Category Archives: Sexual Assault

Nihilism and Disgrace: Mo Brooks and Roy Moore

Representative Brooks, you’ve disgraced yourself. Not only as a member of Congress and a powerful political figure in Alabama, but as a former prosecutor and an attorney beyond that. I have no idea what kinds of cases you were responsible for, either as an assistant in the Tuscaloosa office or the state attorney general’s office, but I hope you never had the opportunity to interact with a victim of child sexual abuse.

I heard your callous and stupid claim that “as an attorney I know I accusations are easy.”

I’m an attorney, Rep. Brooks, and I was a victim. I can assure you, accusations are anything but “easy.”

I heard your baseless comparison of these allegations to the infamous “Duke Lacrosse” case, one brought by a woman so tragically mentally ill she was not prosecuted for false accusations as it’s suspected she might actually have believed them.

Most recently, I’ve heard your increasingly desperate sounding stream of buzz-words (“mainstream leftwing socialist Democrat news media”) that you’re hoping will embolden the very worst in your own constituents to deny an ugly truth nevertheless as clear as glass.

I’ve spent my legal career fighting the pandemic that is child sexual abuse and exploitation. The allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse leveled against Roy Moore are among the most patently believable, compellingly articulated and thoroughly corroborated I’ve seen in two decades of professional life. The original Washington Post piece detailing Moore’s sexual abuse of Leigh Corfman (and the pursuit of three other teenagers) was a model of thorough, painstaking reporting. Over 30 witnesses, all on record, support the accounts. Since that original piece, Beverly Young Nelson has accused Moore of a sexually violent act against her when she was 16, appearing on camera to recite the attack in heartbreaking, profound detail. Following this, yet another woman, Tina Johnson, reported that Moore grabbed her buttocks on the way out of his law office when she was 28, he 44. That’s three completely unconnected women, either apolitical or Republicans themselves, accusing Moore of acts of sexual abuse. Another seven confirm he pursued teenaged girls as a 30-something Assistant District Attorney. Moore himself would not deny dating teenagers as prosecutor despite a risible series of softballs thrown at him by Sean Hannity.  Were Moore’s crimes not barred by statute, I’d leap at the chance to prove them in a court of law.

I suspect, though, that you’re not nearly as ignorant as you sound. I suspect your true belief and your position in spite of it are likely closer to those of Kay Ivey, the governor of Alabama. Ivey claims she has no reason to disbelieve Moore’s victims. None. She’s simply made it clear—from the bully pulpit of the governor’s mansion—that she’ll vote for Moore because it’s crucial, apparently, to have a Republican vote in the U.S. Senate regarding things like judicial appointments. You, too, have cited the importance of keeping a senate seat away from a Democrat. Any Democrat. Never mind that, long before these powerful allegations, Moore was already a disgrace to the bench as a scofflaw, a theocrat, and a hateful and divisive ideologue. What matters is that he’ll bear the right letter beside his name and toe the party line.

God help the both of you.

You, Ivey, and every other Republican politician in Alabama and beyond will be remembered for this perfidiousness, this scorched-earth stratagem. Whatever good you accomplish will be overshadowed by this cravenness, this appeal to the very lowest in your own voters. Alabama is already a wounded place, set back decades by the vicious stupidity and attendant violence and murder of Jim Crow. Roy Moore, for the sake of his own ego and abetted by this cynicism, will set it back further.

But no one will feel the sting of this faithlessness more than the women victimized by Roy Moore. Following them are the millions of child victims, past and present, both within Alabama and without, who continue to suffer in silence exactly because of despicable choices like the ones being made by you, Morris “Mo” Brooks and your ilk.

But you should know this: The time has arrived we’ll be silent no longer.

 

 

Paranoia Strikes Deep: Ross Douthat, College Rape & Blaming Anyone But Rapists

Paranoia strikes deep. So does male patriarchy.

Almost dreamily, Ross Douthat in yesterday’s New York Times bemoans a typical scene in American college life. Alcohol-fueled parties, he says, are a “twilit (or strobe-lit) scene in which many alleged sexual assaults take place.”

Fair enough, but he then goes on to say the party environment is “also a zone in which it is very hard for anyone — including the young women and young men involved — to figure out what distinguishes a real assault from a bad or gross or swiftly regretted consensual encounter.”

This, he then tells us, is why reasonable efforts, like the 2011 Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter providing guidance to colleges on the adjudication of sexual assault claims within the campus disciplinary system, must be rolled back. The issue, he tells us, isn’t really about rapists, or a culture that continues to support rape, from a president who has bragged about committing sexual assault on down. No, according to Ross, it’s more one of abandoned morality and the nurturing of some new victim class. In short, it’s about “liberalism.”

Garbage.

Douthat is a talented writer who often takes reasonable and compelling stances on issues. But what he’s offering on this topic is nothing but a new twist on a very old and baseless argument. And I’m tired of hearing centuries old, male-inspired drivel being trotted out as cutting-edge, heretofore unconstructed wisdom.

Apparently emboldened by Emily Yoffe, a sometimes iconoclast rape apologist, Douthat has embraced a truly stupid ideology that utterly mischaracterizes the nature of sexual violence, and then foolishly enables predators, demonizes victims, and makes halting an ancient scourge that much more difficult.

Like millions of conservatives, Douthat is appalled by changing sexual norms, which he appears to view as a direct cause of both actual rape and his imagined false cries of rape after “swiftly regretted” sexual encounters. He laments the “libertine” but ultimately dystopian hell-scape of American college life where red-blooded young men are ruined by legions of vindictive, or just plain gullible, feminist-twisted, victims in waiting.

Never mind that this almost never happens. Never mind that women and men who emerge from situations where they’ve been clearly sexually assaulted– let alone from some half-remembered or even deeply regretted encounter– almost always blame themselves and tell no one. Never mind that rape is still dramatically under-reported, that there is almost never an incentive to report rape at all, let alone falsely, and that most women feel zero pressure to experience the brutal, humiliating and traumatizing experience of reporting sexual assault.

In fact, never mind reality or common experience at all. Because what Douthat and his ilk feel more threatened by (than the plague of immorality or runaway liberalism) are serious challenges to male-dominated culture. This isn’t to say Douthat or those like him are misogynists; most are not. But they are undeniably patriarchal. They are convinced, not only that unhealthy or immoral college behavior is toxic, but more broadly that women are better off and more in harmony with their God-ordained roles when they avoid giving in to lust or drunkenness. They believe attempts to unbind women from imposed states of chastity and sobriety is unhealthy; that relaxing societal constraints on them leads to the inevitable “confusion,” resentment and regret that fuels false or “misguided” reports of rape.

Again, garbage. Women have been raped in the company of men at college since they were allowed to join them. A generation ago, to the extent rape was discussed at all, blame was placed mostly on women themselves for invading a theretofore male-dominated space and upsetting the natural order of things. Now it’s hook-up culture and binge drinking? Please. Predatory and deviant men rape, period. They use whatever tools are in their midst, period. Sixty years ago, they used as an excuse the audacity of women, invading male enclaves and poisoning the developing, maturing male mind with temptation and folly.

Now– because it must be blamed on women somehow—we’ll blame it on a leftist, godless culture of sex and gratification, the same one that’s created dangerous false victims out of damsels in moral distress.

We will, in short, blame it on anything but rapists themselves.

 

Buzzfeed on Dr. Kim Fromme: Blackout, Rape, & Common Sense

Katie Baker’s Buzzfeed article from August 7th showcased Dr. Kim Fromme, a clinical psychologist at UT Austin. Fromme has become a sought-after defense expert on alcohol consumption and its relationship to consent in sexual assault cases. This also makes her a flashpoint in an ongoing culture war. Sometimes, this is inevitable, and even desirable. Things like DNA analysis and cross-racial identification studies have made crucial differences in criminal cases, and usually they were initiated by outsiders unafraid to challenge norms for the sake of justice.

But Fromme’s views- at least on the physical phenomenon of “blackout”- aren’t controversial to begin with. More importantly, though, the relevance of her expertise to the reality of sexual assault and how it should be responded to is grossly over-stated.

Fromme’s willingness to testify about blackouts is not an emerging, maverick stance. Blackouts are commonly understood, particularly by toxicologists, the hard-science experts who actually study the physiological effects of toxins on the body. They’re also understood by well-informed prosecutors who handle alcohol-facilitated sexual assault cases. Yes, blackouts can interrupt memory formation, and they occur most often with rapid consumption of alcohol over a short period of time. Yes, women seem more susceptible than men, in general. Yes, a person in a blackout state might appear lucid and make decisions that appear to be informed, but not remember those decisions later. This is established science, period.

Without a doubt, this science does sometimes create a problem for a prosecutor seeking to prove that a predatory person sexually touched or penetrated a victim too intoxicated to give meaningful consent. There are situations where a person consents to sex and then doesn’t remember doing so. So it follows that, albeit very rarely, the person may believe she or he was sexually assaulted, and report the contact as rape. There isn’t a “silver bullet” answer to a claim that the alleged victim consented during a blackout and honestly doesn’t remember it. And frankly, there shouldn’t be. If the defense can establish that a blackout caused unremembered consent, then so be it. Whether the defense should or will succeed is a complicated trial question; there are aspects of the actual, physical phenomenon of blackout that can be understood and argued. The claim of “she [or he] just doesn’t remember consenting” can often be refuted depending on the circumstances and evidence.

But what’s far more important is the hard reality that the vast majority of women and men who regain consciousness after any sexual encounter do not assume, let alone assert, they were raped to begin with.

This is the most troubling aspect of Fromme’s mini-celebrity in the context of sexual assault. Fromme herself is problematic in that she appears to be yet another “expert” who (at least in part) blames alcohol consumption and “risky behavior” for rape instead of rapists themselves. She shouldn’t be demonized (at all), and certainly not for believing that binge drinking can increase the risk of sexual assault. Without a doubt, predators use alcohol to destabilize and disempower victims. Alcohol as a weapon needs to be reckoned with. Still, controlling alcohol use is not the answer to addressing predatory behavior, which is behind sexual assault.

But even worse is assuming that any use of alcohol by anyone in a sexual situation either 1) negates consent altogether or 2) gives rise to claims of rape in any more than a tiny percentage of cases. Drunk people have and will continue to have sex, largely because alcohol lowers inhibitions and allows them to act on impulse and desire. This might be unhealthy or immoral depending one’s point of view, but it’s not criminal.

But again- almost no one is claiming it is.

In fact, the opposite continues to be true: The great majority of women and men who are clearly sexually assaulted- in any context- blame themselves and tell no one, least of all law enforcement. This is especially true where drinking is concerned, since voluntary alcohol consumption fuels guilt and self-blame on the part of the victim (as an aside, this is exactly what Fromme’s “risky behavior” focus drives home). So the idea that blackouts are creating a flood of mistaken victims, willing to cry rape at the slightest fuzzy memory, thereby regularly threatening the freedom of the wrongly accused, is utter nonsense.

Blackouts are a fact, and a rare but occasional issue in sexual assault cases. Mistaken cries of rape- however imagined by men’s rights groups or media sources- are rarer still.

To Al Lord: Listen to the PennState Community. Sit down. Shut Up.

Be it blessing or curse, our hyper-connected world allows formerly obscure persons to make sudden and universally recognized asses of themselves. Enter Albert Lord, a member of the Board of Trustees for Penn State University. His comments about Jerry Sandusky’s victims, rightly called out by the website Onward State, were despicable, as was Lord’s pathetic attempt to clarify them when given a chance to recant. Driving Lord’s apparent determination to make himself a repugnant and deranged sounding public fool is his fulminating defense of Graham Spanier, the former president of PSU, recently convicted for child endangerment.

Spanier is a remarkable immigrant success story, a survivor of physical child abuse himself,  and a brilliant man. But he was successfully prosecuted for child endangerment because that’s exactly what he did. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s case was carefully crafted to track a simple statute and it did so with precision.

Spanier was shown to have colluded- there is no other word for it- with two truly odious individuals, former Assistant Vice-President Gary Schultz and former Athletic Director Tim Curley. All were personally knowledgeable of suspected child victimization by Sandusky in 1998. Curley and Schultz were then faced with an eyewitness account of child rape by then grad- student Mike McQueary in 2001. Their response- the one they personally involved Spanier in- was to abandon an earlier plan to report Sandusky to authorities. Instead, they “reported” him to the charity he created, Second Mile, and told him not to bring children into PSU facilities. You can let that sink in, but it got worse, eight years and several victims later, when Curley and Schultz perjured themselves by telling risible lies to a Grand Jury about what McQueary told them.

The same investigative Grand Jury lied to by Curley and Schultz recommended perjury charges against Spanier as well. These charges might have gone forward on all three had the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin, a former attorney for PSU, not been ruled inadmissible due to a legal technicality. In that testimony, Baldwin excoriated Spanier, calling him a dishonest man who lied to her about what he knew and when he knew it. Along with Schultz and Curley, Spanier may have stonewalled a subpoena request from that Grand Jury for 16 months.

Spanier has repeatedly painted himself as attenuated from the obvious perfidy of Curley and Schultz, a stressed-out administrator facing multiple crises and perhaps making a regrettable call with little information.

This is common claptrap.

But to pretend that it has any merit whatsoever is not only insulting but downright dangerous. I say dangerous because, if men like Spanier, or Curley and Schultz- who in my mind continued to perjure themselves in Spanier’s trial- are allowed to create a shred of doubt in the minds of any of us about the indefensibility of their actions, then the occurrence of another gross institutional failure and the destruction of innocent lives is that much more likely.

The callow parsing of what words were used by whom, batted between these three men (and also Joe Paterno himself) must find no purchase. Did they know the full scope of Jerry Sandusky’s sophistication as a predator and the depth of what he was doing? No, and it doesn’t matter. What they knew, first about the 1998 case and then from McQueary, clearly demanded a report to authorities trained and tasked with investigating child abuse. The deliberate choice all three men made to abandon a simple plan to refer a possibly dangerous man to civil authorities was preposterous, wanton and immoral. It was also illegal.

Among the more ridiculous excuses they’ve made through lawyers is how careful they felt they had to be because of how loved and respected Sandusky was. Actually, Graham, Gary and Tim, Sandusky’s stature is exactly why you needed to act with more vigilance. A report to the Department of Public Welfare for an appropriate investigation would not have meant abandoning or betraying Sandusky. It would have been the right thing to do, and also the only lawful thing. Spanier is perhaps less morally guilty than the lying scum he colluded with for the sake of a football program. But he is equally criminally guilty, and his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The best thing Al Lord can do in the wake of that is to keep his vile mouth shut. I tend to think the vast majority of the Penn State community, valiantly facing this failure head-on so it’s not repeated elsewhere, would appreciate that.

For support, information, and to help with regard to the fight against the sexual abuse of boys, please visit www.malesurvivor.org (full disclosure: I serve on its Board of Directors), or www.1in6.org. 

 

Justice and Beauty. A Last, Full Measure

TeresaShe was sharp. She was tough. She was deeply kind.

She was resplendent in red.

She was a loud, happy harmony of Italian-American toughness, soft skin and sweetness, belly laugher and beautiful, dark eyes. She was flirty. She was flinty. She was piercingly honest.

She was uncompromising when it came to the truth. She understood what we generally call evil, but far more than that, she understood that we don’t yet know exactly what evil is. With that blessed and rare knowledge, she knew we had to step lightly.

But still, she knew, we had to step forward.

Teresa Scalzo was the most accomplished and respected legal expert when it came to the prosecution of sexual violence in the U.S. She changed everything; the expertise she developed as a sex crimes prosecutor in her corner of northeastern Pennsylvania became first a national challenge and then a national standard. She came of age in a time when- understandably- some leaders of the anti-sexual violence movement were turning away from prosecution as an answer to sexual violence.

Their objections to what we do were valid, of course. America, as I say increasingly in lectures, and as Teresa knew before me, doesn’t have a criminal justice system. It has a criminal adjudication system. Justice is an ideal, a state of blessed balance in human interaction, a satisfying sense of rightness embedded somehow in our common ancestry. It’s funny, actually; for all of the education and drilling we lawyers put ourselves through, what we end up striving for our entire professional lives is something toddlers grasp as they would a toy key ring. And yet this deeply human, deeply shared sense of simple rightness is also as elusive as a rainbow.

The elusiveness of justice is no more pronounced then where crimes of sexual violence are concerned. The subject itself- sex- is hopelessly tangled in thousands of years of mystery and shame, pleasure and violence, life and death. There has never been a phenomenon so central to human existence and yet so shrouded, so guarded, so punished. The punishers have been- cross culturally- mostly men. For millennia they’ve been simultaneously intoxicated by and terrified of the power of women. It’s been less even about sex than about the female embodiment of it, the women who bled but did not die, who brought forth life from swollen bellies and then fed it from their breasts, these goddesses who could erase the mind of a conqueror with a smile, or a frown. These creatures, the thinking has gone, must be controlled. Demonized. Marginalized. Our desire for them, the thinking has gone, must be projected. Sanitized. Excused.

Teresa understood these dynamics. The ancient ones. The current ones. The fact that they’re all really the same. What she fought for most ardently, though, was the redemption of the only system we have- in the most advanced society in the world- to deal with sexual violence. Teresa fought for the relevance of prosecution to the fight against rape. She did this not because she thought the system was perfect or ever could be; rather, she fought for it because she knew it was all we have. The law, at bottom, is our only living embodiment of the public will. For rape victims, the civilized response is about the system we have: The police, the advocates, the nurses, the prosecutors. Teresa looked at this system, and she knew she could make it better.

She was right.

Our system is far better now then when Teresa Scalzo started to make it better. It has a long way to go, but every step it takes moving forward, it takes with her legacy as its power.

I was in awe of this woman, this goddess, this marvelous mixture of seriousness and red wine hangovers, of wisdom and joy, of scholarship and instinct, of hope and frustration. She taught me everything. She vouched for me as a man in a woman’s world, which was so ironic because we both initially inhabited a man’s world- prosecution- that Teresa nevertheless took over where sexual assault was concerned through will, sincerity and raw skill.

I strove every day to keep in step with her, always behind but always inspired.

And then she died. But not before giving the last, full measure of everything she was- and dear God that was so much- to what we do in the service of the women and men whose lives are torn apart by sexual violence. What we do now, we do largely in her honor, and through her legacy.

I know now in middle age what an elusive ideal justice is, and I am sadder for it. But I also know what beauty is. I know how the shadows of existence are shot through with it, and how it expresses itself to us, as I believe God does.

T, you were beautiful. Thank you.