Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    re .61
    
    �How can you prove a claim false?
    
    Woman has sex.  Her boyfriend finds out.  She says "But, I was
    *RAPED*!" and names the alleged rapist - an ex-boyfriend of hers
    who lives in Florida, but who she heard was in town that weekend.
    
    Trouble is, he never did come to town, he stayed in Florida.
    
    That didn't stop him from getting his name printed in the papers
    in Florida and that didn't stop him from having his family, work,
    and personal lives disrupted.
    
    She has been charged with filing a false police report.  Big deal.
    
    She lies to cover up being promiscuous, threatens to send the guy
    to jail, damages his reputation, and this is her punishment?
    
    Well, anyway, that's how you can prove a rape claim false.
    
    This whole story was in the papers within the last month.
    
                                       L.J.

    re: .1
    
    set/tone=bitchy
    
    lovely annecdote. so the &%#%$@* what?
    
    set/tone=normal
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /

Re: .2

The question answered in .1 was asked.  The fact that there is a good,
easily understood answer for it is the &%#%$@* what.

-d

>D!The fact that there is a good,
>easily understood answer for it is the &%#%$@* what.

No.

I asked the question supposedly "answered" in .1, and it did *not* answer
my question.

My question was really two-fold -

Technically, it is pretty impossible to *prove* that someone did or did not
do something; all "proofs" rest on untested premises.

More importantly, I wasn't asking "Is it possible in some instances for
a woman do cry rape when it didn't happen and get caught?" I was asking
(rhetorically, I might add) whether just because a newspaper claims that
a woman's cry of rape was "disproven", whether it actually was.  A police
report does NOT constitute any reasonable proof, which was exactly my 
point in mentioning the fact that police have a proven record of being
disinclined to trust women who claim to be raped.

D!

the point of the anecdote L.J. summarized (I saw the articles too) is that 
in our society, today, rape is not *only* a crime of physical violence,
committed by person A against person B.

It can be and sometimes is used as a weapon -- of punishment, of retaliation --
or as a means of getting out of some consequence, in the anecdote mentioned,
the woman wanted to avoid having her boyfriend mad at her.  Sometimes the 
rapist is wielding the weapon, sometimes (far less often, imo) the accuser.

I am *not* repeat *NOT* asserting that X% of rape allegations are false, or
true.  Only that both men and women are capable of manipulating others, and of
manipulating eachother, for selfish reasons.

Now, regardless of whether or not we ourselves agree, the perception is out
there that it has become an 'in' thing to do to have women falsely accuse men
of rape.  It does no one any good to deny that this ever happens, rather it
would help if there was a good and decent way to discover the truth in 
_*apparantly*_ ambiguous cases.

It is not my place to point out the women and men who have described here in
=wn= the horrible things that have happened to them, which leave no doubt
whatsoever that what was described was rape, and terrible.  But it takes little
imagination to realize that, in the complicated dance that comprises social
relationships, there are some situations that are less clear-cut than others.

And that's why date rape is so controversal; and why the Kennedy nephew is so
controversal, and why Pam Smart should be -- not just for the murder of her
husband, but because she (statutory) raped a minor.  These are the situations
where the conclusion is not so plain.

Sara

    even thought i support the notion that .1 was not particularly
    responsive to your 'rhetorical question'

    your point about not being about to prove a negative is rather
    over-drawn in my opinion

    just as an OBVIOUS -and hopefully light- example.

    I think it would be pretty easy for you to prove that you did not
    _father_ my children.

    indeed it would be pretty easy for you to prove that you did not _give
    birth_ to them either since one of them is 21 and the other 18.

Bonnie Reinke asked in the Kenya string (before Justine created this
string) why a DNA match does not provide 100% identification certainty.

The technology of DNA testing does not permit examination of every pair
of purine and pyrimidine bases in the entire molecule's chain.  Instead,
the examination looks for identifiable patterns of chemical signatures,
as you might look for the term "space alien" in newspaper headlines to
locate items of interest.  As the frequency of "space alien" headlines
provides a clue to whether you're reading the New York Times or the
National Enquirer, so the frequency of a given signature can provide
clues that point to the identity of a given person.

Although each individual human is unique, the building blocks -- hair
color, eye color, body shape -- are not unique.  Since patterns are the
object of the testing rather than every pair, the test cannot identify
a unique individual.  The criteria for calling a match are that 95%
correspondence must be oserved between the two samples in question.  A
95% match isolates a given sample to one of 55,000 individual humans.
Since a 95% match is statistically going to include nearly all of the
major features of a person's genotype, a match can indicate with a fair
degree of confidence -- but not certainty -- that the individual being
sought is, for example, white, or black, or whatever race the sample
from the known individual is.

In the rape/murder of Kimberley Goss, now being tried in Exeter, NH, the
DNA testing indicated a 99% match between semen taken from the victim
and body tissue from the defendant.  The FBI agent testifying made it
abundantly clear that even such a near match is not absolute proof.

-d

    Thankyou
    
    BR

    disclaimer:  I don't even pretend to be objective on this.  I'd say I'm
    sorry, but I'm not.
    
    I'm sure the noter in .1 didn't mean it this way, but that kind of
    annecdote just itches the points off my rack.  I've had to deal soooo
    many times with people who find single stories like that that make it
    into the paper and say, "See?  SEE??!  All this date rape stuff is just
    overreacting!"
    
