It would be remiss to not discuss the unfolding of the controversial RS story about a young woman named "Jackie" and her rape allegations against several fraternity members. As a result, the university suspended all Greek activities amidst the investigation.
This past week, RS recanted their story. More questions have arisen. What happened? What didn't happen? What does this very publicized story mean for victims of sexual assault? What does this story revel about media/journalism's narratives of rape/sexual assault? Is this an example of a false accusation of rape?
There are many directions for this discussion to take. Chime in. Read each other's ideas. But ,oat importantly, let's be sensitive because this is a sensitive issue. If you disagree with someone, attempt to understand their ideas. Try to learn from those we disagree with. Let's be professional.
Feel free to include links to pertinent videos or articles.
It's impossible for us to know what happened to the alleged victim but I think it's very odd how not much is known about the crime. I haven't heard anything about eye witnesses or DNA tests. This story reveals a lot about how desperate the media is to sell a story. Rolling Stones most likely heard the story and thought "UVA is a great university," "we're the first to hear about this," and "we want to publish this before anyone else gets the chance."
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand what this girl from UVA has to gain from lying about her rape story. Rape is a big deal and she's changed the way people will look at her forever. She didn't just lie because this is a serious, life-changing matter.
No one should presume guilt--of any party. The Rolling Stones piece reveals something extremely pernicious about the assumptions of guilt in America.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/09/smeary_lines.html
Of course, no one knows what goes on in the mind of a sick, deranged person when they falsely accuse persons of rape. In a case of he-said-she-said, I'm not surprised the media hasn't said anything of the he-said part. Same with the Ferguson incident, most of the media conveniently latched onto the hotly contested narrative that Brown's hands were up, despite it being hotly contested in fact.
Policy makers and other persons are quick to say, "Do not let this false narrative distract you from the overall problem of campus rape." I said don't let them distract you from the far more dangerous incidents of false-rape. People, alleged rape victims or otherwise, should not be able to effectively lock people in a dungeon (which is essentially what jail is) by mere word-of-mouth.
We must doubt all alleged victims of rape and subject their stories to intense scrutiny. We cannot forget one of the scariest numbers in existence: 2. 2% of all rape allegations are lies. 4% of all persons on death row are innocent. If someone were to argue that a false rape allegations aren't in the same class as people falsely put on death row, they must "check their privilege," since they were probably victims of neither.
This will give more credibility to the true victims of sexual assault/rape and discredit those who use the criminal justice system to their advantage. If this discourages some victims of rape, then they're mere causalities. Just like the 2% of the victims of false sexual assault allegations.
It is hard for people to not be skeptical of a victim claiming rape, especially when his or her account changes over time as we see in Jackie's case. I think, however, it is important that we take into account that the pressure and the depression that often comes along with being a victim of a rape places a lot of stress on the victim. A person no matter what their gender is when sexually assaulted completely traumatized, and in the case of any gang rape, more traumatized than any of us can ever imagine. I do truly believe that Jackie was a victim of sexual assault and rape. The three friends of her and Jackie's other close friends have all acknowledged that Jackie's attitude after her rape drastically changed as she appeared increasingly depressed. I do not think there is much to gain from Jackie lying about her assault, and the effect on the persona of Jackie I think supports that this accusation of rape was legitamate.
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, I agree with Heebong, that a story of an alleged victim should be examined with extreme scrutiny, but at the same time, we need to make sure that the 98% of the other alleged rape victims' stories are not rejected just because we want to make sure we want to ensure that people do not falsely accuse each other of rape. This is a very delicate issue as a rape allegation can certainly destroy a falsely accused person's life, but we must also be careful to not erase a real trauma of a person who has truly been raped.
In addition, I think the situation with Rolling Stone's discrepancies in their article about Jackie's case demonstrates just how we should not blindly believe what is presented to us by the media. Sometimes, bias and motivation on the media's part skews the real details of a traumatic event. In accurate and biased reporters creates rape stories that we as society take with less seriousness just because the media portrays the story with discrepancies. In 2008, a female principal of a new Muslim charter school was ejected out of her job because of how the media portrayed her as a terrorist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/nyregion/28school.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRenyue (Amy) Jiang, period 6
ReplyDelete“I also don't understand what this girl from UVA has to gain from lying about her rape story.”
I can think of so many reasons... revenge, jealousy, or perhaps attention.
However, people generally hesitate (and I think with good reason) to bring up these reasons because it would seem like they are discrediting the alleged victim.
I think incidents involving accusations of rape are very tricky, we do not know what truly happened or even who the real victims are in these cases.
Most people, after reading the original Rolling Stone article, will assume that “Jackie” was the victim. That was what I thought after reading the article. The disturbing details in the article regarding Jackie’s rape made me feel so sorry for her and made it unthinkable for me to question the validity of the article.
The article also made me fear for my own safety, I googled all the colleges I will apply to with the word “rape” to see the results, there were rape cases with almost all the colleges that I will apply to!
However, my more rational mind found many questionable things with the article (I don’t remember much the article too clearly, I read it a long time ago and I can’t seem to find the original article online anymore). To be honest, even if Jackie’s story were real, Jackie still did not do the right thing when she did not report the incident to the authorities immediately. But I do recognize that she probably wasn’t thinking rationally because she was drunk and just experienced a horrible thing.
The other thing we can just as rationally assume with rape accusations is that the accused is actually the victim. Not many is willing to assume this because then it will seem like they are making excuses for the alleged rapists. In the Slate article “Feminism Can Stand Without Jackie”, Duhaime-Ross blamed the Rolling Stones article because “the credibility of rape victims will be put into question for years to come.” This shows the common mindset that it is never okay to question someone who may have been raped. However, I feel that it should be okay for people to be questioned instead of blindly trusted when they accuse others of being rapists.
It seems acceptable for society to torment these who are (perhaps falsely) accused of rape. After the Rolling Stones article, people threw bricks into the windows of the Phi Kappa Psi frat house, and those living inside had to move out.
If I were a guy, I would probably be very nervous having sex with a female because it would be so easy for her to accuse me of rape and ruin my reputation. The alleged crime does not even need to be proven in court for everyone to trust her and hate me.
In any alleged rape case, it is often a matter of "he said she said" (or he said he said or she said she said or whatever the case may be). The way that our criminal justice system is set up is in favor of the accused because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the crime happened. This is to ensure that no innocent people are wrongly convicted. This seems especially relevant in a sexual assault/rape case, because it is so hard to have solid evidence and prove it. People can lie, whether they are the accused, the accuser, or a witness, and unless the crime is reported shortly after it happens (so as to check for physical trauma and to take DNA evidence) or there is photographic evidence of the events, it can be very hard to prove. With serious criminal allegations on the line that even trained professionals would find hard to figure out one way or the other, involving journalists and reporters or having a school board with members who are often poorly trained can create even more confusion or create a false narrative. To compensate for the fact that many alleged sexual assault/rape cases may be biased towards the perpetrator legally, the media or just the general public might lean in the other direction.
ReplyDeleteObviously this is a tricky topic and I don't know the statistics on rape cases that are taken to court. However, now that this case has been publicized, the national narrative on rape might include much more than before the idea of false rape accusations, which could result in more sympathy for alleged rapists and more doubt for the testimonies of alleged rape victims. This, in turn, could make it harder for those who have been raped to come forward, for fear of not being believed. The attention and focus on false accusation cases could become out of proportion to the actual percentage of times that this is the case. I don't know, which is why I say "could" and "might", and maybe it is important for us to have this discussion after all of the recent media attention on rape on college campuses.
