Roger Canaff » sexual assault

The Fantasy of the Dragon Tattoo

Roger Canaff — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:26:33 +0000

The suffering, revenge and eventual triumph of Rooney Mara’s character in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo over institutionalized rape is something that stands out even as a minor subplot in a fairly complicated film. And what she is able to accomplish against her abuser is nothing short of fantastic in the traditional sense of the word: It is the product of fantasy. Tragically, for untold numbers of victims placed in the situation that Rooney’s character, Lisbeth Salander is, fantasy must suffice.

I use the term “institutionalized rape” because that’s how I view what happened to the character of Salander, a legally incompetent ward of the state deemed mentally unstable. She is subjected to sexual torture by a predatory bureaucrat who controls her finances after her legal guardian suffers a stroke. He withholds money for essentials like food and electricity, releasing funds only when she endures sexual acts. Eventually he demands that she come to his home where he anally rapes her while she is strapped to a bed.

As the predator discovers, however, Salander is not what she appears to be, which is the “typical” helpless victim. Instead she is a computer genius armed with a photographic memory, intense athletic prowess, and an iron will. She has the wherewithal to secretly film herself being raped, and eventually uses that evidence to not only control the predator’s actions toward her, but also to effectively paralyze him from harming other similarly situated women and girls in his sphere of control. But not until brutalizing him justly and branding him a rapist with crude tattoos across his ample mid-section.

In short, she is a rightful, rageful hero to women and children everywhere who have experienced that kind of abuse. And believe me, abuse at the hands of a protected cog in a monolithic institutional wheel is abuse that is grossly under reported and almost never vindicated.

I suspect that what Salander endures at the hands of the all-powerful authority who holds the keys to her very survival is even more impactful in the context of a social democracy like Sweden where the state intrudes further into everyday life than it does in the U.S. Regardless, what she suffers is time-honored and sickeningly resilient despite reforms and efforts to eliminate it. Across the globe and in every possible arrangement of human organization, predators seek, find and feed.

The reason is simple. Predators infiltrate the institutions that provide them power to predate and victimize. It’s true that power corrupts, but more importantly, it attracts. Power attracts predators who will seek it as a catalyst to get the things they want. If what they want is sexual control over others, they’ll infiltrate the institutions society creates that will allow for such abuses. There is no shortage of them.

What’s wonderful and dreamlike about Lisbeth Salander is that she embodies the intoxicating if mostly fanciful notion that resourcefulness, brilliance and brutal determination can turn the tables on a powerful predator and render him limp and lame. Sadly, for most, it is only a dream.

Chris Brown, Rihanna, and What Could Happen Next

Roger Canaff — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:14:17 +0000

If an adult, even a young one, can be labeled by his actions, Chris Brown is a violent, narcissistic thug. The savage, lengthy beating he inflicted on his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009 earned him a felony conviction, something not particularly common in the world of intimate partner violence. I saw quite a few of those cases as a prosecutor, many of them violent and damaging, but few other than homicides that merited the possibility of a prison sentence. It’s a possibility Brown avoided, but happily so for many adoring fans who still refer to that drawn-out, bludgeoning attack as a “mistake.”

Since that mistake, Brown has shown again and again an explosive, boundary-bereft side and a frightening inability to even fully control himself.

Now, for whatever reasons, Rihanna has chosen to request a relaxation of the protective order she was granted against him, and to collaborate with him musically. Collaboration may be all it is. Or, she may be entertaining a friendship or something more with her attacker, a circumstance often encountered if rarely justified. She was a blameless victim in the pummeling she endured, and since I know nothing of her personally I won’t seek to judge whatever reunification she’s navigating with Chris Brown now.

But I will judge the “Birthday Cake” remix she is releasing and on which Brown joins her, because it’s classless and crass, even by the standards of Rihanna who often objectifies herself sexually in her music. But what makes this first collaboration since Brown’s arrest and conviction far worse is the past that underscores it. What Chris Brown adds to the magic of “Birthday Cake” includes the lines “Girl, I wanna f— you right now. Been a long time, I’ve been missin’ your body.”

Bravo, Chris! This is far more than an expression of what I suspect are your creative limits or your grasp of subtlety and real sexuality (which I rather enjoy, although I find it resonates more when it isn’t reduced to the sputtering of a worked-up child). It’s also a window into how you likely viewed this woman before you viewed her as a punching bag. She’s a toy as far as you’re concerned, and that’s how you want to treat her. First sexually. Then violently. Then sexually again.

Take a wild guess, dear reader, as to whether a pattern is forming here.

Lewdness in pop music is a fact of modern life. Many would criticize Rihanna for the overt sexuality she injects into her music and speculate darkly from it on how she views herself. I won’t. Frankly, she has the right to engage her sexuality in any way she sees fit and I won’t impose my model or that of anyone else in an effort to judge her. What she does artistically and how it might affect the millions of girls who look up to her is best discussed elsewhere.

