Last summer and fall I cringed when words like “legitimate rape” came out of the mouths of male conservative politicians. It’s not just that their understanding of basic human anatomical functions was so terribly wrong, but it re-injected politics into a crime that need not be politicized.
I was coming of age during the days when rape awareness finally moved out of the dark ages, when prosecutors would refuse to prosecute, pardon the expression, legitimate rape cases. Mine was the first generation where the term date rape came into prominence, and the phrase “no means no” became etched into our minds.
But being sensitive to rape and providing appropriate resources to rape victims does not mean that defendants lose their rights to things like burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence.
That is where Davis Enterprise columnist Debra DeAngelo went so terribly wrong with her column last weekend. The trial of Thaddeus Sonne had problems from the start – you had a video of the victim, drunk, leading Mr. Sonne out of the Our House restaurant and bar.
You had the fragile memory of the victim, you had the snapshot that the police officers saw, and you had conflicting physical evidence of rape from the medical examiners.
Debra DeAngelo described the scene as reported by Lauren Keene: “A couple witnessed Thaddeus Jay Sonne, 21, of Davis, having sex with a woman near the Amtrak station and called the police. Officers arrived and saw the woman ‘crying, kicking her legs and saying “no, no, stop” as they confronted the pair’ and arrested Sonne.”
But here’s the problem. Debra DeAngelo never saw even a moment of the trial and she is basing her view on Lauren Keene’s report. And Lauren Keene did not see most of the trial, either.
However, this was not your typical he-said, she-said account of a rape in which the police and jury need to weigh through competing accounts. Instead, we had a partial recording of a drunk Mr. Sonne, stunned that he was being arrested and accused of rape.
We have a victim, who doesn’t want any part of this. She told it to the police. She told it on the stand. She even told it to several of her friends.
She thought originally she was being arrested, probably for having sex in public. In the car, she called her boyfriend and told him that she had been raped, but the story changed when she got to the police station and when she got up on the stand.
Rape victim advocates and sexual assault counselors will tell us that women have great difficulty testifying against their attackers. We know this to be true.
That is perhaps evidence that we should not necessarily take the victim’s word in this case. That is not by itself evidence that a rape occurred.
It comes down to reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Twelve jurors who watched this entire case left the courtroom believing that there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit Mr. Sonne. One of the jurors posted on the Vanguard and we were able to have a view into his thinking.
Jurors never get a precise definition as to what reasonable doubt is. The California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) explains: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”
An additional instruction on circumstantial evidence, however, provides us with more clarity, “Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.”
That’s the problem in this case. With the victim unable to or unwilling to tell the jury she was raped, we have to rely on eyewitness accounts. The police describe walking up on the scene hearing the victim saying, “no, no stop,” and then seeing her underneath Mr. Sonne with her arms pinned back.
So, were the police witnessing a rape or were they witnessing a couple having sex in a drunken condition, on uncomfortable gravel, outside, and suddenly realizing that they have an audience?
When she told her boyfriend she was raped, was that evidence of rape or evidence that she had gotten drunk and was found having sex by the police by the railroad tracks?
Add to that, both the victim and defendant were expecting to be arrested, but for having sex outside.
You have inconclusive physical evidence and inconclusive eyewitness testimony, which leads to… reasonable doubt.
For each piece of evidence Ms. DeAngelo comes up with, there is reason to believe that there is a plausible explanation that points away from the rape allegation. That’s reasonable doubt.
That leads us back to the column. Ms. DeAngelo may well believe that she is entitled to her opinion. She is not trying the case or sitting on the jury. She has no reasonable doubt requirement.
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but not every opinion is of equal weight. The fact that she did not watch the trial herself limits what she could see or observe, as compared to the jury.
This opinion is not merely a matter of taste, which is completely subjective. This is the weighing of evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion.
My problem here is that the press has some reasonability. Mr. Sonne is entitled to the presumption of innocence in our legal system and he was acquitted by 12 members of his peers.
Ms. DeAngelo thinks she knows better. She thinks she knows better than the 12 members of the jury who sat through the trial. She thinks she is the judge, jury, and apparently executioner when she argues that she thinks a date rape occurred, that he should serve time, and that if he does not, he may rape someone else.
