Don't Get Raped
It's not like we didn't already know that no one really wants to press rape charges, because the trial's gonna suck. But the recent spate of appalling stories about judges and lawyers in rape trials, and what kinds of things happen in order to be "impartial" and "fair" to the accused, just keeps getting better and better. Now we've got a Nebraska judge banning the word "rape" because using it will prejudice the jury.
So, ladies. If you're raped (oops, I mean forced to "have sex with") someone, hospitals can deny you emergency contraception--even if they're required to provide it by law, in some cases--and of course pharmacists can always refuse to fill prescriptions, if you find a doc who'll write one. If you get past that hurdle, you'll have to deal with whether or not DAs will prosecute; what the defense attorney will be clever enough to accuse you off; and what the judge will (and won't) allow in his courtroom.
So just don't get raped. In case, you know, you were planning to.
Bitch_PhD wants everyone to know officially that "don't get raped" is one of the most offensive sentences she's ever uttered, and should be read as if it were crusted in salt.
DeAnza Rape--Follow Up
That story about the DA who wouldn't prosecute the gang rape? The DA, Dolores Carr, has asked the state's Attorney General to review her decision.
The legal analyst at the local TV station says he
thinks it makes her look weak. There's an old saying 'never explain, never apologize.' Make your decision.
(He adds that) Carr is passing the buck and bowing to public pressure. He adds the attorney generals office review might not satisfy her critics.
I think Mr. Legal Analyst is a dumbass: asking the AG to review her decision makes the DA look responsible, responsive, and thorough.
And it's heartening that, at least in egregious cases like this one, people will turn out to force the issue.
There's a longer story on video at the link.
Bitch_PhD is glad of the review, and will feel okay about this case either way now.
Pole Vaulting, Public Exposure, Privacy, and Rape Defenses
Those of you who read and talked about Saturday's and Tuesday's posts might be interested in this absolutely appalling bit of background information: apparently the father of the pole vaulter whose photographs got tossed around (and over) across the internet is, himself, a criminal defense attorney--a noble calling--who, in the course of his duty, has offered up some pretty disgusting defenses of his clients.
defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasnt responsible for making sticky all over the womans sweater (after a traffic stop). He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the messafter all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.
She got what she wanted, said Stokke. Shes an overtly sexual person.
.... A jury . . . found Park not guilty.
And, in another case,
Defense lawyer Al Stokke, who replaced lead trial attorney Joseph G. Cavallo, questioned any link between the rape and the victim's claim of mental anguish. Stokke also mocked the girl's physical injuries, finally conceding she was unconscious but then trying to use that against her. "There's [no pain] that is felt," he said, "because she was unconscious."
Awful stories, but beautifully illustrative of a larger point: the culture that enables people to defend rape by arguing that unconscious women are there for the taking isn't at all cut off from the culture that thinks it's okay to make one's opinions about which women are hot into a public game of male bonding. Both rely on the idea that, in the end, women are things, not people. And if it turns out that a given woman hasn't fully internalized that message, and she has the huevos to complain about being treated like an object, way too many of us will just tell her to toughen up, that it's inescapable, what do you expect?
Same fucking thing. Women don't need to get used to being treated like shit. Guys need to get used to the idea that women are human beings.
Bitch_PhD wants to point out that there are men who get it--but that it was feminist women who did the digging and broke the story.
Maybe She Wanted to be Raped
You may or may not have heard the story about the UK barrister who argued that a 13-year-old girl was "glad of the attention" when she was gang-raped by three boys -- because, after all, she was fat.
Well, now we've got a California DA who refuses to prosecute a gang rape, apparently because
it would be difficult to prove the high school student was too drunk to consent.
Now, admittedly witness testimony can be challenged. But does this sound like a hard-to-prove case?
"We heard and saw a girl tapping on this door in the kitchen saying 'There is a girl in there with eight guys," explains Chief Elk.
They say they tried to get into the room, but were confronted by a baseball player.
"[He said] 'Mind your own business; she wants to be in here' and slams the door," says Grolle.
What they saw through a crack in the door horrified them.
"When I looked in, I saw about ten pairs of legs surrounding a girl, lying on the mattress on the floor and a guy on top of her with his pants down and his hips thrusting on top of her," recall Chief Elk. "And when I saw that I knew immediately something wasn't right. It just didn't look right."
"I saw that this young girl did not want to be in there, and that's when we just went 'We're getting this girl out of there,'" says Grolle.
April and Lauren -- along with a third soccer player named Lauren Breayans -- broke down the door and were shocked with what they found.
"This poor girl was not moving. She had vomit dribbling down her face. We had to scoop vomit out of her mouth [and] lift her up. Her pants were completely off her body," says Chief Elk. "She had her one shoe one, her jeans were wrapped around one of her ankles and her underwear was left around her ankles. To the left of the bed there was some condom thrown on the ground."
"When they lifted her head up, her eyes moved and she said 'I'm sorry,'" says Grolle. "One of the guys who was in the room said 'This is her fault. She got drunk and she did this to herself.'"
Forensic tests determined that the vomit wasn't hers. Bet she consented to that too.
The 17-year-old girl Monday gave Grolle and Chief Elk Saint Christopher Medals, which they were wearing Tuesday night.
"We were basically her protectors that night and she gave these to us to represent that -- although there is no way to compare what happened that night -- she is grateful that we are her voice and speaking for her about what we saw that night," says Chief Elk.
The victim isn't capable of testifying, on her own behalf, that she didn't consent to being gang-raped and vomited on?
I'm not a lawyer. And I accept -- celebrate, even -- that DAs and judges and juries have to operate within the boundaries of reasonable doubt. But in what fucking universe is it "reasonable" to believe that a young woman consents to being raped with a pool cue or vomited on? That a 13-year-old would agree to fuck three guys because, you know, she's fat and girls nowadays dress slutty?
Anyone who thinks that shit is reasonable is a suck fuck and should be locked up themselves, as a preventative measure.
In any discussion of a case like this, some asshole will argue that hey, some chicks are kinky. And since we also know that kinky chicks are lying sluts, it's totally reasonable to believe that a girl would not only consent to this crap, but then file a false rape report afterwards.
The motives of guys who would fuck a woman in such a state that she'd "consent" to such a thing, on the other hand, never seems to come up.
Bitch_PhD knows some guys and girls who are into pretty kinky shit--and for the record, people like that believe more strongly in the importance of explicit consent than the general population. As they damn well should.
Child Humping Canada Takes a Cold Shower
In a move that will greatly anger NAMBLAs great white north contingent, Canada has introduced legislation that would raise the legal age of sexual consent to 16 from the sweet, supple, innocent, tender age of 14.
Canada wants to bring its standards into line with those of several other countries because the current low age of consent has attracted sexual predators from more restrictive countries. But there is still a loophole, youngsters can still have consensual sex with people up to five years older or younger, even if that means one partner is aged 14 or 15.
Our goal in this legislation is not to criminalize teenage youth who may be involved in sexual activity with their peers," Justice Minister Vic Toews told reporters in Ottawa. "It is to make the law more effective in protecting vulnerable young people from adult sexual predators.
So, if youre a 19 year-old sexual predator, don't cancel that hotel reservation!
Not everyone is thrilled about the new law. The federation, formerly Planned Parenthood, believes there is no evidence that raising the age of consent will better protect young people, and warned it may discourage young people from seeking out birth control options or other assistance.