Overvaluing "Purity:" The Consequences When Rape Happens

A few weeks ago, Elizabeth Smart made a brave statement about the unintended consequences of the religiously-based preoccupation with "sexual purity" for females prior to marriage. Smart's point was simple: Because virginity and "purity" were so valued within her conservative, religious culture growing up, she felt "worthless, dirty and filthy" after her virginity had been taken from her- even as a victim of abduction and rape. She felt so damaged, in fact, that the idea of escape from her captors or even being rescued seemed meaningless. Her culture had taught her that to be "defiled" sexually made her used and undesirable. She had nothing to return to.In fairness, might family members or religious leaders in that situation encourage a girl to believe differently about herself because of the circumstances of her "loss?" Probably. But not necessarily. In extremely strict cultures- usually but not always religiously based- a loss of virginity renders a girl unable to marry within expected circumstances and therefore cursed and worthless regardless of whether she consented to the act. This is thankfully fading in most places, but not completely. I dealt with parents of victims as recently as the mid 2000's who were more concerned about the "technical status" of their girl's virginity than any other aspect of her recovery or our criminal case.But particularly where religiously-based obsessions with female premarital sexual activity are present, even efforts to relieve a rape victim of the purity burden will fall short. As long as the focus is on the the genitalia itself rather than on the girl possessing it, shame will fall like a stone when some arbitrary, bodily status is altered regardless of intent. Or consent.Adherents to the importance of premarital "purity" (usually for girls) claim practical as well as religious reasons for stressing it. Some, like the issue of STD's, are at least fair and considerable. Others, like the believed psychological consequences of promiscuity, are far more questionable. Still others, like the "cultural realities" put forth as a warning to girls (i.e., how society judges and devalues them when they are perceived to be promiscuous) might seem valid. But ultimately it's only because of the myths and judgment that those giving the warnings are reinforcing to begin with. Whatever the motivations of those obsessed with sexual purity, an undeniable consequence to the indoctrinated will be a profound sense of loss, failure and even hopelessness when whatever the standard set fails to be met. The issue has implications beyond sexual violence. Risk is a natural part of youth. Whether one believes that sexual activity before marriage or between teenagers is good, bad or simply dependent on circumstances, the fact is that it happens. Young people act recklessly and impulsively; some of this is explainable neuro-biologically. They make mistakes, they find themselves in situations that spin out of control, etc, etc. A conscious choice or something far less volitional may result in an irreversible, "status change" regarding a girl's "purity" before God or whatever other institution. Are the consequences to her psychological wellbeing and sense of self truly worth reinforcing this arbitrary ideal?Not being religiously observant in this manner, I cannot claim an unbiased view or an objective answer. I find any religious preoccupation with "purity" to be more harmful than helpful, not to mention sadly distracting from concepts like charity, humility and service to others. In particular I find things like purity balls- staged events where girls as young as 7 pledge their purity to their fathers until they are given in marriage to another man- to be rank and offensive if not worse. I don't believe more than a tiny percentage of families engaged in the practice intend harm to their daughters. Regardless, as a longtime student of predatory behavior and environments that nurture and protect offenders, I find the practice disturbing, other objections aside.Feminist writers like Jessica Valenti have written much more comprehensively on the subject and I recommend her work in particular. But I can say with confidence that an obsession with sexual purity can and usually will bear a dark consequence at the worse possible time: An added psychological wound when one or several others have just been borne.

Elizabeth, Rehtaeh, and Audrie: With the Tools Against Them, the World Was Not Enough

    I've been avoiding writing about Rehaeh Parsons and Audrie Pott, the two teenage girls who committed suicide recently following sexual attacks, bullying and non-responses (or worse) from their communities. Not because I don't think their cases are important, but because the first time I delved into the world of a kind, loving and otherwise typical adolescent who was driven to suicide because of sexual violence and a negative response from her community, it nearly broke my heart. Her name was Elizabeth Seeberg, and she was 19. Rehtaeh was 17. Audrie, God keep her, was only 15.  Elizabeth was from Illinois, Rehtaeh from Nova Scotia, and Audrie from California. While they lived different lives, they had some observable characteristics in common, and these things are not unimportant. They underscore the horror these women experienced- less, possibly, from the attacks- then from the response that eventually drove them into the cold embrace of death. All three were objectively beautiful in terms of Western ideals. All three appear to have had (and I know personally that Elizabeth had), loving families and supportive caregivers. They were physically healthy and active. They had the resources of middle class incomes and the relative freedom to pursue their dreams in dynamic and democratic societies. Outside of the context of their victimization, in terms of their stations in life and potential, it could be argued that they had the world itself before them. And yet they're dead, all three of them, by their own hands.The world was not enough.That shouldn't be surprising, because nothing is enough when you're violated in the most fundamental way imaginable and then face the often greater nightmare of public humiliation, shame and rejection in its wake. Those things have always been reality for sexual violence survivors of course, particularly in non-stranger cases (the vast majority that occur). But it was modern technology- the kind that all three grew up with and that could have been listed among their assets as emerging citizens of the new age- that made their ordeals seem so horribly infinite."Infinite" is the carefully chosen and correct term for what Audrie and Rehtaeh in particular faced. The evermore nimble, powerful, and globally connected computers we still refer to as "cell phones" make the projection of our every memorialized moment as effortless as the practiced dance of slender, trained fingers over a tiny glass screen. In Elizabeth's case, text messaging warned her that the colossus, Notre Dame football, was not to be trifled with. In Audrie's case, her violators allegedly wrote on her body in permanent marker and then photographed their work with such a device. In Rehtaeh's case she was allegedly photographed unawares while being raped; as it was happening, an accomplice shouted "take a picture!"A picture. Once a delicate amalgam of chemicals on special paper, it's now merely another manifestation of electronic communication, ready instantly for a worldwide web of limitless vectors and endless, light-speed traveled avenues. For Audrie and Rehtaeh, trapped without locks in the incubators of dread that their own bedrooms became, the predicable questions were surely asked: My God, who will see this? How many times will it be traded, forwarded, posted, mocked? We might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Combine that with the judgment both girls know the viewers would surely deliver to them as the photograph's subjects.And then there stood the abyss, before them both.Technology will not go backward and sexual violence will not be eradicated anytime soon. The sole option is moving forward in technology's relentless grasp so that sexual violence, when it occurs, won't be mocked foolishly in cyberspace to the detriment of its victims. Lizzy, Audrie and Rehtaeh were wounded by users, not the tools at their disposal. But because the tools are so much more powerful, because they allow the cruel, the vindictive, or simply the ignorant to cause so much more damage than ever before, we have an absolute duty to address cruelty, vindictiveness and especially ignorance more than ever before.If we don't, we can expect the roll of the dead to grow even faster than the sickening rate in which we're seeing it now. 

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

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. 

"Dr. Lolly McDavid and Fmr. Special Victims ADA Roger Canaff on the psychological ramifications of abductions"

I was a guest on CNN the other morning, discussing the art and science of conducting forensic interviews with victims of sexual and physical abuse.  I’ve conducted hundreds of these interviews and in this clip I talk about some of the challenges facing the Ohio investigators as they try to piece together a case against the women’s captor, Ariel Castro.

