Because "well, they were both drunk, so..." comes up so often in discussions about rape...

[Carol in Cal.]

This is an entirely different discussion, but the bathroom debate (for most people that I've heard discuss it) isn't about worrying that transgender individuals will assault someone in a bathroom. The worry is that a man could pretend to be transgendered for the sole purpose of being able to enter a women's bathroom without being kicked out. And there have been a couple incidents in the news, where a man has done just that. One I read was a guy at a homeless claiming to be transgendered so he could have access to the women.

It's not just bathrooms, either, by any means.

 

Rather, and more concerningly, it's women's locker rooms, shower rooms, and domestic violence shelters.  And it's not even so much the concern that someone will pretend to be trans, but rather the concern that if the rules change too much there will be no basis on which to question any man entering any women's facility.  

 

But I would agree, this should be another thread.

[Ausmumof3]

http://www.upworthy.com/one-womans-scathing-letter-to-her-coworker-about-brock-turner-and-consent?c=ufb1

 

Did anyone post this yet. Sums it up so well I think. Language warning

[momacacia]

I just read Brock Turner's letter to the judge. Among many other things, he mentions the common oerception of college culture being that of binge drinking.and sexual promiscuity...like that's what college is about. I find myself having that "but what about socialization" response, which is "I didn't send you to school to socialize, I sent you there to get an education."

 

Now one suspects that Brock was at Stanford to swim and not contribute to the intellectual weight of the student body, but still, doesn't anyone go to school anymore to get educated? Ugh. "Drinking and partying make up a college lifestyle." Gee, I thought all-nighters studying made up a college lifestyle, but maybe I had to study too hard to get the grades I got. Mindset.

[zoobie]

This is an entirely different discussion, but the bathroom debate (for most people that I've heard discuss it) isn't about worrying that transgender individuals will assault someone in a bathroom. The worry is that a man could pretend to be transgendered for the sole purpose of being able to enter a women's bathroom without being kicked out. And there have been a couple incidents in the news, where a man has done just that. One I read was a guy at a homeless shelter claiming to be transgendered so he could have access to the women.

Criminals using disguises in furtherance of their crimes is nothing new. If a male rapist is going to hide in a women's bathroom to rape someone, whether or not he'd be subject to an additional criminal charge will hardly be a deterrent. He's hardly going to think, hmmm, I should put this wig on and go to Target instead of Walmart because I will only be committing a violent sexual felony instead of a violent sexual felony and misdemeanor trespass.

[hornblower]

Have you guys seen the mother's letter to the judge yet? 

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article82960947.html


I can't imagine having to write a letter to the judge pleading for my child but I hope I'd have the grace to at least mention the victim of the assault. 

[LMD]

For your reading displeasure:

 

20 Most Offensive Comments Made About Rape by Public Figures

 

I have been able to verify several of these from more mainstream sources, but I quit about half way through because it felt like playing in a cesspool.

 

My point again, is that if these figures are this ignorant, what can we expect from our young men?

 

I am asking this in all seriousness. I would tend to think that many would understand what differentiates sexual assault, but I think where I live and my own background really facilitates that belief.

 

We don't think about areas with different belief systems or socio-economIf classes.

 

Holy crap! 😲

[poppy]

I just read Brock Turner's letter to the judge. Among many other things, he mentions the common oerception of college culture being that of binge drinking.and sexual promiscuity...like that's what college is about. I find myself having that "but what about socialization" response, which is "I didn't send you to school to socialize, I sent you there to get an education."

 

Now one suspects that Brock was at Stanford to swim and not contribute to the intellectual weight of the student body, but still, doesn't anyone go to school anymore to get educated? Ugh. "Drinking and partying make up a college lifestyle." Gee, I thought all-nighters studying made up a college lifestyle, but maybe I had to study too hard to get the grades I got. Mindset.

You are taking his letter as if it was supposed to be credible? It's just trying to persuade the judge none of this is his fault. What's crazy is that is worked .

 

It's all lies , you know. He tells the judge he was overwhelmed with this new party culture , when there are tons of photos of him drinking and smoking bongs while a high school student.

[Ravin]

After reading comments from his family and friends, I was expecting much worse from his statement. Now if he would stop calling it drinking and promiscuity.

 

"Not only have I altered my life, but I’ve also changed [redacted] and her family’s life. I am the sole proprietor of what happened on the night that these people’s lives were changed forever. I would give anything to change what happened that night. I can never forgive myself for imposing trauma and pain on [redacted]. It debilitates me to think that my actions have caused her emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair."