    I saw in a series of articles that were printed in Playboy by Stephanie
    Guttman who used that as the basis for her argument that sexual assault
    and date rape awareness on campus' was just some sort of anti-sex,
    anti-male radical feminist propaganda.  She claimed that we've been
    twisting rape so that any sexual encounter could be called rape...hence
    the increase in reports.
    
    Gee, I thought we might have finally started to create an atmosphere
    where survivors feel they could come forward and maybe, just possibly
    be believed.
    
    What is all this?  Why do people do this to us?  Sure, people can be
    falsely accused of *any* crime, but why, in rape, is there an almost
    automatic assumption that someone is "making it up" unless the victim
    is found unconscious and battered?  If all I have to show for a mugging
    is the abscence of my wallet, the cops still take me to see the mug
    book photos.  Why won't they believe me if I say I was raped???
    
    Yup, no doubt the woman in that story, if it was true, was falsely
    accusing someone.  So what?  People in the establishment are treating 
    annecdotes like that as if they were evidence that a large number of
    rapes "aren't really" rape.
    
    Tell that to my friends who have been scarred.
    
    Tell that to my friends who walk afraid.
    
    Tell that to my friends who try to hurt themselves.
    
    Tell that to ME.
    
    I get *angry* about this.  I really do -- people falsely accuse others
    of murder, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Is it because you so
    clearly have a corpse in murder? WHY?
    
    Daniel

    I'm with you Daniel.....It seems every time we start to have a
    discussion regarding *any* aspect of rape, someone very soon comes
    along to wave the "but what about false accusations?" banner.
    
    If someone steals my car, I don't have to show them the empty parking
    space in my yard, they assume I know what I'm talking about.  If
    someone steals money from me, the police assume I really did have it
    without my having to provide a bank receipt.  People report cars
    stolen to collect insurance money, people report money stolen for
    any number of reasons.  Seldom, if ever, is the first line of thought
    that the person might be making the story up.
    
    If someone, anyone says they have been raped, have the courage to
    suffer the stigma that is almost automatically attached to it, I say
    we assume this person knows whereof they speak, instead of instantly
    looking for reasons why "this can't be true".
    
    Then there is the argument that the poor accused person's reputation
    will be ruined.  I would argue that even in this day and age, when
    there is no reason why it should be so, that the *victim's* reputation
    is the one that takes the hardest beating.
    
    I guess I can't be very objective about this either.  This certainly
    hits most of my hot buttons.  Sigh......
    
      -HA

    In this society, like it or not, a person *is* innocent until *proven*
    guilty.  
    
    An investigator in an alleged rape case should go in asking these 
    questions to himself: Does this person have a motive to make all
    of this up?  Does this other person have a motive to do the deed?
    
    I think it's about being objective.  I agree completely that many
    rape cases aren't taken seriously and the victim becomes even more
    victimized by the legal process.
    
    But, I also think rape cases are being given a lot better treatment
    than say, 20 years ago.
    
    And some sick people do "cry wolf".  I know our legal system isn't
    the best thing in the world...people get hurt when they fall 
    through the cracks.  But I still uphold the *completely* innocent
    until proven guilty over lynch mob mentality.
    
    And I don't think a persons claim of rape should be taken as truth
    any more than I think an alleged rapists cry of innocence should be
    until it is proven!
    
    
                                   L.J.
    
    
    p.s.  All IMHO, of coarse.

    In this society, like it or not, a person *is* innocent until *proven*
    guilty.  

There is a flawed leap of logic here that I have seen before.

If a woman says she is raped, we doubt her because the accused rapist is
"innocent until proven guilty."

No!!

There are two things there that have to be demonstrated.

One is that a crime (in this case, a rape), indeed, occured.
Two is that a particular person is the one who committed the crime.

Those of us who are getting upset over the issue of the newspaper reports
which state that claims of rape were falsified are concered with (ONE)
above.  The issue of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to 
issue (TWO) above. 

If you claim to have been robbed, unless there is extraordinarily obvious
evidence to the contrary, the police and legal system assume that you
were, indeed robbed.  However, if you accuse a particular person of doing
the robbery, they *don't* assume that that person committed robbery.  That
is the "presumed innocent" issue that you (and everyone else) keeps raising.

But often, if you claim to be raped, unless there is extraordinarily
obvious evidence that you *were*, they police and legal system assume
that you were *not*.  It doesn't matter whether you accuse a particular
person of that rape.  "Presumed innocent" has NOTHING to do with it.

D! 

Of course, the difference between proving a crime was comitted and proving
that a particular person committed the crime leads to some very bizarre
conclusions...

For instance, a woman may be able to adequately prove that she was, indeed,
raped - but not be able to prove that the only person she had sex with at
the time of the rape was the one who raped her.  I believe this *has*
happened.  Truly bizarre.

These are the sorts of things that lead to civil cases. In criminal cases,
the evidence against the defendent must be "beyond a reasonable doubt", like,
say, you have to be 99% sure.  Civil cases are tried on a "preponderance of 
the evidence", so you have to be 50.1% sure.  So you can sue someone for
damages for raping you even if you weren't able to prove to a criminal court
that they did, indeed, rape you.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

D!

    Thank you D!
    
