no getting around that fact. It would be better to avoid certain situations altogether, but if you get there and the word "no" is used, well, that's that.

Sadly, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody said "no" can be difficult, and I don't think anybody has an easy answer there.

|5.2.06 @ 12:03PM|#

I have two sons, and I intend to emphasize to them that sex is something very special, not to be used with people one has just met or barely knows.

Hhhhhhmmmm - they might not listen to you....

On a side note - I'm reading a Biography of JFK at the moment. HOLY CRAP was he a sex pest....

|5.2.06 @ 12:14PM|#

As to suggestions that we put the onus on the behavior of men as opposed to women, the problem is how do you propose to do that? Certainly, the Duke Lacross team is a bunch of juvinille jackasses. That said, that does not mean they raped that woman. Moreover, if you are going to say that they somehow had this allegation coming for being jackasses, then you are demolishing the presumption of inocence. That seems to me to be a much worse alternative than telling woman that if they act foolishly and it ends badly, we might not be able to prosecute the person who raped them.

|5.2.06 @ 12:14PM|#

As to suggestions that we put the onus on the behavior of men as opposed to women, the problem is how do you propose to do that? Certainly, the Duke Lacross team is a bunch of juvinille jackasses. That said, that does not mean they raped that woman. Moreover, if you are going to say that they somehow had this allegation coming for being jackasses, then you are demolishing the presumption of inocence. That seems to me to be a much worse alternative than telling women that if they act foolishly and it ends badly, we might not be able to prosecute the person who raped them.

|5.2.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Cathy, you lost me at: "A couple of generations ago, a stripper at a party with athletes would have been viewed by many as fair game."

"Fair game" for what? Gang rape? Do you really believe that was a social norm of pre-1965 America?

Timothy|5.2.06 @ 12:16PM|#

Procuring a marriage certificate with another person doesn't, as far as I can see, necessarily transform the sexual relationship of those involved.

File this under "things that make me glad I didn't end up marrying my ex-girlfriend".

|5.2.06 @ 12:21PM|#

Mark, given how the listen to me about things like not jumping on the sofa or climbing on the bookcase, I'd probably bet against their listening to me on this one, too. Still, one can hope. I cherish the impossible dream that one day they'll both have table manners, too.

I think this is an appropriate point to mention that John Mortimer's character Rumpole always said that the greatest contributions of England to world culture were the plays of Shakespeare, the full breakfast, the herbaceous border, and, mostly, the presumption of innocence. Crimes like this emphasize the importance of that presumption. The lacrosse players sound like horrendous assholes, but being an asshole shouldn't carry a prison sentence. If there was no evidence of a crime, then they shouldn't be charged and certainly not convicted. They should, however, be shunned by polite society for being such jerks.

|5.2.06 @ 12:26PM|#

I agree with thoreau and, expanding on Karen's comment, would add that we do not expect women to be sexually responsible either, at least to the extent we once did. (BTW, Karen, thanks for making me smile with the reference to Rumpole and his "Golden Thread.")

I don't long for the 'good old days' of pre-1960's courtship rituals (isn't that a quaint term!), but the combination of (1) sexual liberation and the abandonment of commonly understood and followed "rules of engagement" (in the military, not the pre-marital sense of engagement) and (2) the ever-shifting and subjectively measured standards of political correctness have created a mine field.

Regarding the Duke lacrosse story, no less diverse commentators than Camille Paglia (years ago) and Anne Coulter have noted correctly that getting blind drunk and walking willingly up to a fraternity boy's room or being the paid erotic entertainment (and only females) at an all-male college jock party, though still not consent to sex, is idiotic beyond belief. Again, that certainly doesn't justify rape in this or any similar case, but regardless of how the law sorts out this mess, shouldn't we as a society be dubious, at the very least, of the alleged victims on grounds of their being dumb in a No-Dumb Zone?

|5.2.06 @ 12:28PM|#

I agree entirely Karen.

But bare in mind that John Mortimer was a reknowned sex pest too! Apparently his favourite hobby was wooing his friends wives at his own dinner parties. There was a biography along those lines recently which he tried to have banned. Not sure if it was....

I can find no fault with the list although I would replace Shakespeare with P.G Wodehouse.

|5.2.06 @ 12:34PM|#

"(Also, save long-term relationships for sane people, but that's another story.)"

Amen to that

--------

"Being a gentleman won't guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen, but it makes such things vastly more unlikely."

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Papist, but don't those guys teach something about "avoiding the occasions of sin?"
Wouldn't that also include not going to a place you have never been, full of strange (drunken) boys you don't know, and taking off all of your clothes for their amusement?
I am not blaming the victim, I am merely trying to point out that bad decisions frequently- almost invariably- lead to bad outcomes.
If those guys are guilty, then nail them to the barn door by their scrotums. If they are being used by a D A for political gain, then nail HIM to the barn door by HIS scrotum.

|5.2.06 @ 12:38PM|#

I can find no fault with the list although I would replace Shakespeare with P.G Wodehouse.

Without question, Shakespeare, Wodehouse and Jane Austen are the three greatest English language prose stylists of all time.

|5.2.06 @ 12:38PM|#

If those guys are guilty, then nail them to the barn door by their scrotums. If they are being used by a D A for political gain, then nail HIM to the barn door by HIS scrotum.

Congratulations. You win best use of genital type word today.

Scrotum.....superb.....

fyodor|5.2.06 @ 12:50PM|#

Certain sorts of crimes against persons are so aggregious they merit separate and special terminology and treatment because at some point difference in degree becomes difference in nature.

Of course, and my post was not meant to indicate otherwise. (In fact, I like to make the same point, which I've narrowed to saying: at a certain point, quantitative differences become qualititative.) The context of my post was to argue against Ron Hardin's post that forced intercourse by a husband against his wife or against a stripper by her customer were assault, but not rape. If I understand him correctly, the woman has no "modesty" to be violated in these circumstances. My point is that what is being violated is the woman's body. Now, maybe telling a woman that you'd like to see her naked could be a form of verbal harrassment in some circumstances but not in others. But since rape is a crime against the body (yes, just like battery), then the context has no bearing other than as it applies to the perpetratee's consent.

That's what I meant, nothing more, nothing less. Just to be clear. (I hope!)

|5.2.06 @ 12:56PM|#

"Fair game" for what? Gang rape? Do you really believe that was a social norm of pre-1965 America?

Gutta,

I took that to mean that no one would have taken seriously an accusation of rape coming from a stripper. It's hardly a far-fetched notion.

fyodor|5.2.06 @ 12:57PM|#

Karen,

Reading all these comments makes me wonder if part of the problem is that we don't expect boys to be sexually responsible.

I think we can reasonably expect most men to be sexually responsible (at least in regards to rape), but not all. Just like with any crime. If no one discussed men's responsibilities on this thread previous to your post, I would guess that's at least partly because it's presumed that there will always be some men prone to commit this crime no matter how correct our attitude is about it, and thus we need to discuss things in light of that reality which won't go away.

|5.2.06 @ 1:27PM|#

Since nobody has yet recited the party line, and one poster even seemed confused as to what it was, let me just say that entertainers and sex workers face much more dangerous work environments than they ought to because sex work is illegal.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 1:30PM|#

save it for long-term or permanent relationships.

It's not going to happen. Stop preaching the unrealistic and start teaching the possible.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 1:34PM|#

and surely there are the tail ends of the Bell Curve to consider, but how about once a woman says no the request is respected?

But that's exactly what we're talking about here. The ends of the Bell Curve...

|5.2.06 @ 1:45PM|#

...the accuser...the accuser...
Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum.

|5.2.06 @ 1:59PM|#

But that's exactly what we're talking about here. The ends of the Bell Curve...

How do you figure? This is a she-said/they-said case, not "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". She said they assaulted her, they deny it. The tail ends I am talking about are the ones where you debate whether it is rape if the woman says no after commencing with the penetration, or you argue that a state of inebriation makes it impossible to form consent.

|5.2.06 @ 2:06PM|#

My take on Rush's comment is that one, he is making fun of Rappers who use such language and two, it's a jab at liberals who decry misogynist language and behavior but say nothing about its use by rappers.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.2.06 @ 2:25PM|#

How do you figure? This is a she-said/they-said case, not "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". She said they assaulted her, they deny it.

And there is no linking DNA...

Eff they-said/she-said. Evidence-said rules the day

|5.2.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Let me preface this statement by saying that I did live in a fraternity in when I was in college, and on several occassions procured the services of strippers.

Whenever the ladies would come over 2 things would happen. First, they would always be accompanied by a bouncer approximately the size of a volkswagen who made it quite clear that no funny business would be allowed. Second, a set of strict ground rules would be established. So despite the fact that their was a room full of inebriated aroused men, there was a level of control established early on.

These allegations seem odd to me in that all of these risk-procedures broke down. Not that I am saying the allegations are impossible, but it does make me wonder.

|5.2.06 @ 3:04PM|#

Let me preface this statement by saying that I did live in a fraternity in when I was in college, and on several occassions procured the services of strippers.

