Should we also exclude the account of the Fallbrook woman who falsely claimed that she was raped at knifepoint while pushing a stroller? She should have been charged with filing a false police report.
Should we exclude the story of Brian Banks, who spent more than five years in prison, for a rape he didn't commit? His accuser, Wanetta Gibson, won a $750,000 settlement from the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the school was unsafe. When Banks was released, Gibson was never charged criminally, but was ordered to pay $2.6 million.
Radfem site jezebel is among those hand-wringing about the blow-back of Erdley's scam. Blogger Tracie Egan Morrissey wondered "why would someone lie about being sexually assaulted? What could be gained from that?" Nothing, really.
Perhaps elevated status in the progressive stack, if nothing else. There is literally noone who has the moral authority to argue with a rape victim.
We demand credible rape victims because rape is unique among crimes. It is comparable to murder, in that something central to a woman's identity is taken away, her honor and security. When there has been a murder, there is usually a dead body that offers forensic evidence of the crime. In the case of rape, the veracity of the woman, her word, might be the foundation of the complaint.
The definition of rape has been expanded to include all sorts of unwanted sexual contact. If a woman is intoxicated, she cannot consent to sex; this is now considered rape. If the intoxicant is alcohol, it is impossible to determine a level of intoxication, after the fact. In this scenario, a victims's fidelity to the truth is critical to building a case.
There is also a category of rape now called, 'spousal rape.' I cannot imagine another scenario where the integrity of the victim's account is more important. The reason we must demand rape victims be completely truthful is because they alone bear the burden of rape, and the burden of proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment