New at Reason

A vindicated Cathy Young assesses the damage that the Duke lacrosse scandal did to feminists who like to cry "rape" and let loose the dogs of war.

Comments

tarran | April 16, 2007, 12:58pm | #

I was really amazed at the parallels between the Duke case and the Scottsboro case.

Incidentally, the NAACP had a pretty poor showing in that case too. They were afraid of a backlash should any of the defendants prove to be actually guilty and the NAACP was involved in their defense.

Thus, they were willing to sit back and let the 9 defendants face the Electric Chair (although the youngest, 13 at the time would probably have evaded execution).

dbcooper | April 16, 2007, 1:03pm | #

From Peter Applebome's April 15 Times Select column:

But Tricia Dowd, a teacher from East Northport, N.Y., whose son Kyle was a senior on the team, watched in stunned horror as the case and its attendant demonizing of bad white boys kept going, even after DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong promised would convict the guilty and free the innocent matched no one on the team.

...

Mrs. Dowd, after the rape charges were dropped in December, sent an e-mail message to Houston Baker, a celebrated English professor at Duke who, when the story first broke, condemned rapacious athletes ''safe under the cover of silent whiteness'' given ''license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech and feel proud of themselves in the bargain.'' She asked him if he would reconsider his early statements.

''LIES!'' responded Dr. Baker, now a distinguished university professor of English at Vanderbilt. He said she was a ''provacateur'' who was ''trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males!'' He accused the players of living like ''farm animals'' and concluded that she should forgive him if she really is ''quite sadly, mother of a 'farm animal.' ''

Great guy to have in your faculty ...

ed | April 16, 2007, 1:04pm | #

drop the habit of knee-jerk support for every accuser—and to show decency and compassion toward the victims of false accusations

The first step being publishing the name of the accuser. Why are alleged rape victims given anonymity while the accused are dragged through the mud and ruined even before they are tried? A true feminist should want equal treatment for both parties.

wayne | April 16, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Just out of curiosity, does anybody here know somebody who was falsely accused of rape?

fyodor | April 16, 2007, 1:12pm | #

wayne,

Yes, a roommate of mine was. Or at least I'm pretty sure he was innocent.

You can email me per my sig link if you'd like more details.

SugarFree | April 16, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Some just won't let it die:

The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened.

feministing.com

Let's see, the other dancer who was there said nothing happened as well as every other possible witness. Get the kitchen and go bake Nifong a cake. Sickening.

Albionite | April 16, 2007, 1:16pm | #

wayne

Yes. Not just rape, but male-on-male rape.

John | April 16, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Dahlia Lithwick in Slate is one of the worst offenders. She wrote a whole collumn last spring about how there was mounds and mounds of physical evidence in the case and the DNA test results did not mean they were innocent and how the people like Johnson who were defending the LAX players were just as bad the ones who were assuming their guilt. Of course it turns out that the defenders were right and Lithwick was wrong and what does Lithwick do? Apologize? Admit she was wrong? Of course not. She writes a whole piece on how the the entire affair is somehow related to the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys. Apparantly in Lithwick land, the whole thing was George Bush's fault.

wayne | April 16, 2007, 1:28pm | #

I also know a guy who actually served about 15 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. It was actually a "famous case" for a few days in about 1990 or so.

Gary Dotson was accused and convicted of raping a young girl (she was about 17 years old, he was 19) and sentenced to many years in prison (I don't know how many). The young girl grew up and married and recanted her story fifteen years later because she felt guilty about sending him up the river without cause (or a paddle). It turns out that she had sex with her boyfriend and was afraid her parents would find out so she cooked up this rape story. She picked Gary Dotson out of a line up and he did fifteen years in Joliet's max security prison.

I know him because I dated his older sister.

thoreau | April 16, 2007, 1:30pm | #

If feminists want to retain their credibility as advocates for victims of rape, they need to drop the habit of knee-jerk support for every accuser—and to show decency and compassion toward the victims of false accusations.