    The media coverage given to the Florida case reminds me of what Annie
    said in the Kenya note. [I'm paraphrasing, so forgive me if I'f got it
    all wrong] If it fits a popular myth, it sells.
    
    Stories of women being raped everywhere don't get as much coverage as
    they should. They're depressing. You can't make a movie out of it.
    A woman falsely accusing someone of rape has more movie material.
    manisha

    
    re .12: Thanks, D!  I was just about to jump in with the
    exact same analysis to .11's response.  What a leap, indeed!
    
    I found the .11 reply both annoying and unrelated to the
    topic at hand.   
    

    
    
    	The FBI/Dept of Justice reports the % of false accusations
    	of rape to be the same as other indexed crimes like robbery
    	--  2%.
    
    

re: about newspaper headlines... (originally from the Kenya topic)

>I have seen in the newspapers within the past month reports of three
>unrelated alleged rapes that were shown to be false claims.

	Did they say "false" or "unfounded" ?

	Did they say "false" when "unfounded" would have been the
	correct term?

	There is a big difference...  Police frequently declare a
	case to be "unfounded" because they  don't believe the woman
	or don't believe they could get a guilty verdict given the
	evidence.    If they declare the rape to be unfounded, they
	do not have to proceed with an investigation.  

	The rates at which police units declare rape
	cases to be unfounded vary greatly between cities.  
	
	I imagine this means women must lie a lot more in some
	cities than others :-/ .
						nancy b.

    Hmmm...is there a crime in which women are overwhelmingly the
    prepetrators, and men overwhemingly the victims? A crime that happens
    on the average of every 6 seconds? 
    
    Well, I can't think of one...maybe there *is* one, but I can't think of
    it offhand... 
    
    Well, anyway. I wonder what how often the response to such a crime
    would be to deny that it happened, or how often the response to a
    discussion about it would be to bring forth the 2% example of the man
    "crying Wolf".
    
    Hmmmm.
    
    --DE
    

    thanks D!
    
    said exactly what I wanted to say! (hmm...that happens a *lot* I've
    noticed!)
    
    -Daniel

controversal position alert.  And I'm going to be deliberately provocative right
off the bat.

How many black men got lynched because of false accusations of rape by white
women?  (That's a rhetorical question, posed for impact; don't answer it.)  And 
who was that black woman who was coached to falsely accuse a gang of white boys
of rape?  False accusations happen, and denying their existance won't help.

(gently, now) Women are raped by men far, far too often.  And far too often, the
crime goes unpunished, often even though the woman knows her attacker, and in
situations where there is no ambiguity whatsoever about whether or not the act
was indeed rape.  Less common, but just as horrible, is when men, or children
of either gender, are raped.

But the legal system, FLAWED THOUGH IT IS NOW, should and can not be 'fixed' to
always favor only women who have been raped.  The *only* flaw I see in the 
reactions of some of us here in this file is that there is a tendency to
*always* accept as true an accusation of rape, *because* a woman is making it.

Now, there have been many replies in this and related strings that (summing up
broadly) are really angry about the fact that the claim of rape is sometimes met
with skepticism as to whether or not the act that occurred was rape or was
agreed to, and that this sets rape apart from other crimes.  If you were knifed
in the gut you do not have to prove that you were assaulted. (I deliberately
picked an example that is virtually always unambiguous.)

But there is a big difference between the social interactions that might lead to
a knifing, and that might lead to the sex act.  In no social scenario that I can
think of is having a knife land in a body an acceptable outcome.  There is no
set of misunderstandings, missed cues, outright lies, or coersions that make it
reasonable or an acceptable or expectable outcome.

But there are many, many sets of misunderstandings, missed cues, outright lies
and coersions that might surround the sex act.  I'm not talking about the 
Central Park jogger, or the 3-yr-old, or Kenya, here.  I'm talking about your
classic date rape scenario.

All of us know that date rape happens, and it's despicable.  But the law in our
land (the U.S.) has to deal with individuals, and actual cases -- otherwise, 
what is the law but an instrument of class or racist or ethnic oppression?  And
in individual cases, where I don't know the individual people involved or the
circumstances, I *HAVE* to refrain from bias in favor of either the victim (the
accuser) or the accused.

Sara

re: .18
    
>Hmmm...is there a crime in which women are overwhelmingly the
>    prepetrators, ..... A crime that happens
>    on the average of every 6 seconds? 
    
    self-deprecation
    

    Good one Jody!  You've got us there!
    
      -HA

Re: .20

Well said, Sara!  I agree that a balanced view must be maintained
in order for the law (ideally) to work.

Ben

    
    re Sara:
    
    When an accused person is involved, of course, the law does
    question if the person doing the accusing is really telling the
    truth, because of the "presumed innocent".
    
    Other than that, what possible motivation can anyone have for
    not believing someone who says she/he was raped?  I can think of
    none (none reasonable, anyway).
    
    That is, when a survivor in this file, or an acquaintance tells me
    she or he's been raped, I believe it.  There is NO motivation or
    reason for me NOT to!  If I were on a jury or otherwise involved
    in the situation with an accused person, that would be different.
    
    Let's say a woman tells me she was raped a few years ago and her
    story.  She doesn't mention who did it.  What's going on in my head
    is not, "maybe she's lieing" or "maybe she's imagining it" or any
    other stupid bullshit like that.  I believe her.
    