Brock is blaming the booze. I do think it's fair to believe him when he says that what he did while drunk is something he would not have done while sober. The problem is, he refuses to acknowledge that it was his action in assaulting the woman that was the wrong he did. Not drinking, and not "interacting" with her (as if his raping her was an inevitably the moment he struck up a conversation with her).

 

Recognizing that alcohol contributed to the action is one thing. Blaming the alcohol and thereby failing to acknowledge what he did is another thing entirely.

[Ravin]

I am wondering why we find it worthwhile to look up his statements and get angry about them. We know he is not going to admit he is a rapist. Every statement he ever makes is going to be carefully crafted so that it can't be used against him. Do we just enjoy that feeling of ever-increasing outrage? IMO it would be better to just not read / listen to his words at all. He obviously thrives on attention, so let's stop rewarding his behavior.

The justification for "not going to admit he is a rapist" was gone once he was convicted.

 

"I'm sorry I hurt (victim). I have learned from the personal repercussions of my actions and understand that what I did to (victim) was wrong." Would have been far more powerful than his continued deflection and blaming the booze and culture of promiscuity. Heck, he could have added, "I never would have done such a thing while sober, and so I have committed myself to stop drinking." That would have made it clear that alcohol contributed to what he did without using it to avoid taking responsibility.

 

Of course, the real audience for a post conviction statement is the judge, not the victim. And his did no harm there.

 

As a defense attorney, I do try and steer clients to take responsibility for their actions regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, in hopes of not having them as clients again in the future.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Ravin

[Corraleno]

Have you guys seen the mother's letter to the judge yet? 

 

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article82960947.html

 

 

I can't imagine having to write a letter to the judge pleading for my child but I hope I'd have the grace to at least mention the victim of the assault. 

 

The problem is that she, and the rest of Brock's family and friends, do not think that the woman is the victim — at all. She says that she knows Brock's version of what happened is the truth because he would never lie. As far as she's concerned, some drunk girl agreed to have sex with him, confirmed her consent multiple times, was enjoying it, then just happened to pass out moments before the Swedes came by, which Brock didn't notice because he was so drunk, and then she either forgot she consented because of a blackout, or "forgot" because she didn't want her boyfriend to know she cheated on him. So instead of being embarrassed about her behavior, she decided to ruin an innocent boy's life by charging him with assault. In the letter she asks "Why HIM? WHY? WHY?" In other words, why couldn't that drunken slut have targeted some other guy instead of her poor, sweet, innocent son?

 

Brock's family seem to believe that the "victim" owes him an apology, for ruining his life, not the other way around.

[Ravin]

Can't believe I made it through all 14 pages of this thread--just wanted to share a couple of thoughts that haven't been touched on as best as I can remember.

 

People use the terms "sexual assault" and "rape" interchangeably and it drives me crazy. Both, of course, are wrong, but there's just no comparing me getting my butt pinched getting on the bus for a field trip in 8th grade to the bodily invasion that happens in rape. All forms of sexual assault are unacceptable, but the amount of trauma perpetrated on the victim varies too much for a single term to adequately characterize it imo.

 

This article, "The Alcohol Blackout" appeared earlier this year in Texas Monthly and tackles many of the issues discussed on this thread. The author, Sarah Hepola, is an alcoholic who went to the University of Texas at Austin to do a report on campus drinking-to-blackout culture and sexual assault. Very interesting read by a good writer--I'd like to read her book one day.

Something to keep in mind is that the definition, the line between what is called sexual assault and what meets the definition of rape in the law varies from one jurisdiction to another.

[Ravin]

No, it isn't routine, but the police can certainly have one done if they believe that alcohol was a factor in the commission of a crime. Their use isn't limited to driving offenses.

In some jurisdictions anyway. ...

[Ravin]

The police wouldn't have any reason to test for alcohol. He wasn't driving. He (or lawyer) could've done it on his own to prove that he was to mitigate his crime, but there isn't any obligation on the police's part to provide him defenses. Legally, the police would need a reason to do so, and he would have to consent or they'd need a court order compelling his blood. Even breathalyzer testing after suspected DUI requires consent (in my state--refusal comes with a big "stick" of automatic suspension of license).

Actually, the police have an obligation to thoroughly investigate all relevant circumstances of a crime. If alcohol was potentially exculpatory in some way (such as mens rea for a specific intent crime), there is a duty on the police to investigate the facts of the matter.

 

The police are not supposed to operate on an assumption of guilt and cherry pick evidence in their investigation, even when it is a "caught red handed" type situation.

[Ravin]

I agree. The whole time I was reading it I was like boo hoo. I dont know what a dad should say in that circumstance where he is begging for mercy......probably he should have told his son to admit blame and take his punishment.

The one person I know whose son committed a sex offense did just that. Though I would revise that from "admit blame" to "take responsibility".

[Ravin]

Yeah, I can't see my dad making an excuse unless it was documentable mental illness (to the point he didn't know right/wrong) or he truly believed his son did not do that thing. It would be so hard either way. The discussion of how the son's life was now going to be less easy and happy would not have been part of the statement in any scenario. If anything, my dad would probably have apologized to the other family and wished he could do something to make it better for them.

Common parental reactions to this sort of thing include denial, making excuses, and disowning the offender and distancing themselves from the situation.

 

Expecting the offender to take responsibility while still offering love and support to him as their child is the exception.

[Ravin]

When I was 12, an old guy tried very hard to get me to drink some alcohol that he kept in his home, while grooming me for molestation. I came very close to drinking some to prove I wasn't afraid. Thankfully, I was afraid. I wasn't sure why, though. The guy did put his hands on me more than once, but I wriggled away. I'm sure it would have been worse had he gotten me drunk. Maybe this is one reason why I never dared to drink around people I didn't fully trust.

 

I told my kids about that incident, and I will remind them as many times as necessary. It isn't about whether I would have been "bad" or "at fault" if I'd drunk, it's about whether I would have gotten away without more damage. "Alcohol makes you stupid. Alcohol makes you vulnerable. Alcohol affects some people way more than others." "If anyone tries to get you to drink alcohol before the legal age, they are up to something bad." Eventually I will add that somebody might drug your drink even if you aren't drinking alcohol.

 

I also like the advice that sober sex is better. (Or so I've heard.) How to bring this up to my kids is another question. :P

Listening to classic rock provides some great opportunities. For example, "What's Your Name" by Lynyrd Skynyrd.

[Ravin]

This article was really interesting. I've never consumed any kind of alcohol ever, so it was like peering into a different world.

 

The author admits that there is much to be learned about blackouts. But it left me wondering-- obviously after a blackout you can't remember what happened. But does that mean that during the blackout you really don't know what you're doing at the time? Maybe sort of in a way like people who are hypnotized who are not in control of themselves? Or is it that you just can't remember it afterwards? You were (to some degree anyway) in control of the choices you made, you just can't remember them?

 

If I understand it correctly, a woman experiencing a blackout can not give consent, even if she appears to be enthusiastically consenting. She won't remember that in the morning. But a person who commits some kind of violence during a blackout is still held responsible for their actions.

 

It seems like we have some conflicting ideas about blackouts and whether or not people should be held accountable for their actions during one.

Once again. The distinction is that one IS held responsible for what one DOES (caps for emphasis, I'm on phone with no italics), one is NOT held responsible for what is done TO one.

[Ravin]

Was the victim really drunk? Did she pass out because she was drunk? I'm not convinced.

 

I haven't seen any reports of her throwing up. Or having a hangover. And unless she had a serious drinking problem, I find it unlikely that she would have gone to a party with a bunch of people she didn't know and end up drinking so much as to pass out. Not at her age, with her experience. And I'm guessing she didn't have a really bad drinking problem or the defense attorneys would have brought that out.

 

If they were both just drunk, why did he feel the need to take her outside and behind a dumpster? What was he trying to hide? Who was he trying to hide it from? Based on parties I have been to, it would have probably been acceptable to have sex right there at the party. This looks like there was even more to it than a guy taking advantage of someone who got into a bad situation.

 

I suspect he drugged her.

 

He already looks like scum, but my guess is that he's even worse than the evidence the prosecution was able to present suggests.

 

This is not to say that all the other cases of guys taking advantage of passed out girls are any less awful than they are, but this particular case seemed really over the top. I would guess we haven't even heard the worst of this particular case. The only person who knows the worst is the attacker.

 

Unfortunately, it will also not surprise me if we hear of him again -- when he ends up murdering his next victim.

 

And given the over top nature of this case, and I'm even more surprised that people are blaming the victim.

Different people have different physical responses to alcohol. She was examined in short order after the assault, so drugs would likely have been discovered.

 

Sadly, this is NOT an over-the-top case. It doesn't have to be to cause immense harm to the victim.

[Ravin]

I guess??

 

Almost no one on this thread has said 'this man is wrong to have raped that girl' . Because *it goes without saying'*. It's obvious. It's something we all agree on.