Be careful here. Support for a victim, via counseling and whatnot, is a fundamentally different task than prosecuting a suspect. A counselor or friend or other supporter must start from the presumption that the victim is telling the truth. Likewise, a court must operate on the assumption that the accused attacker is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

These two different tasks require two different assumptions. This might lead to some awkward contradictions in how people are treated, but it's necessary nonetheless. The important thing is that since the two tasks require two different assumptions, the tasks should be kept separate.

The reconciliation of these different assumptions is somewhat aided by keeping in mind that not every awful experience rises to the level of a felony, and not every recollection (however strongly believed and however real thet pain) is an accurate reflection of what happened. This preserves our respect for the very real pain that a victim might be experiencing, while tempering the rush to judgement that might otherwise lead to innocent people going to prison.

joe | April 16, 2007, 1:35pm | #

"The Duke lacrosse case may bring a new, fairer approach to accusations of rape."

Or it may shift things back to the bad old days of knee-jerk rejection of the accusations of rape victims, and of minority rape victims in particular.

This would have been a good chance to write a column condemning the tendency to rush to judgement based on one's preferred political narratives; instead, Cathy Young wrote a piece about how one set of preferred political narratives should be looked at with greater skepticism.

The one time a situation called for a Cathy Young column, she's having none of it. Figures.

Evan! | April 16, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Wayne,

My best friend was falsely accused when he was in college. He slept with some girl one night, and she had morning-after regrets, so she freaked out and accused him of forcing it. This guy is the last person in the world who would ever do anything like that, even blitzed out of his mind. She pursued it pretty far, and it was her word against his. He was pretty close to being kicked out of college when she finally recanted and told the truth. He was really shook up over it. At about the same time, at my college (you know, the one all over the news today), there was a debate raging in the school newspaper editorial section over rape and sexual discrimination. I wrote in a great op-ed that told the story of my friend, and lambasted the "guilty until proven innocent" backwardness of this climate.

joe | April 16, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Here's the Lithwick column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101758.html

Judge for yourself how accurately John describes Lithwick's argument.

John | April 16, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Joe,

When that one set of political naratives tried to convict an innocent person despite all evidence, that political narative kind of has it coming. Further, please explain where anyone jumped to the conclusion that the LAX players were innocent from the start? It was only after the rediculously weak nature of the evidence began to emmerge did people like Charles Johnson start saying "wait a minute". Indeed, in the first few days of the accusations no one was saying that the LAX players were innocent. You make it sound like a bunch ignorent bigots came out and said "it is a black stripper she must be lying" and are now trying to claim vindication. That is not what happened at all. The LAX players only had defenders after the evidence started to come out. So please tell us exactly what any one besides the lynch mob has anything to explain?

wayne | April 16, 2007, 1:43pm | #

T,

"If feminists want to retain their credibility as advocates for victims of rape, they need to drop the habit of knee-jerk support for every accuser—and to show decency and compassion toward the victims of false accusations."

I think you missed the point. It was painfully obvious that these Duke "rapists" were innocent for a lonnnngggg time and yet the man-hating feminists insisted that they were guilty, if not rape then certainly of something terrible such as being white, male, and uppre class. In fact, many still insist they are guilty.

The point Ms Young makes is that feminists, and every body else, are more convincing if they are fair.

Who suffers more, a woman who is raped or a man (or men) falsely accused? Gary Dotson did fifteen years in a maximum security prison for a rape that he did not commit, indeed for a rape that never occurred. Who suffers more?

John | April 16, 2007, 1:44pm | #

"And what about all this physical evidence? That unambiguous, objective scientific evidence? Supporters of the Duke students say the lack of a DNA match exonerates them. Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, "There's an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." Nurses say the injuries are consistent with rape. The boys say someone else raped her. Time-stamped photos suggest that the alleged victim was injured before she arrived at the party. Other photos suggest new injuries occurred while she was there. Lost fake fingernails in the bathroom suggest a fight. The lack of any DNA material under those nails suggests she never fought back. Photos say she was intoxicated upon arrival. The second stripper implies she was drugged at the party."

