Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    David, 
    
    I have to agree, but Australia is showing signs of low life more
    every day.  
    
    ...dale
    

    I have not heard of a recent US case where a jury came to that
    decision, but we did discuss earlier in this conference (maybe Jody can
    provide a pointer) where a judge used that excuse in his judgement.
    It was at least six months ago if not more.
    
    				Steve

    This may not be appreciated by some but I think its appropriate
    
    A couple of years ago I listened to a tape by a self-proclaimed
    Poet/Activist in Britain called "Atilla the stockbroker" he wrote
    a poem about a British judge (cant remember his name) that aquitted
    a rapist on similar grounds on the basis that the woman was "asking
    for it" in the way she dressed and the area she was in (rather rough
    aparently)
    
    The exact term the judge used was that she was 
    
    "Guilty of contributary negligence" (sp?)
    
    the poem goes like this:
    
    Hitching up the M11
    On my way to a local gig
    got a lift form this bloke
    wearing a funny wig
    
    New Mercedes Bright and gleaming
    Deep pile seats and deep-seat piles
    I sat beside hime quietly scheming
    This fat cat who flashed me smiles. 
    
    Told me 'e was back from session
    with a load of aging 'acks
    told me he made no concessions
    to the Boot boys or the blacks
    
    Said he thought it was stupid
    To fuss about rapists on the news
    "the bloke was only playing cupid"
    "Girls like that - they don't refuse"
    
    Asked me if I thought he was enemy
    Asked me if I bore a grudge
    Told me he was from henley
    said he was a High court Judge
    
    I asked him to stop the car
    "Need a slash" thats what I said
    and When he pulled it over
    I smashed him in the head!
    
    Took his keys, took his money
    ran his car into a ditch
    and though he moaned "They'll get you sonny"
    I got away without a hitch
    
    I don't think they'll ever find me
    I'm many miles away
    but if one day their right behind me 
    I know what I will say 
    
    "HE ASKED FOR IT!"
    He's rich and snobbish
    Right-wing racist, sexist too
    Fat and ugly 
    sick an slobbish
    He should be locked in London Zoo
    
    He WANTED me to beat him up...
    it was an open invitation
    Late at night he picked me up
    and act of open provocation
    
    High court judges are a blight
    They should stay home in nice warm beds
    and if they do drive late at night
    They sohould NEVER pick up harlow reds
    
    A 5 pence fine is right and proper
    and to sum up my defense
    It was HIS FAULT he came a-cropper
    CONTRIBUTARY NEGLIGENCE!!! 
    

    
    
    re .2 steve,
    
       .0 is speaking about a case in ft. lauderdale florida that was
     decided yesterday. the details i heard were a little sketchy.....
    but it was reported that the man was found not guilty and the judge
    did make a comment about the "woman asking for it because of the
    way she was dressed"
    
    ~robin

    The case involved a woman who wore a lime-green tank top (which barely
    covered her breasts, ie cut off) and a white, translucent mini skirt
    and had nothing on under the skirt (ie pubic patch clearly visible.)
    Both items were shown on tv.
    
    According to reports, the woman's testimony was labeled "unbelievable"
    by the 3 man 3 woman jury due to her demeanor on the stand and
    questions about her credibility. The woman claimed she was "NOT dressed
    provocatively." I don't know about you, but I find that style of dress
    provocative.
    
    The prosecution brought in another witness from georgia who claimed to
    have been rpaed by the same man. The jury believed her story- her
    demeanor and credibility were evidently such that she was believed.
    Unfortunately, contrasted with the florida woman, this testimony was
    more damaging than helpful because of the differences between the
    respective victims. The media has stressed the woman's dress as the
    major issue, though whether this is really the major issue or not is
    unclear. From printed reports that i read this morning, it was just
    another brick in the wall. The jury was convinced that the defendant
    was indeed a rapist, but could not convict him in this instance.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, even if she showed up naked, forced sex is
    forced sex is rape. Even if it is fundamentally stupid to dress in the
    manner she did (reality of life in urban america), that is no excuse
    for rape. My (and my wife's) initial reaction to the news was "Those
    @ssh*les!" As I hear more and more about the case, I am unsure as to
    whether we are hearing the whole story. I remain leaning substantially
    towards doubting that justice was served in this instance.
    
    The Doctah

    
    
    This whole situation makes me sick.  Just because a person is not
    dressed "appropriately" does not give anyone a right to rape that
    person.  This just goes to show you how society in general views
    rape.  If you want it you can have it??  Sorry, not in my book.
    
    This is really scary because it is sending out a signal to the
    young people of the US that they can get away with rape.  It is
    not giving any deterants.  Have you driven by a high school or even
    Jr High school lately?  Take a look at what some of the kids are
    wearing.  Given this jury's point of view at least 50% of the
    kids would fall into the "asking for it" category.  
    
    BTW the jury was composed of three men and three women.  
    This woman was raped repeatedly at knifepoint.  They are currently
    appealing the decision.  

    Note 839 in Pear::soapbox has a newspaper account of the trial.
    
    Bonnie

    Can't remember the details, such as state or relationship of the male
    in volved, but:
    
    There was a story a year or so ago about a young girl (I belive 5) who
    was molested.  The judge in that case also said she was "asking for it"
    by behaving in a "provocative manner."
    

    If we cannot convince these judges that dressing a certain way is not
    "asking for it",  maybe we should ask them, would't it still be a crime
    if someone asked you to push them off of a roof, and you did.  I'm not
    saying anyone "asked for it" but even if they did invite a rape, at the
    point that the consent ended the rape began, regardless of what led up
    to it.

    Bob    

    I remember that case.  The mother's boyfreind was laying on the
    couch and the 6 year old girl came over and layed down by him.
    The boyfriend was brought to trial and the judge said that the child
    had indeed been "asking for it" because she was behaveing in a
    provocitive manner.  The judge felt that the boyfriend could not
    be convicted of rape because it wasn't his fault he couldn't control
    himself from the feminine wiles of this baby.
    
    I also read the newspaper account of this horrible excuse for 
    justice in the recent Florida rape.  I was ranting and raving in
    my kitchen about my feeling on the account.  My oldest son (15)
    came into the kitchen and asked what was going on.  After I recounted
    the story to him, his reaction was very similar to mine.  He is
    equally adament that no one has the right to force themselves upon
    anyone elce and couldn't believe that the judge could react like
    that.  Sometimes I could just hug that child of mine!!!!
    
    

   Watch how you dress, now!!! Keep those blouses baggy, keep those 
skirts long! Better still, wear a burlap sack over you! Otherwise, 
you're just asking to be raped!!! That's right: ASKING FOR IT!!!

   Watch that eye shadow! Watch those hairdos! And don't worry: there
are plenty out there who "want" to be raped more than you! I mean, after
all: who'd want to rape someone in a burlap sack when there are so
many provocative five- year olds around??? Or three year olds??? Or
one... ?


           AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                          -Robert Brown III
                                           Who feels only slightly better now.

    There have been a few references in earlier replies to this note
    about the attitude of the judge (presumably male).
    
    It wasn't the judge who decided the guilt or innocence of the
    defendant; it was the *jury*, composed of three women and three men.
    
    Evidently this mixed-gender panel did feel that the clothing worn
    (or not worn) by the woman had something to do with the assault.
    
    We can't blame the judge; he didn't issue a directed verdict of 
    acquittal.
    
    Also, somebody mentioned earlier that "they were appealing the
    decision". I don't understand how this could happen, given the
    Constitutional rule against double jeopardy for the same crime.
    
      Alan  

>    but it was reported that the man was found not guilty and the judge
>    did make a comment about the "woman asking for it because of the
>    way she was dressed"
    

    I don't think that a person has a right to rape another person.
    And remember that rape encompasses more than just male raping female.
    
    I would like to pose a couple of grey area problems.
    
    1.  A female is wearing a T shirt that says on the rear "DON'T KISS
        ME STUPID". On the front it says "#$@& ME SILLY". This female
        is raped. By our common (used in here frequently) defination,
        #$@& indicates a word sometimes for intercourse.
    
    2.  A female approaches a male and in the course of conversation
        molests (touches externally) him. The female is raped.

    
    Do/would/should either of these situations have a bearing on a rape
    case outcome? Would/should the jury be influenced by them?
    I don't know.
    
    Steve
    

re .14  Gray areas in "asking for it"

Whether it WOULD affect a jury's decision, who can say?  Whether
it SHOULD is another matter.  Is KID FOR RENT, CHEAP adequate
excuse for kidnapping?  If the shirt said STEAL MY WALLET or
PLEASE BLUDGEON ME TO DEATH, it would not be considered adequate
provocation for either of those crimes.

Beth

    Since we seem to be getting on to what-if scenarios:
    
    There is a couple who is heavily into S & M. During one of their
    "sessions", Partner # 1 screams out to partner # 2, "Hurt me, beat me,
    torture me..."
    
    Partner # 2 complies - perhaps too well - causing serious injury to
    partner # 1.
    
    Partner # 1 files assault and battery charges against Partner # 2.
    
    Should a judge/jury find Partner # 2 Guilty or Not Guilty?
    
      Alan                                                

	Re: .14,.15, on "inviting T-shirts"

Did you ever wonder why DEC corporate security policy says that you cannot
use the word "welcome" in the system announcement message -- because some
teenage cracker got off because he claimed he was "welcomed" to the system
he broke into.  Now most reasonable people seem to understand that "Welcome
to node FOO" (apologies to those of you who really have acounts on FOO) does
not give you permission to break in, but it *was* used as successful defense.

Damned if I know the answer, but it seems there are a lot of judges and
jurors out there with soome pretty strange ideas....


							--D

    Doug,
    
    I knew it was used as a defense, but I don't remember if it was
    a *successful* defense.  (Even if it was unsuccessful, there are
    a zillion courts in this country, and all our corporate lawyers
    Know that all jurors are crazy.)
    
    	*		*		*		*
    
    I think every prosecutor in a rape case should show the jury a
    fine piece of jewelry enticingly displayed, say on black velvet,
    and explain that no matter how inviting it looks, taking it is
    still theft, and using force to do so is still robbery.
    
    							Ann B.

Re .16:
>    There is a couple who is heavily into S & M. During one of their
>    "sessions", Partner # 1 screams out to partner # 2, "Hurt me, beat me,
>    torture me..."
>    
>    Partner # 2 complies - perhaps too well - causing serious injury to
>    partner # 1.
>    
>    Partner # 1 files assault and battery charges against Partner # 2.

	I'd say it depends.  If limits had been clearly established, and
	the dominant partner knowingly exceeded them, then I'd say yes.
	On the other hand, if they were playing at the same level they had 
	in the past, I'd call it an accident and say that the submissive
	was being unreasonable.

	S&M has to be consensual; otherwise, it's assault and rape.  Even 
	if it was the first time the two people were together, and even if
	they were stupid enough not to have discussed what they were going 
	to do in advance, at the point when things start going too far, the
	submissive should say stop, and the dominant should do so.  If s/he
	continues, it's assault.  The problem of "when does stop really 
	mean stop?" is the reason that it's a bad idea to get into such
	things without a pre-arranged "release word."

	Beverly

    Clearly, the woman's dress should have been immaterial in the rape
    trial.
    
    I would want her to be charged with indecent exposure as a separate
    matter.
    
    Two separate crimes, tow separate cases.
    
    Bud

    re:.12
    
    	� Also, somebody mentioned earlier that "they were
    	appealing the decision". I don't understand how this
    	could happen, given the Constitutional rule against
    	double jeopardy for the same crime. �
    
    Say what?  Appealing a court decision is standard practice, and
    in fact, is practically automatics. It doesn't fall under the
    "double jeopardy" clause.
    
    --- jerry

    I just caught up to this story in the newspaper.  Incredible!
    
    			Steve

    re: .18  (Jewelry)
    
    Excellent.  But sad.  How is it that it seems so obvious that taking
    an object of jewelry is wrong....
    
    								-mr. bill

    The jewlery analogy is good. But in a court of law, the 'T' shirt
    (RE .14 both parts are not what if, ie true) the fact that you
    advertise may have some bearing. Let me try to explain (I am not
    advocating this position, so please no flames). If you wrote down
    on a piece of paper, 'xxx may do yyy to me, signed zzz' , you have
    made a contract in my understanding of the law. You do this all
    the time at a hospital. If you wear a 'T' shirt that advertises
    a sort of contract, would a court of law see it that way? I don't
    know. If you had the jewlery on the black satin along with a sign
    that said 'you may take me' would that be the same as the 'T' shirt?
    
    Steve

       
    Re: .22
    
    > re:.12
    
    	� Also, somebody mentioned earlier that "they were
    	appealing the decision". I don't understand how this
    	could happen, given the Constitutional rule against
    	double jeopardy for the same crime. �
    
    > Say what?  Appealing a court decision is standard practice, and
    > in fact, is practically automatics. It doesn't fall under the
    > "double jeopardy" clause.
    
    Jerry, I believe the "practically automatic" part of the appealing
    of a court decision occurs when the defendant is found "guilty".
    
    A defendant shouldn't have to wait for higher courts to rule on whether
    the original "not guilty" verdict was, indeed, valid, before resuming
    his/her normal life.
    
      Alan            

    I once allowed someone the use of my husband's car while my husband
    was in the hospital for surgery.  The evening of the surgery I got a
    phone call from the police that there was a warrant issued on his
    license plate concerning stolen property that day!
    
    I went to the person who had borrowed the car and demanded an 
    explanation.  The response was that a merchant had said, "What you
    want is in that section" and pointing said, "Help yourself."  The
    person literally helped himself to the merchandise and drove off!!!
    (Restitution was made and the matter was cleared up.)
    
    Now the question is, does it make a thief less guilty (or innocent)
    if the words "help yourself" were heard.  I know what the merchant
    meant by saying those words was make your choice without assistance
    and bring choice to the register and pay for it.  But literally the
    merchant did not say that.  Does that mean that the merchant cannot
    legally claim any loss?
    
    That would mean that you should take the welcome signs from your 
    doorsteps.  It could be taken as a literal contract for anyone
    to take your house!                                   

    Re: Double jeopardy
    
    As I understand it, the only way that a defendant who was declared
    innocent can be brought to trial again is if there is new evidence
    of guilt.  One cannot appeal a verdict of "innocent" solely on
    points of law, as one can a "guilty" verdict.
    
    Re: .27 ("Help yourself")
    
    Unfortunately, as we all have seen much too often, what seems
    unreasonable to us may seem perfectly reasonable to a judge and/or
    jury, or vice versa.  Logic has nothing to do with it.
    
    As for your "welcome" signs - indeed, some courts have rendered
    verdicts that would suggest you'd best put out "Unwelcome" mats.
    
    			Steve

    As I understand it, the concept of Double Jeopardy protects a person
    from being tried twice for the same crime.  Evidence of another,
    even similar, crime could result in a criminal trial related to
    this new crime.  I believe this is, at least part, of the reason
    why prosecutors sometimes persue only some of the charges (keep
    some in reserve).
    
    Bud

    .0>
           When I heard this story on the news, I had a different
       reaction to it then most of the replies so far.  I felt that the
       problem wasn't how she was dressed, the problem was that, when
       there are no witnesses and two opposing positions on what
       happened, it is impossible for a third party to "know for sure"
       what happened. 
       
           Because she was dressed provocatively and admitted to using
       cocaine doesn't mean she can be raped!  Because he may have raped
       another woman doesn't mean he raped this woman.

           (IMO) Ideally people wouldn't make decisions until they had
       "undisputed evidence", but reality is, people sometimes HAVE to
       make a decision and DON'T have "undisputed evidence".  That is
       when (IMO) they tend to use an arbitrary issue to base their
       conclusion on. 

            This time it came up not guilty, next time it could come up
       guilty and in both cases, only the two participants know for sure
       what happened!  I have trouble labeling either one justice.


       Richard

    I suspect you meant "doesn't mean she can't be raped."
    
    The Doctah

       
  30>      Because she was dressed provocatively and admitted to using
  30>  cocaine doesn't mean she can be raped!  

       Right, I meant; mode of dress and drug habits are NOT
       justification for rape. 

       Sorry if it was confusing.

       Richard

    Another bit of info on this story..........
    
