« Morons For Justice | Main | More Problems For Walgreens »

March 05, 2006

Rape Defendant Acquitted - Being Spat Upon And Having Guys Write Obscenities On Your Body With Magic Marker Is Considered Consent??

That rape case where the guys raped an unconscious, drunken 16 year old, and spat on her, and wrote obscenities on her legs in magic marker ended in acquittal. This is infuriating. Does a woman have to be a religious virgin for people to believe she cannot be raped? Apparently so. This is from Digby, via Amanda.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provisions that protect the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

It's clear from the videotape rape case that a drunken women who has sexual experience cannot be raped. She is a slut who had asked for it. It is her fault for getting drunk in the first place, and "boys will be boys". The defense attorney went throught that videotape frame by frame and judged the victim based on what he "thought" were consenting motions. She didn't act like a religious virgin. She was drunk. She kissed one of the guys. She touched him on the head. Frame by frame, attacking her and condemning her every chance he got. The court decided that it's oh-so-sexy for an unconscious woman to be spat upon and written upon with magic markers. That is such a wonderful and enjoyable way to have sex. I would love to be so drunk that I pass out so that men may have an opportunity to spit on me and write obscenities on my bare legs with magic markers. That is such a wonderful way to express compassion for a woman.

What the hell was that court thinking?

New bills banning all abortions are popping up all over the country. The Supreme Court could very well repeal Roe v. Wade. This is the second videotape shown that had resulted in an acquittal in a rape case. Pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions because that violates their God. A woman who is not a religious virgin and gets drunk is a slut who can't be raped. Women are under assault in this country now, and things are only just getting started.


Posted on March 5, 2006 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

Comments

But what about the men?! What's really important here is how is this affecting the poor guys?

I once had a troll pop up on a post about rape to complain about how rape made it so much more difficult for him because women were so skittish. Obviously, it was our job to just deal with it and then placate him because he was truly the innocent victim.

No, I'm not making that up.

Posted by: ginmar at Mar 5, 2006 1:14:48 PM

I'm not surprised you had a troll like that. They like to come on feminist blogs and turn the conversation around to "what about the men"?

The videotape rape case ending in acquittal is horrifying. What on earth made the court think that a woman wants to be spat upon and assaulted with obscene writing on her body? The acquittal was a travesty of justice. I hope the woman appeals the decision.

Posted by: The Countess at Mar 5, 2006 1:20:50 PM

I hope the woman appeals the decision.

Hmmm... doesn't the state ever appeal acquittals the prosecutor thinks are insane (it's an honest question, not a rhetorical one)?

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 5, 2006 1:24:38 PM

The state generally cannot appeal.

Posted by: will at Mar 5, 2006 3:34:23 PM

How can you condemn the verdict unless you have actually seen the video tape?

I guess the same logic goes that I cannot really defend the verdict unless I have seen the video tape and the rest of the evidence.

Posted by: will at Mar 5, 2006 3:39:53 PM

How can you condemn the verdict unless you have actually seen the video tape?

Because there's other evidence that points out to rape. Most importantly, one of the assailants pled guilty to rape: in most cases, when several people are accused of committing the same crime, the confession of one is enough to convict the rest, whence comes the prisoner's dilemma. Furthermore, in general having sex with someone who's unable to give informed consent is considered rape; this includes not just statutory rape, but also sex with someone who's unconscious or excessively drunk.

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 5, 2006 5:13:30 PM

The state can't appeal a criminal aquital.

Posted by: Masculiste at Mar 6, 2006 9:39:22 AM

So if she wants to appeal the decision, she has to get her own attorney?

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 6, 2006 11:43:01 AM

She can't appeal the decision. She could bring her own civil suit for damages, though.

Posted by: Anne at Mar 6, 2006 11:57:50 AM

(Speaking in my capacity as a TV lawyer): The state is the plaintiff in felony cases like this, not the accuser. The accuser doesn't have standing to appeal anything.

Posted by: Violet Socks at Mar 6, 2006 12:01:23 PM

Acquittal is final. Forbidden in the Constitution, Fifth Amendment, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;. That means the charge of statutory rapes is probably a non-started, because of res adjutica the acts on which he might be tried have already been tried.

There may be a loophole for the fact that forcible, and statutory rape are different crimes, with very different elements needed to prove them (one can have a willing participant, who actuall is mentally able to give informed consent and still commit statutory rape) but the prosecution ought to have seen to it that statutory rape was also listed as a lesser, included, offense. That they didn't was probably to avoid giving the jury an out, in what they thought was a slam dunk case.

How can you condemn the verdict unless you have actually seen the video tape? The same way that people who think OJ did it condemn him. From the evidence presented to the public, and from the belief that the victim was a credible witness they believe a miscarriage of justice has occured.