All of that turned out to be completely false. Every last bit of it. Lithwick printed it as if it was the gospel truth and then tried to cover her ass by claiming that "you can pick your fact here". Of course all the "facts" she bothered to lay out pointed to the players guilt. That was a loathsome hit piece.

tarran | April 16, 2007, 1:45pm | #

One of my roomates in college was falsely accused of rape.

It didn't get very far; I had only left them alone for 45 seconds*, and she had a history of making such accusations.

*Yes, I was an asshole. I had a major exam the next morning, and was not about to lose sleep so that my roomate could have a make-out session.

Evan! | April 16, 2007, 1:45pm | #

"Or it may shift things back to the bad old days of knee-jerk rejection of the accusations of rape victims, and of minority rape victims in particular. This would have been a good chance to write a column condemning the tendency to rush to judgement based on one's preferred political narratives; instead, Cathy Young wrote a piece about how one set of preferred political narratives should be looked at with greater skepticism.

Joe,

You seem to be mistaking her omission of condemnation of the bad old days as a tacit nostalgic longing for it. Just because she didn't explicitly condemn the bad old days doesn't mean she supports their return.

Furthermore, I think your hypothetical situation wherein we suddenly (all because of one case) revert back to the days where women are scorned for making accusations of rape is ridiculously far-fetched.

Pro Libertate | April 16, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Rape is tough. Many of the key bits of evidence--barring the rape allegation itself--are the same bits of evidence that exist with consensual sex. Everyone knows this, but all of the other politics that come into play confuse the core issue--this is a terribly difficult crime to prove.

With murder or battery, there's usually definite evidence that something wrong happened (though, of course, there are defenses that can be raised). With rape, a simple lie can make things very bad for the accused. While we don't want rapes to occur and go unpunished, neither do we want false accusations to result in innocent people going to jail. With most crimes, the latter is society's biggest concern and the burden of proof, as extraordinarily unfair as it can be to victims, must be on the state (and the accuser), not on the accused. Of course, I'd like to take a tire iron to anyone who raped someone that I cared about, but my personal desire for revenge isn't what society cares about, in theory.

joe | April 16, 2007, 1:47pm | #

John,

"When that one set of political naratives tried to convict an innocent person despite all evidence, that political narative kind of has it coming."

Certainly, but let's not pretend that the tendency allow political narratives to cloud one's judgement of the facts of a case is limited to any particular side of the fence. It would be a shame if the lesson some people learn here is to doubt rape accusations, or worse, those make by black women against white men.

As far as a "lynch mob," I think you're reading what you want to see into my comments. Again.

joe | April 16, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Evan!,

"You seem to be mistaking her omission of condemnation of the bad old days as a tacit nostalgic longing for it. Just because she didn't explicitly condemn the bad old days doesn't mean she supports their return." Not at all - I certainly don't think Ms. Young believes that. My complaint actually is as I wrote it - she condemned one ideological faction, when the failure it demonstrated can be found all across the spectrum.

She missed an opportunity here. She set her sights too low. That's my complaint.

"Furthermore, I think your hypothetical situation wherein we suddenly (all because of one case) revert back to the days where women are scorned for making accusations of rape is ridiculously far-fetched."

Hyperbolic language aside ("suddenly," "all"), I imagine the sentiment you express is a lot easier to believe from where you and I sit.

John | April 16, 2007, 1:56pm | #

"Certainly, but let's not pretend that the tendency allow political narratives to cloud one's judgement of the facts of a case is limited to any particular side of the fence."