 

Drinking yourself to unconsciousness at a party by yourself? Also a bad idea. Every single parent here would agree to talk to their kids about common sense measures on campus. For some of us that goes without saying. It's obvious. It's something we all agree on. This story does not make it more or less obvious than it was six months ago, a year ago.

 

For others it seems to be.... The point of this story? It can't go without saying. The attack is a prompt to talk to your kids , especially daughters . But. These aren't people who wouldn't have given the EXACT same warnings before . But now they have a visceral lesson in how to fail to follow the rules and get yourself raped. That is why -- to those of us who do not have to marry those thoughts together -- it feels like putting the victim of trial.

She didn't go to the party by herself. She was with her sister, and they became separated at the party.

[Ravin]

Yes, the probation officer — who was a woman — recommended a sentence of "less than a year" in jail. It sounds like she was rather charmed by Turner, citing his youth, his accomplishments, the huge volume of letters (39!) attesting to his good character (all from people who had only heard one side of the story; that poor Brock was victimized by a drunk girl who had consensual sex with him and then changed her mind), and that he had expressed sincere remorse (which anyone who has read his statement knows is untrue). She also totally misrepresented the victim's wishes, claiming the victim didn't want him to go to jail, which was absolutely not true.

Probation recommendations are usually bases on a process of box-checking for risk factors for recidivism and "protective" factors which make it less likely the person will re-offend, deroded from criminal jus Tice rsearch stats.

 

Such formulas tend to favor those with strong family support and money, and the filter for even what may be "strong family support" can be biased.

[swimmermom3]

Cross-posted from the party culture

 

I plan on reading Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town. 

 

The story of "Frank" from this book (about halfway down this article) is really pretty telling about the culture that Brock and those like him come from. 

 

Now compare Frank to Brock's aggressive behavior 

 

I really hope they do something with that judge.  He knew all that stuff about Turner and still acted as though he was just some poor, drunk and muddled freshman.

 

[flyingiguana]

Different people have different physical responses to alcohol. She was examined in short order after the assault, so drugs would likely have been discovered.

 

Sadly, this is NOT an over-the-top case. It doesn't have to be to cause immense harm to the victim.

 

Is it standard protocol to test for all drugs in this situation?  In particular, would date rape drugs have been tested for?

 

Is it possible that someone could slip a drug into a drink and, while that drug was acting on the victim, encourage her to drink even more without her having much conscious awareness of it?  This would result in her drinking a lot more than she might have in an ordinary situation.  I'm not trying to make a case for or against victimhood here.  I think we've pretty decided who's at fault in the situation.  I'm just genuinely curious as to whether a perpetrator could make his victim look less "responsible" with this tactic.  (Which might lead me to believe he was looking for an out in the event he got caught.)

 

When I said over the top -- that probably wasn't the best word choice.  I meant a very clear cut case of who was at fault -- due to the credible witnesses who were not drinking.   I think I was also trying to imply that this guy seemed so sure of himself.  As if he'd done it before.  But mostly, I think I said over the top because I was having trouble understanding how anyone would blame this particular victim if they were hearing the facts coming out.

 

eta: But perhaps I also meant over the top because of the reaction of the witnesses.  It didn't seem "normal" to them.  In fact, it seemed so abnormal that they went out of their way to restrain the rapist.

 

You're right in that any rape will cause the same harm to a victim, but I think I was surprised, still, at the victim blaming I'm hearing (not necessarily on this thread) despite the over the top facts of the case.  I mean, if this case didn't convince someone that rape does actually happen, there's really nothing that will.

 

I'm just blathering publicly....

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by flyingiguana

[flyingiguana]

 

his article, "The Alcohol Blackout" appeared earlier this year in Texas Monthly and tackles many of the issues discussed on this thread. The author, Sarah Hepola, is an alcoholic who went to the University of Texas at Austin to do a report on campus drinking-to-blackout culture and sexual assault. Very interesting read by a good writer--I'd like to read her book one day.

 

It's an interesting article, but I'm left wondering if blackouts are used by rapists to claim they weren't guilty because they didn't know what they were doing.  (Leaving aside the whole issue of consent on the part of the woman)

 

Anyone who drives drunk is committing a crime.  Is this article also implying that having sex drunk should be against the law?