Countess: She can't appeal. There are probably tort statutes which will allow her, if she can afford it, to press a civil suit. At that point the burden shifts from, "beyond a reasonable doubt," to, "the preponderance of the evidence." But that will be an uglier trial, because the defense will make an issue of the tape, and use it in much the same way, as well as attacking her for being drunk. On the up side, most jurisdiction don't require unanimity in civil trials, merely 2/3rds, so she has a better shot.

TK

Posted by: Terry Karney at Mar 6, 2006 4:14:22 PM

TK:

Didn't you write a post about how the public perception of the Rodney King case was much different from reality based on you actually having watcghed the video tape?

Posted by: will at Mar 6, 2006 4:23:35 PM

At Last

Posted by: thepoetryman at Mar 7, 2006 4:00:07 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble but, when you consider the actions of the woman on the videotape, i.e. kissing, touching, and smiling at the men involved, you cannot in fairness reach any conclusion other than that she was a willing participant in the sex acts. Ergo sending any one of the defendents to prison when what had happened was not actually criminal, would be a gross injustice. Of course, this will make no impression on you, because you think that a man being sent to prison - especially when no genuine crime has taken place - is inconsequential. An innocent man in jail. Whatever.

{Most importantly, one of the assailants pled guilty to rape}

This does not prove that what happened was rape, particularly in the face of the evidence provided by the videotape. It might well, however, indicate that the man in question had a failure of nerve, when facing PRISON for RAPE, and thought the best thing he could do for himself was erroneously confess to committing a crime that had not taken place. If you think that is implausible, that people wouldn't ever act foolishly under such pressure, then that would probably be because you think prison terms are inconsequential. Whatever.

The fact of the matter is you want innocent men sent to prison purely because they've offended your twisted form of sexual morality. You come out with bilge about how because innocent men aren't going to jail, that must mean that the law is casting judgments on some poor woman (who was enjying the activities caught on tape) to the effect that she's a slut and was asking to be f***ed against her will (she was willing)...and this is wrong, and it would be far better that we send innocent men, who have committed no wrong, to jail, than that the law call some woman a slut - which is histrionic crap.

It's either that or that you have a lot of pent-up rage over not seeing enough men sent to prison on a whim, that you wish to have satisfied vicariously through the courts. Unfortunately for you, but thankfully for the rest of us, the courts do not exist for that purpose, and the jury on this case evidently didn't think so either.

You are incensed by innocent men NOT being sent to jail. No matter how you slice it, that truly is warped.

Posted by: The Kusabi at Mar 8, 2006 5:03:37 AM

{But what about the men?! What's really important here is how is this affecting the poor guys?

I once had a troll pop up on a post about rape to complain about how rape made it so much more difficult for him because women were so skittish. Obviously, it was our job to just deal with it and then placate him because he was truly the innocent victim.

No, I'm not making that up.}

On the one hand (in another thread), you're saying that 'anecdotes don't constitute facts' and don't make a damn bit of difference to any discussion, and on the other, you're sharing an anecdote and trying to convince us that what men are really concerned about is whether rape trials will negatively affect their access to pussy? Yeah, that makes much more sense than to say that men don't approve of innocent men falsely accused of crime being jailed for it.

And of course that goofball is totally representative of the opinions men hold on these matters. Because anecdotes constitute facts.

Posted by: The Kusabi at Mar 8, 2006 5:16:15 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble but, when you consider the actions of the woman on the videotape, i.e. kissing, touching, and smiling at the men involved, you cannot in fairness reach any conclusion other than that she was a willing participant in the sex acts.

She was so drunk she couldn't give informed consent. Now it is possible, in theory, for a woman to consent beforehand, that is say, "Okay, I want you to get me drunk and do obscene things to me." But when that happens, in general the woman will own up to it afterward instead of reporting the action to the police as rape. Cases of deliberate entrapment are so rare, and the "he entrapped me" defense can be used in so many cases where it's not true, that operationally it's best to consider cases like this as real crimes, which is exactly what the justice system does.

This does not prove that what happened was rape, particularly in the face of the evidence provided by the videotape.

Take your complaint with the common law system. It's an established precedent that the confession of one person is enough to convict his partners in crime.

The fact of the matter is you want innocent men sent to prison purely because they've offended your twisted form of sexual morality.

The fact of the matter is that 100% of the people who psychologize me do it because they don't have facts or logic to ground their arguments in.

You are incensed by innocent men NOT being sent to jail. No matter how you slice it, that truly is warped.

Which psychic school did you go to?

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 8, 2006 9:12:46 AM

Alon:

In the United States, a confession of another defendant is not admissible into evidence.

That co-defendant can come to court and testify against the defendant. But neither the confession nor the conviction are inadmissible. (Neither would an aquittal of a co-defendant.)

Posted by: will at Mar 8, 2006 12:10:55 PM

{She was so drunk she couldn't give informed consent.)