    Last night on the Larry King show on cable, the rape victim (disguised
    in glasses and wig and wearing a very matronly blouse and blazer) and
    her attorney were features.  
    
    The victim told her story and w/o having heard all the details of the 
    case, it's hard not to believe her.  She said that yes, she was dressed
    in the cropped green tank top and lacey translucnet mini skirt
    but.......
    
    Apparently the alleged rapist came upon her seconds after she got out
    of her car in a Denny's parking lot, forced her into the car at
    knifepoint and told her his life's story about having a child in
    Atlanta that he hadn't seen for a long time and such.  It makes me 
    believe that if the rape did occur, her dress had nothing to do with
    it.
    
    1. The guy only got a look at her "provocative clothing" for about two
    seconds in the parking lot before making the decision to abduct her and
    subsequently rape her.
    
    2.  I also wish that these judges and juries would realize that rape is
    a crime of violence not SEX!!!!!  Maybe there should be a rape
    education class taught in all highschools to drive this point home.  If
    the victim is to be believed, the rapist was so strung out on not
    having any money and not seeing his son that he would have vented that
    anger on a nun if she were to come by in full habit!
    
    It's unfortunate that anyone in our society would believe that rape
    victims welcome the rape.  It's a violent forced act...plain and
    simple.  
    
    JL
    

    I wonder if she got to tell her story to the jury.  They felt that she
    was "solicting" sex, at least that's what one jurymember said in an
    interview.  The fact that she wore a see-through white lace mini and no
    underwear was interpreted by the jury to mean she was indeed
    soliciting.  My question would be, "Did he then offer to pay?"
    
    Marge

>    I wonder if she got to tell her story to the jury. 

 isn't it funny that we even have to ask this question. With all the legal
maneuverings, precedents, and admissability of evidence, it's a wonder that
justice ever gets served.

 the Doctah

    Re .33
    
    To see where someone in our society *might* get the idea that rape
    victims welcome the rape, take a look at some of the ads in current
    "women's magazines," for starters...

    While her dress should not be a defense in his rape trial, it should
    be cause for separate charges against her.
    
    bud

                     <<< Note 817.36 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>
>    To see where someone in our society *might* get the idea that rape
>    victims welcome the rape, take a look at some of the ads in current
>    "women's magazines," for starters...

For those of us who don't read "women's magazines" (are we talking "Ladies
Home Journal" here, or "Playgirl"?) - can you clue us in?  What are the
ads like, and why would they imply that women want to be raped?

Thanks,D!

    
    re .37
    
    >While her dress should not be a defense in his rape trial, it should
    >be cause for separate charges against her.
    
    what "seperate charges against her" are you advocating, with respect to
    how she dresses/dressed?
    
    ~robin

    
    re:.37
    you're kidding, right?
    

    re: .39/.40
    
    See .21
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    re.41 thanks steve.
    
    re .21
    
    >I would want her to be charged with indecent exposure as a separate
    >matter.
    
    bud, what makes you think that a charge of indecent exposure would 
    apply in this situation?!

    alot (TOO MUCH!) has been made about how the rape victim was dressed.
    i got a look at the dreaded skirt that was worn, and IMO the defense
    attorney went WAY overboard in focusing on this piece of clothing. 
    [well, maybe not....it seemed to work in the best interest of HIS 
     client]. the skirt is a heavy lace material, layered about 3 or 4 
    times at alternating lengths. my understanding of how it was presented 
    to the jury was to isolate 1 layer, wrapped (stretched) around the defense 
    attorney's hand to create a see-thru effect.

    the more i understand of this case, the more i am convinced and 
    outraged that the victim was tried, not the perpetrator.

    >Two separate crimes, tow separate cases.
    
     to me, this kind of assumption furthers the injustice of what this 
     woman has had to put up with.


     ~robin
                                                            

    I also wanted to add my $0.02 about the jury thinking that the victim
    was a "girl for hire."  She claimed that this was something that the 
    defense fabricated to justify the sex that went on between the rapist
    and victim.  
    
    He went on to say that the victim got $100.00 and cocaine for her part
    in the evening's activity.  
    
    JL
    

    Did anyone watch Oprah last night?  Quite an eye opener. They had a
    taped interview with the defense attorney as well as the woman who was
    raped and her current attorney.  
    
    The outfit was pretty mild - after hearing that it was "translucent"
    and "see through" I thought she was wearing saran wrap.   Basically it
    was a lace mini skirt with a tank top and wide belt.  And like a few
    notes back, it was layered - each individual layer was see through but
    not the skirt itself.  A big deal was made about her not wearing any
    underwear but her attorney said "Wait a minut here, he didn't know she
    didn't have any underwear on until he raped her.  The skirt isn't see
    through and she wasn't walking in the parking lot on her hands."
    
    A few other things that I heard for the first time - she was put in
    jail for 5 days by "accident".  The judge wanted her for a deposition
    and the sheriff interpreted this for an arrest warrant.  They arrested
    her while she was sunning herself in her bikini.  She remained in jail
    for two days with no food and no water in that bikini.  On the fifth
    day the judge called her for a deposition - according to him he didn't
    know she had been in jail.  They grilled her for four hours.  During
    the trial there were "nitpicking inconsistencies" (words of her lawyer)
    between the deposition and her story during the trial.  She wasn't
    however able to tell the jury that she had been wrongfully held in jail
    for 5 days prior to her deposition, she was distraught, hungry and cold
    when they grilled her for four hours.
    
    According to the alleged rapist he paid her $100 for sex and gave her
    some cocaine.  Her car (the car he allegedly stole) was dusted for
    cocaine, none was found. This man was  upsetabout not seeing his kid
    and how he asked someone to wire him some money so he could visit him. 
    The next breath he says he paid her $100 for sex.
    
    
    An interview with the defense attorney was also included.  He said the
    alleged bruises and cuts were unsubstantiated.  The woman's lawyer
    however showed the hospital report about a concussion on her head from
    being hit with a blunt instrument and a knife cut on her hand.
    
    The defense attorney also mentioned the clothes and how his client
    thought she was a hooker.  I still don't care whether he thought she
    was a prostitute or mother Theresa, neither deserves to be raped.
    
    I should make clear that "her" current attorney is not the one that
    lost the case.  I assume she must be taking some action for her
    wrongful jailing, as well as any reprecussions of the rape trial.
    
    Suzanne

    Isn't it interesting how many judgements are made without the benefit
    of being there to get the information.
    
    From what I know or think I know after reading here and one news
    article, the man appears to have raped her.  From the brief
    descriptions, I think he should get a jail term for rape and another
    for assault and battery.
    
    re .42
    Also from what I have read here and in a news story, the woman was
    dressed in see through clothing.  If she was indeed exposed in public,
    I think she should be tried for indecent exposure.  If the previous
    two replies are correct, namely that her clothing was not see through,
    then she was not exposing herself and should not be tried for this.
    No one has said that she was charged, so either the allegations
    that her clothing exposed her were untrue, or the police decided
    that she had paid enough penalty.  Given the 5 days in jail, they
    don't seem to have had the altruistic motive.
    
    I think that no adults should have a right to walk about in public
    without being covered.  It feels like an assault to me.
    
    It should be understood that the physical assaults apparently
    perpetrated on this woman is a FAR FAR greater crime than indecent
    exposure.  If she was guilty of indecent exposure, the time she
    spent in jail is more than enough punishment.  On the other hand
    I think we baby rapists and some other violent criminals such as
    those commiting vehicular homocide.  If all allegations are true,
    I think someone like the "rapist" in this case should spend at least
    10 years behind bars and I'd prefer 20 (min actual served).
    
    So much is in favor of those charged with violent crimes today.
     I think a conviction is more the result of good luck than fairly
    looking at the facts and making a judgement.  Then the time doesn't
    fit the crime.  (eg Jim Bakker may get 120 years for taking several
    million dollars, while killers/rapists/etc get less than 7.  The
    money is worth more than the people??)
    
    But this does not mean that I want people to be walking about exposing
    themselves to me.  I picture the same kind of person walking about
    in a translucent skirt as walking about in a raincoat to flash open
    at me.  I don't think it's funny or titilating.  It is an assault
    to me.  Play sex games at home, etc but leave me out of it.
    
    Bud