Connect
Get Local
Issues
Tag Cloud
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
Subscribe
GA State Rep.: There’s No Such Thing as a Rape Victim
GA State Rep.: There’s No Such Thing as a Rape Victim
U.S. House Republicans have received a great deal of attention over the past week since seeking to qualify the crime of rape with the term “forcible” in a high-profile piece of legislation. Such a distinction could create classes of rape victims, with “forcible rape” victims somehow being ordained as worse off than victims of statutory rape, date rape, rape by coercion or deception, rape of the disabled or mentally impaired… You get the picture.
But what if rape victims could no longer be referred to as “victims” at all? What if people who have endured this horrible – and already chronically underreported -- crime could only be called “accusers”?
Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in “criminal law and criminal procedure” (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted.
Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you’ve been victimized. He says you’re an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.
To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.
Rep. Franklin surely is aware that the crimes for which he believes there are no victims are disproportionately committed against women—and are disproportionately committed by men.
When there’s violence against women involved, the rights of the accused clearly are more important to Rep. Franklin than the rights of the victim.
But if there’s no such thing as a victim in cases of rape, stalking, and domestic violence, he may think there’s no need to for him to be concerned with their rights, anyway.
I have a couple of questions:
First, are the residents of Franklin's district all without brains? Is it possible to have enough truly moronic, hateful people concentrated in one district to elect such a miserable excuse for a living creature?
Second, when will someone with a brain in the Georgia legislature stand up and demand that Rep. Franklin is censured, admonished, kicked in the head with someone's boot, whatever, for introducing such incredibly stupid, hideous, inhumane pieces of filth as legislation?
The entire Georgia legislature should be ashamed that they share the floor with such piece of garbage.
Yes it is possible to have "enough truly moronic, hateful people concentrated in one district" and, the majority of districts in our state (Georgia) is in the same condition.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, they are without brains.
2. Yes, not only is it possible, it's true.
3. There is no one in the GA legislature with a brain.
4. But they aren't. They're proud of him.
OH MY GOD!!!!! Are they crazy or what!!!! I am so sick of these people and to think that I have decendants from Georgia. I hang my head in shame...
I'll admit on first glance I was appalled. But I agree with others in that this bill just seems to reaffirm the right to face the accused and the right to a fair trial and the right to remain innocent until proven guilty, which is often undermined in Rape/sexual assault/and stalking cases. It seems that sexual assault automatically puts the accused in a guilty category, look at what happened to Big Ben, in Georgia no less. He committed no crime, but because someone accused him of sexual assault he'll always be remembered as a sexual deviant.
Also, in Georgia, there is a racist legacy. The Rape/Sexual Assault angle has often been used historically to place a disproportionate number of black men in prison. Often innocent black men who are assumed guilty before the trial started.
Then there are cases of Christian young women who can't admit to their family that they've began having sex before marriage so they accuse their partners of Rape when their family finds out they've been deflowered.
Then finally think of the sort of people who sit on Juries. I know attorneys specifically go for the uneducated when they prosecute certain cases, like rape, and if in the courtroom the accused is constantly referred to as a victim, then that implies that someone in that room will have to be punished.
If you want more rapists caught, the language used in the courtroom shouldn't matter. Better sex education and talking to women at a young age about the realities or Rape, the psychological affects of rape, and insuring that all victims receive a rape kit, would be the best way to insure convictions of rapists.
Let me condense what you are essentially saying... You know that women tend to be liars.
Seriously, these are simply old wives tales and stereo types you are using to back this legislation. Lets break them down.
1. "Big Ben"s reputation and history speak for him. I think you picked a very poor example
of a man being falsely accused. In that particular incident the D.A. didn't prosecute in
part due to admitted bad police work. Roethlisberger however without admitting he
actually raped the woman did issue apologies for his "bad choices" and the NFL did find
the incident disturbing enough suspend him for a handful of games.
2. Racism is racism, more black men find their way to prison in for just about every crime there is. I don't think a racist is particular about the WHY they want to blame him, just blame him for something. The assuming of guilt because of color does not go up because of the type of crime, nor does the racism decline because of the wording used to describe the victim. Racists my be ignorant but they are just not that stupid.