The Real Horror of Kermit Gosnell: Evil Finds A Way

Kermit Gosnell, if the charges against him are true, is the ultimate child abuser.I cannot run from this.It's not an easy task to write about his case from the standpoint of an advocate for children who is also legally pro-choice. But to be in my position and not write about this case is, to me, an act of cowardice. I’m a former child abuse prosecutor and an advocate for the most defenseless among us. Abortion opponents would- and have- challenged me on how I cannot see a child in the womb as the most defenseless human being imaginable. My response, at least for now, is that I draw the line at the generally accepted notion of “viability” and accept it as sound public policy. Personally, I view every abortion as a tragedy. But I would never support (absent what I consider reasonable restrictions) a legal ban on the practice; among other things I lack the moral authority to block a woman from making basic reproductive decisions I’ll never have to face.But if Gosnell delivered live human beings and then murdered them with scissors, all of this in a fetid, filthy and sometimes lethal atmosphere, he is evil incarnate. Of course, most on both sides of the abortion debate would readily agree with that statement. But they also see very different implications for what it means.To many abortion opponents, Gosnell’s hellish work is simply the inevitable consequence of an abhorrent practice that devalues life and richly rewards the dealing out of death. To supporters of legal abortion, Gosnell was allowed to flourish exactly because of the increasingly truculent and organized attack on reproductive rights. Women have found ways to end pregnancy for millennia; legal restrictions against that effort only push it into the shadows where compassion and basic competence give way to recklessness, greed, and torture.I can’t embrace fully the more extreme pro-choice view that the best way to avoid evil within the practice of abortion is to simply allow it to occur with few if any restrictions well into a second trimester. The combination of desperation and the shadows of illegality attracts horrors, yes. But as well, there's the stubborn fact that, the later an abortion is contemplated, the more morality gets muddled as much as legality. There may be decent medical providers willing to perform such tasks for what they at least sincerely believe are the right reasons. But there will be others drawn to the practice for far worse ones.Still, what I know of criminality and the nature of predatory people is what ultimately leads me to side, generally, with pro-choice elements on what allowed Gosnell to operate. The primarily religious based anti-abortion movement believes that the practice itself is inherently evil and that therefore associated horrors are inevitable. I do not; right or wrong, I part ways with the religious to the extent that they believe the basic practice of abortion, no matter how well-intentioned, well-orchestrated, or reasonably regulated, eventually produces the kind of callousness within many of its practitioners that leads to the charges Gosnell now faces.What I believe is that the desperation of women denied other options is what attracts- not produces- men like Gosnell. This is how predators work. Despite the insistence that abortion invites the perversion of the soul, that's not what I believe happens. Rather, in most cases and far more terrifyingly, I believe evil souls are usually perverted from the beginning, and then search for opportunities.Gosnell is on trial for being, among other things, a perversion of a doctor who mislead, mistreated, maimed and killed mostly young women and babies. If the charges are true, he is probably every bit the monster he is feared to be. Not a reluctant practitioner of a dark art for the sake of women who had no where else to go, but simply a deeply evil creature who feasted on misery and murder, collecting its products in jars because it amused him.If so, in my mind, he was not coarsened and “made” evil by what he practiced. He is more likely an opportunist with original intentions. He simply found the perfect environment in which to indulge them.

Needed Wisdom on Rape from a Former Judge

"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 YorkA 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.  

"Rape is Rape" by Jody Raphael: Must Read

Jody Raphael, a friend and colleague in the anti-sexual violence movement, has released a book that is essential reading for anyone interested in the issues surrounding rape, particularly non-stranger sexual assault. She cuts through myth and innuendo with strong and clear language and sets the record straight. Highly recommended. 

Swarthmore and Occidental: Two More Institutions Mishandling Sexual Violence

Occidental University in Los Angeles and Swarthmore outside of Philadelphia are both highly selective liberal arts institutions of higher learning. Both are also being challenged by students who suffered sexual violence under their umbrellas and then negative responses and ill treatment when they reported it. One by one, colleges and universities are being called out. It's an idea whose time has come; thus (with a nod to Victor Hugo) nothing will stop it.

U.S. Senators, Don't Blink: Own the Reality of Newtown if Not Your Own Cowardice

TRIGGER WARNING: GRAPHICI was troubled by one understandable and typically American response to the Newtown massacre, namely the mostly Christian-themed memorial depictions that flew around social media. Some showed 20 children running cheerfully into a brilliantly lit classroom that was really heaven, or suddenly and happily finding themselves with wings on fluffy clouds.Doubtlessly, the images and cartoons were well-intended. But ultimately they also served to sanitize the event, and almost to perversely undermine, however unintentionally, the gravity of it. The children are fine, the images suggested. We can move on.But we can't. Because when we do, however innocently, it makes it even easier for a sufficient number of feckless cowards who call themselves United States Senators to deny their responsibilities to any entity other than the corporate gun lobby or a fading and paranoid subculture of conspiracy blinded crackpots.So please, invite your senator, if he or she voted against the series of reasonable amendments that died today amid an atmosphere shame and idiocy, to imagine the reality of Sandy Hook from the scope of a military grade assault weapon wielded by the miserable insect behind it. Demand that they picture what Lanza saw. Because it wasn’t 20 children and 6 women softly fading into the light of eternity, however warm that light might have felt once they got there.They were ripped apart by a round of ammunition weighing about a third of an ounce with a muzzle energy (basically impact potential) of around 2400 foot pounds. That much metal at 2200 feet per second tearing into a child with an average weight of 48 pounds doesn’t cause him or her to fade with a sleepy smile into bliss. I thankfully have not seen the Newtown crime scene photos, but I am no stranger to images of children killed by gunfire.So I know that the little angels of Newtown more than likely lost limbs and entire sections of their bodies in smoky red glazes. I know their faces probably exploded, their skulls bursting like pomegranates thrown from high windows. And, as Lanza squeezed again and again- as he would have had to do- an untold number saw their classmates eviscerated in unblinking terror and disbelief before his one open eye found their tiny, frail body and tore it open like fallen fruit under a truck tire.Please, don’t blink. And don’t let your senator blink either.  Because that is the reality of the long moments of hell experienced by the supposedly now winged seraphim who were once Connecticut school children. The reality is smoking fragments of a Batman sweatshirt soaked in blood. The reality is a Disney princess headband spattered with brain matter on a tiny, shattered classroom chair.But it’s not the only reality. The other is that Adam Lanza was a miserable creature limited utterly by his options. Thanks to the senseless expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 2004 (around the time Lanza turned 12), his mother was allowed to purchase a military style weapon, kept in her comfortable, remarkably low-crime Connecticut home within reach of the thing that was her child. The idea that this pathetic creature could have committed 26 brutal murders with a knife or a baseball bat is the height of sophomoric stupidity; right up there with the idea that a black president is going to disarm the populace and impose socialism on a dwindling white majority.And yet that suspicion, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the droner making the argument, is what appears to hold sway still in the upper legislative house of the most powerful nation on earth. That and the threat of gun lobby money ending precious political careers. But balanced against two score little angels now nestled in Jesus’ bosom, is that so intolerable?A shooting survivor shouted “shame on you” from the gallery today as Vice President Biden announced the final tally on a background check compromise. I took gallery shouters to task for their “Second Amendment” outbursts in Hartford, and I should be consistent and criticize her.But in Hartford the object of the shouts was a grieving father. In Washington, D.C. today, it was among the most powerful and privileged group of 100 in the world.Let freedom ring.

"Prosecutors Are at Risk, but Security is Limited"

The recent murders of prosecuting attorneys in Kaufman County, Texas, provided a grim reminder of some of the risks inherent in this profession. Actual violence is thankfully an aberration but instances of threatening behavior are not. I recalled one such instance for this piece by John Schwartz of The New York Times on prosecutor security.

"Predator games: Communication, reassurance can help parents"

I spoke recently to a group of law enforcement, medical and human services professionals at Mercy Hospital’s Protecting Families Conference in Sioux City, IA.   One topic I covered is how those who sexually abuse children often groom not only their victims but often families and the community at-large.The Sioux City Journal covered the conference and wrote a story about my address.

Previous Press Appearances

SANE Testimony in Child Sex Abuse Cases: Shedding Light, Dispelling Myths for Justice

Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (SANE) is a relatively young discipline that has served as one of the biggest leaps in criminal justice and the proper treatment of victim survivors in decades. In recent years, certification for SANEs has grown to include a specialty in pediatric examinations as well, allowing for a formal designation for SANEs specifically recognized as experts in conducting exams on children. This development is especially crucial given that incidences of child sexual assault in particular are often under reported, and even reported cases often don’t get charged or tried by prosecutors lacking in evidence to prove the allegations. A 2007 study indicates that Forensic Nurse Examiner (FNE) programs are having an impact, however, and raising prosecution rates where they are implemented.Download the PDF to read the rest of SANE Testimony in Child Sex Abuse Cases.

