From OC Weekly, a tale of how videotaping their gang bang saved six 20-year old men from life in prison. From the conclusion:
You might be asking yourself: Why would a woman claim rape if she knew a video existed that so thoroughly contradicts her story? If you can figure that out, please let us know. Even after police detectives told her they’d viewed the video, Moonier still refused to recant. She continued to demand that the men be prosecuted.
Next month an Orange County jury will hear the case against Moonier (now Kerr following her marriage). Interesting footnote: without the videotape, the men could have spent the rest of their lives in state prison if they were convicted of kidnapping and aggravated rape with a handgun. But the woman’s false accusation is a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in county jail. It’s only because she took several thousand dollars from a taxpayer-funded victims’ assistance program that she was charged with two felonies.
If jurors aren’t impressed with her tale, Kerr faces a maximum sentence of 44 months.
What bothers me most about this story—aside from all the penises in the room and what seems to me an awful lot of needless chattiness during the gang bang (which, that’s just bad form)—is that, only by fortuitous depravity are these men not spending the rest of their lives in prison for what amounted to a string of misdemeanor false accusations made by a woman whose goal, apparently, was whatever measure of sexual gratification she received from the half dozen swordsmen, followed by a relatively small-dollar scam of a local government assistance agency.
That a lie worthy only of a misdemeanor charge could have in effect ended the lives of six men is bothersome enough; but what I worry about here is this: how are we to be sure that those women (and men) who make accusations of sexual assault and rape are telling the truth in legal situations that redound to he said / she said (in this particular case, for instance, I’m sure the woman had gathered plenty of physical evidence that mimicked a rape and assault)—and more importantly, is there an institutional bias to believe the story of the abused, particularly if the abused is female, at the expense of the lives and reputations of the accused?
This, of course, is not a new question—and I suspect (in fact, maybe I’m even hoping) to get some response from the internet feminists (of all stripes)—but what I wonder is, how, if at all, can the legal system guard against such potentially egregious miscarriages of justice that occur when, say, six men don’t have the good sense to videotape their gang bangs and the present the tape to the police as exculpatory evidence? That is, what becomes of gentleman gang bangers?
It may sound as though I’m being flip, but in fact I do wonder if, given the potential for abuse, the laws against filing false sexual assault / rape charges shouldn’t be much higher—an idea that I imagine might be met by feminists with the counter that such a potential would act as a “chilling” effect on woman (and men) who have been sexually assaulted coming forward with their stories.
Is there a balance? A fix? And if, as the saying goes, we’d rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned—particularly for life—does this concept not extend, too, to sexual assault and rape convictions?
Amanda? Jill? Barry? Roxanne? Trish? Cathy? And Lauren (wherever you are…?)
Read the rest here. Warning: graphic sexual language, none of which involves metaphors about clowns.
(h/t INDC, via Ace)
****
update: Follow-up post here.
All the trouble began when the idea of “date rape” started. One of my college room mates was <em>Rape<em> raped (at gunpoint.) To me, it simply isn’t the same thing as a woman who had to much to drink, and had the misfortune of being taken advantage of by a man she met at a bar, or some such nonsense. Of course, I’m of the ilk that the idea that “hooking up” as a means to met men should go the way of the dinosaur. What ever happened to dating and courting? Certainly it wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of woman actually being raped by someone she slightly knew, but I would bet it would cut down on it.
This is great news! Maybe this will make Pron and animal husbandry more mainstream. Don’t want to go to jail?
Videotape a gang-bang with goats! If I wasn’t a gay cowboy rubbing tapioca pudding all over my body, I would be down.
Good, Jeff, but I recommend you copy this whole thing, paste it into Word or some other utility with spell-check, and let ‘er rip.
[editor’s note—Slart: I am trying to put out content, take care of a child, and answer emails. If I leave out a letter in “legal” or “wonder”—words that I clearly have shown a propensity for spelling correctly—I would appreciate that you email me to alert me of the typos rather than making such condescending comments here. I mean, no offense? But I don’t think you realize how much of jerk you sound like when you post a comment like this ]
BTW my mother believes that my father date-raped her. She didn’t ever mention it until about a decade after the divorce (which put me at around thirty years old), and it caused a great deal of problems. First, my father’s family refused to have anything to do with her from that point on. Second, my father refused to even occupy the same room as her until she’d issued a public retraction (she made this claim while appearing on a local talk show). So here’s the thing: according to my dad’s story, he did nothing wrong. According to my mom, he did something wrong that she didn’t even recognize as highly objectionable (other than the immediate humiliation) for years. Certainly it didn’t affect their marriage in the short term.
So, I’d suggest there are varying degrees of date rape that span the range from sexual assault to something more like I-wanted-to-but-I-didn’t-mean-to-do-that-just-now. And of course I haven’t anything resembling an answer, conclusions, or data outside my own personal anecdote.
There once was a gang-banging ‘ho’,
who could never, it seems, say “no”.
she performed on tape,
then tried to cry rape
now she’s facing the ‘iron bar chateau’.
Since then she’s married her beau,
I wonder, does he really know,
that his recent bride
let six strangers inside
a place only he thought he’d go?
turing word “john”….too easy, ain’t gonna go there….
Before you get my opinion, I think I’mma need to see that videotape. You know, review the evidence as it were.
Ah, Jeff, this raises the lucrative federalized business of sexism for profit. I’m sure you realize that these words precisely apply to the divorce and child custody industries.
Connect Joe Biden, his VAWA, Washington’s Title IV-D kickbacks, and your local family court, DA, and police, with statehouses overrun with feminist lobbies and you have what must be the single most pervasive and entrenched abuse of constitutional rights in the country.
It’s for great willful profit, it’s regularly renewed, it’s grotesquely gender biased, and it rides on the backs of professional politicians.
The background and statistics alone prove my assertion. The personal accounts back them up. Say goodbye to presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, and the rights to freedom and ownership.
As this would relate to the sexist divorce and custody industries, the egregious miscarriage of justice is the legal system. It’s bad nanny legislation from stem to stern and it’s all bought and paid for.
Which is not an endorsement, really. I only say that because I know someone’s going to choose to interpret it as such. Not naming any names, mind you.
Hmmm.
1. Date Rape:
This is why some of my friends send voicemail messages to themselves of their dates agreeing to sex.
2. Rape:
A good friend of mine was accused of assaulting and raping a girl while dressed as a *ninja*.
A more ridiculous thing I’ve never even imagined.
Classic case of gang-bang regret.
She could’ve sent those boys away for their entire lives!!! That bitch should be prosecuted and forced to spend YEARS in jail.
Who’s the biggest tool of the patriarchy: Jeff, for daring to write this post; the evil mastermind who concocted that obviously phony videotape to get those guys off the hook; or The Man, for oppressing Moonier so horribly that she couldn’t help filing false rape charges? Place your bets now before the trackbacks start flooding in.
By the way, JG, did you know that the Federal Rules of Evidence make special allowances for victims in sex offense cases? Compare Rules 412 and 413 to Rule 404, which governs character evidence in all other types of trials.
Slartibartfast wrote:
I’d suggest there are varying degrees of date rape.
Then is the word ‘rape’ applicable in all those cases? Or should it be restricted to cases in which physical force or the threat of physical force was employed, i.e., not those cases in which the person felt manipulated by wheedling, guilt, or fear of disapproval? And should the latter actually be against the law? Should the law be responsible for stepping in when a person lacks the moral fortitude to say ‘no’, when saying ‘no’ is all that was required?
(Maybe the latter is already an exception covered by the law, I don’t know. I’m just asking.)
Sorry, not going to be party to deciding where the boundary lies, if there is any such thing. Anecdote is going to be the extent of my participation in this.
Couldn’t that just, y’know, tattoo “lying slut” on her forehead or something? Just as fair warning to later sperm donors…
There is a balance: It’s the criminal justice system, and it evaluates rape like it does every other crime. Of course the concept that you mention extends to men accused of rape. Are they denied lawyers? Are any of their Constitutional rights taken away from them? Every crime report has the potential for abuse—and you can fake a robbery a whole lot easier than you can fake a rape. Why make the bar higher for rape? You haven’t given a good reason (and “women can cry rape” isn’t a good reason, given that people can—and do—“cry” nearly every other kind of crime).
Rape, like nearly every other crime, is sometimes falsely reported. It’s interesting that you choose to highlight this case, when I don’t remember seeing on your blog the many, many stories of people who commit insurance fraud.
Rape is also one of the most under-reported crimes out there. There’s a ton of shame and stigma still attached to it. I know many women who have been raped and assaulted, and none who have reported it. So no, I’m not going to dedicate space on my blog to highlighting one of the very few false rape reports. It’s a slap in the face to rape victims. It’s a further reminder that no one will believe them.
(I know that just by commenting, you all are going to jump all over me. Go for it, but I’m not gonna stick around to discuss this one. Sorry.)
Those who responded to my previous comment by saying Jeff is the biggest tool of the patriarchy—come and collect your winnings!
There isn’t any way to know how often rape is falsely alleged nor is there a way to know how many rapes go unreported. Litterally no way; all the nubmers are made up, when they even bother to make up numbers at all. Other than that (and the nasty “slap in the face to rape victims,” business–classy; wouldn’t be trying to STIFLE THE DISSENT, would you?), Jill is right on. Unless there was more to her comment than those bits, in which case, they were probably wrong, too.
Damn it. Obviously my misspelling demolishes my point. Time to return to lurking.
There is an obvious reason why this is more compelling than insurance fraud. The number of women who don’t report is not relevant to this false report (which is hardly unique). The sympathy for a guy like Tookie just isn’t extended in this case to men who were apparently innocent. That is more telling than the lack of protein wisdom posts about insurance fraud (ho hum). Finally, Allah missed an additional possibility: Monica being forced by the patriarchy to falsely recant her truth.
Jeff, there is no need to create a higher standard for rape cases. No feminist has ever said that women don’t make false allegations of rape. I’m sure that some do. However, that seldom happens. As Jill said, rape is one of the most underreported crimes out there. Many women won’t report their rapes for a wide variety of reasons that I really don’t feel like getting into here. Plus, many rapes cannot be proven. That doesn’t mean that the woman lied. It means her case can’t be proven, even though she made a good-faith allegation. Rape cases must go to court just like any other crime, and all of the evidence will be presented from both sides. That you may have found one case in which a woman made a false allegation of rape doesn’t mean that rape laws need to be changed.
Like Jill, I expect you to pounce on my comment and run with it. I’m not interested in getting into a useless debate with you. I don’t plan to write anything else here.
Jill, Countess,
Before you scoot off, I think that what’s being argued here is that the same legal standards be applied to rape as are applied to other crimes. The gripe is that quite often in crimes (or bad behavior) that have a he said/she said component, the pendulum has swung far enough over that it is perceived by some that in a number of cases, the simple fact that a female made an allegation is sufficient to demonstrate that the guy is axiomatically a bad guy, and probably guilty to boot.
If I understand the underlying point is not so much that this one incident occurred, but rather identity politics has evolved to the point that a cynical manipulator could put 6 guys in jail for life while, at most, risking a misdemeanor.
Regards,
BRD
So no, I’m not going to dedicate space on my blog to highlighting one of the very few false rape reports. It’s a slap in the face to rape victims.
Yeah. I can see how pointing out that not all rape claims should be believed 100% and without question would be a slap in the face. After all, whether the accused actually committed a rape or not doesn’t really matter; the point is, he could have. And isn’t that good-faith allegation reason enough to send that vicious
penisman to jail for the rest of his life? No need for that silly trial by jury thing, since we all know what a slap in the face that might be, too. Imagine, actually having to prove you’re a crime victim!The nerve of you chauvinist savages.
Some pretty interesting discussion methods at work here–post nonsense and run.
The mere accusation of a sex crime ruins lives–the damage is done the day it hits the papers. But, for reasons I don’t want to get into here, I think that’s fine and dandy since some chicks do get raped–really, I know a lot of rape victims. So guys will just have to tough it out and…oh, there’s the door. Gotta run!