Whenever the ladies would come over 2 things would happen. First, they would always be accompanied by a bouncer approximately the size of a volkswagen who made it quite clear that no funny business would be allowed. Second, a set of strict ground rules would be established. So despite the fact that their was a room full of inebriated aroused men, there was a level of control established early on.

These allegations seem odd to me in that all of these risk-procedures broke down. Not that I am saying the allegations are impossible, but it does make me wonder.

David Rollins|5.2.06 @ 5:05PM|#

With all this talk about the tail ends of the bell curve I know there's a joke in here somewhere about tail and bell ends (british for glans), but I'll just note how creepy it is for two H&R posters to have personal connections to the case. I live two blocks from the site of the alleged rape, went to Duke, was in a fraternity (the rugby frat, which has housed next to the lacrosse frat), and hired strippers. Evan, the fight you mention was simply two lacrosse players from competing schools (G-town and Duke) getting drunk and calling each other names on the street, which ended in a simple assault. Neither party is "innocent", just as in the lacrosse case.

I gladly voted for the DA's opponent in the Democratic primary today (was eligible thanks to the state decertifying the LP in NC), and can't wait for him to be thrown out.

|5.2.06 @ 5:09PM|#

God that is creepy. One question David, what is it with Rugby guys and getting naked with each other? I played Rugby for a year in college and stopped because frankly I didn't like going to parties that always ended with a bunch of guys running around naked doing something called the elephant walk.

|5.2.06 @ 5:41PM|#

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Tamara Anne Mounier case in this context. Cathy herself wrote about it, originally from Jeff Goldstein at ProteinWisdom. It was only a couple of months ago. At the least it's an example of how some women will, indeed, drum up and stick to false allegations of rape despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

I also find it interesting as a reflection on the agendas of the media. The only place I ever encountered the Mounier story was via the internet (and it's certainly a great story, from the sordid I can't-believe-anyone-would-do-that perspective). The Duke case, on the other hand, is plastered everywhere and is inescapable.

|5.2.06 @ 5:53PM|#

That, coupled with the creepy "I'm gonna kill her and cut all her skin off" e-mail, makes me believe that the prosecutors could be forgiven for not giving this guy the benefit of the doubt that you or I should receive.

I guess it's irrelevant that neither of the accused players wrote the e-mail. I'm sure Evan would agree that the prosecutors "could be forgiven" if they decided to throw the book at *him* because of something one of his friends or associates put in a private e-mail.

|5.2.06 @ 6:08PM|#

It's interesting how many people here are ready to conclude that this is a false accusation.

(I'm not concluding it's true, mind you.)

However,
1. It is possible for someone to be raped and for there to be no reliable DNA evidence.
2. If you insist on making a judgment in this case, read the affidavits (at Smoking Gun):

Her injuries were "consistent with rape". Not that any of you have the slightest idea what that means. The medical examiner found that she had "signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped vaginally and anally." That means tearing. That means blood.

The woman claims to have been hit, kicked, and strangled, as well as assaulted orally, vaginally, and anally for 30 minutes. Are those of you who want to dismiss her story also willing to assume that she had no physical bruises or indication that supported her story?

One possible reason there's no DNA under her fingernails is that she was wearing false ones and she claims the broke off while she struggled. And guess what, when the cops arrived they found 4 red fingernails, consistent with her story. Do you all think it's perfectly normal for a woman to lose 4 superglued fingernails in a consensual foursome?

Her makeup bag, cell phone, and ID were also inside the home, and the cash she was supposed to have been paid. So you think it's likely a stripper is just going to leave all that?

Also, "it is the Affiant's belief that the suspects used each other's names to disguise their own identities and create an atmosphere where confusion would become a factor...should problems arise in the future where any actions or conduct could be questioned"

David Rollins|5.2.06 @ 7:36PM|#

No DNA on the fingernails because they weren't torn off by the players. In the photos where she is drunk on the back steps you can see bright red fingernail polish from freshly applied nails splattered on the porch railing.

This whole thing is a setup. She doesn't work for a nudie bar. She works for an escort service, i.e., she gets paid to have sex for money. She may have been raped, but not by these guys.

|5.2.06 @ 8:40PM|#

David,

Apparently you were there that night? You admit she may have been raped, yet you insist they were not the ones who did it.

I see, she's a black stripper and therefore her rape is meaningless. That's probably what her rapist/s thought, too.

Just as we must presume innocence, we must let her have her day in court.

And I would have thought that libertarians, who believe government's job is to prevent people from violating the rights of others, would be calling for justice for this woman.

You are actually saying that she intentionally went out and got raped, and then left evidence at this house and made a false report? To what end, exactly?