For now, what’s clear is that Rihanna, a beautiful and talented young woman, was beaten- breathtakingly- by a man who now joins her in a song in which he celebrates the idea using her like a plastic doll. That’s wrong on more than one level. Unfortunately, I doubt either of them have a clue.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Roger Canaff — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:14:00 +0000

This week I had the honor of speaking at the DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, sponsored by their remarkably vibrant and inventive Family Law Center. I was joined by Lester Munson, a senior sportswriter and legal analyst at ESPN. Munson is funny, blunt, opinionated, and apparently a big part of the conscience of pro and college sports. He’s doing exactly what a journalist and a sports fan should, in my view.

I listened to him discuss the Penn State case, with some detail and context that I lack simply for want of his understanding of the game and the dynamics of the Paterno dynasty. As I listened, it struck me even deeper how inexcusable the decisions were that slithered out from the circle of men in control of it.

It also begged the question of what we can do going forward. What can we do to prevent another predator at another venerated institution from leaving a long and concealed trail of wreckage? What can we do in general about this miserable part of our own nature?

I am often invited to make observations based on what I know from research and my own professional experience. That’s the easy part. I can speak for hours on what’s wrong, why it’s wrong, and even a little bit about where it stems from. The hard part is when a sincere, decent person in the audience asks me “what, then? What do we do?”

For now at least, this is what I had to offer:

-Do more to understand the urge that leads to sexual violence, because it is anything but obvious or easy to comprehend.

-Consider prevention efforts, but be fair and realistic about them. Most of the traditional ones do not work.

-Abandon foolish ideas that many or most complaints are false or incorrect, or that violent situations are just the product of mistake, intoxication or just ‘roughness’ on the part of a violator.

-Reduce the power and mystique of institutions by valuing human beings individually more than we value the institutions themselves.

-Finally, accept that sexual violence, for now, is a part of the human condition.

The last one is the hardest, for most, to really own and internalize. But we must.

We have done much, in rich cultures at least, to add abundance to our lives and sanitize our physical experience so that we can be dignified, clean, clothed and presentable. More importantly, we have made great strides in nurturing our minds and souls. We can free ourselves much more effectively from depression and dysfunction. We can sow hope where it’s been banished. We can bind emotional wounds that formerly truncated our own lives and infected countless others.

But where our sexuality is concerned, we’re still surprisingly in the dark. We know what appeals to us and what makes us more appealing. We certainly know what sells. But we don’t fully understand the line between sexuality and sexual violence- a line that, once it’s crossed, marks the end of defensible eroticism and the beginning of misery and injustice.

We do not yet know how to fully acknowledge our sexuality without the intrusion of myth, mores, and standards. I do not, for the record, believe that all mores and standards are wrong it comes to our sexuality. Part of what lends us our dignity is the ideal that our sexuality can be robust and varied, but closely controlled and never a weapon. Nevertheless, it’s undeniable that some of the standards we’ve imposed on each other sexually do more harm than good, and perpetuate damaging ignorance and misunderstanding.

Most importantly, we still don’t know how to keep from judging each other when one of us is sexually abused. We can’t effectively protect each other from the abuse that springs from our most cherished creations- our institutions. We can’t yet do these things because we have neither fully grasped nor fully faced what we are, and are capable of, as sexual beings. That won’t happen until we open our minds first and our mouths second.

Take a page from the gay and lesbian movement during the plague of AIDS.

Candor and understanding move us forward.

Ignorance and denial hold us back.

Silence equals death. Still.

Myth and Innuendo In the Greg Kelly Investigation

Roger Canaff — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:32:23 +0000

She waited three months to report.

She has a boyfriend who was angered by the situation.

Sex-themed text messages may have been exchanged before the night in question, and ones suggesting another meeting may have been sent after.

She has a Facebook page upon which she posted “nothing out of the ordinary” during the month where the alleged crime occurred.

She joined the man she’s accusing at a bar that hangs women’s underwear from the ceiling.

Dear God, why is anyone even investigating this? Why is Martha Bashford, the highly capable sex-crimes chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, wasting time to determine what happened between this complainant and Greg Kelly?

Hopefully because Bashford isn’t being swayed by “law enforcement sources,” quoted widely in the media this week and assigning authoritative finality to factors like the ones above. DA Vance has firmly stated he doesn’t know the source of the leaks and does not condone them. He has good reason beyond their basic irresponsibility. They reflect a stunning ignorance regarding the reality of sexual violence.

I have no idea if Greg Kelly is guilty of anything; it’s been a week since a complaint was made and there are far more questions than answers. Hence the investigatory process and venerable presumption of innocence. Kelly has been charged with no crime. He deserves to be treated respectfully and without smearing or assumption. But to assert that the case against him is false because of the factors being touted is dangerous nonsense.

-Delayed reporting is hardly abnormal or indicative of a false report, despite the fantasies of apparent “veteran investigators.” Delaying is extremely common, if anything the norm rather than the exception in acquaintance cases. Survivors delay reporting for dozens of valid reasons, most exacerbated by the circumstances seen here (a celebrity accused, a media frenzy, microscopic scrutiny of the victim, etc).

-The idea that women regularly, falsely report being raped in order to cover regretful behavior or the betrayal of another relationship is vacuous. Has it happened? Surely. Is it remotely common? Hardly. Reporting rape falsely and enduring what follows is anything but a typical impulse, let alone a popular choice when confronted by an angry boyfriend who wants to know why you’re pregnant.

- Sexually charged texts from a woman to a man prior to an encounter says absolutely zero about whether that man is capable of raping her either by force or as a result of physical helplessness. It also says zero about her inclination or ability to tell the truth about an event she recalls as a crime. Rather, they demonize her as someone less deserving of legal vindication no matter what happened. Texting afterward might be more problematic, but it depends on the context, what was said, and when. If the texts sought clarification of what happened (which would make sense in a case alleging severe intoxication and incapacity to consent), they are hardly smoking guns. What of texts suggesting another meeting? Again, it depends- when were they made in context to when she realized fully what had happened? An evolving sense of what occurred is also not uncommon in cases where incapacity through intoxicants is suspected.

Comparisons are already being made between this situation and the cases of meteorologist Heidi Jones (who fabricated a rape complaint originating in Central Park), Kobe Bryant, and Duke Lacrosse. Never mind that Jones accused no one by name (very common in false complaints), Bryant’s legal team savagely wore down the complainant until she gave up (yet he later apologized), and the complainant in Duke Lacrosse was so severely mentally ill that authorities suspected she probably believed her own lies.

The issues so far in this nascent case present challenges for the prosecution; that is undisputed. Kelly may be innocent of anything criminal, a fact which may genuinely co-exist with the complainant’s belief that she was violated.

But to conflate these challenges with the recklessness and moral bankruptcy that must accompany falsely accusing a man of rape- at this point and on these factors- is dangerously unfair and ignorant. The “sources” publicly voicing skepticism should be kept far away from the investigation. Commentators, particularly former sex crimes prosecutors who should know better, are doing little good by furthering myths they either 1) never understood as such, or 2) allowed to intimidate them into inaction. If these things occurred when they were on the job, it was the victims who paid the price.

If the complainant has falsely accused Kelly, then she is already getting what she deserves. If her complaint is valid or at least sincere, she is getting far, far worse. My prayer is that NYDA gets it right, and for the right reasons.

Vulnerabilty, Danger, and Blame

Roger Canaff — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:51:55 +0000

“There is no vulnerability without danger.” Veronique Nicole Valliere, Psy.D.

It’s a simple and brilliant truth, introduced to me at a sex assault prosecution training in 2009. The doc was discussing how we blame women (and men) who are sexually assaulted, particularly when their choices leading up to the attack make them, in most minds, “more vulnerable.” Like when they drink too much, or when they go home with a man they don’t know well. And so on.

When I heard it, I nodded sagely. Sure, I believed in what I called “rape prevention,” and felt that everyone needed to take some responsibility for their own personal safety. But that’s all. I wasn’t anywhere near victim blaming. Because I was too smart for that. Too enlightened. Too smugly ensconced as one of the more influential sex assault prosecution experts nationwide. So naturally, I understood her perfectly.

Except that I didn’t. Because I was victim blaming, even though I told myself I wasn’t. And in buying into the kind of “rape prevention” I believed in, I was a part of the problem. Many of us, most with the best of intentions, still are.

The ad above from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (now pulled) sparked a debate in feminist circles. The ad itself wasn’t the issue; most agreed it was offensive. Visually it sexualized violence, right down to the blue underwear around the seductively placed ankles matching the tile on the floor. That’s not a representation of the aftermath of a felony. It’s wanna-be pornography. And of course, it callously blamed both the curled up, naughty-girl and her irresponsible friends for not preventing the rape she apparently endured. No mention of the rapist.

But while the attempt was botched, the underlying message begged a question: Shouldn’t we warn girls and women about the dangers of losing control, and thus “becoming vulnerable?” Isn’t it simply a dangerous world, like it or not? Of course it is and of course we should, went the argument. It was a bold one apparently, expectant of a backlash from uber-feminist PC police who would label it victim blaming even though the goal was simply to “reduce vulnerability.” When the backlash came, I initially sided against it. I had seen a career’s worth of victimization- how could I not encourage safe behavior myself, in the name of reducing vulnerability? Because vulnerability invites danger. Right?

Wrong.

Go back to the statement at the top of the page. Vulnerability does not exist unless danger is present. Choices, however reckless they appear, do not create danger anymore than liquor creates rape in a man who is not a rapist. Danger exists because of the choices dangerous people- rapists, in this case- make. From this reality, two others flow: First, encouraging young people (the most at-risk population, male or female) to avoid victimization through more responsible behavior will not prevent a single rape, as author Jaclyn Friedman points out in her piece on the subject. Rape is never an accident, and it’s almost always a planned attack. The rapist who cannot target the “better-behaved” woman will find one who isn’t. So there won’t be less rape, just rape of perhaps different people. Of course, the predictable rejoinder is “well my daughter won’t be the targeted person, then.” Game, set, match. Admonish away.