Pay no mind that this is a kid with a completely clean record. That he had a trial. That the jury found, at the very least, reasonable doubt – and I see monumental doubt that anything other than sex between two drunken kids happened.
The amazing thing I found about covering this case is how many people I ran into who either know Mr. Sonne or the victim in this town.
These are people who have to live in this community and Mr. Sonne probably thought he was going to clear his name and get on with his life. The victim, at least, gets to be anonymous.
Over the years, I have known many women who have been raped, most of them by acquaintances. It is a horrific crime that strikes at the very heart of people’s security and trust. I do not wish to diminish that. But the horrific nature of the crime does not allow us to throw out the rules of jurisprudence and the principles of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.
As I have stated before, I think both the victim and the accused have come out of this trial traumatized. It is the nature of our adversarial legal system. Justice is not served.
But we don’t correct this injustice by trying and convicting Mr. Sonne in the press. Just because some women are fearful of coming forward is not evidence that happened here.
All we have here are doubts and questions, no certainties. The best way to achieve justice here is help make sure that these types of mistakes are not repeated. We do that not through blame and aspersions, but through reconciliation and education.
And, finally, by depoliticizing rape. As long as rape is a loaded political term, we cannot deal with each case on its own merits and objectively.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Last summer and fall I cringed when words like “legitimate rape” came out of the mouths of male conservative politicians.”
Besides an ignorant Todd Akin, what other conservative politicians said this?
Otherwise, I fully agree with your article. Debra DeAngelo was way out of line.
“Jurors never get a full definition as to what reasonable doubt is. Calcrims jury instruction explains, ‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt’.”
Actually, jurors get a much fuller description than than you cite, one that’s been tested and refined through court tests over the years, one that gets repeated if necessary, one that judges are cautioned not be reworking except in certain situations. And, as you note, other significant instructions (such as those on circumstantial evidence) also are part of an overall package. I’d suggest that jurors get pretty well equipped to do their work in California.
This following instruction seems pretty good. it certainly did the job in Mr. Sonne’s case. How would you improve it?
“The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the
defendant[s] is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not
be biased against the defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/
have) been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.
A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This
presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must
prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not
eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to
some possible or imaginary doubt.
In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all
the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless
the evidence proves the defendant[s] guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must
find (him/her/them) not guilty.”
Ignore the cross out lines, don’t know how the got in there. Sorry.
“Over the years, I have known many women who have been raped, most of them by acquaintances. It is a horrific crime that strikes at the very heart of people’s security and trust. I do not wish to diminish that. But the horrific nature of the crime does not allow us to throw out the rules of jurisprudence and the principles of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.”
Well written. Thank you, David.
JS, true, David and i were conferring on that about the time you were commenting…what he meant to say was that jurors never get a precise definition…pointing out that the elements in these jury instructions are open to some interpretation, allowing flexibility. The text has been corrected.
“Ms. DeAngelo may well believe that she is entitled to her opinion. She is not trying the case or sitting on the jury. She has no reasonable doubt requirement. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but not every opinion is of equal weight. The fact that she did not watch the trial herself limits what she could see or observe, as compared to the jury.”
Excellent point. The jury did its job here, taking conflicting evidence and deciding the right thing. No trial observer or commenter on such reports is able to duplicate the jury’s experience or responsibilities.
Ms. DeAngelo IS entitled to her opinion. I think she was offended by two defense tactics or claims (all too typical in such cases), and she went overboard when she refused to acknowledge the jury’s superior knowledge, opinion and duties about this specific case. Not that others haven’t similarly disregarded jury decisions to opine here that defendants were innocent or guilty in spite of the juries’ decisions.
“Full definition.” “Precise definition.” Either way, I don’t know how we can improve the instruction. Life is complicated.
Thank you for also fixing my text, highbeam. You have a big burden here, almost equal to a trial jury’s. Good work!
Thanks, JS! You probably exaggerate!
I’m not prone to exaggeration. If I were running this show, we’d double your pay.
Ha ha!
Rusty
A sampling of direct quotes with very similar points of view on rape and abortion from Republican politicians:
1) John Koster – Washington congressional candidate
” ‘the rape thing’ is not a good enough reason for a woman to have an abortion”
2)Richard Mourdock
“”I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that
even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to
happen.”
3)Tom Smith -GOP senate candidate
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from
rape, the candidate responded, “Having a baby out of wedlock.” and then elaborated, “Put yourself in a
father’s position. Yes, it is similar.”
I can guarantee you 100% ( as Maya says in Zero Dark Thirty) that this is not at all similar from the
raped mother’s point of view.
4) Paul Ryan – Vice Presidential candidate
In an interview during the second week of August 2012
….”rape is a means of conception”
Biologically true, but completely heartless when used as a justification, as he was, for his position
against abortion in cases of rape.
5) Roger Rivard – Representative to US Congress
“some girls rape easy”
6) Chuck Winder – state representative
The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly
controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use
rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion. And then in additional comments suggested that a woman
might not understand whether or not she had been raped and should be questioned in detail by her
doctor to clarify if the sexual act had been forced ( after her claim of rape) or whether it had taken
place within the context of her marriage.
7) To be fair lest you think that I am solely bashing white male Republicans, this from
Lulli Akin – wife of Tod Akin who told the National Journal that the GOP’s attempt to stop her
husband’s campaign amounted to rape and 18th century “tyranny.”
8) Rick Berg – North Dakota GOP
In 2007, while a member of the state legislature, Berg voted with the minority to outlaw abortion. The
bill would have made it a felony for a doctor to perform the abortion procedure and, according to the
Bismarck Tribune, allowed for prosecution of the mother ( including in cases of rape).
9) Joe Walsh – Republican representative
When speaking about termination of pregnancy regardless of physical threat to the mother:
“There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing,”
“with advances in science and technology.”
10) Rick Santorum – GOP presidential candidate
When asked how he would counsel his own daughter if she came to him begging for an abortion after
being raped,
“accept this horribly created” baby, because it was still a gift from God, even if given in a “broken”
way.”
While I completely accept Mr. Santorum’s right to counsel his daughter any way he believes is right,
I find his linkage of “God” to gift’s given in a “broken way” to be very alarming coming from a man
who was clear that his policies would be informed by his own ( and within my religious context, very
twisted) religious beliefs. And this from a man claiming to oppose government intervention in our
personal lives.
There are many more. All you have to do is Google it.
Medwoman, in all your examples in which you look like you spent much of your time I didn’t see where anyone else said “legitimate rape”. So you are wrong again….goodbye
[quote]Medwoman, in all your examples in which you look like you spent much of your time I didn’t see where anyone else said “legitimate rape”. So you are wrong again….goodbye[/quote]
Rusty, I think that the sense of David’s original text was not to suggest that a slew of politicians used those exact words (“legitimate rape”), but “words like” this, along with other ignorant, ill-thought, idiotic comments that “re-injected politics into a crime that need not be politicized.”
And Medwoman’s catalog of right-wing comments certain supports that larger point that I think David was trying to make.
DG: [i]”I was coming of age … when prosecutors would refuse to prosecute … ‘legitimate’ rape cases.”[/i]
I am befuddled by your claim, David.
When was it that prosecutors would refuse to charge certain rape cases?
Is there some sort of historical record which documents a pattern of sex crimes that were treated by most prosecutors all over our country as if they were not criminal offenses, despite what statutes said?
Are you just making sh!t up? Or is there a factual basis for what you wrote?
On the other hand, Rich, when and where I was coming of age (see “Stand by Me”), a couple of crimes were viewed in a different way than they are today.
One is drunk driving, including incidents where drunks killed people with their cars. Compared to today’s reactions, these situations were undercharged and the perps given some sympathy by juries and judges. The theory: “There but for the grace of God….”
The other is rape. The theory: “It’s hard when she says ‘no’ right in the middle of things.” There are other defenses offered up in rape trials that we now view as pretty shameful. I think those are the things that set off Ms. DeAngelo. But, the fact that the defense tossed in some despicable excuses doesn’t mean Mr. Sonne was guilty.