[flyingiguana]

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a16345/date-rape-prosecution/

 

"So-called date rape drugs, including Rohypnol and GHB, as well as prescription painkillers and sleeping pills, are in many ways the perfect weapons. Most are odorless, colorless, and tasteless, and leave the body within a few hours. Many also wipe a victim's memory, so even if sex occurred and there's physical evidence (like a used condom), proving the sex wasn't consensual is nearly impossible. And most standard rape kits—the medical examination victims are given to collect evidence of an assault—don't include a toxicology test, the only way to screen for such substances. If a doctor or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner decides to order one based on the initial interview and exam, the victim's urine—which is the most reliable and cheapest way to screen for drugs—as well as their blood, is screened. Depending on such factors as dosage and a victim's weight, such tests can be effective at detecting Rohypnol if administered within 24 hours but aren't likely to show the presence of other forms of date rape drugs, like GHB. Detecting an elevated level of GHB, which is naturally produced in the body, requires a sophisticated forensic analysis of a victim's urine that most hospitals are not equipped to handle. As for sleep aids and painkillers, most leave the body shortly after consciousness is regained."

 

""The body is very efficient at clearing drugs from the system," says Dr. Randall Brown, the medical examiner on sexual assault cases for the district attorney's office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. "You wake up and go to the bathroom, not really realizing something may have happened. [That's how] we lose the first specimen of urine, where our evidence could be." Hair tests can also be effective, as many drugs stay in the shaft from a few days to several weeks. But because the symptoms most date rape drugs cause are similar to alcohol, doctors may falsely assume the victim has just had a lot to drink and decline to run the additional tests. "Unless you do all the testing and do the right testing," Brown says, "you may not come up with anything.""

[Murphy101]

So a family friend is a cop and he posted this on FB and apparently it's making the rounds among others on my FB feed too. I didn't see it mentioned here, so I thought I'd share that what this article is discussion is what too many investigators are seeing in college campuses.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/campus-drunk-confidential-rape/

[Carol in Cal.]

Has everyone, like, in the country forgotten about HIV?  

[Murphy101]

Has everyone, like, in the country forgotten about HIV?

Or all STDs in general. And pregnancy. (Yeah yeah birth control yadayada it still does have a fail rate and call me whatever you like, I'm thinking binge drinking folks are not the most reliable at it.)

Edited June 12, 2016 by Murphy101

[Ravin]

Is it standard protocol to test for all drugs in this situation? In particular, would date rape drugs have been tested for?

 

Is it possible that someone could slip a drug into a drink and, while that drug was acting on the victim, encourage her to drink even more without her having much conscious awareness of it? This would result in her drinking a lot more than she might have in an ordinary situation. I'm not trying to make a case for or against victimhood here. I think we've pretty decided who's at fault in the situation. I'm just genuinely curious as to whether a perpetrator could make his victim look less "responsible" with this tactic. (Which might lead me to believe he was looking for an out in the event he got caught.)

 

When I said over the top -- that probably wasn't the best word choice. I meant a very clear cut case of who was at fault -- due to the credible witnesses who were not drinking. I think I was also trying to imply that this guy seemed so sure of himself. As if he'd done it before. But mostly, I think I said over the top because I was having trouble understanding how anyone would blame this particular victim if they were hearing the facts coming out.

 

eta: But perhaps I also meant over the top because of the reaction of the witnesses. It didn't seem "normal" to them. In fact, it seemed so abnormal that they went out of their way to restrain the rapist.

 

You're right in that any rape will cause the same harm to a victim, but I think I was surprised, still, at the victim blaming I'm hearing (not necessarily on this thread) despite the over the top facts of the case. I mean, if this case didn't convince someone that rape does actually happen, there's really nothing that will.

 

I'm just blathering publicly....

 

Considering the rapist's narrative of events, I doubt he set out to be a predator. Rather, he was reckless and self-entitled to the point that he didn't notice or care how intoxicated or unconscious the victim was. Which makes him no less culpable or wrong in his actions.

 

When you portray the rapist as a one sided charicature, a "predator" with no other facet to his existence, you take a degree of human agency away from his actions in the narrative about the rape, which leads to a tendency to focus instead on the actions of the victim, and thence to victim-blaming.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Ravin

[Ravin]

It's an interesting article, but I'm left wondering if blackouts are used by rapists to claim they weren't guilty because they didn't know what they were doing. (Leaving aside the whole issue of consent on the part of the woman)

 

Anyone who drives drunk is committing a crime. Is this article also implying that having sex drunk should be against the law?

Not remembering is good reason not to plead guilty or take the witness stand. It is not an excuse under the law. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor whether the defendant remembers what happened or not.

