It appears that key facts of the UVA rape accuser's story are likely incorrect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Like
Duke Lacrosse, this may be a case of an exuberant prosecutor/journalist
taking major shortcuts and skipping due diligence in order to score a
home run. And shame on Rolling Stone editors who should know better. As
other articles have said, this is a terrible blow for victim's rights,
because it muddies the waters and casts unnecessary doubt on the
thousands of cases that are valid and watertight. I believe that the
accuser did suffer some sexual crime in her time at UVA, and she
deserves justice for that, but her lies and exaggerations have hurt her
chances and an entire movement, which is unacceptable.
I
understand the sensitivity and need to maybe keep the accused's name
secret, so as to not tip him off that a big RS article is being written
about him and his frat. You would think that RS would at least check
that (a) such a party occurred on the night in question, (b) other
witnesses saw Jackie at that party and later saw injuries to her, and
(c) Jackie was reliable and did not have any clear motives to lie or
defame Drew and his frat. I am fairly sure that Phi Psi men have done
bad things in the past, but it's also unfair on them to be singled out
this way (their house was vandalized and I am sure they have had to deal
with a lot of grief over this story). But all this underscores the need
for victims to get real evidence, and testimony is not enough. If her
assault did occur, she should have quickly gone to the authorities (if
campus police wouldn't hear her out, then the local PD) and got a
medical exam. She should have consulted with a lawyer and gotten her
parents (and their resources) on board. This is not "blaming the
victim", but instead making sure victims minimize their chances for
injustice to occur. It's often a loaded deck against them, so they can't
afford to be careless with their cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment