Tag Archives: Sexual Assault

Rape Denial In Action: Bullying Jody Raphael for Telling the Truth

Leave a reply

A couple of weeks ago I endorsed an important and well-written, well researched book on sexual violence by law professor Jody Raphael, a nationally prominent researcher, anti-violence advocate, lecturer and attorney. The very point of Raphael’s book, Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis, is how powerful interest groups nationwide are making a large problem worse by intimidating victims and challenging their credibility, downplaying rates of sexual assault, and protecting their own institutional environments. The book has been met with well-deserved praise by those of us in the anti-sexual violence movement who know how meticulously well researched and accurate it is.

Raphael has been challenged, though, not through honest discourse or documented findings, but through rank intimidation and an organized smear campaign. She discusses, among many other topics, the tragic inaction (and worse) of officials involved in the Sandusky/Penn State crisis. This caught the attention of a group of Paterno supporters in the Penn State community who decided they didn’t like Raphael’s illumination of the subject to the extent it threatened their hero-worship. What followed was a organized campaign to rate her book negatively on the Amazon book selling site in an attempt to make it less visible to to potential book buyers. On a message board (no longer visible) on the site “BlueWhiteIllustrated,” a poster wrote: ”I and others have been posting negative comments on the Amazon site where the book is being sold. As a result, the rating for the book has dropped from 5 stars to 2. Please go to the site and add your comments. Let’s drop the rating to 1 star. BTW, Ms. Raphael is a law professor – hard to believe.”

As a result, and since that campaign began, there are 41 negative reviews of her book, just about everyone of them related to the Penn State issue. As friend and colleague Katie Feifer of Counterquo put it so eloquently, “Seldom do real life events so quickly prove the key point that an author makes in her book.”

Raphael has experienced other forms of harassment and intimidation in the wake of her book’s release as well; thankfully she has the strength, dedication and courage to face them all down. But what she’s experienced in an effort to expose the truth about a preventable national shame and tragedy should sound a louder alarm. The problem is, in fact, even worse than we thought.

 

Needed Wisdom on Rape from a Former Judge

Leave a reply

Prof_Bobby_Prof_J1_midsz“We were insulted by the word “date” rape. “Date” rape does not exist. It’s a misnomer; It’s like saying “car-jack.” Car-jack is robbery. Rape is rape. That’s it.”

-former judge Robert Holdman on his time as Chief Trial Counsel, Child Abuse and Sex Unit, Bronx District Attorneys Office, Bronx, New York

A colleague and mentor, former New York State Supreme Court Justice Robert Holdman, was invited to participate in a Huffpost Live broadcast on the Steubenville rape case as the trial was being heard. He was joined by Alexander Abad Santos of the Atlantic Wire, and also Zerlina Maxwell and Jaclyn Friedman. Friedman and Maxwell in particular are well-known warriors in the fight against rape culture, and I’ve had the honor of working with and learning from Jaclyn personally. The broadcast is an excellent discussion of the Steubenville dynamics and the larger problem beyond it. It’s still well worth watching even as the case fades slowly away from the news cycle.

What made Holdman’s comments so important is that they came from the perspective of a former trial judge. While most U.S. judges are honorable professionals worthy of the power of the robe, the judiciary is still a place where we don’t see enough understanding of the dynamics and reality of sexual violence. This is particularly true with non-stranger sexual violence, the kind women and men experience far more than any other.

Every criminal defendant deserves a full and robust defense, and also a judge who is sensitive to the circumstances of an individual facing the power of the government, regardless of the charges. Holdman would surely agree, and his comments rightfully included the responsibility of judges to be neutral and fair to defendants facing criminal prosecution. Being a good trial judge doesn’t mean- from my perspective or any other- assuming guilt in any criminal case or anything close to it. But an ignorance of the reality of sexual violence, particularly between individuals who know each other, and an over-reliance on the myth and innuendo so pervasive in our culture regarding rape and sexual assault, lead far too many judges to render irrational and unjust decisions in these types of cases.

Important professional opportunities have taken Holdman- for now- from his duties as a trial judge. Still, I hope the messages he has conveyed reach the men and women who make the crucial decisions that shape sexual violence cases nationwide and beyond. I also hope he finds his way back to the bench as his career progresses; his kind of clarity on this subject needs to be as common on the judicial bench as it needs to be everywhere else.

 

 

Preventing Another Steubenville: Middle Ground on Education and Rape

Leave a reply

iStock_rape prevention“Preventing another Steubenville” is on the minds of many as the case slowly passes from the news cycle. What most observers want, understandably, is to prevent not “just” the victimization experienced by the 16 year-old girl at the center of the case, but also the pain that was dealt to everyone- perpetrators included- by the system. Most well-intentioned people feel for the victim first. But she, thankfully, was not showcased in the investigation and trial. The lives, stories and choices of Trent Mays and Mal’ik Richmond were. Mostly for that reason, many national news outlets made them the story and received criticism (mine included) for an over-focus on their good grades, their “promising careers,” etc, rather than on her. Their choices, at least, are what condemned them. Their victim could make no choices, and lives with what happened to her anyway. 

Regardless, seeing young men physically crumble in court and utter things like “My life is over. No one will want me now,” is heartrending. And it should be. I prosecuted child abuse and sexual violence cases for years. I prosecuted juveniles like Mays and Richmond for crimes like this. I prosecuted males who were technically adults but children in every meaningful way; I saw them convicted, sentenced and bound for a correctional system in Virginia that I knew however uncomfortably would likely tear them to shreds. That was the system. I was ethical, but I was dispassionate. I was a prosecutor, not a healer.

But like any decent person, I’d love to see a path toward preventing rape, not just responding to it. What doubts I have regarding the ability to proactively raise boys to be non-sexually violent (at least in the short run), I expressed last week here and here. What they boil down to is that I believe most men are not sexually violent, but that the minority who are, are malformed in early life for reasons we can’t yet grasp- and they are basically unreachable.

That said, since most men and almost all women are not sexually violent, I believe bystander intervention can be effective in preventing the kind of non-stranger rape that we see the vast majority of the time. Programs like Project Green Dot, already being implemented on college campuses (a good friend was instrumental in a Green Dot program at the University of Mississippi) have amazing potential to create an innovative environment of protection between students from every perspective. It’s simple and it’s genius. Everyone- male or female, gay or straight, greek or independent, protects each other from situations that probably won’t, but certainly could, end with a crime occurring. But in my mind, this doesn’t generally enlighten and ennoble offenders; it instead foils them by clearing the fog of alcohol, isolation, and toxic masculinity within which they hunt.

But is there educational purchase in grass-roots programs like Green Dot (or innovative productions like Sex Signals) that seek to challenge hyper-masculinity and rape culture? Are there “on the fence” guys who could learn to grow differently? Who would digest the broadcasted signals of decency and respect and be better for them?

How could I hope not?

Irin Carmon, a writer for Salon, last week published what might be the most balanced and informed opinion that embraces the same research I have, but allows for the hope that probably needs to be a part of the conversation as well. I stand beside the admonitions I’ve made in the past: “Forgiving” rape as a lapse in judgment by an otherwise “decent” guy is a pernicious mistake in most cases. But I’ll acknowledge that there is hope in social engineering and pushing forward a cultural change in how boys and men view sexuality. 

I only ask (as I imagine Carmon would) that we continue to observe two core considerations: First, be realistic about prevention and don’t create rules for women to follow “or else,” i.e., or else it was her fault. Second, don’t assume rape is a mistake, particularly based on the appearance, reputation, and social status of the rapist. Victim blaming isn’t the answer, and neither is forgiving as “foolish” something usually far more sinister. With those things in mind, let’s move forward.

Media Rundown on Steubenville from ThinkProgress.org: It’s Her Fault

Left-leaning Think Progress posted an excellent and highly instructive series of paragraphs today (with clear documentation) on how various national media outlets chose to report on the verdict handed down yesterday in the Steubenville sexual assault case.

CNN, ABC and NBC all focused primarily on the promising careers and positive aspects of the convicted teenagers. USA Today and the Associated Press focused on the fact that the victim was drunk, as if she were frankly complicit in bringing on what happened to her.

Yahoo, though, went the furthest in blaming her, suggesting that her choice to report being repeatedly sexually violated, filmed and humiliated, was to blame for tearing the town apart.

So it’s her fault for “ruining the lives” of such promising young athletes. Her fault for being drunk. Her fault for coming forward and “tearing a town apart.”

And we wonder why so few victims report.

 

 

Military Justice and Sexual Violence: An Ideal, or a Tool for Commanders?

Leave a reply

iStock military justice“The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.” 

-Manual for Courts-Martial, Preamble, Section 3, Nature and Purpose of Military Law

In an honest discussion about what the US military values and pursues in terms of addressing wrongdoing within its ranks, it would be unfair not to point out that the promotion of justice is the first of three clauses defining its very purpose in the MCM, or Manual for Courts-Martial. 

That being said, in 32 months of civilian employment with the United States Army as an experienced sex crimes prosecutor, hired to assist the JAG in addressing sexual violence within the ranks, I heard far less about the first clause and much more about the second. As a singular concept, “good order and discipline” is at bottom the condition most crucial to enabling our military to do what must do. I was told again and again that military justice had to be understood in a different context than that of the civilian world. Justice in the military is an ideal, but more practically a “commander’s tool” to maintain good order and discipline.

A commander is an officer responsible for the development, maintenance, and actions of a particular military unit. Junior commanders include Army captains in charge of 150 or so soldiers in a company. A senior commander might be a general commanding tens of thousands of soldiers in a Corps. Regardless of their level of responsibility, all commanders must maintain good order and discipline. Without it, everything else they seek to preserve- including the very lives of their warriors- is at risk. So a cohesive, obedient and ordered fighting force is the ultimate goal. Most everything else, at least in terms of the mission to be carried out, is secondary.

Two things should clarified here: First, the JAG officers I encountered, in addition to commanders, were almost always deeply decent, honorable men and women who abhorred, among other things, sexual violence perpetrated by one of their own. Second, the concept of “justice” as we normally view it in the Judeo-Christian context, is appropriately intertwined with good order and discipline. Of the things that inspire servicemen and women to follow the rules and act as a unified fighting force, a belief that they’re treated equally and justly is probably first among them. So it’s not that justice isn’t a concern of military commanders. Rather, it’s a concern tempered by other imperatives, most not typically experienced or appreciated by civilian observers.

Enter sexual assault and military priorities.

More of the civilian world now knows, from the sexual assault case out of Aviano, Italy, that high-level commanders (with the authority to convene general courts-martial, or simply Convening Authorities) can overturn the findings of a military tribunal. No reason for doing so is required, and the action of the convening authority is not reversible.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) last week questioned a panel of Judge Advocates General about how justifiable it was to allow one commander to negate the findings of a military tribunal after months of litigation (the convening authority who overturned the panel verdict in the air force case never spoke to the victim). Gilibrand argued forcefully that the sole authority to negate the findings of a general court martial was anything but emblematic of or conducive to “good order and discipline.” Instead, she argued, the power of one commander to undermine the efforts of a full and concerted legal process only chills reports and emboldens perpetrators. This, in turn, eats away at good order and discipline by compromising the backstop of enforcement that aims to keep all servicemen and women safe from harm by- first and foremost- each other.

I suspect Gilibrand is right. But the issue of justice as an ideal versus justice as a means to an end must be fully understand by civilian decision makers before changes are made, if they are to be. Understanding the military view (as I understood it) did not change my perspective. But it helped to know why a different perspective existed.