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here...

Discussion of accusations of false rape claims is a non sequitor.  Yes, it
can happen.  YES, it has happened!  SO WHAT????

When we talk about what to do about robbery, people don't immediately step
in with "Well, you know, some people fake robberies to get insurance money!"
Because it is totally irrelevent!

The problem is that in this country a woman is raped every 6 seconds.  The
problem is hat only 1 in every 600 rape cases gets a conviction.  The 
problem is that women in this country live in daily fear from violence,
JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN!

Because Jane Schmoe accused her boyfriend of rape because she cheated on
him is IRRELEVENT!

The CONTINUAL focus on this topic simply adds credence to those who say
"She's probably lying."  

Sara, yes it happens that some women accuse rape falsely.  But given the
2% rate Nancy cites, it is still reasonable to assume that any woman who
claims to be raped has been.  JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CRIME!!!

I *still* think you are falling victim to the fallacy of that someone's life
is hurt if we automatically assume a woman is telling the truth about 
having been raped.  WHOSE???  Remember the difference between accusing a
person, and claiming a crime has been committed!  The only cost of believe
a woman was raped, and investigating it, it the police time, court time, etc.

D!

    re.20 [Sara]
    
    I agree that there is no social interaction where a knife in the gut is
    a standard outcome.
    
    But to extend, I submit that there is no social interaction that should
    result in a person having a concussion, a missing finger-nail,
    lacerations, contusions, a torn trapezius muscle, choke-bruises on the
    throat, a bitten ear, and a lacerated tough -- not to mention medical
    evidence of forced vaginal penetration and seminal fluids.  Such is a
    brief summary of my condition at the time _I_ was charged with
    'frivolously filing charges of sexual assault' against an old friend
    that I'd had dinner with not three hours earlier.
    
    My injuries were not proof that I'd been raped.  Completely apart from
    any accusations of who, it was deemed that I had not _been_ raped.
    
    Having been raped, I admit that I have a bias toward believing a person
    who claims to have been raped. Statistics bear out that 98% of such
    claims are true, so my bias isn't just the raging paranoia of one once
    burned.
    
    But I'm not about advocate sacrificing the 2% who are falsely accused
    as an acceptable, if regretable, by-product.
    
      Annie

D!, the topic heading says "false claims of rape" -- if we are not to discuss it
then delete the topic.

Annie (and D!, and many others), I also have a tendency to believe the women who
tell of their rapes.  In fact, I have a tendency to have murder fantasies about
the men who can have done some of the things we've heard described.  (E, one of
the things I love about you is your pacifism, but I have to admit I'm not one.)

I abhor the suffering of Annie and of other women who are further victimized by
the refusal to acknowledge their rapes. That is a hideous miscarriage of justice 
and we need to work to fix the instance and the trend.  But not by displacing
the injustice onto others.

I'm arguing principle.  It's wrong to avert my own suffering by making other
people suffer.  Our form of govt is based on the rights of individuals, and I
take my rights very seriously.  This is not to say that implementation has
been all correct -- the system needs fixing -- but I don't want to fix the 
system that now treats women unfairly, by making it treat men unfairly instead.
In the long run such an approach won't work for any of us.

Perhaps one step toward making it fairer would be to withold the names of both
the rape victim and the accused rapist, until facts have been established and
the case settled.  That might go a ways toward calming the (real) fears of men
that they *can* be unjustly stigmatized by claims of rape.

I'm not into punishing men as a group for the sins of some of them.  That's what
(I think) men fear about false claims of rape.

Sara

          re: 921.29 (Sara Thigpen)

          > False accusations happen, and denying their existance won't
          > help.

          This is the second time you've said this.

          Who is denying their existance?  Where did someone say that?

          I must be really missing something, because I can't figure out
          why you keep responding to something no one is claiming.

                                             nancy b.

    Good job Sara.  As usual you have spoken my mind with more...shall we
    say...tenderness than I would have.
    
    And I think hiding the name of both the accused and the defendant
    untiil the case is resolved is a marvelous idea.  Of coarse, the
    press won't like it.  What would we need tabloid TV for if this
    was the case?  ;^)
    
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

>Perhaps one step toward making it fairer would be to withold the names of both
>the rape victim and the accused rapist, until facts have been established and
>the case settled.  

That only works if we could trust the court to "settle the facts"
adequately.

I would be mighty pissed if some guy got off on technicalities (such as
"she was dressed provocatively"), and he ended up raping someone *else*
when that person could have avoided that situation if she had just known
about him.

There was an issue relatively recently at some university, where women
maintained (on bathroom walls) lists of the men on campus who raped them.

Yes, it is true, this essentially qualifies as "conviction without trial."
But, on the other hand, the women had to resort to this because the University
thwarted their attempts to pursue the issue through the "proper" channels.

It may not be the best solution, but as long as The System is SO SO SO
biased against women, what else can we do?

I don't advocate whole-sale removal of men's civil rights to protect women's.
But for some reason I can't evoke a tremendous about of sympathy for the 2%
who were unjustly accused when I think about the 99.998% (1 in 600) of women 
who are unjustly unavenged.

No, it isn't "right" about those 2%...but if we could shift the system
so that perhaps that 2% increased to 4%, but the number of just convictions
went from 1 in 600 to 1 in ten...I'd do it.

