Woman to Woman

By sdj

August 23, 2004 08:05 AM | Link to this

I agree with Shaunti. However, I must add that white women screaming rape by a black man is getting quite old and it is about time their motives and lying is brought into question. I thank God that Kobe has the money to do it with. It’s sad, but most black men are convicted before they even go to trial and some people have this notion that just because you scream rape after something doesn’t quite go your that it’s okay. It undermines the seriousness of rape and the real victims of rape. What really makes the woman in Kobe’s case suspicious is that, because she can’t win the criminal trial, she’s now just going for a civil trial, which requires less evidence. It goes to show that she was only after money from the very beginning. And now you have a young man whose only crime was adultery now being forever attached to this young girl who has nothing to lose and everything to gain. So what she’s connected with Kobe Bryant, she’ll probably be richer than she ever dreamt of being. Men will be men. If you offer it, most of the time they take it. Studies show that’s their psyche and don’t think these tests were done on Black men. A white woman wouldn’t dare taint the reputation of a white man the way white women have done black men over the centuries that africans have been in this nation. Society wouldn’t have it.

By Sean

August 23, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this

“There is also, frankly, the larger and more controversial question of whether a women should share responsibility for the outcome of a sexual encounter that starts out consensual.”

I can’t believe this is the case but it seems that Shaunti is insinuating that it might be the woman’s fault she is raped! I thought this kind of antiquitated notion had been discredited a long time ago. Doesn’t “no” mean just that? Her comments are the most disturbing and dangerous (to women) I have seen in AJC in a while.

By Hugh Jorgan

August 23, 2004 08:31 AM | Link to this

sdj,

Jeezus you must be young. You’re either so blinded my misguided racism (I could understand your now-irresponsible accusation 50-60 years ago) or just have no memory or recent events.

What was is, 5 years ago, that Mark Chmura, tight end for the Green Bay Packers was accused and tried for raping a 17 year-old girl and former babysitter? He was white and so was she.

I don’t know what to think about this. I don’t want defense lawyers using a woman’s level of promiscuity against her. But I don’t want someone to be falsely conficted. I’m not a friggin judge or law professor. I’m guessing it should depend upon the individual case and that defense lawyers need to be able to show the judge real good evidence why it would be relevant.

By eb

August 23, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

Yes, No means No. But if the woman is out to get money then when Kobe enter the building she saw dollars signs. Why not say that this basketball star raped her and what’s the worse is he’s a black athlete with tons of money. She can’t prove rape but file a civil suit and get what she wants the most Green Money. I’m sorry but this day and time it’s all about the money. Why would she have gone up there her job was to work at the desk not visiting or issuing anything on the floors in the hotel.

I’m not one for crime but if the shoe fixes as I feel it does in this case then wore the shoe. She wants MONEY and what way to get it.

By 2amazu

August 23, 2004 08:47 AM | Link to this

I agree with Shaunti. The reason I agree with her is that all too often, people demonstrate a pattern before anything tragic occurs (be it the drunk driver who commits vehicular manslaughter after numerous drunk driving arrests, or the murderer who had several armed robbery charges prior to escalating to murder or the promiscuity of the girl next door before she cries rape.) While I believe that no means no, if you have a pattern of always saying yes, who would believe that you said no in this case. While a woman’s promiscuity alone should not exonerate an accused rapist, it should be allowed. ESPECIALLY if it is a recent pattern.

By Archie

August 23, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

I really agree with Shanti this time. I like it when she says women can’t enjoy equal treatment without equal responsibility and scrutiny. Shanti should say this again and again. I have a spouse and I definitely don’t want her to go thru any type of sexual assault but if I had a son I would want him to defend himself against a false accusation by any means necessary within the law. Shanti is right to imply that by the time the woman said no the sexual act was complete. I am glad to hear a woman say that because people need to be clear about their intentions. It was wrong for the young lady’s name and address to be posted on a web site but then that is the court’s fault not Kobe Bryant’s. Women should not be victimized but fairness can’t be skewed toward the woman or the man. Heck put Kobe’s sexual history out there as well as her’s then bring up what happened on that night and let a jury decide the outcome. This woman will probably get paid, but yes the sexual history of an alleged victim should be admissible evidence.

