<p>Authorities can and should find out why a young woman chooses not to testify. They are happy to let it drop, or they have been in the past. Now, I think that might be changing. I just think this same group who are so willing to chalk rape up to youthful indescretion and inexperience is awfully quick to hold the survivors accountable for their behavior in the face of a horrible crime. </p>
<ol>
<li>In this case, as in murder cases, there is significant evidence. The DA is responsible. All of the rape defenders need to stop blaming this child. </li>
</ol>
<p>Did you blame the children in the Sandusky case too? Was the lack of charges the kids fault? Please answer this question. </p>
<ol>
<li>She can be compelled to testify. Witnesses to this type of crime need to see that authorities support truth telling and are hostile when you do not. Up until now it seems to work the other way.</li>
</ol>
<p>If she is so intimidated that she goes in contempt of court, then why isn’t Lewan charged with intimidating a witness instead of heading off to the nfl?</p>
<p>Because the university is everything to people there. </p>
<p>It is amazing that it is the people who don’t express any concern at all about the victim when she is pressing charges who are now very concerned that she not be required to testify if she does not want to. </p>
<ol>
<li>Nothing excuses this university or any other from not acting on a case like this. Claiming that you had a different policy? It was only 2009 so we still thought having a rapist on campus was okay? Really? That is total BS. </li>
</ol>
<p>How can you defend that with a straight face? The problem is that many people continue to defend the people who had a duty to charge a criminal, but chose not to. It is time to prosecute rapists and let a jury decide. it is also time to remove officials who fail to exercise reasonable judgment in these cases. Why are you defending them? Rape is not funny, and it is not like stealing a tool from you garage.Argggghhh.</p>
<p>Actingmt said “Personally, I don’t think rape reporting is a solution to anything. I would prefer rape prevention. That involves not going to the guy’s room, being aware and alert at all times, and carrying MACE. Unfortunately, it also involves personal responsibility which people frequently confuse with victim blaming for some reason.”</p>
<p>More of the attitude that this is a woman’s problem. There is no getting beyond the ongoing attitude underlying so many comments that women are responsible for being raped. </p>
<p>I am all for rape prevention, but you make it entirely the victim’s responsibility. When can we get past the men are animals and nature takes its course mindset? Why do you not include men in rape prevention?</p>
<p>Stop with the labeling and name calling.</p>
<p>In regards to the rape victim no longer cooperating with the DA, my beliefs align more with acting’s. How is the DA supposed to know that the victim is being harassed if they are no longer being cooperative. The victim needs to speak up. It’s unfortunate that when a rape victim is being harassed, they are scared into no longer cooperating with the very people who could help them, but their lack of cooperation is not helping their case. In the event that the victim is no longer being cooperative, they need to probe and find out why. But nothing can progress, when the victim stays quiet. </p>
<p>It is common in lots of criminal situations for victims and other witnesses to stop cooperating because of threats. Sometimes that makes it impossible for the prosecution to continue. That does not make it the victim’s fault–it’s still the fault of the perpetrator, and whoever is making threats.</p>
<p>But do you really want to force rape victims to testify when they don’t want to, for whatever reason?</p>
<p>“How is the DA supposed to know that the victim is being harassed if they are no longer being cooperative.”</p>
<p>No one is claiming that the DA did not know. He clearly did. Police were called in at the time and at least 2 other football players reported hearing it. This is another canard raised to excuse not prosecuting rape cases. </p>
<p>Why continue to make excuses? Why continue to shift responsibility to the victim?</p>
<p>Much2learn, I feel that I should point out that others aren’t saying to you, “Why are you trying to railroad innocent people into prison?” So you shouldn’t really do the same in your rhetoric.</p>
<p>
Was this a question towards me, Hunt?</p>
<p>Coincidentally, I happened to catch one of the Title 9 hearings on CSPAN recently and the rape victim representative was totally opposed to forcing victims to testify, saying there will absolutely be less reporting if that occurs. She was out on a little bit of a limb since that was very clearly not the answer the panel was wanting to hear at that point in the discussion.</p>
<p>
No, it was directed to Much2learn. I don’t think it’s victim blaming to point out that the victim needs to report and to press charges if the perpetrator is going to be punished. It’s very true that there have been and still are plenty of obstacles discouraging victims from reporting. The trick is to remove obstacles without doing other harm, such as creating too much risk of unjust punishments.</p>
<p>I agree with your post. I do not believe it is victim blaming, either. </p>
<p>to much2learn, in re your post 438, item 3.
I haven’t seen anyone here say rape is OK if it occurs 2009 or before. What I did see is a couple people point out the difficulty of prosecution in 2009, that is now improved. People are trying to point out a positive improvement- not giving the OK to past policies.