Maybe David can provide some stats. My view just comes from covering city police and court beats for three years. Maybe you’re too young to have come of age back in the olden days to which David refers. I don’t think anyone views sexual and DUI crimes the same way most of us did then.
PS–Of course, David makes this shit up when it can enhance reports that support his viewpoint.
David’s comment:
[quote]when words like “legitimate rape” came out of the mouths of male conservative politicians.”
[/quote]
Excerpt from my comment:
“with very similar points of view on rape”
I fail to see how I am “wrong again” when I never made the claim that the exact words “legitimate rape” were used. I feel that I made it very clear that I was posting examples of “similar points of view”.
If you do not agree that these comments are expressing similar attitudes towards rape, I would love to hear your view of how they differ. And even more, I would love to hear your thoughts about each of these comments individually. I don’t see how a purely snarky comment followed up by “good bye” moves the conversation along in any meaningful way.
[quote]One is drunk driving, including incidents where drunks killed people with their cars. Compared to today’s reactions, these situations were undercharged and the perps given some sympathy by juries and judges. The theory: “There but for the grace of God….[/quote]
I have no statistics to offer, but I do believe that a couple of examples in which I was directly involved would be illustrative of “different times”. The first involved an example of drunk driving from 1962.
My sister’s boyfriend was killed in a car accident in which the underaged driver was drunk. The other three kids in the car sustained survivable injuries including the driver. This was seen as a tragedy certainly, but no legal action ensued. I have no idea whether or not there were insurance claims or the like involved, but the driver was not charged. I suspect this would have played out quite differently today.
My second example occurred in 1985 while working as a medical officer on the Tohono Otam reservation
between Tucson and Ajo. A man driving a pick up truck while drunk rolled the truck which was carrying a number of passengers including his 12 year old son in the bed. With the roll, the son’s left arm was amputated at the shoulder and not able to be re implanted. The defense used by the father was that he was not legally responsible because he was drunk at the time of the accident. It would appear that there was general acceptance of this position since the issue was dropped and he was not legally charged.
Just: the difference between drunk driving prosecutions and rape prosecutions over the last 30 years is that there has been a change in statutory law (usually driven by the over-zealous advocacy group called MADD), but, as far as I know, no parallel at all in rape law.
What is possible with some sex crimes is that [i]juries have changed,[/i] and are now more likely to convict in a he said-she said case. If that is David’s argument–he never said that or showed any evidence for that–it might support his contention that when he came of age (David’s much younger than I am) prosecutors would “refuse to prosecute, pardon the expression, legitimate rape cases.”
Perhaps the reason David left that out–again, if it is the substantiation of his argument–is because it actually makes prosecutors reasonable and rational, which contradicts his larger worldview about how unreasonable and irrational prosecutors are (which may or may not be true). If juries a long time ago would never (or nearly never) convict in alleged rape cases with ambiguous evidence at play, then I don’t see why any rational or reasonable prosecutor would take such a case to trial, given his limited time and money.
I know, of course, all of this is an aside from David’s point in his column (regarding De Angelo’s column). Based on the facts he presents–in contrast to this one unsubstantiated claim about how prosecutors used to be–I agree with what David wrote here in the main.
“Is there some sort of historical record which documents a pattern of sex crimes that were treated by most prosecutors all over our country as if they were not criminal offenses, despite what statutes said?”
I’m sure I can find some examples and document them later. On a personal note, I came “of age” in the seventies. I briefly moved to Salem, Oregon after graduating college with a degree in Sociology & Womens’ Studies. Right after I arrived in Oregon, a story hit the news about a woman who claimed her husband raped her. It made national headlines. I worked evenings in a pizza parlor. I was astounded at the vast majority of my customers who discussed the case and sided with the husband. Most people that I overheard talking strongly believed a husband could not rape his wife. During the day, I had an office job. The vast majority of my co-workers also believed a husband could not rape his own wife. I believe that our society has indeed changed in the past few decades. When I was in high school, there was no language to describe “sexual harrassment” or “date rape” or even “domestic violence”. Now, at least we have the words.
Unfortunately when allegations of rape are made, minds are already made up as to if they are true or not. It doesn’t matter if there is a conviction or acquittal. Victims names are protected but the accused’s name should be protected too at least until after a conviction.