That is true Joe, but you could right that about any case. In this case one side was clearly wrong and said and did some very nasty things and deserve to be told that absent any "yeah buts".

tarran | April 16, 2007, 1:59pm | #

To be honest, I am prejudiced against student athletes, and was initially inclined to believe the charges. But, by June, I was beginning to suspect that the crime had not happenned.

When one took a look at the publicly available evidence, the mass of contradictions in the states case were quite evident. The blatant wintess intimidation was a pretty big clue early on that this was a frame job.

wayne | April 16, 2007, 2:00pm | #

" It would be a shame if the lesson some people learn here is to doubt rape accusations, or worse, those make by black women against white men."

Of course we should doubt rape accusations, and blackness does not confer virtue.

Amongst just a handful of posters here we have at least three (I did not count them) stories of false rape accusations. If that does not make you distrust accusations of rape then you are soft between the ears.

Evan! | April 16, 2007, 2:02pm | #

"She missed an opportunity here. She set her sights too low. That's my complaint."

And my response is that her sights are as high as you want them to be, and what you're demanding she recognize goes without saying.

Albionite | April 16, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Cathy,

For once, your column was almost correct.

Since it is such a "hot-button" crime, for all the wrong reasons, any false accusation of rape should be punished, very severely.

Kudos to the men who seem to have a more forgiving attitude, perhaps due to their relief.

But, all those who marched against the innocent boys, all those Duke faculty who wrote crap against them, all those Duke administrators/board members who now try to "apologize", all those columnists who condemned them, all the members of Nifong's staff, all his re-election campaigners, all who profited politically or financially, all who did not call "BULLSHIT" from the very beginning, and the accuser herself (whatever her supposed mental state), should serve years upon years in maximum security. Nifong himself should be in something the writers of "OZ" only had nightmares about. And Duke University should forfeit its entire endowment to the accused.

Forgive me if I seem harsh, but lies cannot be tolerated. Those who benefit from lies cannot be tolerated. There is no excuse.

joe | April 16, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Evan!,

Perhaps I've become less pessimistic about my fellow man, but the list of things that go without saying has shrunk.

wayne,

Were this site less of a sausage-fest, I could easily find women who can tell stories of being assaulted, or of friends who've been assaulted. Seizing upon anecdotes to reinforce your preferrred political narrative is no way to go through life.

tarran,

When I first heard the charges, I took a wait and see attitude. I wasn't there, I didn't see the evidence, so I didn't want to conclude anything. Then the media storm began, and I thought a lot of the teevee people were rushing to judgement based on their political beliefs. Then when the first problems with the evidence came out, a whole set of other teevee people started shouting, and I thought they were rushing to judgement based on their political beliefs, as well.

After a certain point, though, the holes in the case clearly went beyond the ordinary inconsistencies.

wayne | April 16, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Joe,

Feel free to invite some tacos into the discussion.

joe | April 16, 2007, 2:26pm | #

OK.

I mean, who doesn't like tacos?

Ira Weatheral | April 16, 2007, 2:27pm | #

While in college in the mid 80s a friend was accused of date rape and the case went to trial. It was striking at the time because it was the first case I ever heard of, and he was looking at 20 years in prison, and didn't seem like that kind of guy.

After testimony stating the woman was vigourously kissing the guy from witnesses in the bar, the cab driver, and finally the girl's roomates, he got off. Did she have second thoughts after bringing him into her room and closing the door? No one but the two of them know, and it sure seemed it wasn't worth the woman's hassle.

speedwell | April 16, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Hey, I'm a taco... so to speak.

I'm not proud of this part of my life, but while in college, I once got myself knocked up by an abusive boyfriend. I was giving the baby up for adoption. When the adoption counselor heard that the baby's father was abusive, she flew off the handle and tried to talk me into accusing him of rape. Why? Simply because he was abusive, therefore I must have been coerced into having sex with him even if I didn't know I was.

