My pal Anna, at Dakota Women, is mad at me again. I posted on an article in Slate that was not really about the Duke case or about rape in general. It was about the prevalence of prosecutorial misconduct. I found the information provided very alarming. But the point of contention was over this paragraph in the Slate article.
Mike Nifong did what prosecutors almost always do when a complainant comes to them alleging a sexual assault: He took his complainant at her word and went full speed ahead with a prosecution. The fact is that few if any prosecutors wait for corroborating evidence or insist on more than one person's say so before initiating a sexual assault prosecution. Indeed, they'd be vilified if they did. The cardinal rule of sexual assault complaints is "believe the victim," and since anyone who complains is deemed a victim, even a semi-credible complainant can generate an arrest and prosecution in the absence of physical evidence, additional witnesses, or even a prompt accusation. This isn't just the case in Durham; it's true almost everywhere. The widespread support for this questionable practice is such that if the Duke case had gone to a jury and the defendants had been convicted, Nifong would not only still have his law license—he'd have been lionized for his dogged pursuit of rich white kids.
Anna responds:
Ken, are you seriously quoting this section of the article without thinking about what the author is actually saying? Yeah, let's be sure a rape survivor who actually reports the crime to the police only get justice if there was a third party around to witness the assault, or she reports the crime within a timeframe established...by whom? No justice unless the survivor acts like A True Rape Victim Should Act. I mean, what the HELL. What a callous disregard of the trauma rape survivors deal with after their attacks, and what ignorance of how the justice system actually treats rape cases.
To which I reply again: rape is a very terrible crime. To be falsely accused of rape is just as terrible. A "callous disregard of the trauma" in either case is a very bad thing. Anna, do you think that a simple accusation, absent any physical evidence or corroborating witnesses, made months or years after the fact, should be enough to send a man to prison? Should we simply discard the presumption of innocence and require the accused to prove that he is innocent? I think that is the implication of your remarks, and I cannot agree.
On a final note, Anna attributes to me the following as her link to my post:
Ken Blanchard takes another swipe at those attention-seeking sluts who file rape charges.
Nothing in that statement represents anything that I have written on this subject.
Recent Comments