Fear And (Self)Loathing At DU, Or Is It Just Me?

[me b zola]

I posted a thread in GD, ranting about how I am sick of rape & DV always being called "alleged", and the vicims are "alleged victims" in the media. Although not included in the body of the OP, I expressed how I feel that this linked to the fact that these crimes have been historically accepted behaviors of men against women.

I was expecting some men to not get it, but was rather blown away by a couple of females calling my premise "baloney". The nay-sayers all stated that they have heard the media say "alleged robbery", but I swear that I never have.

So is it just me? Am I way off base, or...what???


Here's the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x899268

[BlueIris]

1. Sadly, there are far too many folks here still in need of help

for the pain they've suffered at the hands of their abusers. Male and female posters. And I'm not perfect or anything, I've been one of them. As most people in this forum probably know, healing from that kind of injury is a long road.

[bloom]

2. This cartoon addresses that idea:

I think when it comes to "Sports Star" rape cases (notice how many of the "Sports Star" defenders have sports avatars) - the defenders just can't stop rooting for their team or even for any team. And it's all about winning and losing. If it turns out there isn't enough evidence to convict - there are all kinds of people who are ready to convict the women for bringing the charges. But would they have the evidence to prove that the rape did not take place as she said it did. I seriously doubt it.



See also:

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=210

"My point is that even the dumbest American knows that racism is a Bad Thing, while sexism remains ubiquitous and unchallenged. The non-feminists who are rallying around this victim are responding to the ugly racist aspects of the case. They can see the racism; they’ve been taught to look for it and they know it’s evil. Forty years after Martin Luther King, everybody in America knows that racism is wrong. Does everybody know that sexism is wrong? Do they even know what it looks like? Does everybody understand that rape is a crime of violent hatred against women? Hardly."


And there is:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/04/11/rape-isnt-the-only-crime-that-pits-one-persons-word-against-anothers/

"Imagine that Bob comes to trial for being a drug dealer. Officer Jane testifies that Bob offered to sell her some coke. Bob says that's a lie, and that the coke on him when Jane arrested him was actually planted by Jane.

Why is it that no one would call this case "he said/she said," as rape cases are so often called?

...So why doesn't anyone say that drug possession is a unique crime because a person can go be sent to prison for drug possession, based solely on another person's word? Why does no one say "drug dealing is a serious charge; it is easy to make, difficult to defend"? Why does no one fret about the damage to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" when someone goes to prison for selling drugs based on someone else's word?

I don't think there's a principled reason that the process of a jury hearing testimony and weighing credibility - which is routinely accepted in thousands of non-rape cases - becomes so suspicious and deplorable when the crime is rape. Rather, I think the difference is just evidence that our culture trusts cops but doesn't trust women...."

------------------

[ThomCat]

16. Your drug case analogy is absolutely right.

Many people get convicted of drug crimes solely based on the word of other people who are trying to cut their own deals with the prosecutors. These are people who should have no credibility at all. But they are taken seriously and people's lives are ruined.

In a rape case the victims are assumed to have no inherent credibility for some reason. She has to prove that she is a virgin saint who fought like a feral dog to protect herself before some people will listen to her.

It don't think it's just that our culture trusts cops but not women. Our culture trusts men, but not women. Our culture trusts cops, but not civilians.

Our culture trusts has a pathological distrust of teenagers, and especially teenage girls. Making fun of teen girls, mocking them, belittling them, and painting them as shallow, vapid and manipulative is a huge part of our culture. Any woman who looks young gets tarred with this brush even if she's not a teen any longer.

There are a whole lot of factors that all converge on women to make woman seem someone untrustworthy to most people.

[bloom]

3. My post in another thread (+ my google results)

(now archived)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=873755#874739


"It's not saying that someone in particular is guilty to say a victim is a victim and has been found to be one through medical exams.

To pretend that she isn't a victim is a lot of crap, IMO.

Journalists don't verify EVERY piece of information that they write through a judge and jury before writing it.

Just like someone who is murdered isn't alleged to be dead."

--------------


I think it's biased journalism ("framed" by the Defense attorney - probably).

I googled it:

93 hits for "alleged robbery victim", news ** 53,600 for "robbery victim", news.

397 for "alleged murder victim",news ** 824,000 for "murder victim", news

78,400 for "alleged rape victim" , news ** 1,060,000 for "rape victim", news

---

So while alleged IS used for other crime victims - it appears to be FAR less frequent.

[me b zola]

4. Thank you for your thoughtful & informative reply(s)

After a little bit of googling I came to the conclusion that there is statistical evedience to support my/your conclusion. It seems, though, that the current political climate is keeping women fighting for their most basic rights, making it difficult for any forward progress to be accomplished...or even discussed.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. The use of the word "alleged"

is always based on the Constitutionally-guaranteed presumption of innocence. Until there is a conviction, there is - think about it - no crime. It all has to be proven, or the defendant has to plead guilty before the presumption of innocence falls.

