Are Rape "Victims" Immune to Skepticism

[Tmy]

Whenever theres a big public rape case (Mike Tyson, Kennedy, Mike Jackson, Kobe Bryant) there seems to be this taboo about questioning the motives of the accuser.

many people will automatically believe the accuser, often with the reasoning "no one would make up such a thing." Of cousre there are many examples of people making up claims. WHy?? Cause they stand to make millions in a civil suit.

Is rape too emotional a subject that skeptics forget to be skeptical??

 

[TragicMonkey]

Of course! The only thing worse than questioning a rape allegation is questioning a child abuse allegation.

 

[Furious]

Because they start out as criminal cases, not civil cases. The victims have little to gain monetarily during the criminal case, but admittedly a conviction is useful years down the road for book deals and civil cases.

Part of the issue is in big name cases like you outlined, the financial resources of the accused are significantly greater than the accusers. For victimless crimes like drug use or DUI charges, we often hear about celebrities getting reduced or suspended sentences where the average schmoe would be doing serious jail time.

Whether it is fair or not, there is a pretty strong feeling in the public that celebrities get a different kind of justice.

In the public mind it may be guilty until proven innocent, but in the courtroom itself, there is still a pretty high standard of proof laid to rest on the prosecution. A $50k per year prosecuting attorney against Johnny Cochrane is hard to root against.

 

[Dancing David]

As long as you are sceptical of the defendant to an equal amount.
Most people are sceptical of victims to begin with, I feel the system and society are biased against the victim.

 

[crimresearch]

Although heaping abuse on others often passes for skepticism here at JREF, I don't agree that the 'blame the victim' tactic and media frenzy is really skeptical thinking.

 

[Tmy]

As long as you are sceptical of the defendant to an equal amount.
Most people are sceptical of victims to begin with, I feel the system and society are biased against the victim.

I think the media is the opposite. kobe and the others are instantly strung up and treated as guilty. The "victims" face is blotted out and her ID is protected. (except maybe in some tabloids)

 

[TragicMonkey]

Although heaping abuse on others often passes for skepticism here at JREF, I don't agree that the 'blame the victim' tactic and media frenzy is really skeptical thinking.

Since we have presumption of innocence for the accused, it's up the victim's side to make a case. This is upsetting for the victim if the crime actually did occur, I can understand, but that doesn't alter the fact that a crime hasn't been proven until the trial is complete. Until the verdict then (and the inevitable appeals), the accused has every right to poke holes in the case against him.

The media just tries to make a good story, and slants it whichever way will sell the best.

 

[crimresearch]

I think the media is the opposite. kobe and the others are instantly strung up and treated as guilty. The "victims" face is blotted out and her ID is protected. (except maybe in some tabloids)

Are you talking about the same Kobe Bryant case where the media has released the victim's name, picture, personal details etc. while constantly referring to her as the 'alleged victim'?

The same case where very little comment has been passed on the fact that Kobe first denied ever meeting her, then admitted to that but claimed 'nothing happened', and then admitted that 'something' happened, but it was consensual?
(I can see good reasons for a defendant's story to change, but the notion that the media declared him instantly guilty just doesn't match any coverage I've seen).

And when did being a victim become an accusation of wrongdoing about which 'alleged' needs to be inserted?

 

[Furious]

I think the media is the opposite. kobe and the others are instantly strung up and treated as guilty. The "victims" face is blotted out and her ID is protected. (except maybe in some tabloids)

Celebrity goes both ways though. If Kobe gives his opinion on the presidential election, endorses a soft drink or publicly donates money to a charity, the media gives him quite a bit more undeserved positive attention than they would if an average person did the exact same thing.

I agree with DD, I think you are confusing skeptics with media. I don't see too many "Hang Kobe!" posts on this forum.

 

[TragicMonkey]

When did being a victim become an accusation of wrongdoing about which 'alleged' needs to be inserted?

It's weird, but current news jargon always uses "alleged", at least in the US, until after the verdict. (I notice some British news stories use quotes for the same thing). And sometimes after that as well. They seem to think they can't be sued as long as they pretend the word "alleged" protects them from libel suits. It doesn't.

Actually, calling her the "alleged victim" is the media's attempt to stop Kobe's lawyers from being able to sue them--if she's an actual victim, then the news is reporting that a crime definitely took place, which could be libellous and worth a lot of money in an eventual civil suit.

The whole idea's idiotic, because who takes everything they hear as Truth anyway? I had a history professor once who forbade us from writing "in my opinion" in an essay, because it implied the reader was unable to tell the difference between fact and opinion.

 

[Snide]

[B
Are you talking about the same Kobe Bryant case ... [/B]

Indeed. The same Kobe Bryant case in which the media also told us that the woman's underpants had more than one man's semen on them.

 

[Tmy]

[BAre you talking about the same Kobe Bryant case where the media has released the victim's name, picture, personal details etc. while constantly referring to her as the 'alleged victim'?

[/B]

He exposure. was caused by the internet rather than the media.

If you want an example of lack of skeptisism, try the Kenny Curse thread that talks about Mike Kennedys rape allegation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Indeed. The same Kobe Bryant case in which the media also told us that the woman's underpants had more than one man's semen on them.

Did they match it to Monica's blue dress?

Sorry--it's just that, young as I am, I still remember a time when the news wouldn't mention semen stains.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Kobe is so sure of his innocence that he bought his wife a $4 million eight-carat, purple diamond apology ring....

 

[epepke]

It's weird, but current news jargon always uses "alleged", at least in the US, until after the verdict. (I notice some British news stories use quotes for the same thing). And sometimes after that as well. They seem to think they can't be sued as long as they pretend the word "alleged" protects them from libel suits. It doesn't.

It's an adaptation to the fact that hardly anybody uses Subjunctive II in English any more. In German, there's even a third form of the subjunctive used to describe hearsay and allegations.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In German, there's even a third form of the subjunctive used to describe hearsay and allegations.

English has "air quotes" instead.

 

[corplinx]

And when did being a victim become an accusation of wrongdoing about which 'alleged' needs to be inserted?

I love how a girl gets assraped so hard she bled on Kobe's shirt and they are still calling her an alleged victim.


The trial wouldn't be so important unless the media strung out the possibility that he isn't guilty. The suspense makes the story.

 

[varwoche]

Most people are sceptical of victims to begin with, I feel the system and society are biased against the victim.

This was certainly true in the past; not sure if it's still true.

I'm concerned that it's a backlash against this historical injustice that causes a fiasco like the Kobe trial to so much as take place. Fortunately, the judge seems to be thoroughly aware of the (apparent) prosecutorial overreach.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I love how a girl gets assraped so hard she bled on Kobe's shirt and they are still calling her an alleged victim.


The trial wouldn't be so important unless the media strung out the possibility that he isn't guilty. The suspense makes the story.

Yeah! It's ridiculous to even have a trial, because we already know he's guilty! You told us so in the first sentence.

 

[Skeptic]

As long as you are sceptical of the defendant to an equal amount.
Most people are sceptical of victims to begin with, I feel the system and society are biased against the victim.

Indeed. There's an inherent bias in the system against the victims of crimes, which makes it harder for them to find justice by convicting the perpetrator--thank God.

It's known as the "guilty beyound reasonable doubt" principle.