9/29

Today in class two of us presented our cases, Holly and myself. I went first and gave the details on my Julio Morales case.

The Julio Morales case begins with a man named Julio Morales and a party at his friends house in Los Angeles, California. Julio's friend's (who was hosting the party) sister (Jane Doe) had been out at the party with her boyfriend when Jane and her boyfriend decided to go lay down in her room. They decided they were not going to have sex as Jane's boyfriend didn't have any condoms at the time and they wanted to be safe; however, they were sexually active. Jane fell asleep and her boyfriend got up and left the room to go outside with a few friends. Julio and another friend went into Jane's room to wake her up to come back out to the party, but when she wouldn't wake up Julio's friend left. Julio turned around to notice the door was shut, "tried to open it and thought it was locked" (doors don't lock from the outside) and decided instead to start trying to hook up with Jane. He began kissing her and allegedly she kissed back; however, at the same time, Julio realized Jane probably thought he was her boyfriend. Julio then removed Jane's pajama pants and began to forcibly rape her, once Jane woke up completely she realized it wasn't her boyfriend and began screaming and pushing Julio off. Julio reinserted his penis in Jane and then she called her boyfriend and Julio got up and left the room, told his friend (Jane's brother) he had "fucked up" and left the house. Jane's boyfriend came into the room and called the police immediately, who then found Julio hiding in the bushes. When Jane's case originally went to court, it was said that since Jane and her boyfriend weren't married, under section 261 of the California law, impersonating her boyfriend did not make it rape. If they would have been married, Julio would have been sentenced much more severely. During his first case, he was found innocent of impersonation and got three years in prison for sexual violence but got off of rape of an unconscious person. When this case returned to appellate court, the original sentence was overturned and Julio was found guilty of raping an unconscious person; however, since he had already served 3 years he wasn't required to serve any longer, but he was forced to register as a sex offender.

This case has a lot of interesting loopholes built in, and challenges a law that was set forth in 1872, when women were still property. I think I want to take this case and look into the history of the statute and see how it has played itself out in other cases and how that compares to this specific case. There are a lot of ways I could go with this, but this seems the most interesting.

Holly looked up the Brock Turner case, that of the Stanford swimmer who raped a girl behind a dumpster and served only 3 months of a very SHORT 6 month sentence. This plays into the idea that the judge didn't want to "ruin his life" by convicting him of a harsher sentence. This clearly doesn't take into account the fact that the girl Turner raped is forced to deal with psychological repercussions the rest of her life.

9/27

Today we discussed some statistics about rape, why rape happens, and sort of summed up everything we have learned thus far. We started the day by choosing the cases we want to focus on for our papers and also picked the dates we would be presenting them. I chose the Julio Morales case, which is about a man who rapes his friends sister right after her boyfriend leaves the room, tricking her into thinking he is the boyfriend. I am presenting more about this on Thursday and will have some more facts ready!

We came up with a list of "how not to get raped" if you are a woman (more satire than anything) and it included the following things:
-Don't drink
-Don't go to parties
-Don't dress provocatively
-Stay away from men
-Don't be friends with men
-Men are evil
-Drinking is evil
-Don't be a woman

We also discussed the real topic of what causes rape: RAPISTS. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a woman is blacked out drunk wearing nothing but lingerie, that does not give someone the right to rape her.

This discussion soon came to the debate of nature vs nurture and how that effects rape culture in the United States. Boys from a young age are taught to be tough and manly, and that "boys will be boys", all of these excuses pointing to the idea that somehow rape and violence is okay. But how did we get to this point? How did we come up with the idea that rape is acceptable? We need to stop claiming it is in the nature of men to want power, because rape is a position of power, and realize that these are people with serious psychological issues if they can rape someone. It is not okay for "boys to be boys" if that means someone is being harmed physically, mentally, or sexually in the process.

From here we move to gender roles, and wondering how we can change this? Stereotypically, men aren't great at communication, and in an innocent sense, may not understand or be able to pick up non-verbal cues a woman is giving if she doesn't straight out say no. This becomes an issue because not all women are bold enough to say no when a large man is doing something to them they do not like, so instead they use body language to show the man it isn't what they want. Once a woman does say no, or makes it very clear this isn't what she wants, men might feel like they were misled which causes them to feel betrayed and angry. This is an issue because men's communication skills are not being worked on as an entire population, so body language isn't always picked up. There are so many things that can go wrong with the nature vs nurture debate and the typical gender roles, which leads to one thing still: rapists cause rape. No other excuses.

9/22

Today's class was pretty short and mostly just used to get the annotated bibliography all finished up, so there isn't really much to say, definitely not enough for 600 words.

However, when looking at the things we accomplished today, it was pretty great. By the end of class, the annotated bibliography was already at 13 pages, which is pretty impressive for only about half the students being able to access it! We also discussed the first two papers, which seem like they will be interesting. Paper two will present us with a plethora of information about rape cases that have happened since about 2006.

What was most interesting about this class though were the two satire videos we watched. The first one being about the Colorado (?) basketball player who was having such a great career even after he raped someone, and everyone was so proud of him for being able to overcome it. The second one with Amy Schumer about the basketball team that were asking all the excuses which would mean it wasn't rape (i.e.-she said yes to something earlier in the day that wasn't sex, she said yes then changed her mind like a crazy person, she was drunk and asking for it, etc.). Both of these videos had comedy aspects that bring light to the idea of the dumb things college aged men say about rape and why they think it's okay. It's supposed to be taken satirically but every aspect of these videos holds a truth behind it. Athletes just worry about their sport and thinking they are targeted because they are athletes and they will overcome it. Men make up excuses to make rape sound like it was consensual sex. The worst part is, PEOPLE actually believe and use this crap!!! The things people do make me sick to my stomach, and the excuses are the worst part.

Other than this, class got out about a half hour early so there isn't much more to say!

9/20

Today in class we had quite a few people missing, so discussion for a few chapters was lacking. Nobody from chapters 21-24 were present, so we began our discussion at chapters 25 and 26.

Chapter 25 had a portion about injuries sustained by sex, sexual assault, and rape. There were stories where doctors, lawyers, etc. use the claim, "these general injuries could have been from consensual sex". This excuse irks me. I watch a lot of Law and Order: SVU and have heard this line come up on the show quite a few times. The fact that many defense attorneys will quote this exact line and then go on to say something like "well the victim was into rough sex", or "the victim likes BDSM", or even go as far as saying "the victim had a rape fantasy". And while yes, these activities can cause internal and external injuries to the sex organs, and yes, some people are into these things, that absolutely DOES NOT make it okay to use this as an excuse for a rapist. If someone is being charged for rape, and there are sexual injuries done to the victim, it is not likely this is a false accusation, and it is not likely the victim was into the "rape fantasy". The fact that saying something like this is even permissible in court makes me sick.
Moving on through chapter 25, there was the issue of victims not wanting to seek medical attention, for many reasons: embarrassment, lack of insurance, in shock about what happened, not wanting to get the assailant in trouble, etc. This is a fact the jurisdiction needs to be made aware of.
When it comes to questioning a rape victim, we took a look at nurses questioning, which we could compare to police questioning from earlier in the book. From this we learned that nurses do much better about sticking to their protocol and asking questions that actually make the victim feel comfortable. They ask for consent for any procedure, and let the patient know what happens if they deny consent. Comparing this to police questioning which often time strays from questioning that would actually help the case.

In chapter 26 we talked about how many times the defense tries to paint the assailant as some great guy who would never even harm a fly. However, rapists are "not some strangers that jumps out of the bushes at 2am, it's often someone you wouldn't pick out, a lot of times are quiet, unaggressive people, with frustration that builds up until they explode" and commit an action like sexual assault. So while yes, the assailant may never swear, never drink, never even gotten detention before, it doesn't mean they aren't capable of sexual assault.

Some of the most interesting takeaways from today's class came in the form of information about Pullman. Today I learned that no hospital or doctor's office in Pullman, WA has someone qualified to do a rape kit. We also learned that only 35% of WSU students drink, which came off as very shocking to me, as it seems that everyone I talked to at work, or in class, is a drinker. However, I do not drink, and a couple of my close friends only do rarely. Last interesting takeaway from today was the fact that the number of people aged 16-35 are 4x more likely to be raped than people of all other ages. When you put this into perspective, a large chunk of that age range is college students, where a plethora of rape cases occur. This makes sense and shows the numbers add up.

9/15

Today in class we discussed possible topics for our second paper and went into detail about the sources we want to use and how we want to construct our papers. I focused on a couple of different topics I wanted to write about, including Julio Morales vs the People and the Steubenville Rape case. After the discussions, I decided to go with the Julio Morales case, as it was more in the age group we have discussed often, and it was a case nobody else brought up. I am going to focus on the laws created around it as that is the biggest issue of the rhetoric surrounding this case. Here are some of the links I plan on using to write about my case:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256982/Julio-Morales-Rape-charges-dropped-man-snuck-bed-drunken-woman-sex-wasnt-MARRIED.html

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020130102005/PEOPLE%20v.%20MORALES#

There is a lot of information on this case so it should be fairly easy to get the information I need to write my paper. Everyone chose their topics and it will be interesting to get the case facts from everyone and see the comparisons between these cases and Missoula.

9/13

Today in class we went over a lot of statistics on rape, return rapists, inmate programs, and cases at universities. Some of the chapters didn’t have a lot of information, but what we went over was very interesting and gave a lot of information on life after punishment for rapists.