No, never mind. I have to go. I'm sick to my stomach.

|5.2.06 @ 11:54PM|#

It's interesting how many people here are ready to conclude that this is a false accusation.

Not many by my count. Most would appear to be agnostic, as any sensible person would be given the paucity of real evidence available to us.

And I would have thought that libertarians, who believe government's job is to prevent people from violating the rights of others, would be calling for justice for this woman.

Justice for all parties concerned would be the better call for anyone, libertarian or not. The only legitimate questions are whether a crime occurred and, if so, who committed it.

Nothing about the race or socio-economic status or character of the accusers or the accused are in the slightest bit relevant to those questions. Indeed, regarding character, any or all of the accusers and accused could be despicable human beings or living saints and it wouldn't or shouldn't matter at all. And none of it does matter from a libertarian perspective.

|5.3.06 @ 2:05AM|#

"In contrast, in say a theft case, it is pretty obvious someone stole something, the hard part is proving who stole something. In rape cases, it is of course often just the opposite."

What's funny about this case is that it's kind of the opposite here. I'm willing to believe she was sexually assaulted in this case, but I'm deeply skeptical as to her ability to get the right guys.

Someone mentioned the ridiculous photo ID process, and her inebriated state can't possibly help the ID process. One of the accused now seems to have an awfully strong alibi.

|5.3.06 @ 6:02AM|#

linguist,

telling "Her injuries were "consistent with rape"" will lead us nowhere, because, basically, every rape kit exam is "consistent with rape". You see, rape is a legal "diagnosis" decided by the jury, not a medical one.

In fact, no rape-related medical exam can even ever be said to be "inconsistent" with rape. And, technically, I believe you can't ever say it proves rape until the trial, and the jury agrees (excluding statutory rape, where a nurse or doctor could be convinced that sexual intercourse with a minor must have occurred, but which would still have to be proven by a trial verdict).

In the case at hand the evidence seems doubtful, so unless Nifong has some hidden bombshell evidence, any allegation rape is factually unsustainable.

It might be impossible to ever make a conclusive determination what actually happened, but there are certain clues. One conveniently overlooked element in this whole sordid affair is the blatant mischaracterization of the women and their "profession." For the longest time they were referred to as "exotic dancers." More recently, they have been called "strippers." The fact of the matter is that the two women actually worked for an ESCORT agency, which would imply that they are PROSTITUTES, not merely dancers or strippers. This bears directly on the supposed clinical evidence derived from the rape kit examination. To put it blunly, "genital and anal trauma" are occupational hazzards of prostitution and could have been sustained at any time prior to the alleged rape, and make this diagnosis therefore worthless as evidence.

I think we can safely conclude that whatever happened in that house that night, it was nothing wholesome. I think we can also safely conclude that it was certainly NOT impossible for a rape to have occurred under the circumstances. That said, I believe that the factual record as it has so far been revealed makes it extremely unlikely that any rape actually occurred. Had the woman truly been assaulted in the midst of so many witnesses, why did no one come to her aid or call the police? I would have done so, and I have to believe that at least one person of the dozens in attendance would have done likewise. Then there is the absense of DNA evidence. Though often absent in rape cases, DNA would be specifically expected in this instance given the detailed allegations and the promptness of the ensuing clinical examination of the accuser.

Furthermore, the accuser's photo-identification has been debunked as completely worthless. Rather than allow the accuser to identify her assailants from among a collection of photographs including a large proportion depicting men unrelated to the case, the DA had the accuser select her purported assailants from among 46 photographs of TEAM MEMEBERS ONLY. It was therefore impossible for her to choose anyone NOT affiliated with the team, so her photo ID has absolutely no evidenciary value whatsoever. We thus have neither forensic evidence NOR a victim ID.

Then there's the credibility of the prosecution's chief witnesses - they have NONE. The accuser was previously convicted of stealing a taxi in a dispute over money, then leading police on a high speed chase during which she attempted to run over a police officer. The other woman, for her part, was convicted of embezzling $25,000 from a prior employer, and had since the alleged rape been charged with violating the terms of her probation. She has also sought professional advice from a PR firm about how best she could profit financially from this "opportunity." If this is all the prosecution has, the trial judge will be compelled to dismiss the rape charges with prejudice even before the case goes to the jury.

|5.3.06 @ 8:36AM|#

D.A. - you're right, it wasn't that many of them, but there were still quite a few.

telling "Her injuries were "consistent with rape"" will lead us nowhere, because, basically, every rape kit exam is "consistent with rape".

Wrong! When was the last time you had a rape kit done, gus? For "injuries consistent with rape" there must be signs of forced entry, i.e., tearing/blood.

In fact, no rape-related medical exam can even ever be said to be "inconsistent" with rape.

Wrong again! A medical examiner can make a diagnosis that states, "patient states she was raped, but there is not physical evidence of forced intercourse". That said, I never said that this "proved" rape, I presented to those of you who are uninformed the facts of the case which indicate that an investigation, and hopefully and arrest, are justified in this case.

The fact of the matter is that the two women actually worked for an ESCORT agency, which would imply that they are PROSTITUTES, not merely dancers or strippers.

So what? You make an ASSUMPTION then, that these women went to a frat house intending to sleep with all the men for money? Not all "escorts" are prostitutes, and not all escorts who are will sleep with every man who hires them. At the very least they would have been paid extra. Your insistence on her being a prostitute, as if that mitigates anything, reeks of a sickening double standard.

Once again, you argue that she went out and had herself violently raped, and THEN showed up to do a dancing gig? GIVE ME A BREAK!

I think we can also safely conclude that it was certainly NOT impossible for a rape to have occurred under the circumstances.
Huh. Yet you are so certain these boys aren't responsible. Your biases are showing.

If the DA ran a lineup incorrectly, is that also the victim's fault?

As for credibility of the witnesses, that is once again a sad bias on your part. It implies that it's ok to rape people who don't live their lives upstandingly.

I still can't get over this: you admit that she probably was raped. Yet, the rest of your argument boils down to, "she deserved it."

|5.3.06 @ 10:32AM|#

Well, linguist, we're going to get a bit unhinged, don't we?

"Yet, the rest of your argument boils down to, "she deserved it."

No, it doesn't. It boils down to the statement that Mr. Nifong hasn't much of a case when he charges for rape.

"If the DA ran a lineup incorrectly, is that also the victim's fault?"

No, but it pretty much completely blows the prosecution's case. Due process, ever heard of it?

"As for credibility of the witnesses, that is once again a sad bias on your part. It implies that it's ok to rape people who don't live their lives upstandingly."

No, it doesn't. It merely states that you should at least have credible witnesses when you lack hard evidence, for instance from DNA samples.

And there is in fact more to make the accuser's story very fishy. Examine the time line -- what would have to have happened for her accusations to be true is nothing short of the fastest, cleanest, most carefully choreographed rape conspiracy in history!

We are supposed to believe that 43 guys are covering for 3, or that no one else at the party had to pee for 30 minutes or if they did, that they didn't hear someone being brutally attacked on the other side of the door they were pounding on (or that they all peed outside on the lawn during that time period).

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. How plausible is it that three (not quite sober) guys needed only 30 minutes to coerce her into a bathroom, subdue her, don condoms, take turns holding her down, rape and sodomize her and clean up sufficiently that not one stitch of DNA evidence is found on her person?

Forget whether her story is true, is it even POSSIBLE? I for one think it is not, photos, receipts and bruises aside, it just seems highly unlikely that it all happened the way she said it did.

Furthermore, neighbors reported a loud dispute between the women and the lacrosse players over money. This, I tend to think, gets to the root cause of that sorry affair: it's the MONEY. The most probable scenario is that the players invited two prostitutes to the house with the intention that they should perform sex acts either on each other or on the guests. For their part, when they arrived, the two women were dismayed at the size of the party, and considered the quoted $800 "performance fee" to be inadequate. This financial dispute then likely degenerated into an ugly, racially charged shouting match. Later still, when the accuser was being taken by police to a substance abuse center, facing possible charges, she invented the rape allegation which has since taken on a life of its own.

If Mr. Nifong were looking for legitimate work, there would seem to be enough here to keep him well occupied. Based on the evidence so far, it would appear that he could charge those players who called the escort agency with soliciting prostitution. He could charge many of the partygoers with underage drinking and disturbing the peace. He could charge the operators of the escort agency with pandering. Finally, he could charge both women with prostitution and disturbing the peace, and also charge the accuser with filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, public drunkeness, and extortion. The charges in such case would at least have the benefit of being consistent with the facts.

David Rollins|5.3.06 @ 3:07PM|#

linguist, I think it's entirely possible that she screwed up the dance by (a) getting drunk and/or refusing to perform the dance; and (b) failing to collect the other $400 (see the items found during the search warrant execution). She may have been beaten and/or raped by her pimp (see her assault record vs. her ex-husband).

Then again, she had injuries consistent with being beaten BEFORE the party started (see the pictures).

I'd like to say that I'll wait for the trial to sort this out, but frankly I don't think we'll ever get that far (as noted by a previous commenter). Now that Nifong has won the election he can bow out gracefully, before he is forced out by the judge given the cold facts.