TCAP helps lawyers try sexual assault cases

TCAPatCampVictory (PDF)

A Terrible Crime Averted. A Terrible Discovery That Cannot Be

Two boys, aged 10 and 11, will stand trial for conspiracy to commit rape and murder in Washington State. Although state law apparently presumes a lack of criminal responsibility (even juvenile responsibility) for children 8 to 12, the presumption can be overcome with evidence. Such evidence was introduced in a competency hearing, including evidence that the boys knew the nature and character of what they wanted to do.What they wanted to do, complete with a stolen knife and handgun in their possession along with a written plan, was to rape and then stab a fellow female student. One apparently even understood that rape was not a sexual act, but more a display of power and control. One of the boys was asked if he understood that murder was wrong. His response was "yes, I wanted her dead." At this point, like anyone decent, I am thankful the plan was foiled. As for what lies ahead, or how these two arrived in a courthouse on trial for their youth, I have no answers.    

The False Accusation Against Brian Banks: One That Looks Worth Pursuing

In this space and others, I maintain that false accusations of sexual violence are rare, because they are. Their frequency is grossly over-stated by some "Men's Rights Advocates" (MRA's) and others to the detriment of untold numbers of women (and men) who are raped and far too often disbelieved because of the myths MRA's cling to and proliferate.What I have never written and will never write is that false accusations never occur, or that they should not be punished when they do occur, absent a serious mental health issue on the part of the falsely accusing person. This is often if not usually true, and is exactly what occurred in the infamous "Duke Lacrosse" case that so many unfairly hold out as a "typical" or common occurrence. The complainant in that case, according to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper in 2006, was so mentally ill that authorities felt she probably believed the accusations she made.That kind of situation, i.e., a serious mental health issue, doesn't seem to be at issue with regard to Wanetta Gibson, the woman who falsely accused Banks as a teenager, an accusation that landed him in California's brutal correctional system for five years. Banks was, thankfully, exonerated in a Los Angeles county courtroom and on the motion of the LA District Attorneys Office, which did the right thing in light of the evidence Banks was able to provide. That evidence, featured in a 60 Minutes segment aired earlier this week, included a videotape made of the complainant, Ms. Gibson, calmly admitting to an investigator that Banks neither raped nor kidnapped her, and (to Banks himself) that she would be willing to help him with his plight, but apparently not if it meant giving back the $1.5 million dollar settlement Gibson received when her family sued the school district over what they claimed was inadequate security.Banks was apparently a good student and an ultra promising football star verbally committed to play in college when his life was permanently altered and torn apart by the accusation. On the advice of counsel he pled "no contest" to avoid the uncertainty of a trial and was made to register for life as a sex offender upon his release. His dreams of playing in the NFL are almost certainly destroyed, but admirably he remains positive and not bitter about the person who cost him so much. Banks has stated he doesn't want Gibson aggressively pursued by the law for what she did.I don't know that I do either. But I do believe there should be a legal response to both Gibson and her family in terms of the civil settlement and her false claim- one she maintained throughout a long and arduous process. Gibson was a juvenile when she made the accusations, and that should certainly be weighed along with as many other factors as are relevant. According to some reports, her mother was the person driving both the false allegation and the law suit forward. Both civilly and criminally, Los Angeles county and the involved school district have a responsibility, in my view, to seek justice here. It matters, regardless of Banks' exoneration or how well he seems to be pulling his life back together. He seems like a decent, thoughtful young man and I salute his resilience and applaud his triumph.But even if Banks isn't insistent on pursuing Gibson and her family for tearing his life apart, his community should be. That's what prosecution is, after all. It is not the use of the government to settle personal scores. It is the expression of the community coupled with the power of the courts, aimed at righting wrongs in the name of everyone. And for the sake of everyone.Banks is not the only person wronged by this miscarriage of justice. Gibson's misdeeds provide fuel to an already roaring fire against victims of sexual violence, the great majority of whom are valid, but suffer skepticism because of cases like this. A combination of that truth and a desire to be credible as an anti-violence advocate and former prosecutor prompt me to wonder why justice isn't being sought against her, or the adults who pushed her forward. 