[Corraleno]

 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/campus-drunk-confidential-rape/

 

 

After presenting a made-up example of a "typical" sexual assault victim — a girl who takes an Ambien before going drinking and then goes to multiple bars, drinks vastly more alcohol than even the Stanford rape victim did, smokes weed, and willingly has sex with two men before deciding that maybe she was assaulted because she forgot she consented — the guy concludes:

 

 

 Eliminate the binge drinking and hook- up cultures that a vast, vast majority of reported sexual assault victims willingly participate in, and you would eliminate practically all reported sexual assaults in this country. Eighty percent of them at least would disappear because you would eliminate the victim side of the crime triangle.

 

 

So if all those slutty girls would just stop getting drunk, rape would practically disappear! 

 

 

:banghead:

[Murphy101]

After presenting a made-up example of a "typical" sexual assault victim — a girl who takes an Ambien before going drinking and then goes to multiple bars, drinks vastly more alcohol than even the Stanford rape victim did, smokes weed, and willingly has sex with two men before deciding that maybe she was assaulted because she forgot she consented — the guy concludes:

 

 

 

 

So if all those slutty girls would just stop getting drunk, rape would practically disappear!

 

 

:banghead:

No. But he presents a common scenario and a common situation that rapists are taking advantage of - ignoring that won't reduce rape or help women either.

 

He is speaking specifically to purposeful campus blackout drunkenness, not specifically the Stanford case. He is saying this is common on campuses and expressing great frustration as law enforcement on how to combat it.

[poppy]

No. But he presents a common scenario and a common situation that rapists are taking advantage of - ignoring that won't reduce rape or help women either.

 

He is speaking specifically to purposeful campus blackout drunkenness, not specifically the Stanford case. He is saying this is common on campuses and expressing great frustration as law enforcement on how to combat it.

 

Hard to say how common though.  First he says 90% of adult rape cases are about alcohol. Then he changes to 80%. Then he says:

"I feel like I should close by mentioning my perspective on the Stanford sexual assault case. That case is not the typical drunken victim scenario that I’ve been going on about here, even though the victim did drink a lot. She had apparently moved past “blackout†to full- on unconsciousness and there’s no way that the suspect can claim some kind of misunderstanding or miscommunication."

 

Once again, rape is caused by women drinking.  But not this case! We're never talking about this case! *Insert eyeroll*

 

This is the exact line of argument that enables rapists to do what they do.

Most rapes on campus aren't real; this one just happens to be. 

Men accused of rape are often just misunderstood; this one just happens to be a really bad guy.

If a woman says she is raped, the knee-jerk response is " were you drinking, what was your behavior, how did you fail to protect yourself".

It's only if  another man catches a rapist in the act and  stops him that it's not ambiguous, apparently.

[ktgrok]

For whomever asked yes, someone drugged might continue to drink, much more than planned. And never be found. 

[Corraleno]

No. But he presents a common scenario and a common situation that rapists are taking advantage of - ignoring that won't reduce rape or help women either.

 

He is speaking specifically to purposeful campus blackout drunkenness, not specifically the Stanford case. He is saying this is common on campuses and expressing great frustration as law enforcement on how to combat it.

 

So the most common scenario in rape cases — "90+%" he says — involve a girl taking drugs, drinking 6 shots, 4 beers, and two mixed drinks (that she remembers), giving a guy a blow job in a public bathroom, going back to his apartment, smoking weed with his roommate, having consensual sex with the roommate, and then the next day showing up at the police station saying she thinks she might have been raped.

 

Seriously????

 

He makes a clear, explicit distinction between what he considers real rape ("rape-rape") — a stranger dragging an innocent woman into an alley — and "acquaintance rape," which apparently isn't real rape.

 

He says he's loathe to file charges against the alleged perpetrator in cases where the girl was drunk (which, according to him, is almost all cases), because even if the poor guy isn't convicted, his friends will know he was arrested for rape when all he did was bang some drunk girl who agreed to it. And besides, these drunk girls almost alway "flake out" and decide not to press charges.

 

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because the d*ickhead detective who was supposed to investigate their case made it clear from the start that unless she was dragged into the bushes by a stranger, she's almost certainly just another drunk slut who got laid and forgot she said yes.

 

What a perfect illustration of rape culture in America. <smh>

[Greta]

"Probable cause is a pretty low standard. It doesn’t take much proof for me to arrest you, but when it comes to sexual offenses, I’ve always felt I had a duty to make sure I went beyond mere probable cause before I charged. The reason is that even if a suspect ends up beating the charge at trial down the road, all his friends and family members will know that he got arrested for rape for the rest of his life. That’s a stance that’s gotten me in Dutch with rape crisis counselors and the like a time or two over the years."