3. This is just... just dumb. Really, on so many levels. First, I have never ever come across anyone who has actually have this play out in real life.
Lets break it down.
First lets find out how everyone is discovering the deflowering. Is there some Sunday afternoon hymen check for Christian families? Is there a secret undercover virginity police force buried deep in churches? Once a breach in membranes is detected the family
is forced into a heated meeting and everyone is browbeaten into admitting how their sins
contributed to the ultimate gob smacking awfulness of teen sex.
Finally the delicate young girl has no choice but to accuse someone of rape because actually admitting that she wanted to have sex will ruin the rest of her life,
she is now to dirty and used to ever be married etc... etc... because you know,girls are so conniving that even young Christian good girls who make a decision to have sex with a young boy they probably love and think is "the one" would rather accuse him of rape than have people think she "gave it away". Get a grip. In real life, if teens are caught bumping uglies, its just that, someone catches them red handed. Parents then proceed to wring hands, and the kids usually declare they love each other and are going to get married... blah blah blah...
Your assuming that because of the "type" of crime, people will be unable to
make a intelligent decision and by changing the wording it will help? laughable.
How about we talk to MEN, not women. Women aren't the ones doing it. Men need too understand that they aren't entitled to a woman's body, ever.
And what about the men responsible for raping women? there's nothing you would want to teach them???
I think that you could go as far as calling them alleged victims, but I know that to be thought of as anything but a victim is also psychologically damaging. It really is a touchy subject. What about the girls who have the courage to speak out against a rapist who are completely dismissed by their peers, or their family? I believe that EVERY accusation of rape be taken seriously. Women have been discriminated against, in almost every society, far longer than any one race has.
Wait a minute, why does the right to face the accuser need re-affirmation by jeopardizing the right to be believed you are a victim when you are a victim?
Are you saying we need to stop people from "accusing falsely" by risking victims not being taken seriously? Which population is more vulnerable, all women, or sports celebrities? Are men suddenly fearing for their lives, getting diseases or pregnancies (that they might not have the right to intentionally terminate or accidentally miscarry if cultural conservatives keep passing these Trojan Horses into law) from a rape? No, so who is the population who has more to lose here, women, or everyone else?
What has been a problem for much longer, historically: women being raped, murdered, and abused -- or NFL players being falsely accused? Women have to get rape kits just to prove that ANYTHING happened, which means HAVING ENOUGH SEMEN INSIDE YOU TO PROVE WHO'S DNA IT IS. Never mind being possibly beaten in the process, if the guy wears a condom and leaves no marks then there can be no conclusive rape kit, so its already hard enough to prove you were a victim.
Big Ben is a bad example. He benefited from due process and great attorneys during both of his sexual assault cases. His first accuser McNulty could not obtain criminal charges to be filed against him due to lack of evidence, and thus no investigation was launched to obtain any possible physical evidence. The second accuser was treated at Oconee Regional Medical Center. An emergency-room doctor and two nurses examined her and noted in their report a "superficial laceration and bruising and slight bleeding in the genital area", but could not say if trauma or sexual assault was the cause. The remaining examination was "normal". A rape kit was collected, but no semen was recovered, and the amount of male DNA found was insufficient to create a profile or establish that an assault had taken place. The doctor's report also quoted the alleged victim telling them that, "A boy kind of raped me." Both cases left doubt on both sides, but everyone focuses on the Big Ben because he's a celebrity -- maybe we should outlaw celebrity to protect people from being talked about while we're at it.
Men being falsely accused, except in celebrity cases, is not plaguing the nation, so why would anyone think it was necessary to change the law in this way? Because someday, we fear, women will rise up and imprison all the men with their false, lying tongues?
A victim doesn't stop being a victim of a crime just because someone has not yet been convicted. Innocent men don't get prison sentences for being accused, they get sentenced for prosecutorial/police misconduct, institutional discrimination, and having insufficient funds to afford good attorneys -- but I don't hear anyone calling for a public fund to make sure defendants have the same financial resources as the plaintiff (even when the "accuser" is the District Attorney). How society regards you after you have been accused of a crime, wrongfully or otherwise, is separate from being found guilty and being treated poorly by society. Society is fickle and attracted to negativity and controversy regardless, so that has nothing to do with what best serves women in society who are vulnerable to abuses. What is the pragmatic distinction between labeling someone a "victim", who may potentially "accuse" someone as their "attacker", and removing the term "victim" altogether? Mustn't one prove that there was a crime before one can be recognized as a "victim", and isn't that the duty of the police, to establish it? But wait, historically, the rights of women have never been significant enough for police to feel compelled to do more than show up and take down a few names. Women have to get rape kits just to prove that ANYTHING happened. So, what happens when we re-engineering the definition of a victim -- to underscore the attitude "so, you say you were raped, but can you prove it?" rather than "so, you were raped and who did it?" This reminds me of re-writing laws about infanticide to define it closer and closer to the definition of abortion, and make abortion illegal by sleight-of-hand.
Laws like this are Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist Trojan Horses, that lie about their purpose to gain victories for cultural conservative social goals. Using activist legislatures and judges to take rights from women, to erode their equality and take us back to 17th-century notions of women as "3/4 of a citizen, 3/4 of a man" has to stop, and they should expect to deploy the riot police every time they abuse their office with this kind of garbage. We should all be in the streets giving them hell for it, not being bystanders wringing our hands.
This is evil, plain and simple.
Before you start talking, you should check out the statistics concerning rape cases and how many actual are prosecuted in the first place. It has nothing to do with black or white, being Christian or whatever religion - rape is the most under prosecuted crime there is because it is very difficult to prove. Plus, when society has views like yours, women will never be protected in this country!!
"To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all."
Yes, it does. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to confront his accuser. This includes men accused of rape, whether you like it or not. When a court designates someone a 'victim' before a conviction, the accused person's constitutional right to due process is violated.
As a liberal, I find it bizarre that many of us on the left will scream our heads off for due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and beg to commute the death sentences of convicted murderers, but conveniently forget these principles as soon as the word "rape" is uttered.
"Victim" has to be kept -- the victim has been raped, and is not merely asserting as much. The person accused should still be called the accused, though, since he is innocent until proven guilty. The asymmetry comes from thinking that "victim" means the person accused is the perpetrator. He may or may not be, but that doesn't alter the fact of the crime.
What if the "victim" is not telling the truth? It happens frequently. I agree that until her accused is convicted and PROVEN to have raped her, she is his ACCUSER. I dare say that if you're the innocent man who is the accused in this scenario, you and your family would be calling the woman MANY names, but I doubt one of them would be "victim."
"It happens frequently."
Bull. Sources. What *does* happen frequently is women who have been raped are automatically assumed to be lying, character assassinated in public and the evidence in their cases is "lost" or never even processed
.
Of course you don't see why any of this is a problem, do you?
There are these things called "rape kits." And yes, you can tell whether someone has been raped whether you have a suspect or not.
I disagree. The accused person's right to due process is not impacted in any way by the victim being labeled a victim.
If I am robbed, I am a victim of robbery. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict or anyone of that robbery, I am *still* a victim. If there is not sufficient evidence to even arrest someone, I am still a victim.
What's the difference? Well, if my homeowners insurance covers loss due to robbery, I damned well want them to acknowledge me as a victim, not an "accuser".
In this case, it's all about access to abortion. Today, government funding can be used for rape victims - whether or not their rapists are ever arrested, or even caught. If we reduce them to accusers until the rapist is caught, tried, and convicted, we can deny them access to abortion until it's too late.
It's wrong, both morally and constitutionally.