Chapters 11 and 12 were not discussed, as class was somewhat empty and nobody from this group was present. Chapters 13 and 14 focused on what causes cases to go dead, (as happened to a few of the people in the story), and how evidence plays a role. Cases can be diminished when there isn’t enough evidence present to convict someone. Cases can also change based on evidence provided, either turning the case against the victim, or convicting the assailant for something other than rape.

Chapters 15 and 16 really got into title 9 laws and how rape cases play out in the real world. We learned that 90% of criminal cases end in a plea bargain; however, only 30% of rape cases end in plea bargains. This is interesting because there are a couple different reasons for why the number of rape cases that end in plea bargains in significantly lower. A couple examples are: the victim wants the rapist to get the maximum punishment, one (or both) parties don’t agree with the plea, or the lawyer believes the case would be successful in trial. Title 9 argues that “it is more likely than not that sexual harassment/violence occurred” and that the victim should be believed. After many cases, athletes were coming back and suing the schools/court systems/etc. for receiving “discrimination in trial because they are athletes” and actually WINNING these cases. What a joke! Taking this to WSU, we learned there are 3-5 open cases per year typically; however, theoretically there are 35 cases a year that happen. This leaves us wondering, what happened to the other 30 cases? Did they go unnoticed? Unheard? Unreported? This leaves us wondering so many questions that go unanswered. Unfortunately, most reports don’t require giving a name, but just the fact that an incident occurred and what that incident was. This also leaves us wondering, is there a profile of a rapist? And would a rapist who was kicked out of school for raping someone want to go back to that school? Chapters 15 and 16 left me feeling like I had a million unanswered questions, and really got my mind running on what the answers could be.

Chapters 19 and 20 also had a lot of important information statistically. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we learned that on 9,600 sex offenders tracked for 3 years after release in 15 states, they found within those 3 years, 5.3% were rearrested for another sex crime. On average, they served only 3.5 years of 8-year sentence. Compared to non-sex offenders, early released sex offenders were 4x more likely to be arrested again. There are also jobs that convicted rapists cannot work, such as jobs with: access to potential victims, positions of power, where the location is (can’t be near schools, playgrounds, etc.), and making sure supervision is present at all times. Another interesting fact is a steady, full time job keeps rapists from being reconvicted. The last really interesting fact I learned from today was that the US has the highest incarceration rate by far: out of every 100,000 people in an area, most countries incarcerate 100; however, the US incarcerates 500.

9/6

Today’s discussion focused on sources from part two of Missoula, which led to topics of police protocol, the definition of rape, PTSD, tonic immobility, and laws centered on sexual assault. Some of the sources presented shocking facts that angered me and really opened my eyes to what happens to a victim while being raped.

Looking at police protocols, we found a lot of questions asked during the initial questioning of the victim and suspect are based on judgment calls. Due to this, a lot of officers fail to ask specific, highly important questions, such as identifying the subject. Questions that tend to be asked are typically more along the lines of “well you were drunk, so are you really sure that’s what happened?” Rather than asking appropriate questions to comfort the victim and details on what the assailant looks like, a lot of officer interrogations turn into judging, non-trusting questioning.

From there, we went into discussing what the definition of rape is. Krakauer gives a standard definition filled with legal jargon and words like “penetration”, but no definition gives the important parts of rape. No definition tells how traumatic it is, how much it hurts, how the assailant wants power, how it can mess a person up for the rest of their life.  No definition tells that 1 out of every 3 women who gets raped ends up having PTSD. Because even though PTSD is typically associated with soldiers, bad crash victims, and serious incident survivors, PTSD also affects rape victims.

Many people ask, “why didn’t you scream”, “why didn’t you wake up whoever was in the room”, “why didn’t you fight back?” Little do these people know, rape victims experience tonic immobility, or the inability to fight back, scream, or do anything? The victim becomes paralyzed and cannot physically move. This condition is associated with PTSD and is prevalent in many rape victims (about 41%).

When it comes to the laws surrounding rape, there is typically a lot of jargon; however, interestingly enough, there is no law that deals with a rape victim being asleep and the lack of consent. If someone gives consent, and then passes out or falls asleep, some believe their consent is not technically withdrawn, while others believe consent is taken away at this point. This becomes a difficult point, as consent was once given, but if one is asleep and not in control of their actions, consent should no longer be considered.

When police are trained, they are taught that duty trumps doubt; however, as seen from police judgment during questioning, this is not always considered. Police are supposed to treat each victim with respect and do their duty, even when they doubt the situation. When you look at police responses to rape, it is not taken seriously. If someone is accused of murder, that person is treated as a suspect, taken in, and taken seriously. If someone is accused of rape, they are not taken seriously and sometimes even comforted by officers. This is seen multiple times throughout Missoula, and is definitely a serious problem.

Laws and the seriousness police officers handle rape cases with are something that need to be seriously looked at and changed. The current situation and handling is an issue that is plaguing the United States, a rape suspect should be taken as seriously as a murder suspect. Laws need to be created to define consent more than they do now. This issue needs A LOT of work!