Jeff: I think you’re hyperventilating.
The ONLY reason 6 guys involved in a gang bang aren’t going to prison is the video tape?
Now, come on. Statements to police by 6 alleged suspects that would corroborate each other, a cell phone call that could independently verify some of the evidence, and a lack of evidence corroborating the alleged rape victim’s false story.
Moral of the story: If you’re gonna participate in a gang bang, better get it on tape, just to be sure.
As they say, bad cases make bad law.
And no piling on Jill, or the Countess (even if they made some potentially debatable assertions). This one is for the stupid book.
Sorry for the incomplete sentence. Should read:
“Statements to police by 6 alleged suspects that would corroborate each other, a cell phone call that could independently verify some of the evidence, and a lack of evidence corroborating the alleged rape victim’s false story should be sufficient to clear the alleged suspects.”
I have always believed that any woman can say NO at any point in the process – furtherance of the process at that point would be some type of rape.
That being said, I have always thought that the “moment of truth” was when the panties came off. There is no way, short of tearing them off, that you can remove panties from a female without her assistance; you know, a slight raising of the hips.
I do think that the penalty for making false police reports regarding assault crimes should be a felony with substantial penalty. These six guys apparantly are innocent of the charges, and have sufficient proof of their innocence. Question is, what would have happened in the criminal process had they not had this proof. They were facing some serious charges: kidnapping and rape, that if convicted, would send them to prison for a looooong time. Should there not be some commensurate potential punishment for the person making false accusations?
Jill —
Did you not see Allah’s comment on relaxed rules of evidence in sex abuse cases? And why would I talk about insurance fraud—which generally doesn’t carry a life sentence and carry with it the honorific “sexual predator” when the question I’m asking here is should not the penalty for filing false reports that can be so damaging—and where courts have been conditioned, through social advocacy, to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt—be more severe?
Frankly, Jill, it’s a good thing you’ve decided not to stick around to discuss the issue; because you have no desire to do so. My questions were in good faith and based on a particular case that came to my attention—one with the (even you will admit) unusual circumstances of having an unseemly sex tape of a gang bang save those accused from a lifetime in prison. Hardly the kind of interesting legal puzzles you get in most insurance fraud cases (though Double Indemnity remains a favorite movie of mine).
Instead, you acted defensive, decided to equate sexual assault and rape cases with other crimes wherein there IS NO INSTITUTIONALIZED PRESSURE to relax the rules of evidence for the accusor, and so completely ignored the question while trying to cast me in an unsympathetic, patriarchy-hugging light simply for raising the question.
I think it’s time you stop talking about wanting to “engage” on these issues. You wish to preach to the choir, and you seem terrible upset anytime anyone throws even a hypothetical legal wrench in the well-oiled system of women’s legal “protections.”
Also interesting to me is, after trying very hard to have an intelligent discussion about how we can come together to define feminism—one that didn’t attack anyone, and that invited all points of view—both Jill and Trish assume I will “pounce” and “attack” their comments in some unfair, vile, cartoonish way.
I guess it takes a lot for a guy to earn some modicum of intellectual respect these days…
Anyway, thus endeth the sermon.
One of the other most underreported crimes is domestic violence by women against men. Since you have the background, I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.
This particular case is not unlike one from last year where an activist feminist lodged a false rape case in Florida—she knew the system. Or the runaway bride who made headlines. Or countless others. Then there’s the huge industry set up to discriminate against men in domestic violence, divorce, and custody.
No, I don’t mean to be rhetorical; I say “industry” and “set up” only because the statistics created by this assortment of local officials, attorneys, special interests, and legislators easily verify my claim. This problem, like false rape claims, is symptomatic of the climate in Washington and the 50 states. The core issue here is whether or not legitimate, constitutional law protects the innocent from the guilty.
As these cases show, the incentive to abuse exists because the opportunity to profit from it does. Surely that is evidence enough of bad law.
It’s ironic indeed that feminists cannot be counted on to protect against the vast gender discrimination, abuse of public services, and near presumptions of guilt their own playing field-levelling legislation brought about. Not surprising, but ironic.
