Monday, July 28, 2003

Rape and Privacy There has been much ado in the media about the 'outing' of Kobe Bryant's accuser. I have long considered myself a feminist, but in this case I must stand on the other side of the fence from traditional feminist groups. If the name of the alleged victim should not be released by the media to protect her because rape involves sex, something that is deeply personal, then the name of the alleged perpetrator should also be kept under wraps. Our justice system holds that all are innocent until proven guilty. Until Bryant (or any rapist) has been convicted or plead guilty, he is as innocent as his accuser. Why should someone only alleged to have committed a crime be forced to suffer public humiliation while the complainant remains anonymous? What if the alleged assailant is found not guilty? He will still be associated forever with the allegation and suffer a damaged reputation. Victim advocates speaking about this have claimed that identifying the victim is like "raping her a second time." But what if she wasn't even raped a first time? False legal claims against the famous are not novel. Tucker Carlson, a conservative CNN commentator, revealed that he was the victim of a false rape claim. Dallas Cowboys' Erik Williams and Michael Irvin were falsely accused of rape. Mark Chmura of the Greenbay Packers was tried and acquitted for sexual assault when the jury found the accuser's testimony lacked credibility. Last month, the UK's House of Commons voted by a narrow margin to grant defendants in sexual assault cases the same anonominity as accusers. The government has promised to overturn the legislation, but its mere passage demonstrates that false accusations of rape are not insignificant and occur worldwide. I am not mentioning the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser here only because I have no way to verify whether the name being circulated is the correct one and I am not interested in making a false accusation. One of the woman's friends attested to her friend's innocence, asking why any woman would lie about something like this when it results in the kind of publicity she has experienced. I can think of five million and one answers to this. The first five million are green and bear a striking resemblance to George Washington. The last one is that perhaps Bryant's accuser believed that since rape victims are not identified by the media, she would be able to pursue the case while remaining anonymous. If you want to falsely accuse someone of a sexual crime and the media protects your identity, what exactly would deter you? It doesn't matter what the defense drags up in court because only a handful of people will be able to identify you. There's no emotional distress from testifying when the accusation you've made is false. The county/state fronts the costs of prosecution and undoubtedly in a case like this some lawyer will offer to pursue the case civilly for the publicity and a percentage of the take, whether it results from a jury verdict or a settlement. The media needs to either stop shielding the names of accusers or shield both the accuser and the accused. At this point, it's impossible to say whether Kobe is guilty. We have not heard all the evidence. But by releasing his name, the media has already allowed him to be convicted in the court of public opinion; and for a man whose career is based on his appeal to the public, the accusation alone could be a life sentence. 6:57:11 PM    comment []

Give Me a Break First of all, let me apologize for the plain layout of this blog site. I need to take time to figure out how to use the whistles and bells. Anyone with advice, please leave a message! On Saturday I received a letter from the IRS informing me that I can expect an $800 check from the IRS in two weeks. There are those who would say I should thank George Bush for this windfall--for being allowed to keep more of "my" money. But let me tell you how I will be spending this $800. Due to state budget cuts in education (and everything else), my property taxes will increase from $200 to $300 this year. While the property tax rate has only increased .15 percent, the assessment of my property has increased by $50,000. Meanwhile, the yearly property tax relief rebate has been slashed by 50 percent, which means instead of the $600 I received last year, I can expect $300. New Jersey has imposed a 7 percent hotel tax. I estimate this will cost me $30 per year. So far, that accounts for approximately $580 of my $800 tax rebate from Bush. I have little doubt the remaining $220 will be eaten up quickly as I pay increased fees for this or that at school for my three boys. Meanwhile, Bush has failed to deal with the looming natural gas crisis that Alan Greenspan keeps warning us about. It remains to be seen how much it will cost to heat my home this winter. Bush has decreased money available for grant programs in a year when college tuition is skyrocketing. He has exhausted the Social Security "surplus" (what I wouldn't give to have a President Gore talking about how he has put the money in a LOCKBOX). Under Bush, the national deficit has escalated right alongside spending. What bothers me the most about this tax rebate is that I am getting one while other families who also have three kids are not because they fall in that lower tax bracket that Tom DeLay considers 'undeserving.' Is it the factory worker's fault that we place a higher value on computer technology skills than his manual labor? For all the Republican talk about poor people not deserving rebates because they don't have to *pay* taxes, there's a failure to acknowledge that the reason these people are poor is because of the way we compensate people for their labors. A car that's not assembled properly won't run regardless of how advanced its computer system happens to be. People who work full-time in the IT industry, like my husband, rarely have to worry about healthcare, which is provided. But people who work two part-time jobs to try to stay off welfare find state-sponsored health programs for their children being cut. No one should have to choose between having three meals a day or getting their strep throat treated. This tax revenue being refunded could have done so much good for this country. We could have improved our schools or made college more accessible for the less fortunate or created more affordable housing or supplemented daycare fees so that some on welfare could afford to work. Instead, the people who need it most to improve their lives, which improves our economy, won't be seeing a dime. All this money is going back into the hands of people who will use the money but would do just as well without it. Hopefully charities will see a benefit from this tax refund as the wealthy consider making tax-deductible contributions with it. But I suspect that a large portion of it has already wound up in Bush's $41 million and growing campaign war chest.   4:34:29 PM    comment []