Enduring, For Nothing, Sandusky's Latest Public Words

Jerry Sandusky has again been given a forum in which to claim he is innocent of the charges he was convicted of 9 months ago, this time through a NBC "Today" show interview with filmmaker John Ziegler, whose apparent ambition is to clear Joe Paterno of any responsibility for inaction or worse during the terrible years Sandusky hunted children within the Penn State community.Several groups, most prominently the dynamic support group Male Survivor, have rightfully called out NBC and Today for airing the interview in what looks like an effort to boost ratings with a draw backward to a sensational case rather than any real effort to shed further light on the story.The fact is, Sandusky's reign of terror, heartbreak and destruction is widely documented, legally and factually established, and thankfully over. What matters now is not this miserable predator and whatever delusions he wishes to entertain in the twilight of his life. What matters is only the well-being of the men and boys who survived what Sandusky subjected them to, and what lessons can be learned in order to make such horrors less and less common.The only positive thing, perhaps, that emerged from Today's bad choice and Ziegler's tone deaf crusade is the Paterno family's distancing themselves from the effort. As Wick Sollers, a family attorney said, Sandusky's comments were “transparently self-serving and yet another insult to the victims.”Amen.So now, please, give this criminal no further exposure. 

10 Years in Iraq: The Fragrance of Flowers. The Horror of War. The Burden of Doing Justice in its Wake

Note to readers: The post below was one I wrote not in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, but an anniversary of the atrocities at Al-Mahmudiyah. I've since realized the post is more appropriate for publication at a significant anniversary of the invasion. The reason is simple: The atrocities at Mahmudiyah are as intrinsic and foreseeable an aspect of war as any that can be imagined. The designers of the war must never be allowed to escape that.“Abeer” translates in Arabic to “the fragrance of flowers” and was the name given to the 14 year-old girl ruthlessly raped and murdered, along with her parents and six year-old sister, on March 12, 2006, near the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. The murderers were a group of American soldiers, stationed at a nearby checkpoint in an especially brutal time after the American invasion three years previous.Of the many honorable men and women I met serving as a civilian in the Army JAG Corps, the one I came to know the best was among the first and most involved prosecutors in the Al-Mahmudiyah massacre. It wasn’t enough that he endured a difficult and dangerous deployment as part of the 101st Airborne Division. He was also saddled with bringing, of all things, the weight of that crime home with him as he handled the case near Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He did this while readjusting to stateside and family life as a husband and father. He’ll acknowledge that burden if it’s pointed out. But he will never, ever complain about it. First, because by God’s grace, his own family is intact and healthy, and he was able to hold them when he returned. Second, because seeking justice for Abeer and her family was an honor he accepted with humility and a deep sense of duty that I found typical in the Army JAG Corps. He sought justice for his Army and his country. But I suspect most of all he sought justice for for Abeer, and the details he came to know of her life and the unspeakable circumstances of her death.The details are public, if you want them. I can tell you that nightmares are all you’re likely to get for mining them, and I say this as a trained absorber of such things.The Army JAG Corps ignored several things I encouraged them to address while I served as a consultant. In a time where soldier suicides are spiking in particular, perhaps the most puzzling to me was refusing (to my knowledge and based on their responses to me at the time) to even look into proactive assistance for JAG prosecutors and defenders who must absorb, if not horrors like Mahmudiyah on a daily basis, then things like increasingly detailed and technologically advanced videos of children used in pornography or worse.And then there is war, the ones we’ve been waging now on the backs of a volunteer military and its valiant but exhausted support bulwark for nearly 12 years. Among myriad other things, war requires the prosecution and defense of combatants accused of atrocities and horrors more regularly than many grasp.I blame Mahmudiyah solely on the men who conceived and carried it out. They represent nothing but themselves; not the US Army, not the stress of combat (which the vast majority of soldiers endure without resorting to murder and rape) and not even the war itself. Regardless, the men and women who must address legally what military conflict inevitably produces must be cared for during that process. Of its many poisons, war vomits things like Mahmudiyah regularly. It did so at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, at My Lai,Quan Ngai, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It has done so in every war and under every flag unfurled since the beginning of combat.The architects of the 2003 Iraq War, just as the drum-beaters for Vietnam, may argue with scholarly confidence that they were right, or with grave regret that they were wrong. But none may claim a lack of foreseeability for one single thing that occurred or will occur as a result of their decisions. No act, no matter how shocking, how damning, how soul-crushing and freakishly inhuman, is unforeseeable the moment war is engaged.Similarly, the stress of sorting out, in courts of military justice, the details of anything war yields is also foreseeable and addressable. It’s not enough to own, no matter how deeply, what war really is. We must also support appropriately those who must seek justice in its wake.     