To say the feminist lobby bought off Washington would not be overstating the state of affairs in 2006.
The only reason I’m here posting now and not in prison for rapeâ€â€faslely accused by someone I never got within arm’s length ofâ€â€is because I’m rich. (The story’s de-anonymizing and not very interesting. The summary’s accurate.)
Of the women I know well enough to share such things, only one of them was rapedâ€â€not in some legalistic bullshit way; indusputably and forciblyâ€â€and she didn’t report it. (Her reasons weren’t any of the cliches we’re always offered, but they parallel my experienceâ€â€if you catch my drift.)
Because prosecutions so rarely fail, especially in the emotional theatre of sex crime trials, false accusations are, let’s say, handy for removing certain sorts from society. Those of us with sufficient means can do whatever we want, and the law is no barrier.
You’re either a Kennedy or you’re not.
She obviously isn’t a college basketball fan
State evidentiary codes have special rape-shield laws, too, although the ones I’ve seen rarely go as far as the Federal rule does.
Here’s a blurb on Colorado’s rule. Note the final sentence.
LOVE the reverse cowgirl!
TW: planning – how very topical
– rls – I’m assuming you’ve never enjoyed the manly feeling you get from “powering through”…
– We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming…..
TW: s-l-o-w-l-y is good…..its all damn good…..
You just said it. Its a he said / she said. And our legal system deals with that by the fact-finding jury and the concept of reasonable doubt. What else can we do?
But isn’t she guilty of perjury too if she lied on the stand? Or did she never take the stand? That’s not a misdemeanor is it?
Well, no. It’s more like he said/SHE SAID. That’s why I brought up the rape shield laws: in sexual assault cases, unlike all others (including murder), the rules of evidence change to make it easier to convict.
And that doesn’t touch at all on biases juries bring with them to the trial. There’s no way to know, but I bet if there had been no videotape and this had proceeded to trial, you’d have had about a 50/50 chance of convicting all six guys on Moonier’s testimony alone. Six guys saying it was consensual, one woman saying it wasn’t, and a jury finding evidence of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in that. Okay.
The reason we have rape-shield laws, of course, is because the law used to be terribly biased the other way. Juries would fail to convict because proof would be offered that the victim was a loose woman and, therefore, was supposedly “asking for it.” Jeff’s post was simply asking whether we’ve gone too far in the opposite direction in trying to correct the problem. I get the funny feeling that some women are satisfied with the new regime precisely because it’s a bit unfair to men—that the occasional wrongful conviction helps atone for the many instances in the past (and present) where an actual rape went unpunished. That’s a form of justice, I suppose, but it’s sure going to breed a lot of resentment.
About a blowjob?
WHY CAN’T YOU RIGHT WINGERS MOVE ON!?!
It stands to reason that there is a way for men to protect themselves from similar false accusations.
Don’t participate in “gang bangs” – Even when there is no outright lying, you are at risk. It’s too hard for a woman to say stop, enough, and there is room for confusion about consent.
Another protection would be, behave yourself. Never have sex with a woman not your willing wife.
Failing that, use protection. God wouldn’t have invented digital media and videotape if he didn’t want to keep you perverts out of jail.
It seems to me to be more she said/prove her wrong. Where does the presumtion of innocence fit in here?
SarahW,
The thing that’s spectacularly nasty about this problem, is that it’s gangbang independent. I recall hearing an orientation lecture that a woman could “decide” that she had been raped days and weeks after the event.
Once that line has been crossed, then it becomes the woman who can decide if it’s rape almost independent of the guy’s actions. There’s a whole lot of stuff Jeff has written about who is responsbile for the content of communication – the recipient or the listener. In this case, there is a clearly established (by statute) situation in which the would-be victim decides if there is a crime almost independent of the actual comission of a crime.
Thank god for digital media, because I think I’m going to start a policy of having someone call me and leave a consent voicemail message.
BRD
TW: lay Ha!
I’ll be damned. I thought the most under-reported crime out there was shooting your hunting partner.