I agree with the side being taken of "he said she said". We can never really know the truth of the matter unless all parties involved recount the same side of the story. It worries me that even if she is lying, so many side effects can occur to the other people who she included. This makes it the type of situation one cannot avoid at any cost. Ignoring it makes it seem as though you did the deed, and speaking up doesn't help to bring your innocence into the light. We have a judicial system where people are "innocent until proven guilty" but in these types of cases we see society shaming both parties as guilty. I think there is a bigger problem where society views sex in a negative manner. It causes the problem where those who engaged in it are shamed such as these fraternity members and the girl involved. This clearly wasn't something that one would call consensual and we will not deem it so. Whatever is taking place her is clearly wrong and we need to see an end to the reoccurring problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with rape cases is the fact that it can rarely be confirmed which side was telling the truth, unless recorded on a camera or some other device. A girl can say it was rape while the guy could say she consented. The only case I heard of in which the accused men were convicted was the Steubenville Rape Scandal and that was because there was video and photo evidence in which the girl was unconscious. Even then, both only received a year in jail, as they were legally adults. Unless they recorded the action, which in many cases there isn't a camera that records intercourse, where one person does or doesn't verbally consent, the case becomes ambiguous. There are multiple situations, as described by classmates above, in which it could actually be rape or it could be a girl attempting to ruin the guy's reputation as revenge. The latter isn’t often because it’s damaging to both to the male and female reputation and yet, people scrutinize the victim often over the attacker because of the potential harm several words can have. Because of the multiple counts of ambiguity, it creates reasonable doubt and court's job to be convinced without a shadow of a doubt in order to convict. A rape accusation doesn’t even have to be true, and if proven as false, it still leaves a tarnished reputation.
ReplyDeleteThat’s why I believe instead treating rape as a slap on the wrist offense, it should be more heavily punished if convictable, instilling fear into society. Also, false rape accusations should be treated as a felony as well, as it essentially defames someone. Comparatively, fraud is punishable with 25 years. In both cases, it can ruin someone’s life and yet, the punishment is nowhere near equivalent. Out of 100 rapes, only 46 are reported, 12 are arrested, 9 get prosecuted, 3 are convicted. These statistics just show the inherent problem in society when 54% of rape victims aren’t willing to step forward, when police are negligent in compiling evidence to mount a case or even bother arresting someone. While society also needs to teach that rape and false rape accusations are bother equally as harmful to the victim, the police system also needs to take it seriously when attempting to compile evidence to launch a case. All it takes a small nudge to start the falling dominos and discussing about it can fix this problem in society.
A Case That Some People Are Comparing This Too (Don't Have To Read):
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
What I Want You To Read:
http://www.businessinsider.com/friends-pushed-uva-jackie-to-call-police-after-alleged-gang-rape-2014-12
Judging from the accounts of her three friends, I do not have much doubt that something did happen to Jackie, but whether or not it was rape is still up for question.
I like that one of her friends pointed out that the more important issue here is the topic of sexual assault as a whole. People should focus on addressing that, rather than just obsessing over this case. It is, however, naive to think that after all of the controversy that now surrounds the case, people will just forget about this experience and move their attention to the message that it wanted to convey. Had Jackie's story stood, the forces involved here could have induced some change to improving university life and society as a whole, but now that there is skepticism put into the mix, this might be a step backwards to understanding the victims of sexual assault.
I find that most of the fault lies in the unprofessionalism of the Rolling Stone writer. She grabbed hold of the story and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I say that she acted with noble intentions of bringing awareness to the issue of sexual assault but executed it in the worst way possible by falsifying details to make a story.
As for Jackie, there are multiple reasons for her erratic behavior, some of which Lise has pointed out. It has been a year since the event has happened, and it is likely that if she had tried to suppress the memory before, she won't really have a clear picture now. The concept of "false memory" does exist (though it is kind of controversial) and with some influence, Jackie could have been made to confirm anything depending on the way questions or ideas are presented to her.
As for the lack of evidence, a year does a lot to wipe out any DNA that might have been within her. Someone also needs to match the acquired DNA to the suspect - who does not yet exist, unless someone gets the DNA of every one of the frat members (I'm not familiar with the legal issues on obtaining someone's DNA for confirmation).
All in all, the case at hand may be false but the problem of sexual assaults is not. How do you guys think we should react to ensure that this case is not a step backward for how our society treats sexual assault?
My position on this topic is not solidified because of the contrasting information I am getting from various news outlets. Having said that, I believe it should be recognized that each media outlet wants to have a shock factor that will increase their base. Rolling Stone should have verified their story with intense scrutiny to ensure that a fallout like this did not occur. Since they did not, we must know scrutinize all the parties involved and do our own fact-checking. Also, most information around a case that gets media attention tends to come out after months or years. I don’t know why that is. Everyone has their suspicions until something new verifies that.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot fault Jackie for changing up her story. As noted earlier, people who have experienced trauma are unable to recollect the particulars of a situation accurately. The same is said for anyone trying to remember something years ago. Each time you remember something, you’re changing the details of what it is you’re remembering. So, the friends that were at the scene following the alleged sexual assault are individuals whose words should be taken with a grain of salt. I am confused as to why these individuals are coming forth now instead of clarifying everything back then. It’s all very suspicious to me.
The actions of the UVA campus of suspending all greek life should not be considered too rash considering that they would be under more heat if they did not take immediate action. It is known that there is a link between fraternities and sexual violence. I believe it was justified.
No matter what truly happened, this is highlighting an important issue that should not be ignored because of a questionable case. Many issues have been highlighted within the past few months regardless of how the event happened. The same approach should be taken with this approach to ensure that sexual assault doesn’t happen again on campuses.
I believe that there is no way for a news article or news report to be truly impartial. There are instances where reporters deliberately portray “facts” in a certain light to create a more sensational story, but more often the act is unconscious. Reporters are human like the rest of us, and their backgrounds and opinions must influence their judgment and reporting to some extent. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I don’t think the Rolling Stone article was written with the intention of bias. It was written for the intent of bringing the seriousness of sexual assault on college campuses to light. However it was bad judgement on their part to not reach out to the accused, something that Rolling Stone has admitted. I think problem is that in rape cases, we often hear the story of and then sympathize with the victim. Rarely do we hear the side of the accused. This leads to less awareness about falsely accused rape and a biased view toward rape in general. In any case I think the first step would be to hear both sides of the story, and preferably through primary sources—recorded interviews, or articles written by the parties involved themselves.
ReplyDeleteFor me, rape and sexual assault are terrifying. Part of how terrifying it is is the utter ambiguity of it all. When is there consent? How do we know that what either party says is true? Rape is also, in my opinion, one of the worst crimes out there. Excepting murder or grievous bodily injury, rape is probably the worst because it takes an important, positive experience - consensual sex, and twists it and perverts it into this violent, psychologically damaging act. The problem, I think, is that there are too many people who don't see rape in this way. Or, alternately, there are too many people who don't understand that some actions qualify as rape. As a result of this and other factors, so few rapes go to trial, fewer end up convicting the rapist, and out of those convictions, many get off with very light sentences. Regardless of whether or not the allegations in the UVA situation are true, the problem still exists that the justice system is too sympathetic to rapists.
ReplyDeleteAs to Jackie, if the allegations are fabricated, her case is in the minority. The other problem with treating this case with more attention than it deserves is that this is going to be held up as an example that "all" rape accusations are false or unfounded when in reality the vast majority aren't. If someone accuses another person of being a murderer, and if the person turns out to be incorrect, the case will never be held up as an example saying that most accusations of murder are false. That would be ridiculous. The same should be true in this case. However the additional problem is that many rape cases are never taken to court, and, as mentioned previously, the media attention paid to this case could discourage many people from coming forward. It also places another level of skepticism on rape victims in a system in which is already unfavorable to them.
To me the main issue with this story is that essentially what is happening is that a lot of people are overreacting about issues that don't necessarily need as much attention and under-reacting about issues that definitely do.
This issue is obviously really complicated. Rape is really hard to prove because there isn't really physical evidence of the crime. We've talked in class about how under reported rape cases are, because women are afraid they will be shamed if they come out and tell people about what happened. There are articles about how after a girl comes out about rape the rapists lives are ruined because of it. Focusing on what she was wearing, or the bright future the rapists had. When rape really happens it is horrible for the woman not to be believed.
ReplyDeleteBut in this case what happened is very unclear. The reported from the Rolling Stone decided to only get the side of Jackie, so the article is incredibly biased. Many articles shame the victim through saying they were wearing revealing clothes, or were drunk, getting themselves into the situation, though if rape occurs it it the fault of the rapist. But this article portrayed Jackie as just the opposite wearing a dress with a high neckline, and a girl who never drank. I think the article should have at least interviewed the accused. If Jackie was lying I think that's a pretty horrible thing to accuse somebody of, but it shouldn't effect how people see rape victims. People shouldn't see this as proof that women lie about rape, because all across the country and the world people really are being raped and sexually assaulted, and that needs to stop.