If you call the police to report an item has been stolen, and then collect insurance on it, but it was never actually stolen (say you are just defrauding the insurance company), then you are not a robbery victim. You just "reported an item stolen". "Accuser" is short-hand for the same thing. If the cops come and find that yes, your doorjam was broken and there is an item missing where there appeared to be one before (or you report that it used to be there), and they believe you, they might call you a "victim". But it is still inaccurate if the robber is never found and convicted. You have not been "proven" a victim just because the cops showed up and something was missing. I think the same logic can apply to any crime. The "accused" is innocent until proven guilty, and the "accuser" is unharmed until proven so. It's fundamental to our justice system.
the reason we get so upset is because I am only 45 and I still clearly remember when women were still accused of CAUSING this vile act by what she wore, where she went, etc, etc. that is till an underlying current in cases where the defense attorney can manage to worm it in, but if that's not gonna work, let's minimize the event itself.
what is worse, is that they are gonna say that a rape didn't happen at all even with proof!! Yes, most cases have actual proof of rape!! is a murder victim not a victim unless the person "accused" is convicted? no, there is still a dead person, and we know who is dead, so they are the victim!
This is another example of trying to blame the victim! if not, then why is this legislation not put forward for ALL crimes and only for RAPE?? because this guy is a misogynistic bastard that needs to have his ass kicked off the hill for bringing forth such a woman-hating, vile piece of legislation!!
You may find it bizarre while the rest of us are able to make the distinction. Semantics aside, our judicial process has been corrected many times to suit offenders who believe they've been unjustly accused, or won't get a fair trial because they've already been branded -by extension & the use of certain conclusive verbiage- as guilty. Perhaps it's time for the system to work for the accusers -especially in cases of rape.
If that were the case, the bill would suggest that ALL victims of crimes be referred to only as accusers. If your house was broken into, you're just an accuser the burglar is convicted. If you are robbed at gunpoint, you're only an accuser until your robber is convicted. By singling out rape victims, rather than robbery, burglary, or assault victims, this bill specifically attacks rape. Given that there are as many false accusations of rape as of arson or assault, I don't see the logic behind singling out rape victims as being "accusers" unless you are trying to attack rape as a crime.
This has nothing to do with the rights of the accused, it's a matter of the rights of the victims. The Constitution also calls for "equal protection of the laws" in the Fourteenth Amendment, and that sentiment is inscribed in stone on the building of the Supreme Court.
There could well be a logic in arguing that *all* persons who say they have been victims of a crime should be considered "accusers" until someone is convicted of a crime, but that is not what is being proposed. The proposal is that only victims of one class of crime, specifically one mainly (almost exclusively) suffered by women, should have this exceptional negative treatment. That's not equal justice.
We stand up for everyone's rights, be they detainees at Guantanamo demanding their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, convicted murderers asking for their Eighth Amendment right to protection against the cruel and unusual punishment of death, or rape, yes, victims demanding their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the laws, not for who they are, but for who we are. When we fail to stand up for the fundamental freedoms of civilized societies, we are no longer a civilized society.
Your type of thinking penalizes a certain type of victim above all others. The battery victim has the bruises on their face for everyone to see. The burglary victim has the broken door and the missing tv. These types of victims aren't immediately suspected of having faked their injuries. Cops don't show up and say "Mr. Johnson was ALLEGEDLY beaten around the head with a pipe". Should they?
To some extent I agree, but they are still a victim accusing someone. To remove victim from the rhetoric, makes them seem like they have less ground to stand on. Not to mention as it is women's whole sexual history are being brought before a court to prove whether they are victim at all. If they are a virgin they wanted, if they were promiscuous the wanted it. The same thing goes for men. They are all victims of a crime accusing someone. I do believe they should be called accusers, but also the word victim should be allowed to stay in the rhetoric. Men, don't go through the world knowing they can be raped at any moment. That they can be completely powerless and have all will ripped away from them. Women do. So, for men who have been raped, I feel completely awful for, because they are truly victims of a crime in every sense of the word. They had no knowledge this could happen to them and then when it does. It doesn't lessen women's suffering who have been raped, but I am just using it as a point as to why victim needs to stay in the rhetoric when talk about and speaking of rape and rape cases/trials.
You speak for all women? We all go through life knowing that we could be raped at any moment and that it would take away all our "will" and there would be nothing we could do about it? Thanks, but you don't speak for me. I wouldn't just lie there and go "Oh, woe is me!" if someone tried to rape me, I'd fight back. And if I couldn't, because I just wasn't strong enough, that still wouldn't take away my "will." My will, to see the deed punished the way it should be, would be what drove me to accuse somebody of raping me in a court of law.