Rape Shield laws only presume that evidence of past sexual conduct is irrelevant. It doesn’t change the burden of proof. And, if you can make a showing that it is relevant, the evidence comes in. I don’t understand what the big deal is.
Hee,
I actually clicked on the links Jeff posted above to blogs addressing feminist issues. Unfortunately, my question about proportionality as it applies to the rape of strangers versus the rape of a known party got deleted by the moderator, as according to blog policy:
I guess Barry finally has come around to deciding what “real” feminism is. Maybe he’s just not telling us what it is.
Fantastic.
Fantastic stifiling of dialog and dissent, that is.
BRD
I don’t know what the field is like in rape prosecutions. I’ve never seen one or followed one. I’m not so sure the federal rules of evidence relating to sex affect them that much. I do know repeat sexual offenders are hurt by them—generally unpopular characters, and perceived to be high recidivists. I dont know how much it hurts defenses to not be able to show sexual history or propensity evidence of the victim.
I do know that few rapes are federal trials though. I don’t know how many places have similar evidentiary rules.
So we have he said/she said. And that seems inescapable. What are we going to do about it?
And people say that rape is misunderstood.
Well … one envisons an STD ward.
Great post, Jeff … and it’s way past time for the dialogue.
Ten years for the fraud and a couple of mil for the libel.
Aside from the obvious retort that … one good dick deserves another … this is a prime example … western women have obviously not heard any real feminists, and I’m disgusted that quasi-feminists are wimping out on an important discussion that, despite the obvious advances in law and protection of the true innocents, there are still those women who will play the games and accept no consequences; oblivious and downright stupid to the core. Quasi-feminists have been doing a great disservice to my gender for as long as I can remember. It’s been a very disappointing journey.
Don’t breathe just yet …
You guys aren’t innocents. I can’t believe some of you still fall for the obvious big tits (please explain how you could fondle a bag of silicon), tight ass, long legged, trophy chicks who will rape your credit cards and who couldn’t hold a conversation with a pet rock, let alone install your Depends when the time will come when you can’t. It’s only the fantasy …. right? Oh, jeez … Un.believeable.
As one of your named “internet feminists” I guess I should comment. Without going into the specifcs of the OC Weekly story (I’ve got a reasonable conflict of interest), I wonder if there’s a difference between the way female victims of rape are treated and the way male victims of rape are treated.
My guess would be that male victims of rape are treated at the prison clinic….if at all.
*Sigh*
Alright, I know Jill gets prodded quite a bit whenever she posts here, but this is the last straw. I shoulda called it a while back. I am SICK of this woman, I am sick to DEATH of trying to encourage posters here to treat her with respect, to continue to defend her as an intelligent dissenter, and to have her in turn play the aggrieved minority attacked damsel card again and again, WITHOUT FAIL, because people disagree with her and thus are not feminists.
I wish to state now and for all time that I regret ever sticking up for this woman, for being blinded by a few semi-intelligent posts, for ignoring her worldview so myopic as to be willfully ignorant, for disregarding her carefully groomed “Why am I being so unfairly attacked?! I see no reason to continue this discussion.” fallback position whenever receiving contrary info. She and her all too common brand of ideologically pure womyn and womyn wannabes can go back to the echo chamber they so adore, free from all the icky phalluses.
I renounce this woman to the level of the likes of Actus, PIATOR, and other such nitwits undeserving of my thoughts, time, energies, and breath and I offer a formal apology to ALL readers of Protein Wisdom, including our benevolent and enlightened host Mr. Goldstein for trying to play up good will toward this woman.
People miunderstand rape shield laws. What they mostly do is provide that your inner life and sex life are presumed irrelevant – which they are – unless the defense can articulate a reason why it is relevant in a particular case. The law reverses the previous widely held assumption that prior sexual conduct was generally relevant.
This is not to say that lawyers and prosecutors and judges haven’t misapplied the laws or given them force that wasn’t intended. That’s a risk with any law. For instance, if part of the prosecution case is that the accuser would never have consented because the scenario is bizarre (gang bang, bondage what have you) that argument by the prosecutor should probably open the door to evidence that the accused has engaged in similar conduct consensually.