 

This is why I can't trust the rest of what he claims.  He admits that he uses a different standard for rape cases than for other crimes, admits to that bias quite openly.  What he doesn't seem to realize is that his bias also most likely came across pretty darn clearly to the women who were reporting rape to him.  Maybe some of them really were in scenarios like he described.  And maybe some of them weren't.  But because he dismissed them and made them feel like it was all in their heads, that it was their fault because they were drunk, then they dropped the charges.  Then he felt vindicated, because he "knew" all along that the charge wasn't legitimate, so it strengthened his bias, and it becomes a vicious cycle.  

 

I'm not saying that what he described never happens.  I'm saying there's no way in hell that I trust his 80% statistic.  My take-away from this article was, cops like him are the reason that so many victims don't report, or regret reporting when they do.  When you operate on the assumption that the person reporting the crime is lying to you, who exactly is it that you're protecting and serving? 

 

 

[swimmermom3]

It's an interesting article, but I'm left wondering if blackouts are used by rapists to claim they weren't guilty because they didn't know what they were doing.  (Leaving aside the whole issue of consent on the part of the woman)

 

Anyone who drives drunk is committing a crime.  Is this article also implying that having sex drunk should be against the law?

 

Didn't the article say that studies had determined that people who experienced black outs still knew right from wrong even on that unconscious level?

 

I don't think Hepola was implying that at all.  She had questions about her own experiences and was wondering how that translates with the shifting definitions of assault, before "consent" was part of the vocabulary.

[Murphy101]

I didn't get the impression he thought the victims were lying, so much as the frustrating circumstances are often such that there is no evidence he can use to prosecute and because of that lack of evidence, he is often unwilling to charge someone just bc they might have done it.

[swimmermom3]

So a family friend is a cop and he posted this on FB and apparently it's making the rounds among others on my FB feed too. I didn't see it mentioned here, so I thought I'd share that what this article is discussion is what too many investigators are seeing in college campuses.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/campus-drunk-confidential-rape/

 

I have mixed feelings on the detective's opinion.  I think he made some valid points, but his credibility took a hit with me when he said if you took away the drinking, you could eliminate nearly all of the reported rapes. Did I read that right?

[Greta]

I didn't get the impression he thought the victims were lying, so much as the frustrating circumstances are often such that there is no evidence he can use to prosecute and because of that lack of evidence, he is often unwilling to charge someone just bc they might have done it.

 

You're right, I shouldn't have said lying.  He didn't seem to be saying that they were lying.  Just that they were too stupid/drunk/confused to understand what really happened.  

 

I realize that cops have a very difficult job to do generally, and with regard to rape particularly.  And I would be very interested to hear his insights into the dangers of drinking culture on campus.  But any cop who thinks that 80-90% of the cases brought before him have no merit, well it's probably past time for him to retire.  That's such an extreme claim that I just don't buy it.

[swimmermom3]

No. But he presents a common scenario and a common situation that rapists are taking advantage of - ignoring that won't reduce rape or help women either.

 

He is speaking specifically to purposeful campus blackout drunkenness, not specifically the Stanford case. He is saying this is common on campuses and expressing great frustration as law enforcement on how to combat it.

 

But his primary focus was on the girls and he said that.

 

The piece that I did find useful, was the part about medications, but he even managed to be offensive about that.

 

As someone with a dd that has struggled with depression for years, we have had many discussions about what this means around alcohol.

 

He's right that there are a lot of young women on medications for depression and anxiety, and there is not an insignificant number of young men on them as well.

 

It's easy to say if our young people avoid drinking and the hook-up culture, all will be well, but I think in many cases, it's more than youthful fully that's driving the bus.

 

[SKL]

I understand the cop's view isn't going to be popular, but I think it should be listened to as another unique perspective on the problem.  He sees things the rest of us don't see.

 

He is dealing with people who went to the hospital the morning after.  These are a subset of all rape victims.  It's just one view of the elephant, but it is valid in its own way.

[Murphy101]

I have mixed feelings on the detective's opinion. I think he made some valid points, but his credibility took a hit with me when he said if you took away the drinking, you could eliminate nearly all of the reported rapes. Did I read that right?

Idk. I read it as campus binge drinking related rapes are a huge portion of the rapes and removing the campus binge drinking would tremendously reduce the rape opportunities. Or at least the toughest type of rapes to prove.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Murphy101

[Corraleno]

I understand the cop's view isn't going to be popular, but I think it should be listened to as another unique perspective on the problem.  He sees things the rest of us don't see.

 

Oh his perspective isn't very unique at all. We've seen exactly the same perspective from Brock Turner, his lawyers, his parents, and all his friends. Some of them even drew the exact same distinction between "real rape" (creepy stranger dragging an innocent woman into the bushes)  and "not real rape" which is just consensual sex with a drunk girl who changes her mind later.