Your take on it is emotional, and I understand it, but there is always the law to be considered, and the protection of everyone's rights.

[bliss_eternal]

6. ...a further explanation.

I took a journalism class. In it, we were taught based on the law that prior to a case going to trial one can not legally say anything other than alleged. Newspapers could be held liable if they call someone a murderer as opposed to an alleged murderer before the case goes to trial. It's all about covering their ass from a legal standpoint.

From that perspective I get it.

I also understand from the original poster perspective. me b zola, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to discuss rape, assault, even molestation of minors to be poo poo'd by someone on DU. I've been called shrill and reactionary for assuming guilt over consent when minors are involved or women that were hospitalized for injuries.

There's quite a few "alleged" progressives with some weird ideas about what actually constitutes rape. :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Eh

Who cares what others say? There are faceless pixels here, and whatever they think is irrelevant.

What you think is relevant, and that's all that matters.

[bliss_eternal]

12. Thank you--

nice that someone thinks so! :hi:

[me b zola]

7. This isn't about the suspects/perpetrators

I have absolutely no problem with calling ANY suspect the alleged perpetrator. What I wholeheartedly object to is the different standard that a *rape or DV victim* is held to. You don't hear, as bloom mentions upthread, about "alleged" robbery victims. Still, rape victims are always called an "alleged" victim UNTIL her case is proven in a court of law.

There is a disparity in how we treat victims of crimes, and crimes themselves, depending upon the crime.


I really do respect our Constitutional rights, and that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I also like that we are all supposed to share the same rights under the law.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. Keep in mind

that a "robbery," to use your example, is a verifiable fact - witnesses, etc.

A rape or an episode of domestic violence very rarely has witnesses.

That's a significant difference - external validation. Otherwise, it's always a matter of speculation, and, hence, a matter to be proven to a jury.

There is disparity in everything, and to isolate rape and domestic violence as if they were any different than murder or extortion is to minimize all of it.

[me b zola]

9. Wow. This really cuts to the bone

"Keep in mind that a "robbery," to use your example, is a verifiable fact - witnesses, etc."

How often aren't victims of robbery/mugging the only witness? I'd say plenty. They never discuss it as a he said/she said crime--just that a crime was committed. Just as in rape, often the only witness is the victim. Bloom, upthread, uses a good example from a link discussing someone arrested on drug charges.

Here's another crime that often has NO witnesses--burglery. The victim usually doesn't see the perpetrator, but it is reported as a burglery--not as an alleged burglery. I have never heard of a burglery victim refered to as an "alleged" victim, even though there were NO witnesses.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. An "alleged" crime was committed

That's the language used when it's essentially one person's word against another - he raped me, I did not, and so forth.

Burglary has plenty of witnesses - fingerprints, break-ins, items missing, items fenced or found, footprints, etc. Witnesses aren't necessarily humans.

You don't hear about burglary victims because it's a crime against property, not against an individual. There are people whose homes have been burgled, but they're not "burglary victims." It's the home that was violated - according to the law - not the individuals.

Rape and domestic violence are crimes against individuals. Hence the term, "alleged perpetrator." Same with assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and so forth.

See the difference?

And now, I'm going to stop being a law professor and just wish you well. I hope you can see the differentiations in these scenarios, and I hope I was able to help.

[spooky3]

13. That strikes me as stretching the use of the language in very odd

ways.

1) "Burglary victim" is not an unusual or strange term. I do not hear people distinguishing their uses of "victim" on the bases that you assert.

A quick Yahoo! search of "burglary victim" returned 1,270,000 entries.

2) What is the source supporting the use of "witness" when describing such things are fingerprints? Never heard of that one.

On edit: All of the definitions cited here (except for one of the 10 provided, "this auditorium has witnessed many ceremonies", with which I would bet some language experts would take issue as inappropriate since it anthropomorphizes an inanimate object) require "one" to be or do something (e.g., to "testify" to something) and do not encompass your usage.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/witness

3) And why wouldn't there be fingerprints, break-ins, torn clothing, bruises or tears, blood, or other "witnesses" (evidence), if you will, in the case of many rapes? So it's rarely SIMPLY one person's word against another's.

I'm not convinced that these points explain the differential treatment of different crimes as the OP and others have questioned.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. As I said,

I'm done being the law professor here.

If you think getting google hits on a phrase makes it relevant, well, we differ on what "research" means.

I have thirty years of experience as a lawyer, on both sides of the courtroom, and if you're not convinced, well, that's the way it goes.

[jukes]

15. police agencies, and by extension, media outlets

are supposed to attach "alleged" to a suspect's charge in order to avoid prejudicing juries. that said, WE have no such obligation and cops are *MOST* unlikely to take a chance on a lawsuit by a privileged boy's wealthy & influential family unless they have definite probable cause for an arrest.