Rifs
[quote]no parallel at all in rape law.
[/quote]
While I would not cite this as a “parallel” in rape law, there has been one major area of change in rape statutes in the fairly recent past.
Cribbed from Wikepedia :
Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., and the first marital rape case to reach the U.S. court system took place in 1978 in New Jersey, where Daniel Morrison was found guilty of raping his estranged wife. Six months later in Oregon, John Rideout became the first husband charged with rape while living with his wife. Rideout was acquitted, but the case was widely publicized and brought attention to the concept that rape can exist within the context of marriage. Many states at that time defined rape as forced sexual intercourse committed by a man “against a woman [not his wife].” In 1979, the state of Massachusetts charged and convicted a marital rape case. In 1981, Minnesota statutes were changed to acknowledge the existence of rape in marriage; Ramsey County was the first to charge a case under this statute, but later dismissed it. There have since been subsequent successful prosecutions of marital rape, but in general the cases are hard to win, primarily because the question of consent is clouded by societal beliefs about marriage. ( There seem to be three threads of thought here. 1) That the woman is the property of the man and therefore he can dispose of his property as he sees fit. This one seems to have lost traction over time.
2) That the marriage contract carries within it the concept that the man and woman are now one and so the act of rape would not be considered an act against “another”.
3) That through the contract of marriage, the wife gives up her right to sexual autonomy. )
It was in the same year that advocate Laura X founded the National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape as part of the Women’s History Library in Berkeley, California. It was through the untiring efforts of Laura X and others like her that as on July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in at least one section of the sexual offense codes in all 50 states of the U.S.
Ms. DeAngelo is at it again.
Granted that there are differences in rape and DUI histories. I just was suggesting that there’s been significant change in the public attitudes about both types of crimes, in their prosecution and in their penalties. We’re far less tolerant of perpetrators, of their excuses, of DAs who have to have slam-dunk cases to prosecute than we used to be.
I do think that David likely meant his comment as a criticism of prosecutors back in the day (surprise!) rather than as a compliment for using their discretion because juries didn’t convict she said-he said rape cases. Come to think about it, what rape cases aren’t she said-he said’s? We’ve just had a case with unrelated witnesses to the act and to “no!” and rape kit (DNA?) evidence–and a defendant judged not guilty.
Interesting, last night Ms. DeAngelo had another article about the rape posted on the Enterprise website but today there’s an old Oct. article that went to print. Did the article get pulled?
“Victims names are protected but the accused’s name should be protected too at least until after a conviction.”
Davis Enterprise: Arrested? Huge article on page three. Not guilty? NOT NEWSWORTHY. Shame on you, Enterprise. Many many years ago this scenario happened to a friend of mine. I called the editor to complain. I got nowhere. I don’t think the Enterprise has changed one bit. Get arrested & they behave like the National Enquirer. Get acquitted and they ignore you. It’s almost like they enjoy destroying a person’s reputation and humiliating a person’s family. Davis citizens should not buy the Enterprise.
Jimmy’s daughter, what article are you talking about? Today’s paper?
Hi Rusty49. I don’t know what the Enquirer, er, I mean, the Enterprise, printed today because I will not buy that paper. I guess if I lived closer, I could go to Cindy’s or Starbucks, or this afternoon to the library, and look at it for free. But I moved from Davis last year. So I do not know what lies, half truths, or innuendos they are busily printing away, while they are destroying innocent families’ reputations. Sorry.
How many times, how much money and how many lives will Jeff Reisig ruin before someone stops him? It is very, very hard to get an acquittal — 0 to 12 for conviction — on a rape case. How did this get past the multiple layers that are supposed to protect the innocent? The cops when they arrest, the DA when he files the case, the deputy DA when he/she evaluates the case and investigates the case, The Judge when the people rest and the defense makes a motion for dismissal under Penal Code 1118…. No, in Yolo it has to go to a jury regardless of the lives that will be ruined because they might (?) win and get their cash for convictions!
