| By sekai.no.kakumei - Jun 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
The prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, Mike Nifong, is being disbarred for lying to the court and from withholding DNA test results that would have cleared the names of the three players charged with rape.
This case has truly changed how rape cases will be viewed, and I really hope that it won’t make it harder for rape victims to come forward. One of the first mistakes made was that the victim was assumed to be correct, and that the three Duke players were guilty—this negates the right to be tried as innocent until proven guilty. I remember when the verdict came out that many were quick to say that the victim was making the entire thing up, when there was DNA evidence…just not from the three players.
I truly sympathize with the woman as a fellow rape survivor. If she was truly raped, I hope they find out whom. And, if the courts can learn anything from this, is to give the defendants the benefit of the doubt, but still encourage rape victims to come forward.
~世界の革命
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Any evidence of such a broad assertion?
will it change how many people view rape cases? my money's on yes (and a quick browse through comments in the blogosphere suggest it already has). nifong's overzealous (e.g. going public with accusations that turned out to be untrue) and unethical (e.g. withholding evidence from the defense and manipulating potential witnesses) pursuit of this case was disturbing not only because it practically ruined the young lives of both the accuser and the three accused, but also because of the potential for setting up a "DA who cried wolf to get re-elected" precedent.
in the beginning of the case, public opinion seemed set against the laxers: most people saw the case as a manifestation of all those racial and socioeconomic tensions wrapped up in durham-duke town-gown relations and, remembering from their own college days that “lacrosse player” was often a term synonymous with “douchebag,” were quick to believe the victim’s allegations nifong was parading about to the national media (can’t buy that kind of publicity in an election year). when it became clear that the laxers were not guilty of rape, that changed the way a lot of people view rape cases, like sekai said. next time a rape allegation makes national headlines, the victim is going to be met with a much more skeptical public. now, a pretty high level of skepticism is necessary when you’re talking about sending people to jail for a long time. but not so high that it stands in the way of justice being served.
There is already a lot of skepticism that a rape victim deals with, especially if the allegded raper is an acquaintance. I was lucky--even though it was my ex-boyfriend (who goes to a different school), I had the full support of my friends and Trinity for any step I chose to take. But it took me a while to come forward, and I didn't know how it would be dealt with.
However, that's not always the case. Reporting the number of rape cases is extremely low at Trinity (and some schools, but I don't have the evidence to back that up) because of the backlash the victims get. That's why one of the policies Trinity has that if a victim chooses to come forward, it's hers (or his) decision to press charges. The main way I see this case affecting how justice is served is if the victims won't come forward and press charges, because they are afraid to be dragged through the mud (like in the Duke case).
Zach, while I agree with most of your comments, I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Many acquaintance rape cases never make it to court because of the high level of skepticism that exists regarding the survivor's testimony, especially if she is bringing it against someone that she was romantically involved with. Sadly, in a lot of rape cases, justice is not served.
However, I do understand the importance of treating those accused as innocent until proven guilty because of cases like this one. We need to find a place for respect for both parties, however these cases are so sensitive I don't know if we'll ever get there.
I don't think it's ever been a picnic in this country for women who say they've been raped. Most liberals (yourselves included, I'd guess) would acknowledge that. I have a hard time believing that it was all of a sudden just starting to finally be 'alright' for women coming forward, and then the Duke case has blasted us back into the stone age. Frankly, not sure we ever left the stone age to begin with.