That said, I do feel that it's unjust to treat rape victims differently from victims of other crimes by refusing to allow them to be referred to as "victims." So I completely disagree with this proposed bill in Georgia. But... well, sorry, the way you spoke up for all women just now kind of ruffled my feathers.
So someone who has been shot in the head doesn't become a murder victim until they catch who did it?!
You're just trying to rewrite definitions now.
The writer of this post is making an awfully large leap to a conclusionthat does not necessarily logically follow.
From the quote given by the writer from the Representative, one can not infer the meaning which you have decided to argue. It could also follow that from a purely legal standpoint, the accused may not be the one to commit the rape. Therefore, the accuser can not be considered a rape victim until the outcome of the legal case has been decided. In reality, the accuser must be a victim of some crime, however from the perspective of the courtand the defendant the accuser may not be a victim to that defendant.
It is not responsible to throw a person under the proverbial bus immediately upon accusation.
You appeal to logic, so I reply in the same vein.
You assert that "Therefore, the accuser can not be considered a rape victim until the outcome of the legal case has been decided."
But this is not so... whether or not a person is a victim of forcible rape can virtually always be determined by forensic medical examination within hours of the allegation. The identity of the perpetrator need not be known for this to be established as an absolute and irrefutable FACT. Rape by coercion and rape while unconscious are considerably more difficult, but often not impossible, to verify by forensic medical examination.
Whether or not a specific person accused of a rape is the perpetrator under law is what waits until "the legal case has been decided."
This is exactly the same with almost every crime. We know the convenience store clerk was a robbery victim long before the robber is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. It is the same with "hit and run," "identity theft," "blackmail," "embezzlement," and nearly any other crime.
So... the person, almost always a woman, IS, usually without doubt of any sort, a victim of rape. She may or may not choose to also be an accuser.
What Rep Franklin is attempting to do by statute is to allow the law, in only one particular type of case, to refuse to acknowledge a FACT, that the person before the court is a victim of a crime.
And frankly, unless he harbors some fear of being accused of rape, I can see no reason for Rep. Franklin to try to want to have rape victims treated differently from victims of any other serious crime.
And, finally, it occurs to me, were I in a rape victims' situation and left with only Rep. Franklin's humiliating option with which to seek "justice" through my government, I might very well contract for justice privately and face the consequences.
I am left wondering - why does Rep. Franklin hate the Constitution?
"the accused may not be the one to commit the rape. Therefore, the accuser can not be considered a rape victim until the outcome of the legal case has been decided."
Total logic fail. In the first sentence you acknowledge that a rape was committed. Therefore, the accuser can and must be considered a rape victim. The accused cannot be considered a rapist until the outcome of the legal case has been decided, but that's quite a different matter.
Now, there are cases where the question of whether someone has been raped is in some doubt, in which case the person should be called an alleged rape victim. But this law applies even when the fact of rape is certain, uses stigmatizing language, and is vile and evil -- as is anyone trying to justify it.
Then, by your logic, a murder victim is not a victim until the killer has been found guilty.
Were your parents cousins?
It doesn't matter what a person is called, victim , what's in a name? It's not the main point. What matters is how society deals with such hideous acts of violence. " A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Shakespeare
Rape criminals of all varieties (date rape, incest, partner rape, or any other means of using sex as a weapon) perpetrate these crimes of violence to "harm, dominate and control".
Court cases are court cases, the truth is called REALITY.
Women and girls are not the only victims, though they report it more often than men and boys - probably because of gender roles in our society.
As the most "under-reported" crime, it is probably the hardest and most humiliating to admit for anyone, especially if society tells you it is wrong for you to show emotion as it is weak based on your gender and the role or mold you should fit into to be accepted in a society.
It's a sick crime. But the blame for any sexual assault remains totally, completely and forever with the perpetrator, whether convicted or not.