 

This cop says, explicitly, in writing, that if girls would stop binge-drinking and hooking up, that would "eliminate practically all reported sexual assaults in this country." Practically all of them!

 

It's a simple solution really — all we women have to do to eliminate sexual assault is stop inviting men to "assault" us!

 

:cursing:

[Corraleno]

Idk. I read it as campus binge drinking related rapes are a huge portion of the rapes and removing the campus binge drinking would tremendously reduce the rape opportunities. Or at least the toughest type of rapes to prove.

 

He explicitly says that the victims need to stop drinking and hooking up. Not the men who are accused of assault. The victims. He admits he's blaming the victims, although he claims his victim-blaming is "more nuanced" — because he still feels sorry for them, even though they asked for it.

 

And he illustrates his point with a "typical" example of a girl who gets totally wasted, performs oral sex on a stranger in a public bathroom, willingly goes home with the guy, does drugs with his roommate, has sex with the roommate, and then the only reason she reports it is because her roommate "talked her into" mistakenly believing she was raped.

 

Implying that more than 90% of all sexual assaults committed in this country are cases just like that — slutty drunk girl who was asking for it — is the very definition of rape culture. It's disgusting.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Corraleno

[SKL]

Well I don't agree with everything he said, but he does answer the question whether there is any real issue of woman reporting "rape" based on not remembering whether or not she consented.

[Scarlett]

So a family friend is a cop and he posted this on FB and apparently it's making the rounds among others on my FB feed too. I didn't see it mentioned here, so I thought I'd share that what this article is discussion is what too many investigators are seeing in college campuses.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/campus-drunk-confidential-rape/

That was very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[DesertBlossom]

I realize that cops have a very difficult job to do generally, and with regard to rape particularly. And I would be very interested to hear his insights into the dangers of drinking culture on campus. But any cop who thinks that 80-90% of the cases brought before him have no merit, well it's probably past time for him to retire. That's such an extreme claim that I just don't buy it.

I didn't get the impression that he thought 80-90% of the cases had no merit. But that they were impossible to prosecute. Evidence only shows that 2 people had sex, but doesn't show whether or not it was consensual. Our justice system is such that when rape occurs in a situation like that, where the victim has no memory of it, or sexual contact started out as consensual, it's incredibly difficult to prosecute and get a conviction. And IMO, that's why men do it. If you want to get away with rape, you need a victim who can't remember what happened.

[Caroline]

He does say that nothing criminal happened. He does say that they believe they were wrong, but only in a Disney movie kind of way. He isn't saying that there isn't enough evidence. He says no crime has occurred.

 

"I’m afraid it sounds like I’m faulting the victims. And I guess I am, to a certain degree, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I have sympathy for these women and I believe that the vast majority of them do truly believe that they have been wronged. (An email about the ones I’ve come across who make false allegations out of spite, jealousy, or mental problems like the girl at UVA would be at least as long as this one.) On a moral and ethical level, based upon quaint standards of chivalry and gentlemanly behavior that no one seems to practice anymore but that the Disney corporation told these women from a young age that they should expect, they have been wronged. But that doesn’t mean a crime has occurred."

[Murphy101]

He does say that nothing criminal happened. He does say that they believe they were wrong, but only in a Disney movie kind of way. He isn't saying that there isn't enough evidence. He says no crime has occurred.

 

"I’m afraid it sounds like I’m faulting the victims. And I guess I am, to a certain degree, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I have sympathy for these women and I believe that the vast majority of them do truly believe that they have been wronged. (An email about the ones I’ve come across who make false allegations out of spite, jealousy, or mental problems like the girl at UVA would be at least as long as this one.) On a moral and ethical level, based upon quaint standards of chivalry and gentlemanly behavior that no one seems to practice anymore but that the Disney corporation told these women from a young age that they should expect, they have been wronged. But that doesn’t mean a crime has occurred."

That isn't how I read that at all.

 

I read it as him saying they were wronged by society (Disney) telling them they can expect to be treated gentlemanly because, much as we want that to be the case, it is not a safe assumption and thinking a man was not gentlemanly is not a crime and when these women come in to make a report, that's pretty much all there is evidence of - ungentlemanly behavior, that might or might not have been rape, but there's no way to prove anything beyond he wasn't a gentleman.

[SKL]

I think what he's saying is that opportunism isn't a generally a crime.  It may be a big moral failing, but like may other moral failings, more is required for it to be criminal.