By Kristi

August 23, 2004 09:00 AM | Link to this

I agreed with Shaunti’s postion. I believe the sexual history of an alleged rape victim be admissible evidence. I don’t believe that there should be any “rape sheild laws”. If a woman is going to accuse another of the crime of rape than she should have to get on the witness stand and present her case against the defendant. Yes, it may be a traumatic experience and she would have to relive the attack, but a crime is a crime and I don’t believe in differentiating one crime from another. For example, the bogus “hate crimes” law. All crime is a crime of hate. We are setting a dangerous precedence when we single out one crime over another. The facts should speak for themselves, all the facts, not just the facts that prosecutors want the jury to hear. I believe that men get wrongly accused every day of rape because the woman may have had remorse for her actions, but that does not mean that a rape took place. Rather a lack of judgment. In a society that cries for equality for women, this is a step backward. Equal protection under the law, not equal protection, but sometimes in certain circumstances slanted towards one side.

By jms

August 23, 2004 09:07 AM | Link to this

I feel a woman’s sexual history should definitely be considered in a rape case, especially her sexual history after the supposed rape occurred. In the Bryant case it is alleged that the woman involved had sex after the supposed rape and before she came forward to the police. I’m a man so maybe I can’t fully appreciate the trauma a woman would feel after being raped, but I can’t imagine a woman suffering through a rape and than having consentual sex a day later with a different partner.

Also, if the prosecution is going to present evidence of injuries that supposedly occurred during the rape, the sexual history around the time of the rape needs to be taken into account because these injuries could have occurred with a different partner.

By Shawn

August 23, 2004 09:14 AM | Link to this

Every woman that yells rape are sometimes not actually raped. I don’t think that a woman’s sexual history should be relevent unless the woman is displaying signs of lying. In the Kobe Bryant case, a white woman yells rape and we are all suppose to believe her. Why? Because she’s white? Look at the facts. Why was she in his room in the first place? She was suppose to be working downstairs. It’s sad that some women will do anything to get money. In cases like this, women that are actually raped are being discredited or punished because of greedy women like the so called ‘victim’ in the Kobe Bryant case. Kobe was wrong for committing adultry, but he should have known better. Women like this are everywhere and they will do anything for money. The so called ‘victim’ in this case is so greedy, that she has quickly filed a civil suit against the basketball player, so that she can get what she’s really after a little sooner. What kind of woman that was raped would think about a civil suit at this moment? If I was raped, I would do everything in my power to make the criminal pay for what he did to me by fighting him in criminal court. For these women that are claiming rape for monetary purposes, they need to get up and get a job. They are hurting those that are actually victims of rape.

By Che Colbourn

August 23, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this

I don’t think Kobe’s accuser was raped. Kobe’s accuser wants cash. He’d be better off to just write her a check. If your body is saying yes, your actions are saying yes, you have put yourself in a position to imply yes, then how can you mean no - even if you say it? No means no only if both your actions and words imply no. Why is it always up to the male to excercise self-control? If you have allowed a man to remove your clothes and begin to engage in sex - then after 18 strokes say no, the 19th stroke is not rape.

By VW

August 23, 2004 09:21 AM | Link to this

Shaunti said:

*”If Bryant did indeed commit rape, it would be unfortunate if he avoided jail.”

“Although Bryant’s decision to cheat on his wife was despicable, should he alone be accountable for misjudging what the purported victim wanted?”*

“Unfortunate” and “despicable”.

Shaunti’s description of these two events seems a bit skewed in my view. I don’t want an innocent man convicted of a crime he didn’t commit either, but I’d like it more if men were held responsible for the decisions they make, in bed or out, as stringently as Shaunti seems to think women should be. No means no, even if a women said “yes” a hundred times before, to a hundred different men.

Adultery is certainly a bad thing and denotes a certain lack of integrity and character, if not willpower, in this case. But it’s not a felony anywhere as far as I know. Rape is crime of violence. It’s an assault on a person’s body as well as their will, their sense of self and power, even when no actual violence is threatened or oared. Saying “no” is a choice, a decision made that should be respected no matter the circumstances. It’s “unfortunate” that Shaunti seems to think that because of a past sexual history, a woman’s right to say no is somehow secondary to a man’s “right” to be incapable of showing some restraint and responsibility.

It’s also highly possible that “if Bryant did indeed commit rape”, that’s exactly what will happen. That’s what’s despicable in this country.

By Chip Coffey

August 23, 2004 09:23 AM | Link to this

Well, here we go AGAIN with some folks turning a topic into a racial issue. We cannot assume that anyone is either guilty or innocent, telling the truth or lying, based on the color of his or her skin! Not every issue is “black or white”!

The reality is this: some high profile “celebrities” think that they are above the law and not subject to the same rules that “common people” must abide by. I’ve worked in the entertainment industry and have seen many women shamelessly flirt with male “stars,” even coming right out and making offers of sex. I’ve also witnessed several married male celebrities who were visiting Atlanta cavorting with starstruck female “groupies” and it wasn’t hard to figure out that part of their “cavorting” took place between the sheets.

Rape is a heinous crime, but it IS possible for a woman to use the charge of rape as her weapon. It’s fairly easy to decide what happened in private if the female accuser was battered or injured during the act or if she was threatened with a gun, knife or some other real weapon. It is less easy to make a clear determination when the woman has few injuries or simply claims “I said ‘no.’”

If the female accuser has a history of numerous sexual partners and encounters, this might certainly be construed to indicate that she says “yes” more often than “no.” Not allowing the accuser’s history and character to be examined, at least in some part, may mean that a man who is not guilty of rape will be convicted of a crime that he did not commit.

The accused has a right to defend himself and if the accuser’s history may have bearing on the verdict, then I believe it should be admissible in court.

By VW

August 23, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

Repost: Shaunti said:

“If Bryant did indeed commit rape, it would be unfortunate if he avoided jail.”

“Although Bryant’s decision to cheat on his wife was despicable, should he alone be accountable for misjudging what the purported victim wanted?”

“Unfortunate” and “despicable”.

Shaunti’s description of these two events seems a bit skewed in my view. I don’t want an innocent man convicted of a crime he didn’t commit either, but I’d like it more if men were held responsible for the decisions they make, in bed or out, as stringently as Shaunti seems to think women should be. No means no, even if a women said “yes” a hundred times before, to a hundred different men. Adultery is certainly a bad thing and denotes a certain lack of integrity and character, if not willpower, in this case. But it’s not a felony anywhere as far as I know. Rape is crime of violence. It’s an assault on a person’s body as well as their will, their sense of self and power, even when no actual violence is threatened or offered. Saying “no” is a choice, a decision made that should be respected no matter the circumstances. It’s “unfortunate” that Shaunti seems to think that because of a past sexual history, a woman’s right to say no is somehow secondary to a man’s right to be incapable of showing some restraint and responsibility.

It’s also highly possible that “if Bryant did indeed commit rape”, he could avoid jail. That’s what’s despicable in this country.

By Maketa

August 23, 2004 09:40 AM | Link to this

I agree with Shaunti. A woman’s sexual history should be admissible as evidence if circumstances are questionable. This case should not be about white and black but about rape or no rape. I don’t think the male should be held accountable for everything, because the woman should have not put herself in that situation. In this case, rape could have been prevented, if it actually was rape. She did not have to go to his room. If she wanted an autograph or something, she should have waited until a lot of people were around. In my opinion, she is lying and just wants money from a celebrity. If he did commit rape, he should be held accountable for his actions. He should also be held accountable for adultery. He should have known better and now I believe he and many other celebrities, especially black ones will learn a lesson.

By Justme

August 23, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this

A Man’s Perspective:

Diane, the Rape Shield laws definitely need to be revisited. Does it not strike you as a little ironic that you talk about the “Kobe Bryant Case”, but yet assail the fact that the “alleged victim’s name” may have accidentally been released? We’ve known Kobe’s name as the accused for over a year now! Yet, the media does not report the “alleged victim’s” name. Kobe has the right to face his accuser and she should be subject to the same media scrutiny as is Kobe. Remember, Kobe is “presumed innocent” until proven guilty. So, there’s no justification for the unequal treatment.

The other point I think you should consider is that the Rape Shield Laws only go to reinforce the same stereotypes you are fighting to dispel. The Rape Shield Law is predicated on an antiquated and paternalistic notion that if a jury found out that a women was not a “virgin” they would be biased against her and presumed she was lying about the rape. Women have made great strides in recent years in establishing their sexual independence, as shows like “Sex in The City” prove. Adult women should be free to admit that they are sexually active creatures just like adult men, without fear that that fact will be used against them in a rape trial. However, the only way that you can really make sure that such a stereotype or stigma is not used against you is to meet it head on and not cowar to it. I think by now we as a Society understand that just because a woman is sexually active doesn’t mean she was “asking for it.” Rape is a crime of violence, not passion. I understand that and I think most other enlightend men do too.

By Jackie Smith

August 23, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

I have been a feminist all of my life. Never before the Kobe trial have I felt that a woman’s prior sexual history was relevent. But when you are accusing a man of rape and have the semen of another man on your panties, THIS IS RELEVANT! A woman’s sexual history immediately prior or after an accusation of rape(30 days prior of after) should be heard by a jury.

By Kool Kathy

August 23, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this

Why should sex history have anything to do with assault? That is what rape is. Men are raped and no one asks for their sex history. Be fair about this. Psychopaths rape. Perfectly normal people have sex. Don’t confuse the two actions. If you want to talk about Kobe Bryant, let the judge and jury decide if he is a predator.

By nathaniel lindsey

August 23, 2004 12:38 PM | Link to this

Yes I believe that a person that makes an accusation about being raped previous sexual encounters should be made public. The Kobe Bryant case is the reason for my belief. If he is found not guilty,he has still lost endorsements, that will not be returned, and his reputation has been ruined. He has under our justice system the right to defend himself, just as the in this case, the so called victim. In our society today, an accusation of rape should allow all facts to be revealed, about the accuser, and the person charged with rape.

By Steven Drabo

August 23, 2004 01:53 PM | Link to this

Rather than do away with the Rape Shield Laws why not extend them to both parties involved? It is unfair for the accused to be publicly paraded while the accuser gets to hide. In cases of the accused being found innocent no damage is done to either party. I’m sure many of us can think back to a personal situation where we remember some horrible accusation and then say “I wonder how that turned out.”

By Dionne

August 23, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

Rape is a heinous crime that should not be taken likely. Anyone can be raped; men, children, prostitutes, strippers, police officers — and their past dalliances should not be used for public scrutiny. However, if a victim’s actions after the rape garners more questions about the victim’s character then, (gasp), yes I agree with Shaunti, the victim’s past sexual associations should be reviewed. It’s all a matter of believability. Who is more believable? The victim who states they have been viciously raped and carry extreme emotional and physical scars of the encounter, then less than 24 hours later has consensual sex with another person. Or the accused?

By D. Lilly

August 23, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

YES.

Why should the man’s history be an “open book”, but the woman is “protected” from everything. I’m glad Kobe didn’t sit around and let “Political Correctness” railroad him into a prison sentence. Proof of this is all the men that were convicted of rape when all this “rape shield” business went overboard during the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s that are now being found innocent through DNA testing. Anyone with a grudge can make this claim stick under these unfair shield laws.

Need more proof ………… Do anyone remember the kid that played quarterback for Kansas St. He was acused of rape by a so-called victim the night before their bowl game. The politically correct “make her a victim” media and various women “whine” groups had him convicted over night. IT WAS ALL A LIE. Nothiong was done to her. She is free to set someone else up until she get’s it right and sue’s for a large sum of money.

These rape shield laws are way out of balance as far as men being able to defend themselves against these “stacked Decks.”

By Regina

August 23, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

Shaunti is correct in stating “women can’t have it both ways and enjoy equal treatment without equal responsibility and scrutiny.” Radical feminists want equality but only by drilling a man into the dirt and never taking responsibility for their own actions. They project a “victim mentality”. There’s a new breed of feminists and we are friends with the so-called oppressors, men. We don’t feel in gaining our rights, we must crush men.

By Regina

August 23, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

If you really want to make it a race issue, blame the Black organizations (yes, I am Black) who join with the radical feminist organizations to “protect rights”. They don’t realize (or don’t care) that Black men are being undermined by these radical feminist groups. The radical feminist groups are anti-family, anti-marriage, and anti-male. These are the same groups who are protesting against the Kobe trial. In the words of Spike Lee, “Wake up”!

By Hugh Jorgan

August 23, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Re: personal responsibility

Okay, of course, a woman, or a man, has a right to say no, hopefully at any time.

But look at it this way: All people need to evaluate a situation before going into it. We have laws to protect us from negligence and criminal acts, but those laws won’t stop those things from happening, especially if we’re reckless.

By James

August 24, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this

Putting race aside, i believe that the accusers ID and picture should be made public and their sexual histories made public in court. If, as in most cases, a rape in most often a he said, she said issue. Rape cases can also be he said, he said or she said, she said. The point is, if it’s one persons word agains the other you’ll never get anywhere if both have their stories down. Sexual histories, whether wild or mild, helps the ferret out the truth. Also, it’s unfair to only have access to the accused history. The old stand-by of not having the accuser “live through the rape again” needs to be put to rest. If that were the case, the accuser lives through the rape everytime he/she goes through it with the cops, lawyers, doctors, etc. And if that is such a powerful arguement, accusers should never appear on television, write a book or give lectures on the subject of rape. Unless, they’re asking to be raped again.

By Noel

August 24, 2004 12:32 PM | Link to this

For an individual to force his way and have sex with another has been defined as rape.

To be in a hotel room and one pulls the panties down and pushes one over a chair and has their way with you, holding your neck/head hard enough to cause bruses, with a bed in the room, raises lots of questions…didn’t sound like love to me.

What I can not figure out is why we have not been appraised of Kobe’s sexual history. How offer he has sex with his wife, habits when he is on the road, is he a “horney” guy?, etc. should be explored too, if the womens history is considered.

Why is “rape” different if one has money or not? A lot of issues have all of a sudden been thrown in to the garbage can. Race, money,etc.

What difference is it if the person had sex every day, three times a day consensual, then someone has sex that is not consensual. Should not be an issue.

Let’s face it, by some comments by individuals, women, I guess, should still be kept barefoot and PG!

By james

August 24, 2004 12:48 PM | Link to this

Let’s not go through this with blinders on….we all know the prosecution is going to grill Kobe on his sexual habits, with and without his wife. Furthermore, the accuser’s sexual history that’s in question has to do with the sex that she may’ve had immediatly following the alleged rape. Not, i repeat, NOT her every sexual encounter.

And, we have to live in the NOW. The accusation of rape if different if one of the individuals has money. if the tables were turned and Kobe was a broke slobe and the female was well off, it would still be a media circus. If they were both broke, we’d know nothing about it. Likewise if they were both rich and connected.

By Jenney Z Alexander

August 24, 2004 01:20 PM | Link to this

A woman’s history speaks of her character. If a woman is known to be loose, then how is it that one can believe that she was raped. IN the Kobe case the woamn claims she was so dirtraught by it all, but then people find out that she had sex with at least one other man in the following 24 hours after the alleged rape. Uh, doesn’t that just scream gold diger? With promiscuity comes consequnces. No woman deserves to be raped, no one asks for it to happened. Unfortunately the burden of proof lies on the woman. There have been man cases where men have been falsly accused and taken to jail. How else are you to judge a person’s character?

By James

August 24, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that this is a case of race, although the players are black and white. I see it more as a case of poor judgement and bad morals in the case of each. While adultery is not “tops” on the list of attributes, it also does not imply that there are no depths too low to descend to. Being in Kobe’s room does stink to high heaven, when you realize that she works at the front desk. (I have a hard time just getting towels from Housekeeping!) However, I see this as an afront to women everywhere when a rape victim such as this, claims the same offense as a person truly being victimized. She is setting humanity as far back as Tawanna Brawley did for the black community when she cried race-hating after self-inflicting her crime upon her. The real crime here is not what happened in Colorado, but what it has done rape victims, past and present. Sexual history should come into play, if there is clearly evidence that one may not be of the highest standard. Each party should be called upon for what they bring to the case, be it pleasant or otherwise. Just like being innocent until being found guilty….it is bit pre-mature to call this woman a “victim”. What has it been proven that she has been victimized of? To call her victim ensures that a crime has already been committed. In the absence of a crime, you have an absence of a victim.

By Denise Noe

August 24, 2004 03:53 PM | Link to this

The rape shield laws can be misinterpreted as they were in the Marv Albert case. But they are an absolute necessity in fighting this vicious crime. Very few women will come forward if it means their entire sexual histories must be aired in court. The truth is that women are entitled to like men and to enjoy heterosexual relationships without being considered prey by that minority of men who are vicious. A woman’s sexual history is relevant only in rare cases such as that of women who have histories of crying rape or sexual histories with the defendant. Similarly, the entire sexual history of the defendant should not be admitted but only that which shows a predisposition to violence as a prior sexual assault may. Admitting sexual histories in general into court in rape cases is based on false perceptions of heterosexually experienced women as “damaged goods.” It also may work unfairly against defendants in some cases if the alleged victim was a virgin.

By RokChik

August 24, 2004 05:13 PM | Link to this

Ppl keep saying that this girl is out for the $$. But this doesn’t make any sense, b/c no matter what happens with these trials that have yet to take place, everyone will hate this girl.

If Kobe is found innocent, then the girl will be hated for being percieved as a liar, gold digger.

If Kobe is found guilty, then the girl will be seen as a gold digger who brought a great athelete down.

The money is not enough to be hated by nearly everyone forever and ever.

It doesn’t matter if the girl slept with another guy before the alleged crime took place. That does not make her more likely to get raped.. We never say that a man who sleeps with many women is more likely to become a rapist, so why would it work the other way around? It’s just illogical ppl. Her sexual history doesn’t change the fact that she was raped. It’d be as useless as bringing up the man’s sexual history (unless it was a criminal history).

And Regina, you’re seriously warped if you think feminism is about about being anit-male, anit-black, or anti-family. I’m sorry you think and feel that way.

By Regina

August 25, 2004 11:18 AM | Link to this

Rokchik,

Apparently, you didn’t read all of both of my posts. I stated “radical” feminism has harmed society. I also stated, the new feminists of which I am one, do not believe that in gaining our rights we have to demean men.

She might not care if people hate her or what people think. Apparently not, she sleeps around. And, no matter how you or others may feel, society still views a woman who sleeps around as dirty. And, that is not going to change any time soon. In that regard, men and women will be viewed differently. There are also people who don’t care how the world sees them as long as they are “paid”. And she might like the attention…before she was just an ordinary person in Colorado. People with low self-esteem will seek attention, even if it is negative attention. It is their “15 minutes of fame”. No one knows exactly what happened in that room, the facts should speak volumes.

By Leon

August 25, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

Diane, Shaunti, I am wondering why you each portray yourself as liberal or conservative….does this really show any light on your opinions? We all know how divisise those two terms have become and really do not shed andy light on you. Perhaps you should talk more about your history…education, religion, your sexual views and how they came about, age you were married, if married…what would let us have a better understanding on how you would understand the situation of a young girl with some mental health, sexuality,self worth,etc. issues,etc. Can you write in a perspective as if she was your daughter? What would you want for her? Thanks

By kathy

August 25, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

I’ve noticied that most of the comments supporting Shaunti are coming from women. Is it because when something unspeakable happens to someone else we all want to believe that thay person did something to deserve it? It is much more comfortable to belive that the victim deserved it than to admit we are all vulnerable. Rape is not a crime about sex. It is a crime of violence rage and power. There are much easier ways for a man to get sex without resorting to rape. Rape sheild laws are on the books not to protect women, but because prior sexual behavior is not at issue. The only issue in a rape trial is whether or not a rape occured in this instance and who committed the rape. It does not matter if the victim is Mother Theresa or Larry Flint rape is rape!

By lyrazel

August 25, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

Rape is rape; blunt and violent. I doubt there is a person alive who does not believe the perpetrator should be jailed—if not have their reproductive organs removed—to be blunt. Im sure if it was your daughter not one of you would want her profiled on national tv or in the court. Stars make exceptional targets because of their popularity and their high-priced lawyers want exposure for generating future business. Yet now in America average people have zero control over media frenzies. Two girls are given front page spreads for murdering grandparents, sexual abuse acusations are given first-story leads on TV. What happens to the innocent? Do they get airtime? Seldom if ever but their lives are ruined nonetheless. In the media everyone is GUILTY BEFORE PROVEN INNOCENT. The attempt to keep secret a plaintiff was fair by law but if an government employee can publish citizen records online—what can the legal system do? Nothing except say sorry. Take heed that YOUR RECORDS can be so easily dispersed, that your life can be turned into a living hell by investigative journalists looking for a story before the facts are admitted in court. In the America I was raised in it was INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY.

By Wan

August 25, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this

With regard to the “rape shield laws”, if a woman can have her past “blocked” in a rape case, why shouldn’t any individual’s past be blocked for evidence in any crime he/she is accused of? In that respect, habitual violent criminals’ records should all be inadmissable. It’s unfair that we select only rape to have these “shield” laws.

As for Kobe Bryant, while most would agree what he did was stupid, I don’t think anyone believes it’s rape now. This is a person who had sex within a day AFTER she was allegedly raped—hardly the clinical behavior of a “victim”. With the criminal case on hold, she has already filed a civil case for monetary damages. Despite saying that this is “not about money”, surprise, surprise…now it’s about money.

The evidence should speak for itself. The girl in Bryant’s case deserves nothing. And thanks to the fairness of allowing testimony about her RECENT past behavior, Bryant’s innocence on rape (guilty on stupidity) charges is very clear.

By vincent

August 25, 2004 04:48 PM | Link to this

Fourteen years ago I was raped. Visiting a friend’s home during a vacation. The rapist, my friend’s roommate, tied my legs to the headboard posts while I was in a deep sleep at 3am. When I came to, I had a cleaver at my throat and was told not to say anything. I tried to grab the cleaver, and he cut my neck. Not deeply, but enough to draw blood and scare me. He did what he did, and I kept begging him to stop, telling him no, pleading. When he was through he thanked me and went to sleep. I untied my legs, quietly got dressed, tip toed out of the apartment, ran to my car and drove as far away as I could.

When I checked into a hotel in the middle of nowhere, I saw myself in the mirror, and realized why everyone was staring at me. I was black and blue with a neck cut.

Nobody asks to be raped. No means no. Period.

To suggest that someone was dressed a certain way, or was drunk, or flirting, or asking for it is nothing more than crap perpetuated by men.

I said nothing about this to anyone. I was 22 years old and afraid what people would think. Isn’t that funny? I was a victim of a violent crime, and I was afraid people would think I asked for it. Which would lead to countless conclusions, none of which were/are applicable.

Anyone who tries to rationalize rape as the fault of the victim has probably never been raped. And trust me, you don’t want it to happen.

As for Shaunti, you should count yourself lucky that any news organization still prints your commentary. For someone who holds the education credentials you have, your articles are grossly stereotypical of a pre-historic Donna Reed.

By chelle

August 27, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this

I agree with Shaunti there has to be a balance when entering prior sexual history as evidence, because as seen in the media’s reactions as well as the feedback on this topic, the focus of why this evidence is being admitted becomes easiliy lost. When this young woman reported the rape “the next day”..she had evidence of another sexual encounter that is believed to have taken place AFTER her alleged assault by Kobe. I have been a victim of this act and know whole heartedly that after your body and mind are violated in the horrific act of aggressive violence, the last thing you want to do is have sex with someone else. Secondly, I work in a very popular hotel in Buckhead, where high profile celebrities come in and out of our doors everyday, ON NO OCCASSION do the front desk attendants have ANY CAUSE to go to the guestrooms, there’s hired help to attend their every request and need. No means no, but when you say “no” after the fact it’s not rape, it’s a vindetta.

By Tymothe Larsgard

September 1, 2004 12:19 PM | Link to this

Of course not. I don’t care if I sleep with a million men at the same time, this body belongs to me and I am the only who gives any one permission to enter!!!!!!!!

By Papa Gus

September 1, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

I have been reading with interest the various points of view - and most are valid. However, I must agree wholeheartedly with those that point out the inequities of the so-called sheild laws. Link those laws to the fact that lives and reputations have been destroyed by just the hint of an accusation. This deals with a broad spectrum of accusations, just not rape. (The man accused of the Alanta bombing of the Olympic Games comes to mind.)
A woman walking down the street who is assaulted and raped - is raped. A woman home alone who is raped by an intruder, is raped. But what about the woman who goes to a strangers hotel room voluntarily in the wee hours of the morning? As much as I dislike Mike Tyson for the sub-human he is - why did the woman who accused him of rape go to his hotel room in the early morning hours after only knowing him for a scant few hours and after drinking with him? Isn’t that “implied”consent? I suppose the bottom line here is that everything must be fairly and impartially scrutinized - but more importantly, the news media itself must refrain from sensationalizing events way out of proportion to the point of publically pillorizing the accused before he or she has had a fair trial and a verdict is rendered based solely upon the evidence.