Silence and non-supportive attitudes from others allow rape offenders, in all walks of life, to continue to perpetrate crimes of violence against our children, relatives friends, neighbors and/or ourselves.
EVERYONE is at risk for sexual violence, it doesn't matter your age, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, political views, socio-economic status, race, religion, etc...
Abortion is a totally different issue which I do not believe should be a government one.
It is an issue though. But, I think everyone involved agrees it is never an ideal situation. Why don't people who are concerned work on a solution rather than seeking to control, condemn and criminalize through laws and acts of hate/violence?
I guess where the lines cross between rape and abortion is if a sexual offender does not employ contraception when committing their crime. If pregnancy occurs through any type of non-consentual sex, including denying a sex partner the right to protect themselves, it is sexual assault, a crime/act of violence.
Whether an abortion is considered because an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is conceived through rape or in any other non-desirable or pre-planned situation, solutions should be the focus.
We've all seen abortion protesters seeking to outrage, instill fear and harass a women seeking an abortion outside a place that performs them legally. But how does that help anyone? Where are support systems in our society to help single parents?
Instead of the anti-abortion activist who seeks to cause pain, shame and guilt, to get the results they so firmly believe in, why instead don't they offer to adopt the child then, with papers right outside the clinics?
People who seem so committed to their ideas and opinions should act out in more effective ways. At least provide viable alternatives to the problems that lead womyn who seek out abortions in the first place. Abortion alone is not the issue, it's a symptom indicative of much larger problems in society that need to be addressed.
The roots of the issue begin way deeper in our society alone, and do not end or begin with the decision to have or not have an abortion.
Unwanted pregnancy is a situation created by everyone involved. Why then is one person alone expected to solve it?
Closing ones' eyes to the reality of rape and/or unwanted pregnancies is not the answer.
Unfortunately, both situations exist and occur. But ignorant, non-educated judgements and acts of anger and hate only further exasperate the problems.
Actually, I think any justification of this would fall into a different category.
A lot of the rules about what can be done in court are based on the desire to reduce prejudice. If you think that calling the plaintiff a "victim" unfairly biases a jury against the defendant this law might make sense. In other word, the word "victim" makes the jury side with the plaintiff despite strong evidence that the plaintiff is not guilty, I would support this law.
I seriously doubt that the word "victim" has this effect, but I'm no expert in jury psychology, so I suppose I could be wrong.
Based on your logic, a more reasonable law would be that you couldn't call someone a "victim" till its been proven that the person suffered from the crime. I'm not sure such a law could be enforced in any reasonable way though...
The thinking suggested in this Bill is tragic. Of course it speaks to, and of women. But it also, at the same time HAS to speak to men, and boys. Like it or not, 1 in 6 males in the USA will be sexually assaulted by the time they are 18. Look it up. As a male who was sexually assaulted when he was 13, according to the Bill as suggested, I am only an accuser. I beg to differ. Its sad that such old, narrow minded, and short sighted thinking should even garner the light of day. I guess that in the mind of the GA Rep. if Victims cannot be Men, how can Men then be victims?
This is not to suggest that any "air time" be taken away from women and girls. Not at all. I'm just saying that 1 in 6 males in the USA will also be victimized by the time they are 18. Its a female and male issue. Lets talk about it that way.
I'm not an accuser. Nor am I a Victim. I am a survivor.And proud of it!
Don't plant that seed. Life tends to give back to you what you put out. Would this apply if it was YOUR loved one? Think again, sir...
Women will speak at the polls in the 2012 Elecction. I can assure the
Republican party will hear about this from women during campaign time. There is no need to discuss this further. The Republicans have begun to self-destruct. It was to be expected. Let the voices of the women and men who have more dignity and respect for humanity and all victims of crime speak at the polls. This is America. Our voices will be heard.
So, women in the USA in 2011 amount to no more value than women do who live in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran and other countries where women do not count as human beings. This rep from Georgia is appalling, disgusting and unbelievable. He probably is a rapist himself.
Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.
Not relevant, any more than it would be relevant to requiring a murder victim to be called a murder accuser. To say that someone has been murdered or raped does not presume that the defendant is guilty.