I was discussing this at the time with a ditz lefty friend, and she opined that to the extent that a man manipulates a woman into having sex, it's actually rape. So... what then? If a guy is sweet to me to get me to like him because he likes me and wants, not unnaturally, to rub body parts with me for a while, this is actually coercion? Hell, what if he fell in love with me and persuaded me to marry him... is that really

speedwell | April 16, 2007, 2:37pm | #

That got cut off somehow. It should have ended:

"...if he fell in love with me and persuaded me to marry him... is that really slavery?

I think we all need to be a little less afraid of our own and others' natural and understandable sexual impulses. We don't have to be more open, but we should cut each other a bit more slack."

Albionite | April 16, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Let me moderate my previous. I stand by everything I wrote. The reason I do is that rape is such a serious charge that, I believe, it is indefensible as a "mistake" or "emotional disorder."

No, I agree, it is not fair that women (or raped men) have the burden of proof. And, no, being a ho (I'm sorry, "stripper") does not excuse rape by "clients."

But facts are facts. It denigrates all rape victims when cases such as these are allowed to proceed. And it casts doubt on all our society when the persons I ragged on above are not punished severely for their transgressions. When lies are told, there must be retribution, and it must be severe; otherwise, there will be more lies.

tarran | April 16, 2007, 2:47pm | #

BTW, I should balance my roomate-falsely-accused-of-rape story with the fact that one of my relatives was raped by a stranger. I view rape as a very serious crime. It is, however, a crime that lends itself to false accusations.

Shrug.

On a lighter note, I have another acquaintence who was accused of rape. I don' know how the case turned out - I was about to go to sea in the Navy when it broke. Shortly before I reported to my ship, I got together with soem of my old friends, and was told that a fellow physics major had been accused of "date rape". Upon hearing this, I immediately shot back, "That's impossible! No way R_____'s guilty of date rape. That implies some woman agreed to go out on a date with him. Impossible!"

I am so going to hell. ;)

emerson | April 16, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Lithwick argued that it was best not to jump to conclusions before people have all the facts. And, on that score, those who defended the Duke players may have been just as bad as those who defended the accuser. No one had all the facts; they were just going with their uninformed hunches, and acting like of course they were right. She was saying it's healthy not to be too sure you're right. RTFA if you disagree.

emerson | April 16, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Lithwick argued that it was best not to jump to conclusions before people have all the facts. And, on that score, those who defended the Duke players may have been just as bad as those who defended the accuser. No one had all the facts; they were just going with their uninformed hunches, and acting like of course they were right. She was saying it's healthy not to be too sure you're right. RTFA again if you disagree.

Rex Rhino | April 16, 2007, 2:56pm | #

It would be a shame if the lesson some people learn here is to doubt rape accusations

Shouldn't people be skeptical of any accusations? Why should we take people at their word when they make criminal accusations about other people? Isn't our entire system of justice predicated on "innocent until proven guilty"?

Were this site less of a sausage-fest, I could easily find women who can tell stories of being assaulted, or of friends who've been assaulted. Seizing upon anecdotes to reinforce your preferrred political narrative is no way to go through life.

Your prefered narrative is that people are guilty until proven innocent, where as his prefered narrative is that people are innocent until proven guilty. Sorry if I prefer his narrative.

Lithwick argued that it was best not to jump to conclusions before people have all the facts. And, on that score, those who defended the Duke players may have been just as bad as those who defended the accuser. No one had all the facts; they were just going with their uninformed hunches, and acting like of course they were right. She was saying it's healthy not to be too sure you're right. RTFA again if you disagree

But it is 100% OK to jump to the conclusion that someone is innocent. Those who defended the Duke players without all the facts did what reasonable people should do, make the presumption of innocence. What is so difficult about "innocent until proven guilty" for people to understand? Assuming someone is innocent is the RIGHT THING TO DO!!! It is one of the most basic premises of what we consider "justice".

joe | April 16, 2007, 2:57pm | #

speedwell,

Is your handle a Watership Down reference?

joe | April 16, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Rex Rhino,

"Shouldn't people be skeptical of any accusations?" Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the responsible skepticism that should attend any accusation of a crime, but the outright denialism that predominated in our culture until a few decades ago.

"Your prefered narrative is that people are guilty until proven innocent" Uh, no, see my comment at 2:10 PM. I don't like it when anyone starts pretending they know what happened in any individual case, based on what they've seen on tv.

"But it is 100% OK to jump to the conclusion that someone is innocent." No, you're confusing "conclusion" with "presumption." It's 100% OK to presume someone innocent, unless it is proven otherwise. It is not OK to assume that someone is innocent, all evidence aside.

Albionite | April 16, 2007, 3:15pm | #

joe

good noting the diff between presuming and assuming.

I just don't know that the denialism of our culture a few decades ago merits comparison to the assumptionalism (forgive the term!) of our sensationalist culture today in which any suspect of any crime (however real or unreal) is apparently automatically guilty.

30 years ago, accusers were "distraught" or "mistaken." Today, all accusers are beyond question.

Where's the balance?

TrickyVic | April 16, 2007, 3:22pm | #

"""The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened."""

Cognitive dissonance anyone? Because they believe the accused was guity, they get that funny feeling Feslinger was talking about and they just can't accept information contrary to their belief, regardless of how true the new information is. They wouldn't believe God if he came down and told them himself. Sort of like those that say Libby is not guilty.

Charges dropped, they are still guilty. Get convicted in court, not guilty. Go figure. This country must be getting dumber by the year.

SugarFree | April 16, 2007, 3:37pm | #

TrickyVic,

Try reading the comments of that thread. Apparently, hiring a stripper to dance at party means it's OK to be accused of rape.

Reinmoose | April 16, 2007, 3:47pm | #

I both know someone who was falsely accused of rape and someone who was raped.

I can't help but wonder what goes through the head of an ACTUAL rape victim who has not pressed charges, who sees some woman (whose identity is not disclosed) lying about being raped and making a huge national stink about it. What a slap in the face that must be, huh?

I agree with Albionite on this one. This girl needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The faculty of Duke who so quickly demonized the LAX players should be ashamed of themselves. Are they not supposed to be some of the smartest people in the country, and yet they can't restrain from making statements of hate against young men who have no control over their socio-political situation? Somehow the speech that comes out AGAINST hate crimes resembles closely what they are trying to criticize.

joe | April 16, 2007, 4:06pm | #

"Where's the balance?"

Sadly, Albionite, it sometimes seems that the "balance" is provided by having one segment of the population engage in reflexive conclusion of guilt, and the other engage in reflexive conclusion of innocence. They just move around based on some subset of the details of the case. Sigh.

TrickyVic, how did you get from "None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened," (the words you quoted) to "they are still guilty?"

joe | April 16, 2007, 4:08pm | #

"This girl needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Fair enough, but let's keep in mind, "to the fullest extent of the law" includes recognizing diminished capacity and actual insanity.

That young woman doesn't seem to be "all there" to me.

Reinmoose | April 16, 2007, 4:18pm | #

I have to agree with Joe in the larger sense that this result will, in many parts of the country, cause people to doubt all rape victim claims, but I contend that those people it will affect were already predisposed to thinking that way anyway, and that they will merely use this as the only real case they can remember to justify their opinion on the matter.

There are people who angrily deny all rape claims, but I don't think that's what most of the people here who are talking about "innocence until proven guilty" are talking about.

Before I left home for my freshman year of college, my mother warned me to be careful who I got involved with because "girls can be vicious" and "you could be falsely accused of something terrible." These are not the sorts of things that my mother normally talks about, but she obviously recognized that this is a serious problem in our country where the culture of victimization can take down even the most undeserving of people in flames of hatred.

speedwell | April 16, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Joe, not originally... I meant to refer to the little blue-flowered Hungarian speedwell, Veronica austriaca, one of my favorite sweet garden flowers (picture here: http://www.robsplants.com/images/portrait/VeronicaAustriaca050601a.jpg ) It's been fifteen years since I first used the name to register for a free e-mail account. :)

I didn't actually even read Watership Down until after I named myself that, but some of my friends think it's funny how much I sometimes resemble the rabbit in the book, character-wise.

No silly comments about one of the things rabbits are best known for, given the tenor of the thread, heh.

Mr. F. Le Mur | April 16, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Why are alleged rape victims given anonymity while the accused are dragged through the mud and ruined even before they are tried?
Because the MSM is PC/feminist and/or cowardly.
(BTW, the 'shield laws' apply to court personel, not to 'reporters' and such; in most states, at least.)

A true feminist should want equal treatment for both parties.
Bwahahaha! People who want equal treatment use other terms to describe themselves.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 16, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Anybody else notice that the same people who are defending the Duke kids because so many rushed to judgment are rushing to judgment themselves by assuming that the accusor filed a knowingly false rape claim?

Phillip Cont | April 16, 2007, 5:11pm | #

I am a huge fan of both Duke lacrosse and rape acquittals, so this was a great story as far as I am concerned.

TrickyVic | April 16, 2007, 5:13pm | #

"""TrickyVic, how did you get from "None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don't know what happened," (the words you quoted) to "they are still guilty?""""

It's the opinion of others, those with cognitive dissonance. Many people still believe they are guilty of a crime when no trial has taken place, charges were dropped because the evidence did not support the claim.

What do you need to be considered innocent in this country? One person claims you did something and that's it? Hell, the one guy had ATM receipt, a cabbie, and a cell phone call as proof he wasn't there, and that still isn't good enough for some people!

"""Try reading the comments of that thread. Apparently, hiring a stripper to dance at party means it's OK to be accused of rape."""

Apearently so, also, a dunk female changing her mind the next morning is rape is some places too.


"""Anybody else notice that the same people who are defending the Duke kids because so many rushed to judgment are rushing to judgment themselves by assuming that the accusor filed a knowingly false rape claim?""""

You're falling way short on that. We defend the Duke kids not because of a false rape in the past, but because the evidence does not support the claim.

Priapus | April 16, 2007, 6:24pm | #

The solution, of course, is to require condom manufacturers to include duplicate informed-consent contracts in their product.

Mad Max | April 16, 2007, 7:09pm | #

Discussion of the media reaction to the dismissal of the charges, from a guy who has been following the case in depth since last year and who realized early on that the case was bogus:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=3043570&page=1

Mad Max | April 16, 2007, 7:12pm | #

Incidentally, the author of that article is a leftist professor whose decision to stick up for the falsely-accused students seems to be based on the fact that the folks at Duke were giving leftist professors a bad name. From his blog

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

you can see examples of this guy insulting the prosecution and its supporters by linking them to, or comparing them with, conservatives.

peachy | April 16, 2007, 7:43pm | #

My best friend in college was raped.

Conversely - although it was only a nasty prank and not a real accusation - in high school a regrettably unidentified individual called my parents pretending to be the father of a classmate and claimed that I had sexually assaulted his daughter.

joe | April 16, 2007, 7:48pm | #

"The solution, of course, is to require condom manufacturers to include duplicate informed-consent contracts in their product."

And little pencils.

brotherben | April 16, 2007, 8:37pm | #

"And little pencils."

This comment reminded me of a longforgotten yet very painfull nickname the kids in my high school had for me .

Stevo Darkly | April 16, 2007, 10:47pm | #

No silly comments about one of the things rabbits are best known for

Eating carrots?

Taking a wrong turn at Albuquerque?

TrickyVic | April 17, 2007, 4:22pm | #

""""The solution, of course, is to require condom manufacturers to include duplicate informed-consent contracts in their product."

And little pencils.""""

Great, now I have to bring a Notary Public on dates too? Damn, my accountant and lawyer are not good enough. Dating is getting real expensive.