Except that she might be regardless, which is the second reality that results from Dr. Valliere’s observation. The woman who believes she is safer because she’s avoiding something like heavy drinking might well be safer to a particular kind of attack. But there are many others, and being lulled into a false sense of security because of the avoidance of one behavior will likely blind her to the danger that can exist under the most responsible appearing of circumstances. Women are raped by trusted friends. They’re raped during the daytime while studying or just listening to music with known, clean-cut, well-regarded men in their communities, on their campuses, from their churches. Alcohol is extremely helpful to acquaintance rapists. But it is hardly their only tool.

Youth involves blind spots, but regardless of age, risk-taking is at bottom the essence of life. There is no elimination of it short of solitary confinement. What we must do is grasp that vulnerability exists only when danger is present, and turn the focus rightly on the dangerous and away from the endangered.

Because when we create rules, particularly ones laced with moral superiority in order to somehow deliver us from evil, we then distance ourselves from those who break them. When those people are victimized, we rest easy, believing that our wisdom and temperance saved us. But there are always more rules, both to make and to break. In the end, all that rule making accomplishes is the encouragement of an insidious urge to will to life something other than luck separating us from the unlucky. So we’ll draw attention to the choices the rule breakers made that we wouldn’t make. And we’ll blame them for theirs.

At a University of Vermont Fraternity, A Brother With A Problem

Roger Canaff — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:01:48 +0000

It’s really not a secret: I have a pretty strong ‘anima‘ or feminine side.

I don’t resent it. I think it’s made me a much more effective special victims prosecutor over the years. And in any event it’s who I am. My closest circle of male friends will readily confirm that I navigate those friendships more as if I were a spouse or partner than any sort of a “guy’s guy.” That can be frustrating for everyone involved. And of course, I have my professionally inspired inferences, which should and do make me more sensitive to things like rape culture, male privilege, and other issues faced by women and girls in ways that most men really can’t imagine. So yeah- I’m something of a woman trapped in man’s body if you’re going to buy into a lot of generalizations about how women think and react, and what it means to be emotionally “feminine.”

So be it. Nevertheless, I’m a straight guy and generally typical where sexual fantasizing is concerned. So shameful or not, tasteless or not, over the years and at every social stage of my life, I’ll readily admit that I’ve taken some part in the game of “Hey man, who would you sleep with in [insert environment here]?”

And believe me, it can be any environment. And it is every environment, at least where members of the opposite sex are even remotely observable. A high school Spanish class. A summer camp. A basic training unit, an introductory psychology course, the 5^th floor of a dorm, an office mail room, the accounting department, the DNA lab, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, it’s tawdry. And utterly pointless. Regardless, it’s what men do. Gay men do it as well, and sometimes in mixed groups we’ll all play the game, with the gay guys making their own considered judgments about men, and often commenting with high degrees of validity on women as well.

For most of us, this stupid tradition begins innocently, scattered across that late elementary to middle or junior high school period where girls become suddenly and then perpetually interesting (and of course, for homosexual boys it really can’t begin until they find themselves in much more progressive environments then the kind I came up in). So it might start in 5^th grade or thereabouts with “who would you want to see without her clothes on?” But it quickly progresses to more imaginative and specific scenarios, and it never really stops. It’s far from angelic, often inaccurate, and always objectifying. It’s wrong and I won’t make excuses for it.

I’ll also note that, regardless of what I do and who I am or profess to be, I’ve played the game in places that are hardly feminist enclaves. I’ve played it in warehouses, on airport tarmacs and construction sites where I worked for years before entering professional life. I’ve played it in countless police cars, detective squad rooms, bars, diners and alleyways, passing the time for various reasons and waiting for something to happen. I’ve played it with men educated and not, supposedly enlightened and not, gentle and not.

What I’ve never, ever heard in roughly 35 years is any man, anywhere, ask “so if you could rape someone, who would it be?”

It’s true: That cyber-blessed term “WTF” was honestly coined for such an abomination.

There are variations of this game I will remove myself from or avoid if I detect cruelty or a line I just don’t feel comfortable crossing. But no guy in my experience has ever even approached the idea of rape. Ever. If I could rape someone, who would it be? Even writing that out makes me cringe.

So “WTF” the fraternity brother at the University of Vermont was thinking when he added that to the lets-get-know-each-other ‘new brother questionnaire’ is worth exploring. And I mean between him and a good mental health provider. Because it’s more than just tasteless; it’s downright scary. Perhaps the guy who wrote this and anyone else at this chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon who deemed it acceptable is just remarkably awkward and clumsy with word choice. But I’ll vote for disordered. The word “rape” is one of the ugliest in our language. It’s mono-syllabic, blunt, and shocking. It’s supposed to be. While it usually doesn’t involve these things, it conjures in most minds gratuitous violence, torn clothing, screaming, and injury. It at least evokes- as it should- terror and a life-altering, shattering experience of trauma on the part of the victim. So how it could be in any way confused with the desire to engage with someone sexually is beyond me. There are psychological and legal terms for men who only or primarily respond to non-consensual sexual situations. If that’s the case with the questionnaire author or authors, then those who share their environment should know about it.