Saying otherwise seems to imply that a man's life is more important that a
woman's...just look at the numbers.

D!

Just think!

If the rate of rape went down to, say, .001% of the population of women instead
of 25%, but the number of false accusations stayed the same, then perhaps
the number of real rapes would equal the number of false accusations.

Then charges of "frivilous filing" could be taken more seriously.

So, it seems to me, the natural course of action for those men who seem to
live in terror of being falsely accused of rape is to hit to streets to
prevent real rape!!!

D!

    How does it treat men [or anyone] unfairly to lower the level of proof
    required that a rape has been committed?
    
    If I see a person steal my car I am allowed to report my car as stolen.
    But it is still up to the state to prove that the person I accuse was
    indeed the perpetrator.  If the person I see was hired by me, and I am
    found out, then I am facing some pretty stiff penalties myself.
    
    Despite overwhelming [IMNSHO] physical evidence, I was unable to
    'prove' that a rape had occurred.  Is it unfair to investigate all
    accusations?  If my contention that I was raped were accepted, the
    state would still have to prove that the person I accused was the
    perpetrator.
    
    If I had falsely accused a person who was not the perpetrator,
    I believe that I would be deserving of punishment. But it would not
    alter the fact that I'd been raped by _someone_.
    
      Annie
    
    

    Proposition:
    
    The doubt/desire cycle may cause many men to wish there were an easier
    way to accomplish sex than having to court the preferences, favor,
    or whims of their potential partners.  It may be this desire, that
    is at one time or another, felt by many men in our society that
    possibly biases their perspectives when dealing with the topic of rape.
    
    It is IMO, this bias that allows some to perpetuate following catch 22:
    
        If she is "beautiful" she asked for it.
        If she is not "beautiful" she must be lying.
    
    I think it helps them gloss over the base desire they may have had
    within themselves at one time or another.
    
    Take it as you will.
    
    I will duck now.
    Cindi

nancyb, I apologize for being imprecise, twice.  When I say it's not good to
deny that false accusations exist, I'm really reacting to the chorus of voices
saying that they generally believe the woman, without question.  I also tend
to believe the woman, but try to keep in mind that I can be mistaken in this.

You are right, no one said that false accusations of rape _never_ happen; but
statements that we should not talk about those false accusations because it
makes it harder on true victims, well I just can't agree.  We need to fix the
problems for everybody.

Sara

    re.34 >We need to fix the problems for everyone.
    
    Agreed. However, when it comes time to allocate our resources/energies
    do we allocate 50/50 for a two problems distributed 97 and 3?

no, Dana, all I'm saying is that when we spend tons of energy (as is needed!) on
97, that we don't make 3 worse if we can avoid it.  I have seen arguments made
that say, basically, 'it's ok to increase the incidence of false claims against
men if it's a side effect of making more rape prosecutions successful', in
other words that it's ok to push the injustice done to me onto someone else.
I don't go for that one.

We can institute police procedures for dealing with rape victims in a sensitive
and non-judgemental way, and medical procedures too, so that rape victims'
claims can be substantiated by evidence that actually may also help to identify
the attacker.  (Much the same thing has been done for child sexual abuse -- to
the point where I had to be concerned about being investigated for abusing my
daughter if I had her examined for a vaginal discharge!)  We can withold the
name of victim and the accused rapist. We can make legal definitions of consent
and apply them in rape cases.  We can define degrees of rape, for surely there's
a  difference between the ^%&*)#@%_ who attacked the 3yrold, and Lorna's
(ex?)friend, and the man here in Vt who was just convicted for breaking into the
woman's trailerhome at 3am and raping her at knifepoint.

I maintain that these measures would help both the 97 and the 3.

There will always be a grey area.  The boy who didn't rape me -- well, we were
in his van at a drive in.  I was 15, he was 16.5 or 17.  All my friends rolled
their eyes, and said -- "a *van!?!?!?* just you and him? at the drive in!!!!!" &
this was before the movie! but I honest to god hadn't a clue what they were
talking about, and they weren't any more specific than that.  They knew what
he might be expecting.  I didn't.  (gosh was I dumb or what) If he had taken me,
I probably wouldn't have known what he was about till the last minute, and I 
doubt I could have stopped him.  Would it have been rape?  Of course!  Could he
have been reasonably expecting to have had sex with me then?  Lots of folks,
including my girlfriends, would have said yes!  We were both minors. So could
it have been rape?  Could I necessarily have proven it to be rape?  Should he
be have been prosecuted, if it had happened?  I don't know.

It just seems to me that the things I suggested above would make the gray area
a whole lot smaller.

Sara

	re: .30 (D!)

> No, it isn't "right" about those 2%...but if we could shift the system
> so that perhaps that 2% increased to 4%, but the number of just convictions
> went from 1 in 600 to 1 in ten...I'd do it.

	AAAAAAACK !!!  NO !!!!  
	That's is absolutely ***not*** necessary!!!  

	Why is it assumed that is what must happen if we are to
	increase the rate of convictions !!?!!  Why don't we first
	take a brief glance at what's currently wrong with the system?

	The number of "unjust convictions"  does **not** have to increase
	in order for more rapists to be convicted... Nor do the rights
	of the accused need to be diminished!!

	One step, just *one* of many steps that could be taken to
	justly convict more __rapists__ is:  

	for judges to disallow most/all evidence or testimony not 
	directly relating to the situation where the defendent allegedly 
	raped the witness.  

	**Why** was the [scumbag] criminal defense lawyer in my
	trial so focused on trying to prove I had ridden on the 
	same bus as the guy that raped me?    

	Why could that possibly have mattered when I had 
	medical corroboration, numerous physical injuries, 
	and I could positively ID Him  (among other things) !!?!!

	The defense lawyer was not dumb.  
 	I'm sure he knew that the easiest way to 
	discredit the woman's testimony (therefore creating a 
	'reasonable doubt' in the jurors' minds) is to somehow
	establish a relationship, ANY kind of relationship, 
	between the victim and the accused.

						nancy b.
	
	(who usually agrees with everything D! says ;-)

	re: .22 (-d binder)    

	> Take back the night, dammit.  

	Take back ALL the nights, dammit, and learn 
	how to protect yourself.

	There is so much focus on the rape, the victim,
	the rapist, what to do afterwards, etc...
	but what about how to prevent it to begin with !!?!!

	What about advice beyond putting locks on your doors?

	I called the Gainsvile Police Department after the 
	2 students were recently strangled after spraying their
	attacker with Mace.   They don't recommend anything 
	specific because of "liability concerns".  

					nancy b.

    I'm going to re-post here three notes that I wrote in =wn-v2=.
    Except for one judicious piece of editing in the first, to
    remove an extra and unintended negative, and the removal of
    some irrelevant commentary from the second, these are presented
    exactly as they were posted originally. I've left the headers
    intact as pointers to where the discussion on this subject took
    place in V2.
    
    --- jerry
             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA0:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE >-
================================================================================
Note 880.96                      Legalized Rape                        96 of 217
RUBY::BOYAJIAN "Secretary of the Stratosphere"       27 lines   7-MAR-1990 04:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The point about false charges being damaging isn't so much whether
    the person is guilty or innocent, but about the damage to that
    person's reputation in the eyes of his peers.
    
    Let's say that, oh, hell, I'll offer myself up as the sacrificial
    lamb here... let's say that I was arrested by the police on a charge
    of having raped someone. How would you people here in this community
    react?  Some of you might think, "I don't believe Jerry could do
    such a thing," but undoubtedly some of you may well be outraged
    at my committing such a horrible act.
    
    Now, moving right along, we get to the trial. After days of evidence,
    argument, and deliberation, the jury finds me Not Guilty. *Now* how
    will you react? Will you see it as "See, I knew Jerry wouldn't do
    such a thing," or "See, the courts let another rapist off the hook!"
    
    Either way, how would you feel about me in general. Would you always
    wonder if I really *was* innocent?  Would you be uncomfortable around
    me at a =wn= party?  Even if such feelings are not explicitly
    expressed, it's still damage to my standing in the community, and
    no verdict from a jury is ever going to wipe that away.
    
    This fear of being falsely accused is in no way as concrete or as
    great as a woman's fear of being raped. But that doesn't make it
    trivial.
    
    --- jerry

             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA0:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE >-
================================================================================
Note 880.118                     Legalized Rape                       118 of 217
RUBY::BOYAJIAN "Secretary of the Stratosphere"       39 lines   9-MAR-1990 02:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:.110
    
    I think you misunderstand the point. I (definitely) and I believe
    the other men who've brought up the point are not trying to claim
    that false accusation is too prevalent, or that the laws should
    be changed to prevent the innocent from being falsely accused, or
    that there should be more concern for the men in our society than
    for the women.
    
    I think it's unfortunate that our legal system is set up in such
    a way that sometimes the innocent *do* get screwed over, but I
    wouldn't change the system, because I believe that it is as fair
    to society as a whole than any other system I can think of.
    
    My only point is that false accusation *can* cause damage, and thus
    the fear of false accusation is not something that should be
    discounted completely just because the probabilities aren't as
    high as they are for a woman getting raped.
    
    Forget that the concept was brought about because of the rape issue.
    Look at it in a more generic sense. How would feel if you were to
    become a pariah within your social circle because you were accused
    of something you didn't do? The odds of it happening may be small,
    but being non-zero, it can still be a point of concern.
    
    --- jerry

             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA0:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE >-
================================================================================
Note 1027.5                  False Rape Accusations                      5 of 47
RUBY::BOYAJIAN "Secretary of the Stratosphere"       20 lines  14-MAR-1990 04:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I feel obliged to enter a note in this topic, since I once offered
    an explanation of why the possibility of false accusations of rape
    can bother a man. And I've seen how the discussion has degenerated
    from there.
    
    For the record...
    
    I have never stated nor implied (nor do I believe) that false
    accusations of rape are (a) more heinous than rape, (b) as common
    as rape, (c) are of greater concern, or even of equal concern as
    rape, or (d) that anti-rape laws and/or the court system should
    be weighted more in favor of protecting men from false accusations
    of rape than protecting women from rape.
    
    My previous note on the subject was merely attempting to illustrate
    how a false accusation can be damaging to the falsely accused, and
    why a man might fear such damage. And that's all it was meant to
    be.
    
    --- jerry

    Now the other point that should be kept in mind here is in answer
    to the question "*So what* if false accusations are made?  What
    does that have to do with the problem of rape in our society?"
    And some people have put forth excellent arguments about why the
    whole question of false accusations reinforces the prevelant belief
    that a woman isn't to be believed if she claims she was raped.
    
    But the question was introduced as a by-product of the question of
    why rapes are always considered "alleged" while other crimes are
    described as having taken place.
    
    As others have pointed out, certain crimes can be demonstrated as
    having taken place. If a body is found in an alleyway riddled with
    bullet holes, it's pretty clear that a murder has occurred. Nothing
    "alleged" about it. If a banker gets to work in the morning and
    finds the safe empty and with it's door blown off, it's pretty clear
    that a robbery has occurred. Nothing "alleged" about that, either.
    In resulting trials, proof that the crime has taken place is a given,
    and all that the prosecutor has to do is prove that an accused
    defendant committed the crime.
    
    If my wallet is missing, and I claim that a particular person stole
    it, it's *not* clear that a theft has taken place. I (and the State)
    not only have to prove that the person I accused did the crime, but
    I have to prove that a crime did indeed take place. Until that proof
    has been presented, not only is the defendant "allegedly" the perp,
    but the crime itself is "alleged".
    
    If a woman -- whether I know her personally or not -- claims that she
    was raped, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, and
    believe that she was indeed raped. If I was on a jury sitting on a
    rape case, I'd also be inclined to believe that the woman was indeed
    raped. But, in the latter instance, the belief that the crime did
    indeed take place is separate from deciding whether the accused
    committed the crime. And even if my gut feeling was that he *did* do
    it, I would feel an ethical obligation to return a Not Guilty verdict
    regardless of my gut feeling unless the accuser had sufficiently
    proven that the accused did indeed commit the crime.
    
    And I would do this whether the crime was rape, theft, vandalism,
    murder or anything else.
    
    --- jerry

    	When police are investigating serial murders, it's quite common
    	for a number of bogus confessions to be made.  For those of us
    	who dread the thought of being accused of crimes we didn't
    	commit, it's almost unthinkable to imagine why someone would
    	want to confess to others' crimes as a way to get attention.

    	This is the way I see false rape claims, too.  Rape victims are
    	treated so badly in this country that it's seldom worth it to
    	press charges in the 98% of the cases where the rape actually
    	occurred - so it's impossible for many of us to imagine why
    	someone would put her/himself through the trauma of reporting
    	a rape if it weren't true (especially since the punishment to
    	the accuser is bound to be as bad or worse than what happens 
    	to the accused, in many cases, whether the accused is innocent
    	or guilty.)

    	Even if our criminal justice system could get more convictions
    	for rape cases, it would take major cultural attitude adjustments
    	to change the way rape victims are victimized again and again in
    	the process of reporting and testifying in a rape case.

    This file brings to mind a rape case here in Seattle several years ago. 
    A teenager was abducted and raped by a man in a blue Chevrolet.  The
    Port of Seattle police arrested, tried and convicted Steve Titus.  The
    only piece of evidence was that he had a blue Chevrolet.  A reporter at
    the Seattle Times took an interest in the case and did end up proving
    that Steve did *NOT* commit the rape.  Steve did not go to prison, but
    he did end up losing everything....his job, fiancee and eventually his
    life.  He died of a heart attack at the age of 32.  He died before his
    civil case against the Port of Seattle went to court.  Sadly, he won
    that case, his family continued it for him.  There is no doubt that the
    girl was raped, just not by Steve.....
    
    Karen

    Clarification of .42....
    
    The reporter was able to prove that the Port of Seattle police covered
    up some information in this case that did prove BEFORE the trial that
    Steve was innocent.  The Port of Seattle police wanted a conviction,
    period.  Did they ever find the acual rapist?  I don't honestly know, I
    was following the Steve Titus story.  
    
    Karen

Sex, Lies, and Anesthesia      American Health, October 1991

Some female patients who press sexual-assault charges against their dentists
or doctors may actually have delusions caused by anesthesia.

Recent research suggests that intravenous benzodiazepines - a class of drugs
that includes Valium - can cause vivid sexual fantasies, particularly in
women. These drugs are often administered, usually with no anesthesiologist
present, during outpatient surgical procedures to achieve a semi-wakeful state.

Dr John Dundee, a professor on anesthesiology at the Queen's University of
Belfast in Northern Ireland investigated 35 cases of sedation-induced
hallucinations, 27 of which involved women. Most, he found, had a "disturbing
sexual element" - usually breasts or genital fondling. Yet Dundee maintains
that in most cases sexual contact could not have occurred - because others
were present or because the allegations were actually  "physically impossible."

Sexual hallucinations triggered by other anesthetics, such as nitrous oxide,
are well documented. "It could really happen with many anesthetics, depending
on the circumstances," says oral surgeon J Theodore Jastak of the Oregon Health
Sciences University.

Dentists and doctors who have been falsely accused of sexual assault have lost
licenses and even been imprisoned, Dundee says. "It's been a horrible experience
for some of these people."

    well, in my sole experience w/nitrous oxide, it didn't affect me that
    way.  It *did* make getting my tooth drilled almost an enjoyable
    experience.  It hurt but I just didn't care, and the rest of the
    universe was very funny...

    Hey, did you see that Golden Girls episode where Rose accused her
    dentist of fondling her and he said it was just the delusions from gas?
    Very funny (I'm not sure!).
    
    Alice T.

    I have, in my life, done a fair bit of nitrous oxide, and I can't
    imagine coming to the mistaken conclusion that I had been raped.
    
    This sounds like drug hype.
    
    D!

    
    I'm with Diana.  Nitrous Oxide was never a physical (or visual or
    aural) hallucinogen in my experience.
    
    -Jody
    

    Experiences can differ.  For me, nitrous oxide produced a feeling of
    being very heavy, like under a lead blanket, and pushed under the
    table.  I hated the feeling, and usually started to panic a bit.
    
    I also felt slight paranoia -- as I went deeper under, I would always
    fight back the heaviness and relaxation enough to call out to the
    dental assistant to make sure I wasn't going to overdose.
    
    This happened 2-3 times until I decided not to use nitrous again.  
    
    Given that I experienced slight panic and paranoia under nitrous oxide,
    it makes sense to me that, based on their individual body chemistry,
    some people might have a deeper reaction that included hallucinations.
    
    Pam

   Individual experiences differ, too.  I had nitrous oxide several times
   with no problems (just that heavy feeling Pam described) -- until one
   time when I started having hallucinations and thought I was rolling over
   rocks and off a cliff.  The look on my face actually scared my mother
   and a nurse, who were in the room while this was going on.

	Sharon

    I have paranoid nightmares virtually every time I get put under general
    anaesthesia. The question is "Why are women, compared to men,
    peculiarly likely to confuse vague dreams with actual occurences?"
    
    Or maybe the question is "Why should we believe they are?" 
    
    I note that, despite the lead-in of "some female patients who press
    sexual-assault charges against their dentists or doctors may actually"
    (and what a lovely stroke of rhetoric that "may actually" is) "have
    delusions", that these well-documented sexual hallucinations aren't
    linked by the article to any actual cases, just to a study of
    "sedation-induced hallucinations" -- exactly where you'd expect to find
    them. 
    
    I don't see how having a nightmare leads any more to pressing a rape
    charge than having a wet dream leads to adultery.
    
    Ray

    The explanation I saw for "false" claims of rape or molestation by
    women under nitrous oxide were attributed to the suggestibility of
    individuals while under.  Essentially what happens is that the dentist
    is tugging (in the mouth), leaning (non-sexually) against the patient
    and otherwise being "normally" in physical contact with the patient. 
    In the dream state produced by the anaesthesia, those sensations are
    sometimes interpreted or remembered as sensual and/or sexual with a
    great deal of distress resulting.  It is not impossible that people
    have been taken advantage of while under anesthesia, but (and this is
    important) it is very possible that what they remember is not what
    happened.  It is a difficult call, the best protection short of not
    having the gas is to know that there will be assistants and/or
    witnesses during the proceedure.
    
    I suppose this doesn't help much.  It has been about 15 years since I
    saw the article and couldn't put my hands on it to save my life. 
    
    Just my $0.02

	Well, like Jody and D!, I've never had any
	delusions/hallucinations/what-have-you while under the influence
	of nitrous.

	However, I imagine that the effects of nitrous might be different
	in the dentist's office, where you are 'under' for some time, as 
	opposed to the less controlled situations which my experience is 
	based on.




	*A*

	However, I imagine that the effects of nitrous might be different
	in the dentist's office, where you are 'under' for some time, as 
	opposed to the less controlled situations which my experience is 
	based on.
    
    What, you don't think Whip-its are useful for scientific study?
    
    D!

    
    Well, I've been "under" in the dentist's chair and *did* have sexual
    fantasies while under the "influence"...but they certainly weren't 
    about the (male) dentist!!   ;-}
    
    Debbi

    Seems to me that the thing for legit dentists to do is insist that 
    there is someone else present while any female patients are "under",
    or ,preferably, for patients to bring someone along with them.
    
    
    Jerome.

    You mean dentists are often alone with their patients?  Not any of the
    Dentists I have been to over my 35 years.
    
    Meg

>    What, you don't think Whip-its are useful for scientific study?


	Maybe I need to do some more research...


	*A*

This month's HEALTH magazine reports on this study. Apparently in *some* of 
these cases there were other people in the room who verfied that nothing 
happened. As a person experienced in alternate realities I can say that nitrous
hasn't ever affected me that way. They go on to say that an assistant should
always be in the room anyway. I know my dentist always has one there. 

> these cases there were other people in the room who verfied that nothing 
    
    Again, were these cases of reported hallucinations or cases of reported
    rape?
    
    Ray

Ray, I don't recall the wording as specifying which they were talking about. 
It's just a short article, you could read it at the newstand if you're quick.
liesl

    From today's paper...

	College Station, TX - A Texas A&M University student whose 
	allegations of assault by male cadets led to the disbanding
	of an elite cavalry unit has recanted her story, officials
	said. "The young woman met with university officials and
	said that the claimed assaults, beating and abduction never
	happened," A&M Police Chief Bob Wiatt said yesterday.

	Last month, A&M disbanded the Parsons' Mounted Cavalry pending
	an investigation into the woman's claim she was attacked twice
	by several members. Maj. Gen. Thomas Darling, corps commandant
	said he expects the cavalry unit to resume activities.

    There was also a segment on the evening news, but I missed it
    because someone came to the door.