I believe this to be the aforementioned column my Ms. DeAngelo (as found in my partner’s email from the online Enterprise):
Part 1:
[quote]
Never mind what happened by the train tracks, the legal system raped you
by Debra DeAngelo
Somewhere out there is a young woman who was unfortunate enough to have a few drinks and go for a walk by the train tracks one night with Thaddeus Jay Sonne. First she’s bar-hopping with friends, having a few drinks (or, more likely, a few too many), next thing you know, she’s pinned to the ground, kicking and crying, pleading “No, no, stop!” while Sonne continues to do with her as he will.
The police arrive, arrest Sonne, but in her drunken and highly confused state — “Was I really just raped by someone I know?” — she’s unable, or unwilling, to state unequivocally if she was raped. She was uncertain about pressing charges, and like so many women who are sexually assaulted or raped by someone they know, her feelings of confusion, guilt and shame likely outweighed her desire for justice.
I’m guessing the girl knew that if she pressed charges, she’d have to relive and retell what happened to her, while an attorney shamed and belittled her, and painted her as nothing but a drunken whore. Surely, she decided the ordeal of facing it all over again seemed worse than just moving on. She decided to let the justice system proceed without her and see where the chips fell.
Well, they all fell on Sonne’s side. Without her testimony, Sonne was acquitted of the rape charge, after an astounding claim from his attorney that he was too drunk to understand what “no” means, and released on the spot — even though he admitted that he heard her saying “no”, and explained that he thought the sex was consensual because sometimes “no” is just a dare.
Despite the meme that “No means no,” Sonne got a big thumbs up from the jury, and is free to go forth and take tipsy girls for walks all he wants, and take them up on their dares.
But where does that leave that young woman found kicking and crying that night by the train tracks? What’s going through her mind, knowing that in the eyes of the law, Sonne is innocent?
If he’s not in the wrong, then … I ?
End of part 1
Part 2 of the DeAngelo article:
[quote]And therein, the seed of lifelong shame and self-doubt are planted. The only way to avoid a lifetime of self-torture is to turn and face the dragon now.
My dear girl, whoever you are, beyond whatever happened to you that night, you truly are a victim. You’ve been raped by the legal system. It shoved erroneous, poisonous ideas and perceptions into your brain against your will, and there they’ll fester and grow, and subconsciously alter your self-esteem and life choices.
You’ll start second-guessing yourself, because clearly you don’t know what’s what. You’ll question your own judgment and perception, because on some level, you KNOW what happened to you that night, and yet the legal system said it didn’t. You might even start wondering if they’re right. Maybe you didn’t really know what was going on, even though you were there. Maybe there was something you did, or didn’t do, that caused it to happen.
This is how the abuse cycle starts. Men who batter women tell them: “You made me hit you. Why did you do/say/not do/not say to make me do this to you again?” And then the women cry and apologize for their transgressions, and dab ice on their bruises as the man “forgives” them, and they stay in the relationship to try and figure out what it is they’re doing wrong to make their men treat them so brutally. It all starts when they believe that “What you say happened didn’t happen.” It starts when they believe the man, and in your case, the legal system, more than they believe themselves. If you choose to believe what the legal system told you, you’re putting yourself at risk for abusive relationships in the future.
So, is your brain twisting into a pretzel? Wondering if down is up and up is down, second-guessing your ability to choose friends or make wise choices, and replaying the tape over and over to figure out where you made the exact mistake that night while out barhopping? Are you feeling dirty and “less than”? Full of shame and self-loathing? Wondering who you can trust and who you can’t, because clearly your judgment is faulty? I mean, the legal system said as much, right?
Wrong, wrong, wong.
These thoughts have no basis in reality. There’s nothing wrong or bad or shameful about you. You’re running the tapes of self-loathing because the legal system didn’t validate you. Whenever those tapes start playing in your head, you must hit “stop” and replace them with this mantra: The legal system failed me. You did not cause what happened to you. You’ve been taught a cruel life lesson at a tender age: Life is not always fair. And it doesn’t play nice. And if you’re going to climb into the sandbox, you must learn to play rough.