I’m glad that (at least) there’s been a tremendous backlash at UVM and an appropriate student response to the leaked document. I hope this gratifying response lingers after the dust settles, and that male and female students in this well-loved college environment continue to reject the idea of anything like this in their midst. Because it’s more than just disgusting. It’s dangerous.

Brownian Movement and Penn State

Roger Canaff — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:07:25 +0000

“Presumed Innocent” was perhaps the one book that led me more than any other into law school and prosecution.

In it, Scott Turow describes “Brownian Movement,” the apparently random collision of particles in the air, resulting in a hum that children can sometimes hear before the bones of the inner-ear harden in puberty. Turow’s character, a married man, describes the allure of other women as something akin to Brownian Movement before meeting the woman in his office who becomes his love interest and is already murdered as the story begins. When he meets her, that movement rises to a fever pitch.

The fact of evil in the world is something I’ve often related to Turow’s view of Brownian Movement. The circumstances of my professional life assure me that it is there. I accept it. On streets and in train cars, passing houses, farms and city blocks, I am aware of its presence. It hums, usually just above or below the surface of my thoughts. I can, thankfully, usually tune it out when I’m with my toddler nephew or in the festive company of my parents and other loved ones.

But then sometimes, as it did to the tortured character of Rusty Sabich, it hums louder. It sings.

That is the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Many fans and members of the university community would prefer that it be called the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, but I won’t (even the word “scandal,” frankly, trivializes this horror as if it was a torrid affair between celebrities). That’s because Sandusky is, as happens when institutions inadvertently protect predators, almost a minor character in the volcanic ugliness that is this situation. Of course, Sandusky allegedly represents the center of the pathos that stalked the Penn State community and now threatens to scar it forever. But Sandusky is not the embodiment of it. Rather, he is ultimately a trigger in the larger, full horror of the situation. The cover-ups, the rug sweeping, the second-guessing and rationalization, all in service to a 70 million dollar a year enterprise, represent the true scope of the evil that is Penn State.

And the cancer grows.

A young man mercifully cloaked- for now- as “Victim 1” has left his high school, about 30 miles from Penn State, because of bullying. He has apparently been blamed by fellow students for the unearthing of the truth surrounding the revered and local behemoth. This is an excruciating multiplication- in numbers at least- of the type of incomprehensible betrayal child sex abuse victims often feel within their own families when the abuse is uncovered. Victims are usually never more alone than after the abuse is discovered, whether they purposely revealed it or not. Siblings, non-offending parents, even grandparents are suddenly distant or much worse. The victim, after all, has “torn the family apart,” interrupted possible financial support, brought shame upon the family because of a ‘splash effect’ that will surely color the whole clan, etc, etc. The fact of the perpetrator’s utter and sole guilt for all of these depredations simply gets lost as younger siblings grapple innocently but cruelly with the separation, the shame, and the doubt. Older members who should know better still often fail with wildly differing degrees of willfulness to shield the child from blame. And of course, in many cases, this is exactly what the perpetrator warned the child would happen if s/he dared reveal anything.

This is perhaps the farthest reach of the anguish that is child sexual abuse. When perpetrators warn children not to tell, they are not always bluffing. In fact, when they warn of betrayal, anger, collapsing support and utter isolation, they are more often than not right on target. The system can only react one way, which generally confirms fears related to a separation of the family, time in foster care, police presence and judicial appearances. This is terrifying beyond words for most adults, let alone children. But when the second shoe falls, when family members disbelieve, equivocate, or flat out resent despite believing, the suffering blooms like blood in water. The child is forever changed. Recantation is typical, and valid cases more often than not go nowhere.

Sandusky, according to statements, demanded secrecy and seems to have leaned on his alleged victims actively, calling them repeatedly and appearing even needy and clingy at times. I have no idea if or how he warned them of other consequences for revealing what he was doing, but frankly it would have been superfluous. He was Jerry Sandusky, and they were in or near State College. He allegedly hunted through his own charity and perpetrated in athletic facilities. He was figuratively at God’s right hand.

And there’s the rub. If that phrase- God’s right hand- offends religious readers, I apologize. But the point needs to be made. Penn State football became, through a confluence of circumstances surrounding an iconic and otherwise honorable coach, a deity to be worshiped rather than a college team to be rooted for. The resulting millions in revenue silenced anything that might have tainted or challenged this entity. If reports are true, then Sandusky allowed a beast inside of him to run free in the permissive environment that the god-thing allowed. That’s what happens when institutions become godlike: Predators either seek to infiltrate them, or blossom within them once it becomes obvious they can.

Allegations at Syracuse’s equally revered and powerful basketball program and the Boston Redsox organization now follow. There will be more, as sure as Catholic dioceses the world over exploded in fire-cracker sequence, breaking my heart around the time I entered this field. Skeptics and die-hard fans will cry foul and insist there is money and fame to be gained in jumping on the bandwagon Penn State has started with false allegations. In almost all cases, they’ll be wrong. And God help the victims who will come forward despite the scorn, the bullying, and the dull, mean hate that coming forward will win them against these institutions.