Preventing Another Steubenville: Middle Ground on Education and Rape

"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?

“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 LawIn 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.

Rape Prevention Through Education: If It Doesn't Work, It's More Dangerous Than Just Wasting Resources

Vancouver's "Don't Be That Guy" ad campaign was credited for a 10% drop in reported sexual assaults for 2011 after its inception that summer. This begs the question, though, of how exactly the campaign's effectiveness could be measured, whether there is both causation as well as correlation, and, if so, what worked?I have doubts about the ability of education to reduce sexual violence on the part of offenders, simply because I believe that most men don't need it and the relatively few who do won't respond to it. This isn't just some intuition I claim through experience. As I've written before, recent and replicated research on the most common type of rapist by far does not dovetail with the idea that we can teach the instinct to sexually offend out of a rapist- or even a boy who hasn't yet offended, but likely will for a yet unknown reason. That's part of the problem. We don't know what causes boys, usually in adolescence, to begin viewing sexuality so pathologically. Our assumptions, like victimization in their childhood, have been revealed as dubious at best by psychologists like Anna Salter and others. It's frightening and frustrating, but believing myths simply because they are comforting only makes predators more powerful and elusive.Of course I can't state with certainty that early intervention on the nature of consent or appropriate sexual interaction won't lead to the better development of a potential offender. I also can't say that a detected offender couldn't be shown the error of his ways or benefit from whatever form of education his own detection might produce (investigation, prosecution, public repudiation). But I wouldn't bet on either scenario. Reasonable people can argue limitlessly what works, what doesn't, and what we're dealing with. But we might as well begin with what we know. There has been some excellent study on acquaintance rape in the last 15 years, and, at bottom, here's what it's mined:1. Most men who rape do so over and over again until they are detected, and very few are.2. Rape is usually a planned, pre-mediated attack, not an honest mistake by a socially inept person.Remember: There's more at stake here than just wasting resources if education doesn't work, or work well enough. If we believe that an act of rape is caused by a lack of some crucial, social education, we will be more likely to forgive it as such and demand less accountability.  Acquaintance rape in particular is already committed far too often with impunity. The rapists are often socially accepted in their environments or at least non-threatening in appearance. So when we believe the rapist, already nicely ensconced within the environment, is really just misguided (a bumbling oaf, perhaps who just "didn't understand consent" and "ended up" committing a rape), we go down a very dangerous path.Imagine what follows: We believe a rape occurred. We even understand what a life-altering, traumatic event it was for the victim, male or female. But we also believe it was committed not by a serial predator but an "unenlightened" guy in need of intervention. We think he's been "scared straight" by the system or otherwise, perhaps, at least now better educated. So how much will we want to punish him? And how likely, now that he's been "taught," is he to reoffend? Take this view, and the answers will boil down to 1) not much, if at all; and 2) not likely.  Zerlina Maxwell's appeal to education to reduce sexual violence seems to be more targeted toward boys who have not yet offended. I'd love to believe there is purchase there, and maybe there is more than I understand. I absolutely agree, in any event, with teaching boys non-patriarchal respect and decency toward women. This is desperately needed, but it's also constantly undermined by the "sex sells," deeply objectifying culture we live in. Still, I believe naturally, non-offending males can embolden each other as peers to stop rape by acting as bystanders and intervening before attacks can be planned or executed (women can do so as well). My point? If there was a real effect with the Vancouver campaign, I'm willing to bet that was a bigger part of it.