You were wronged, twice. Dig down and find your anger about that. Anger is empowering. Channel it into protecting yourself, because this is another of life’s cruel lessons: The only one who will always be there to protect you is you. Never again allow yourself to get so intoxicated that you aren’t in control of yourself or able to make good decisions. Never go anywhere alone with a man until you know him well. Above all, you must learn to fight like your life depends on it, because it does. Should you ever find yourself in an assault situation again, channel your inner lioness, not your inner gazelle. Bite, claw and gouge to maim. Punch, strike, elbow to draw blood. Kick to break bones. Let there be no confusion about your desire: I. Will. Hurt. You. Inflict as much injury as possible to escape.
Yes, leave a mark. Leave many. They’ll make great evidence when you press charges.
— Email Debra DeAngelo at debra@wintersexpress.com; read more of her work at http://www.wintersexpress.com and http://www.edebra.com[/quote%5D
“How did this get past the multiple layers that are supposed to protect the innocent? The cops when they arrest, the DA when he files the case, the deputy DA when he/she evaluates the case and investigates the case, The Judge when the people rest and the defense makes a motion for dismissal under Penal Code 1118…. No, in Yolo it has to go to a jury regardless of the lives that will be ruined because they might (?) win and get their cash for convictions!”
Dear Kathryn Druliner,
I agree with you. And I would add the Davis Enterprise to your list of organizations that ruin innocent people’s reputations.
Ms. DeAngelo
As an ob/gyn, I probably have more direct experience with the impact of rape on women and subsequently, less tolerance for the act of rape than any poster here. Rape is one of the crimes that
will stir in my very liberal heart, the impulse to “lock him up and throw away the key”. However, I must take exception to your verbal war and harassment campaign against an individual who not been convicted of anything. Even more importantly, you have offered this young woman false assurance and some very dangerous and erroneous advice.
So let’s start with the most important and potentially lethal of your claims and advice.
[quote]You did not cause what happened to you.[/quote]
Here we are not talking about wearing revealing clothing, or being flirty. We are talking about a young woman who voluntarily chose to consume an amount of alcohol that could have proven not just to lower inhibitions, decrease amount of pain perceived and lead to confusion and loss of memory for events, but which could have proven fatal. In your column, you are so fixated on the sexual aspects of this event that you are totally ignoring her responsibility for consuming this potentially lethal amount of alcohol in the first place. Rather than empowering this young woman by stressing how very important it is that she remain in control of her faculties, you have written a diatribe about how she has been victimized.
The very best outcome from this case would be for both of these young people to own their personal contribution to this very unfortunate event and learn to make better and safer choices for themselves.
As to the remainder of your claims, as has been pointed out by an individual actually present in the court room, you were not there. How is it that you feel that you have more and better information about what actually happened both by the tracks and in the court room ? Or do you simply not believe in the precept that an individual is innocent until proven guilty ? If this is the case, would you apply it to yourself if you were charged with a crime under questionable circumstances ?
Finally, in your pseudo psychological assessment of this young woman, you have decided that you know what she is thinking and what she is feeling. From my experience with many abused and sexually abused women, I can assure you that what you have written while it may apply to some, does not reflect any thing close to the full range of emotions, blame placing, and or psychologic processing of the event. So unless you have personally interviewed this particular young woman, what you have in effect constructed
is a victim of your preference and advised this fictitious victim based on your own personal point of view.
Unless you are a medical doctor, a psychologist, a fully trained victim’s rights advocate it would be very wise not to dispense advice to this woman.
I’m starting to feel empathy for Debra DeAngelo. She is so far over the top on this one, she must have a personal vendetta. Perhaps she or a loved one was date raped? She has lost her credibility.
I fully agree with both Medwoman’s and JimmysDaughter’s post. Ms. DeAngelo is going way over the top with this case and I wonder if the editor or legal at the Enterprise realized that and pulled her article?
Thanks Medwoman for posting that. I didn’t realize that this was supposed to be published, I wonder why it was not.
JimmysDaughter
I also felt while reading this article that their might be a personal issue driving the emotion behind these columns. It was actually this thought that caused me to pull some of my comments prior to posting.
However, I felt it would be wrong to not counter the absolutely terrible and potentially dangerous advice that this young woman need take no responsibility from her obviously dangerous actions. I also felt it necessary to call her out once again for her attempts to cause damage to a young man who, whether or not she personally agrees, has been found innocent by a jury of his peers.
David
[quote]I didn’t realize that this was supposed to be published, I wonder why it was not.[/quote]
It was initially published on the on line version of the Enterprise where it turned up in my partner’s email.
I suspect that as pointed out by Rusty ( who by the way has left me in a state of shock almost precluding my ability to post ) that either the editorial staff or legal council decided best to pull it.
It is my sincere hope that no one, Mr. Sonne, the anonymous young woman, or Ms. DeAngelo will incur any more harm from less than well considered actions regarding this case. There are many important lessons to be learned here and I would hope that each individual involved would carefully examine their own actions and perhaps choose a more prudent course in the future.
Dear Medwoman,
Thanks for copying the Enterprise article. It was like a car wreck, I didn’t want to look, but I did.
“The very best outcome from this case would be for both of these young people to own their personal contribution to this very unfortunate event and learn to make better and safer choices for themselves.”
Amen.
Just: “What rape cases are not he said-she said.”
I’m sure most are at least that. But, given testimony and circumstances and personal records, not all he said-she said situations are the same.
Also, there is now good forensic evidence in many cases with DNA. And, very often there are other signs of physical violence which adds to the testimony.
I have not looked at the numbers, but my understanding is that most sexual assaults (just like most violent crimes of other sorts) are done by people who know each other.
What I find interesting is how many old cases there are where the attacker was a complete stranger and the victim mistakenly identified the wrong culprit in her rape, and this was subsequently discovered/proved via DNA evidence. That, of course, is part of the larger theme (that David has pursued vigorously at times) that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.
————–
Barely related question: Was the Cafe Mediteranee alleged sexual assault case resolved? I figure it must have been by now. Yet I cannot remember what the outcome was.
[i]”Was the Cafe Mediteranee alleged sexual assault case resolved?”[/i]
Never mind. I looked it up. From the September 12, 2012 Davis Enterprise: [quote]A Davis restaurant owner facing trial on sexual assault charges later this month made a plea agreement last week that resolved the case.
Ashot Manukyan , 59, pleaded no contest Thursday to a misdemeanor false-imprisonment charge, Yolo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven said.
Yolo Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg sentenced the Cafe Mediterranee owner to three years of probation, 480 hours of community service and a minimum of 16 weeks of counseling, according to Raven.
Manukyan also pleaded no contest to a sexual battery charge in an arrangement known as a deferred entry of plea, in which the judge and the parties agree that the plea will not be accepted or entered, nor will the defendant be sentenced, unless he violates his probation on the misdemeanor charge, Raven said. [/quote]
David, did your interns cover the Ashot Manukyan court appearance? Interesting resolution for what he was facing. Maybe the DA is more open to negotiation than we think.
JimmysDaughter, I agree on all counts.
Kathryn: I totally agree with you too.
When will our community demand that some real investigation be done into these cases before they are sent to trial. The “tough on crime” attitude from this DA’s office has gotten way out of hand and has trumped common sense and justice.
The jury in this case understood the concept of reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, many jurors believe that the DA will not prosecute unless there is strong evidence.
We saw this in the Ajay Dev case. There was loads of reasonable doubt, no physical evidence and lots of evidence that the accuser lied on the stand. There was a tape recording where the prosecutor claimed an admission took place, but this alleged admission was translated by the accuser, herself, and contradicted by a non-biased expert translator.
Unfortunately, the jurors believed that the prosecutor would not have taken this case to trial unless something really happened.
I ask future jurors to look solely at the evidence in front of you and make your decision based on only that. In this county, more than likely, someone will be prosecuted with very little investigation.
Dear Fight Against Injustice,
Why was the jury allowed to hear a tape that the alleged victim translated herself? This case is so perplexing.Too many nagging questions. Can anyone on that jury comment on Mr. Dev’s case? Anonymously? What convinced the jury to convict Mr. Dev? I feel sorry for Mr. Dev’s family.How on earth are they paying for all their legal fees, while awaiting his appeal? How is his family doing? What happened to the person who claimed she was his victim?