It just doesn't pay to be a rape victim nowadays....
 

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/88/99694.htm

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...17/detail.html

A judge has ruled that the defendant of a rape trial cannot be referred to as a "victim", because it infers that they were subject to a crime/infers guilt on the part of the accused. However, the judge also said that the accused CAN be called a victim, at least until he's convicted.

WHAT??


Sidhe

Aren't the defendant and the accused the same person?

Sorry...my mistake.
What I MEANT to say is that the accuser cannot be called a victim. This, in addition to being an insult, makes it harder for her to get victims' services...

Thanks for calling that to my attention.

So the judge ruled she is not a victim until the court says she's a victim. Make's sense, we know they had sex, but she's not a victim unless a crime has been committed and that's what the trial is about. :cool:

Oops....That one was supposed to be in the parenting section...I guess that means I posted the other article on this in the parenting section...won't THAT confuse people....

What it SHOULD have been is:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...81/detail.html


Sidhe

"Until Mr. Bryant is acquitted, he is a victim, or at least, arguably is," Haddon (the defense attorney) said during a May 11 hearing on the issue. "


I have no problem with her being called an "alleged victim." That's fine. But if she's an alleged victim, then HE'S an "alleged rapist," not a "victim."

Sidhe

Defense attorney Hal Haddon had argued referring to the 19-year-old as a victim would impair jurors' ability to impartially consider the evidence. He suggested what he called more neutral terms such as "complaining witness" or "alleged victim."

"Until Mr. Bryant is acquitted, he is a victim, or at least, arguably is," Haddon said during a May 11 hearing on the issue.

"District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said the word has specific definitions under law that guarantee the woman compensation for certain expenses and therapeutic services.

"To strip her of that designation you would deny that to her and revictimize her," Hurlbert argued.

Prosecution spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said prosecutors' initial understanding is that they are now required to use "alleged victim" until the trial. She said prosecutors may ask the judge for clarification.

The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the defense bid to bar "victim," said the ruling effectively continues a double standard for crime victims.

For example, spokeswoman Cynthia Stone said, someone who is mugged is called a victim from the time of the allegation."


That last paragraph is the important one, as I see it. Either EVERYONE who accuses someone of a crime is an "alleged victim," OR they're "victims." It can't just be "alleged" when one is accusing a high-profile figure of a crime. Does anyone actually think that if the accused rapist was Joe Blow that this would be an issue? I doubt it.


Sidhe

The difference is, the person who was mugged was DEFINITELY mugged, we just aren't sure WHO did the mugging--hence the trial for the person they think might have done it. The plaintiff is a victim, regardless of whether the defendant was the one who did it.

In some cases, the person who was raped was NOT definitely raped, it's he-said-she-said whether it was consensual or not.

If we're talking about a woman who was attacked and raped on her way home from work by someone she didn't know, then she is a victim. If we're talking about someone who had sex with someone she knew, then she isn't a victim until it's been proven it wasn't consensual.

Actually, if they performed an examination, they should be able to tell if it was consensual or not. Generally, in forcible rape (as if there's any other kind), there will be tearing and swelling.

Hey, I'm the first one in line to down the women who yell "rape," or "sexual harassment" at the drop of a hat or to get back at someone. It's THEIR fault that the prevailing attitude is one of disbelief, and I think that they should be charged with some kind of crime, such as slander and/or filing a false police report. Men have had their lives destroyed by these women, and even if they're proven innocent, it dogs them.

However, for some reason, people also tend to disbelieve accusations when a celebrity is involved, as if, merely because he's a celebrity he couldn't POSSIBLY have done it. Or, if the woman was dressed a certain way, or had been drinking. That still doesn't excuse the rapist....OH, EXCUSE ME...."alleged" rapist.....

(rant) Like the deal with Mike Tyson, someone who has a history of aggression towards women. The first thing people said was, "well, she INVITED him to her room."

SO? I've invited men into my house before. It wasn't an open invitation to have sex. She may have shown bad judgement, but it doesn't mean she "deserved what she got." That's bullshit. People talk about how women are dressed, as if they get dressed up thinking, "hmmm...let's see....what could I wear that would give me the best chance of getting raped?" Makes you wonder...if short skirts and low-cut shirts cause men to lose control of themselves, it seems we'd see more rapes on the beach than we do in relation to nightclubs and bars....granted, I may not like how some women dress, and I may think that how they dress makes them look like a tramp, but I don't think that they "deserve" to be raped. (/rant)

It reminds me of the comedienne (I can't remember her name, but she's a tall black woman who's bald)...onstage, she whipped out a newspaper article in which the judge let a guy off for rape because, as the judge saw it, "she was asking for it" by the way she was dressed. Of course, all the women in the audience booed. But the comedienne said, "no, no, ladies...we can turn this around. Next time you see an ugly man walking down the street...shoot him. He knew he was ugly when he left the house. He was asking for it."


Sidhe

And don't forget ... we're just dealing with the criminal trial right now. Even if Kobe gets aquitted of the charges, she can still sue him in Civil Court for damages related to her psychological distress.

From the accounts I have heard, she went to his room of her own accord, and evidently does not display the classic signs of forcible rape. Kobe is a sports superstar, who anyone with an IQ above 50 would expect would want to get laid anytime his wife isn't around. What the fuck was she thinking when she knocked on that door? Tea and crumpets and rousing discussions of the works of Sartre?

Fuck no, she's thinking money.

If I ran around the streets of Harlem yelling 'Nigger' to random strangers, and the inevitable happened, could I truly be called a 'victim'?

If I believed her story to be true, I indeed would be outraged. I just don't. I see dollar signs.

Which brings us back to the question that I see.

Should any woman in a rape case be allowed to be called "the victim," "the alleged victim," or "the plaintiff?"

Under what condtitions should these appellations apply?