So those men should have been convicted because the woman they had sex with got herself blind drunk? No.

{Now it is possible, in theory, for a woman to consent beforehand}

Not just in theory, mon amigo. In this case, we have the 'practice' to go along with the 'theory'.

{Now it is possible, in theory, for a woman to consent beforehand, that is say, "Okay, I want you to get me drunk and do obscene things to me."}

No-one got her drunk but herself. Unless you are suggesting they held her down and pumped her full of alcohol?

{But when that happens, in general the woman will own up to it afterward instead of reporting the action to the police as rape.}

And often, women will decide what happened to them was rape, when it wasn't, and press charges against those they had sex with. When this happens, those she accuses need to be found not guilty, as court cases are serious matters and not ways for drunken idiots to punish other people for their mistakes.

{Cases of deliberate entrapment are so rare}

Non sequiter. This is not a case of deliberate entrapment.

{that operationally it's best to consider cases like this as real crimes, which is exactly what the justice system does.}

And more than a few people here are demanding that it should have been prosecuted as a real crime, despite the strong evidence that it was not. In other words, 'They can not be found innocent! That is tantamount to saying the woman asked for it!'

{Take your complaint with the common law system. It's an established precedent that the confession of one person is enough to convict his partners in crime.}

Again, that precedent would only apply in cases where other, more compelling evidence, does not contradict the case made by the supposed victim, as well as any confession made in error or due to stress.

I'm sure it would make sense to you that a serial confessor should be locked up for carrying out a robbery, where CCTV footage he was nowhere near the place.

{The fact of the matter is that 100% of the people who psychologize me do it because they don't have facts or logic to ground their arguments in.}

Oh, come now. The blind rage and indifference to facts that some here, such as ginmar and the Countess herself, have shown, is glaringly obvious.

And you're one step away from reverting to mindless insults.

{Which psychic school did you go to?}

Such as that. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, don't say anything at all.

Posted by: The Kusabi at Mar 8, 2006 12:47:16 PM

So those men should have been convicted because the woman they had sex with got herself blind drunk? No.

What's your native language? I'm asking because this sentence looks based on an ambiguity that exist in some languages' tense systems, but not in English. The operative difference is the one between "got" and "had gotten." Your formulation implies that the woman got drunk after or during sex, in which case she could give informed consent; a sentence describing the reality of the case would have read, "had gotten herself blind drunk," in which case she was too drunk to consent to sex.

And more than a few people here are demanding that it should have been prosecuted as a real crime, despite the strong evidence that it was not.

Crap. The "strong evidence" it was not showed consent given under intoxication, which is not considered consent. They could have just as well had sex with her while she was unconscious.

Oh, come now. The blind rage and indifference to facts that some here, such as ginmar and the Countess herself, have shown, is glaringly obvious.

The only so-called fact Trish and Ginmar have contested is that a very drunk woman could have meaningfully consented to sex and to writing obscenities on her body with a magic marker.

Such as that. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, don't say anything at all.

There was a period of time when I cared for schoolyard insults. That period ended in, I believe, 2002.

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 8, 2006 1:18:32 PM

So if a sleeping or out-of-their-mind drunk person moves in any way or utters any sound, that indicates that they're in charge of what they're doing? Like, for instance, that rapist who was acquitted because he argued that he was asleep when he forced his penis into the victim?

This is ridiculous. Everybody moves around and makes noises when they're asleep or under the influence of drugs or drink. Jesus, even Terry Schiavo cooed and made noises and moved around, and she didn't even have a brain left.

Posted by: Violet Socks at Mar 8, 2006 1:43:50 PM

Alon:-

Was the woman responsible for getting drunk, or were the men responsible for her getting drunk? Answer this and I think your uncertanties with language will be rendered moot.

Also:-

{There was a period of time when I cared for schoolyard insults. That period ended in, I believe, 2002.}

I'm trying very hard to decide whethey you're a bad satirist or a genuine idiot. Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 4, 2006 5:43:28 AM

That's not the point; the point is that you're a troll. Don't change the subject. Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 6, 2006 3:24:30 AM

Violet:-

I believe the woman in this case was rather more active than whoever you may be thinking of, don't you? Which shows that your analogy is a wee bit flawed.

Posted by: The Kusabi at Mar 8, 2006 2:30:51 PM

The best thing to do about a troll who is an apologist for rapists is to ignore him. I've let him spew here so that people could see the kind of mindset all over the blogsphere from rape apologists who have posted in comments about the acquittal in the videotape rape case. Since he's only here to spew, I'm going to ban him and remove all of his comments from now on. Such noxious crap does not belong on my blog.

Posted by: The Countess at Mar 8, 2006 2:37:49 PM

I believe the woman in this case was rather more active than whoever you may be thinking of, don't you?