And, just generally speaking, I do not assign the same amount of responsibility on a 10 yr old that I might to a 20 yr old(for example)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, if you truly believe that rapists are criminals and that most men are not criminals or incapable of discerning when they have consent, then a large burden to prevent rape falls to the potential victims and perhaps secondarily to college campuses to make the campuses as safe as possible (free rides, escorts, actual door locks and not just swipe cards, visible campus police presence, etc).</p>
<p>Sadly, I think our drinking age actually contributes to this problem rather than mitigating it. If the drinking age were eighteen, colleges could have bars with adult bartenders and bouncers charged with taking on some of the “bystander” role of watching out for younger women. Fraternities could be made to hire a certain number of security people as well for their parties, perhaps at the college’s expense. These people could be trained to watch out for scenarios that look like they are headed for trouble and their adult standing makes intervening easier. </p>
<p>Instead our alcohol policies have lead to colleges looking the other way at the risk of having few students want to attend should they act as enforcers. It has also forced the drinking underground into the living quarters of the students and pre party binge drinking. </p>
<p>I think revisiting the drinking age is overdue and would permit colleges to supervise better and perhaps assist those who are too drunk to make good decisions (both male and female). </p>
<p>While this might be a tad paternalistic, I think the focus needs to be on rape prevention because after the fact really helps no one. College is clearly a transitional period, and I think students could be in a safer environment if colleges could intervene more directly than they feel they can today. Colleges look the other way on underage drinking. I would prefer that be a non issue and that there was more emphasis on preventing real crimes (which would include operating a motor vehicle under the influence).</p>
<p>“But do you really want to force rape victims to testify when they don’t want to, for whatever reason?”</p>
<p>In this type of case, it is important that it be prosecuted. Victims believe that prosecutors so not want to prosecute the cases, and are hoping for an excuse to drop it. Victims believe they will be harassed by authorities until they do.</p>
<p>Until authorities can clearly demonstrate that they are supportive of the truth, this will continue to happen. The prosecutor may have even told her that he wanted her to stop cooperating so he would have an excuse to drop it. We don’t know. </p>
<p>The prosecutor does not know whether she will testify until the case is in court. His job is to seek justice. It does not say that the prosecutor intended to file charges even if she agreed to testify. It seems that authorities are happy to have an excuse to drop the charges. </p>
<p>This coercing the victim behind the scenes has to stop. This is the only way to stop it. No coercing behind the scenes by prosecutors, the college, other students or anyone. these women need to be supported and they need to testify.</p>
<p>Testifying to crimes is not optional, it is the law. If you don’t want testifying in court to be required, change it for all crimes. Until then, enforce the law. That is a prosecutor’s job. Changing the law is congresses job.</p>
<p>Okay, now you’re just making stuff up. What is the point? Sigh.</p>
<p>
You think it’s only rape cases in which victims decline to testify? I certainly agree with you that prosecutors shouldn’t discourage victims from testifying, as they have done in the past. But the idea that rape victims would be subpoenaed to testify involuntarily is probably not very popular, even among people who think much more should be done.</p>
<p><a href=“Reported sexual assault at Notre Dame campus leaves more questions than answers”>http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers</a></p>
<p>from the article: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“College Rape Survivor Faces Potential Expulsion For 'Intimidating' Her Rapist”>College Rape Survivor Faces Potential Expulsion For 'Intimidating' Her Rapist;
<p>from the article: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This case brought the DOJ in and the “honor court” of students no longer has anything to do with rape cases. I was particularly horrified by this case since it’s my alma mater.</p>
<p><a href=“Hanover College Told Rape Victim That Attempting To Have Her Alleged Rapist Punished Is Harassment | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>from the article: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“UConn Faces Lawsuit For Handling Of Sexual Assault And Harassment On Campus | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>from the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“But the idea that rape victims would be subpoenaed to testify involuntarily is probably not very popular, even among people who think much more should be done.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Courts are supposed to follow the law, not be popular.</p></li>
<li><p>I do not know a better way to get people to stop pressuring rape victims not to testify. Once they are required to testify, they have no choice, so pressuring them will not work.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So, as soon as it is required the victim’s life improves.</p>
<p>Are we still talking about 2009? The main difference is in 2009 colleges and universities pretty much left it up to the criminal system (sexual abuse and rape). Since the victim didn’t want to continue working with the police and no charges were files the university aligned. Why are we debating something from 2009 when the rules are very different now or am I not understanding the sequence of posts since late morning? I have always thought that colleges and universities should be mandatory reporters of rape and sexual assault but right now if an accuser doesn’t want to file charges there will never be criminal charges - only university code of conduct charges.</p>
<p>And no it’s not victim blaming to point out that “victims” of criminal assault should report it to the police. It is not “rape denial” to point out that there is an absence of due process with Title IX. It is not misogyny to point out that there are things that women can do to make them safer.</p>
<p>I also don’t think it’s conflicting belief to think that things are better than they were in 2009 but still not be happy with how Title IX is being executed. I’m pretty consistent about believing that it would be better to improve the current judicial system than to try to solve criminal matters through non-judicial parallel processes but simply the awareness that all of this has brought and the openness which it is discussed tells me it is improving. </p>