As has been explained several times already...that ain't it. If it were, the appropriate legislation would apply to ALL crimes where there might be a victim...theft, murder, battery. This legislation singles out crimes which are statistically aimed at women. That's why it's messed up.
Of course, I think the relevant definition here is this one, from Dictionary.com: dis·in·gen·u·ous Adj.
Synonyms: insincere, false, devious, hollow-hearted *
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does
I was raped. I was 15 years old. Clearly Bobby Franklin never was.
Why should we be surprised to see a member of government with this attitude when the american people are consistently victimized by the people we vote into office to protect us. He's just carrying his basic beliefs over into an area that is more representative of his ideals. Who knows why someone in such a position of power would make such an idiotic statement about survivors. My only thought is that he, or a member of his family, was an accused and he felt victimized.
What we all need to remember is that we put them in office and we can take them out. Vote!
As a repear rape survivor, I am livid! Anyone who is raped is necessarily sexually assaulted, violated, and made to feel like a human tissue to be used and thrown away. How is that not victimization? I cannot believe how much more mysogyny is being proposed by government lately. It's disgusting!
A victim is a victim whether the accused is the perp or not.
WTF? The above comments say the victim can't be more than an accuser until guilt is proven. So a crime hasn't truly happened until someone is convicted? Is a murdered person a deceased accuser because the murderer hasn't been convicted? Aren't they a victim after the crime has been committed regardless of whether the perpetrator has been legally determined? Conviction does not remove the fact that someone was raped.
Will they then try and take away a woman's right to vote as well? I wonder why the republicans are continuing to alienating groups of people. Their list just seems to keep growing. Blacks, Hispanics now women. What will they have left as a base? White males. Good luck with that.
I don't get it. I understand some conservatives aren't big on the women's movement and some of the legal changes it has wrought.
But rape is something that impacts women of all kinds - including the sisters, wives, daughters, mothers, aunts, even grandmothers of males from across the political spectrum and the socioeconomic ladder.
And if Franklin thinks none of the women in his life (broadly) haven't ever been raped, the odds are that it is because they fear telling him because they imagine that he is such a chauvinistic a---hole he wouldnt be sympathetic.
Even among upper and middle class women, like his female relatives, date rape is extremely common. nearly epidemic among college females. So the odds are some of Franklin's female friends and relatives have been raped. But he is clueless.
So the question is why would he dod this? Insensitive? Sexist? I think it is more cynical, it is a way to get publicity, to spread his name, get speaking engagements and contributions from whackos.
After all, nearly all of us had never heard of the douche bag befor this. Now he is nationally known.
DrG
It isn't a designation of guilt for the accused if the court system call as victim a victim. They are still a victim even if they are wrong about who actually committed the rape. The presumption of innocence means only that the prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal trial. In other words they must prove he is guilty in court. That doesn't make the victim any less of a victim. To say that the victim is only an accuser until the case is decided diminishes the seriousness of the crime. It also places a predisposition of doubt on the testimony of the victim in the court. This is a continuation of an idea that the victim "asked" to be raped, and places that idea in the juries mind. It is unjustifiable to separate this type of crime from other types of crime. A victim is still a victim regardless of who committed the crime.
Should we not change these standards on every crime? How does this stand if we change the name of the crime? Call it armed robbery. When you have been robbed at gunpoint, until the perpetrator is convicted, you will now be know as the "robbery accuser." What about murder? Will the corpse now be known as a "murder accuser?" What is wrong that we argue about semantics and do not spend our energy in righting the actual wrongs? How is this creating a better future?
I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse, but I'll pretend you're not.
In the case of things like burgulary, the trial is not to establish if you've been burgled - that's taken as fact. The trial is to determine who burgled you.
This bill is clearly not intended to be about stranger rape. This isn't about 'guy with knife rapes girl'. It's about date rape (which is horrible and should never happen).
However, when you have a case like that, the trial ISN'T about 'who did it. It's very clear who did it. The trial is about 'was it rape?'. Two people have sex - that much is acknowledge by both parties. Only one says it was consensual, while the other says it wasn't.
So no, it's not the same.