Incapacitated female rape victim: pats head of rapist on top of her, makes incoherent sounds. Rape troll: obviously she was active and consenting!

"Sleeping" male rapist: Removed clothes, walks to room where female is lying down, pulls off her clothes, lies on top of her and forces his penis into her vagina. Rape troll: obviously he didn't know what he was doing! We can't throw a man in jail for something he did when he was asleep!

Go fuck yourself, you disgusting piece of slime.

Posted by: Violet Socks at Mar 8, 2006 2:41:05 PM

Typical.

The "logic" is in his favor when it suits him, not in his favor when it doesn't.

Seems to me that certain elements of the population get very nervous when this stuff comes up, because they have a memory of doing nearly or exactly this, and realize they are guilty as hell- so, they become super-defensive at the thought of prosecution.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Mar 8, 2006 4:58:06 PM

These stinkhorns like to spew their crap when any feminist writes on her blog about rape. I've seen similar comments on other blogs where the blogger talked about this case and other rape cases. The "false allegations" and "she asked for it!" crowd always comes out and blows spooge all over the comments sections. I think you're right, Tx. These guys are reacting because they have something to hide. Projection is the word for the day.

Posted by: The Countess at Mar 8, 2006 5:06:41 PM

exactamundo! Projection!

They are just afraid of having to give up their rape priviledge.

Which one of the trolls said, they will now video tape all sexual encounters because they are afraid of a rape charge?

if your "sexual encounters" look like the video tape in question, you had better be worried!

I mean that's crazy! Someone clearly doesn't know what a positive sexual experience for a woman looks like if they are making statements like that.

Posted by: at Mar 8, 2006 5:19:00 PM

whoops, that was me.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Mar 8, 2006 5:19:36 PM

Yup, Tx. I've noticed that any time a feminist discusses rape on her blog, the rape apologists show up to spew bile. They don't want to lose their rape privilege, as you put it. They cheer when an obvious rapist gets acquitted, because they see that as approval of what they either have done or would like to do. They can't outright admit that in public, so they whine about women and consent. Projection, projection, projection.

Posted by: The Countess at Mar 8, 2006 5:31:54 PM

I've noticed that any time a feminist discusses rape on her blog, the rape apologists show up to spew bile.

I haven't noticed that at all, but we probably read different blogs (right now I'm thinking of Majikthise, which if I'm not mistaken has been troll-free since Lindsay posted about Terri Schiavo).

Posted by: Alon Levy at Mar 8, 2006 11:38:38 PM

Rape privilege? Projection? Do you know how paranoid, nonsensical, and plain off-the-rails that sounds? You must also think that if a man protests being falsely accused of murder, it's because they are afraid of losing their male privilege to kill people. It's weird that that makes more sense to you than that no-one would like being accused of something they didn't do.

Go out and try to convince a stranger, who might not see things the way you do, that the problem men have with being falsely accused of crime is the loss of male privilege. You won't? Would that be because you know you'd be unlikely to be able to convince the average person that your kind of fantastic thinking is valid? You'd be absolutely right.

Projection? We've got a classic case of willful blindness in your words. You're too much of an extremist to see things the way they really are. Instead you spin fantasies about male privilege which in no way reflect reality. And you describe yourself as sane. Probably because to entertain the idea that you might be wrong here scares you too much.

Posted by: Rolpin at Mar 9, 2006 12:31:37 AM

I'm sorry, but was the defense able to show any part of that tape where the woman said, "yes, let's have sex and trhem you con write obscenities on me and cover me with spit"?

Because if not, um, somebody dropped the ball. I'd file a civil suit if I were her.

Posted by: at Mar 10, 2006 9:33:52 AM

Sorry, 9:33:52 was me.

Posted by: Norah at Mar 10, 2006 9:34:50 AM

Forget trying to talk sense to feminists Rolpin it's a waste of time their just a bunch of man haters. "It's either that or that you have a lot of pent-up rage over not seeing enough men sent to prison on a whim, that you wish to have satisfied vicariously through the courts. Unfortunately for you, but thankfully for the rest of us, the courts do not exist for that purpose" Kasabi might I add except in the case of child support, another tool of feminists.

Posted by: at May 3, 2006 5:49:39 AM

Nobody's cheering rapists, but men are sick of irresponsible liberal/feminists baiting/accusing men into trouble then crying wolf and then run to MOMMY government to prosecute those they set up.

Posted by: at May 3, 2006 5:59:20 AM

Yes, that naughty slut MADE those guys get her so drunk she didn't know what was happening. She used her feminine wiles to manipulate them into scrawling slurs on her body and spitting on her.

Anyone who thinks that rape is wrong is just teh manhater!!! you all hate men because you think they should act like decent human beings, damn you nasty mean feminist harpies!

Oh, will these poor oppressed men EVER be freed?? *sob*

Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 3, 2006 11:59:45 AM