Whether or not Jackie was lying is unknown. But it shouldn't take away from the issue of rape. Women should be able to feel comfortable about what happened because rapists deserve to be put in jail. But our legal system is often in favor of the accuse, "innocent until proven guilty." Because if somebody didn't commit a crime and are convicted of it, that would ruin their life, but when people do commit crimes it makes it harder to arrest them. The majority of the time people are telling the truth. The rare few that do lie shouldn't have such an effect on those who are telling the truth and are too afraid to say anything.
http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-more-bizarre-evidence-that-uva-student-jackies-alleged-rapist-doesnt-exist-2014-12
ReplyDeleteThis news article I found tries to convince readers that Jackie is in fact making this all up. But upon reading the article the friends they interviewed that picked Jackie up the night of the party did recall her saying she was forced to perform oral sex on five men. Whether or not this differs from what she previously told Rolling Stone about 7 men gang raping her, it still constitutes as rape. The article notes that she clearly looked distressed the night of the incident so I don't see why someone would go through all this trouble to conjure up a story that is not true. The article says that the numbers she texted were all internet based, meaning it wasn't from an actual phone. The article leads you to believe that it was her all along just talking to herself. But why would anyone make 3 internet texting accounts only to text themselves and their friends? It is unbelievable that there are people trying to concoct wild stories to prove that this rape didn’t happen. Is it that hard for people to wrap their minds against a rape case at a college?
If it is, I believe that it is due to the numerous underreported cases and colleges are doing a good job of covering it up. The people who determine what to do during rape cases are the college’s faculty. It would be better for them to save face for their college, or place of employment, so most of the time they dismiss it because there isn’t enough evidence or over 51%. However, this puts an extreme amount of pressure on victims to come forth and present enough evidence to prosecute their assailant or risk not having enough evidence and having this story spread about them lying over campus. Most weigh the two options out and instead do not come forward at all. It is not only until recently that college rape cases are making headlines and I think we should all be aware that rape is not any more acceptable on a college campus than it is on the street. College students at frat parties or any initiation process is not an excuse for rape and I think these journalists are focusing on the wrong things in this case.
I think most things I had wanted to say about journalism's take on rape allegations have been said. Yes, the media may sensationalize the story and thus exaggerate on whatever truth there was in order to get a more responsive audience. There's also the possibility Jackie can't account for all the details because of how traumatic the experience was and thus her mind invents some, assuming we believe her story. False memory is a symptom of PTSD, which Jackie could have very reasonably developed.
ReplyDeleteA DNA test is probably out of the question at this point in time, so it really is a matter of "he said she said," which really makes it very difficult to judge objectively. You can hear both sides out, but in the end, the person you side with is who you sympathize more with. There isn't much, if any, evidence to fall back on.
I think our justice system is already trying to listen to both sides and make the fairest judgment it possibly can so I don't think that's the problem. In fact, I think it's really hard to identify exactly what is wrong with our justice system. Possibly I think there is nothing wrong. As imperfect as the legal system is for judging these cases, I think there isn't anyway to make it better. As with all crimes, there needs to be substantial proof that the suspect is guilty. As disadvantageous this would be for rape cases which can be missing a lot of evidence and objective witnesses because of the private and intimate nature of sex, we cannot make an exception for it, lest we wish to enter more dangerous territory.
Out of curiosity, how does one find out that 2.2% of rape allegations are false? How does one know exactly which are true and/or false?
Also, I think the fact we ended up discussing why someone would falsely accuse someone else of rape for his/her own selfish purposes demonstrates how hard it is to speak up about rape. There is always that lingering idea in the back of everyone's minds that the victim is possibly an liar and for that, they can not trust him/her. This just makes it hard to come out about rape and even harder to convince others to believe it. It's a huge risk for the person's reputation, which just further discourages/silences rape victims. I think that's why I'm willing to believe Jackie--she took the risk.