By all appearances, the wide world of sports must now endure a bloodletting. For the sake of the many good things athletics brings to players and fans alike, I hope its leaders stand tall and its fans prove gentle and open-hearted. But regardless, the world of sports is cracking, opening, splitting. That high, insistent hum is rising yet again.

Of Angels, A Stranger, and an Absent Father

Roger Canaff — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:59:18 +0000

“Though we share so many secrets, there are some we never tell.” William Martin (Billy) Joel

He called it “The Stranger” and titled a 1977 masterpiece after it. In my business we sometimes refer to it as the “third persona” with a nod to Jungian psychology. A persona is simply a mask, the figurative one we put on to interact with others as we go about our lives. Most of us wear several of them. Our first persona, generally, is what we show to the viewing world. A second may be what we show a lover or a trusted friend, sometimes intermittently and whether we want to or not. But the third is a dark animal indeed. It’s the face we show to no one. It’s the side of ourselves we seek to conceal at all costs. We all have these shadows of ourselves, these Strangers, inside of us. As the song says, they are not always evil, and they are not always wrong. But whether our third persona is harmless or not, a wicked trick of the mind is that we almost always to fail to recognize that it exists in others. We assume, tragically at times, that we can fully know people around us because of the personas they reveal to us. We tell ourselves that we can sense, we can see, we can discern.

We can’t. The Stranger remains, hidden and invisible.

Jerry Sandusky is no exception. He was charitable. He was hard working. He was skilled, admired, and accomplished. He was also, according to eye-witness testimony, a child rapist. His third persona was apparently demonic, and regardless of how ugly and evil, his closest relatives, his wife, his co-workers and his legendary boss would not have detected it based on what he chose to show them. Thus reveals the one merciful thing that can perhaps be said about the group of men who, from all appearances at this point, conspired to protect Jerry Sandusky at the expense of so much. They didn’t understand the third persona, and believed they knew a man because of accomplishments and attributes that say nothing about what he is capable of otherwise.

But mercy for men like Paterno, Curley, Schultz and others in the Institution that is Penn State evaporates with the reality that Sandusky’s persona was exposed at crucial times. There were revelations- a smaller word will not suffice- that vomited a glimpse of it to the great Institution and to its “sainted” mastodon at different points on a long timeline. These revelations are sometimes the only indications an otherwise decent community will receive that a predator stalks its children. The child victims themselves, God bless them, are often the last who will reveal the Stranger in the man; it’s just a bridge too far most of the time.

Those without faith will call these revelations nothing more than dumb luck, inattention on Sandusky’s part, or the blind weight of circumstances. But my own framework of faith suggests to me that these brief flashes of light in the darkness- the anal rape Mike McQueary saw in 2002, for instance, or the oral rape the janitor before him saw in 2000- represent the extremities of desperate and semi-potent angels, using whatever cosmic power they can summon to poke momentary holes in the darkness, thereby alerting the powerful to what the powerless cannot utter.

When these extremities reached Joseph Paterno in March of 2002, the angels must have shouted with joy. A more powerful man, one with more credibility, perceived decency and moral authority, could not possibly have been reached in the community in which Sandusky apparently hunted. Ironically enough, a recognized origin of the name Paterno is a shortening of the Latin Pater Noster, or Our Father, the first two words of the only prayer Jesus allegedly taught his disciples. The great man, the father figure, “St. Joe” himself now knew, and the Stranger in Sandusky would be exposed.

But alas, there was an Institution to protect as well, and in the end it won out. An all-too human Paterno responded as feebly as he legally could. The two officials he went to responded by restricting Sandusky’s access to facilities and his ability to bring boys onto campus. The Institution was protected. The community that surrounded it, and its wide-eyed, star struck boys, could be damned.

Perhaps these men can be forgiven for not knowing what I know; that the eight victims Sandusky is alleged to have abused is probably more like 80 or even much, much more than that. That the after-effects of child sexual abuse result in a panoply of emotional, psychological and physical disorders that literally truncate lives, poison future relationships, stunt potential and shred hope itself like shrapnel. That the “loss of innocence” suffered by boys abused in the way Sandusky is believed to have done so is almost trivial compared to the bleak, mental torture that follows. That the only way out is through, and that many simply never make it through. That the morally bankrupt and cynical decisions made in 1998, 2000, and 2002, as well as before and after, allowed a man to further manufacture misery, betrayal and violence that will haunt lifetimes in its wake.

Perhaps. But at the end of the day, in 2002 and God only knows how many times before and after, these men bet an Institution and its football program over their community and the tender lives of its children. While the victims themselves have paid most dearly for this terrible wager, their fate is tied inextricably to that of the community. Now the suffering of both will echo louder than the joyful sound of the throngs in the stadium, and longer than the legacy of victories under fall skies.

And the angels wept bitterly.

The Seebergs Gain Ground- Thank God

Roger Canaff — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:52:00 +0000

Elizabeth “Lizzy” Seeberg passed to the next life on September 10, 2010, a little more than a year ago. I did not know her. Readers of this space, however, know that I was profoundly touched by her life, her death, her courage, and finally the courage of her parents as 9/10/10, for them, bled brutally into the following fall and winter.

For the Seebergs, last fall was not a typical one for a Roman Catholic, Chicagoland family with multi-generational ties to Notre Dame du Lac and St. Mary’s. There was no warm delight in the football schedule, the changing of the seasons, or the approach of the holidays. Instead it was a dark struggle in the wake of a nightmare with a suddenly impenetrable bureaucracy that was the Notre Dame administration. Since I and others have described them before, I won’t recount here the missteps I believe Notre Dame took, both with the investigation of Lizzy’s attack and with its interpretation of federal privacy laws. Suffice to say the Seebergs, already dealing with the worst nightmare any parent could face, were met largely with incompetence and then obstruction where her attack and death were concerned.

However, their resolve yielded some progress earlier this year when Notre Dame agreed to significant reforms in its response to sexual violence after an investigation by the Department of Education (DoE) in the wake of Lizzy’s death.

And beyond Notre Dame, hope also sprung forth in the form of DoE policy with the publication of an April, 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. The bottom line is that just about every U.S. public or private institute of higher learning relies on federal funding for various parts of its mission. The DoE Office of Civil Rights is empowered to condition receipt of federal dollars on meeting certain standards of protection for students at risk for discrimination. The office considers sexual harassment and assault to fall under that category. The letter outlines several things colleges need to do in order to be in compliance with best practices where the response to sexual violence is concerned. Examples are things like preventing offenders from personally cross-examining victims in non-legal disciplinary hearings, and requiring a preponderance standard in determining the outcome. These things are hardly revolutionary or anti-due process.

Nevertheless, a backlash has arisen from various pundits who see these measures as some sort of perverse manifestation of political correctness that threatens to derail some precious and flowering aspect of adolescent college life.

One commentator, Sandy Hingston, unsurprisingly a romance novelist, tragically conflates the sexual exploration of adolescence with rape. She harkens back to what were apparently her and her counterparts’ own experiences of awkwardly waking up with boys in compromising situations and just not making a big deal of it. To the extent that such consensual liaisons happen, she’s correct- a big deal shouldn’t be made of it.

But here’s the rub: It isn’t.

Those awkward, fuzzy situations continue to occur every night in college life- more so now than then. But they almost never produce complaints of rape, and nothing in the DoE’s guidance will change that. The fact is, most women and men who are clearly sexually violated in liquor-fueled, late-night encounters do not wake up and cry rape, let alone what victims of murkier situations do. The over-riding response to being violated sexually is to blame oneself and say nothing, and that will not quickly change. The DoE guidelines are simply helping to level the playing field in cases where the violation is clear enough, as in the case of Lizzy Seeberg, where an outcry is not only just, but necessary to the security of the campus and all of the students on it.

But this is lost on commentators who type with panicked fingers about how these changes will surely quell romance, stunt the college experience, and lead to the rounding up of men and permanent victim-hood of women.

Nonsense. This is argument in a bubble, utterly unschooled or unaware of how sexual violence actually occurs between people in the real world. Another commentator, Peter Berkowtiz, wonders aloud in the Wall Street Journal which campus leaders will come forward to challenge this new, frightening world order. Among others, he entreats literature professors to instruct that “particularly where erotic desire is involved, intentions can be obscure, passions conflicting, the heart murky and the soul divided.”

Really? So when a woman (or a man) is trembling in a strange bed, or stumbling, half-dressed from a backseat or a back room with the dawning horror of having been sexually assaulted, what she must first do is consider the divided and murky nature of her passionate soul?

Both commentators can be forgiven for naiveté, but neither have a clue what sexual violence really looks like. The reality is, when complaints are made- or even contemplated- it’s almost never a close call. It’s almost never a gray area. Despite the musings of Mr. Berkowitz and others, sexual violence isn’t simply an unfair moniker for the complicated, erotic interplay of Rhett, Scarlett and a swollen, harvest moon in a sultry, starlit sky. It’s really much more banal, blunt, and evil than that. When it happens, and it does, it needs to be dealt with competently and fairly.

Competence and fairness. That’s what Lizzy Seeberg needed, and in large part what she was denied. That’s why her parents fight on, not for Lizzy now, but lovingly in her memory and valiantly for the millions of women they know will face what she faced. They could have been easily forgiven for shutting down and tuning out after the loss of the light in their lives, yet they are doing neither. Their angel is gone from this life, but they are not content with waiting to see her in the next. They are fighting to protect the angels of others who will wander onto campuses and into situations unmistakable in their criminality and deserving of a realistic, healing, and just response. The DoE’s efforts and its hard look at Notre Dame are a product of that fight. Both are welcome steps toward a better world.

“Modest Reforms” for Rape Cases, and Why They’re A Bad Idea

Roger Canaff — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 05:15:56 +0000

Last week, a high-powered Florida trial attorney named Roy Black penned a piece in Salon.com in which he argued for “modest reforms” in how sexual assault cases are charged and tried. Black successfully defended William Kennedy Smith in 1991, when he was a little younger than I am now. He has defended Rush Limbaugh, trans-national corporations and thousands of other entities in an over 40 year career.

He has my admiration for being a zealous advocate. He’s dead wrong on the reforms he calls for.

He’s of course correct that we should protect those accused of rape. Safeguards of due process and a presumption of innocence are crucial to American justice, in sex assault cases as much as any other. Similarly, there is reasonableness and even some sympathy in his arguments regarding the media attention and rush to judgment some sexual assault accusations generate, particularly involving celebrities. But the rush to judgment is a two-way street. As my friend and colleague Anne Munch notes, the “rush” is usually around the victim being a presumed a liar or slut. Kobe Bryant is classic example of this. Analysis of media coverage in the first 5 months following the charge against him is an astonishing example of a rush to judgment by people completely unfamiliar with the case or the victim. Hundreds of people issued death threats against her for reporting in the first place.

Black’s other arguments are a tired recitation of rape mythology, particularly where he asserts, both with innuendo and flawed research, that accusations of sexual violence are commonly false (they are in fact no more common at most than false reports of any other crime) and easy to level at innocent men. These two baseless claims are what underpin the “modest reforms” he suggests.

At the outset, it’s important to note that Black and many defense attorneys probably want these myths to remain firmly embedded in the American psyche; hence his reliance on false allegation studies so deeply flawed they are critiqued even on Wikipedia, to which his essay links. Also misleading are his use of statistics from the FBI; classification differences and unreliable input are behind the disparity noted between rape and other crimes tracked by that agency.

The more these myths continue to find purchase in what is essentially a national jury pool, the more easily acquittals are achieved. Defense attorneys must be focused on protecting their clients from criminal liability by all legal and ethical means. It’s not legally unethical to appeal to long-standing but patently untrue myths surrounding sexual violence. But perpetrating myths doesn’t make them any less false or damaging. Thus, every one of Black’s “reforms” would create not an acknowledgement of reality, but rather a return to a time where reality was cloaked in myth– myth that protected perpetrators, silenced victims, and helped to further truncate and fracture lives already altered by sexual violence.

The idea that rape is an accusation “easily made but not easily defended,” for instance, never existed in reality, but only in the minds of men who could enforce this paranoid fantasy in courts of law. In fact, most victims don’t report being sexually assaulted; it remains a chronically under-reported crime and a tiny percentage of victims ever see their rapists legally punished. Those who dare to report, like the women who accused Kobe Bryant and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, have found their lives ripped apart and turned upside down.

Similarly, “Rape Shield” laws do not prevent cross-examination of a victim on conduct that is legitimately relevant. Several exceptions exist in every jurisdiction, including a catch-all, “in the interests of justice” one in some states allowing almost any type of questioning under certain circumstances. What appropriate Rape Shield laws do is prevent perversely placing the victim on trial for behavior, dress or reputation that don’t speak to whether she consented to a sex act, but that serve to demonize her in a way that makes legally vindicating her less compelling. It’s a nullification tactic: If the victim can be made to look like “she was asking for it,” or that she isn’t of sufficient moral character, then a jury is less likely to convict even if they believe a crime was perpetrated.

Hand in hand with this tactic is Black’s suggestion that intoxication on the part of the accused be viewed the same way as on the part of the victim. Nonsense. Alcohol is a diversion, however unhealthy, for victims. It is a weapon for perpetrators, commonly wielded to reduce resistance, cloud perception, impugn character, and negate suspicion by disguising the crime as a misunderstanding. Perpetrators are not otherwise upstanding citizens possessed by “demon rum.” Alcohol facilitates rape. It does not cause rape.

Even more bizarre is the suggestion that corroboration and some showing of force or a threat be present before a case is filed. These two antiquated rules rested on the utterly inaccurate belief that “real” rape necessarily involves physical injury, the use of weapons, and intuitive reactions on the part of the victim. In fact, most men who rape use only the force necessary to accomplish the act, and do not use weapons or violence. Physical injury is rare. Victims display a wide range of emotional reactions, some of which don’t fit the expectations of people unfamiliar with sexual violence dynamics.

Allowing myths to prevent justice in sexual violence cases can affect more than the interests of the immediate victim. It also allows perpetrators to continue to offend. Recent and replicated research documents that most rapists are serial rapists, whether their MO is to attack strangers or victims they know. When myth-based legal tactics allow a perpetrator to escape justice, there is significant reason to believe he’ll strike again.

Inaccurate perceptions and myths also serve to re-victimize rape survivors in hideous ways. Valid victims have been jailed for filing false reports because authority figures wrongly believed they were lying. These mistakes have done more than unfairly punish victims; in some cases they have allowed rapists to strike again, even to the point of murder. My organization’s Start By Believing campaign in part addresses these miscarriages of justice in an effort to prevent them.

It is fair to ask what is gained for a truth-seeking system of justice by things like the “perp-walk” before cameras. Reforms in how we respond to the unblinking eye of the media cycle where high profile crime is concerned are worth considering. But these reforms should not be conflated with suggestions that seek not to level the playing field, but rather to tilt it further in favor of perpetrators who, in so many ways, elude justice enough already.