The rape victim's website, where do you stand?

Its a really tricky situation because its between protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty in a situation where the normal world of courtroom justice is not an option. On one hand there is the raped girl, who uses this purely as a last measure to exact justice, then there is an innocent guy, who could be publicly accused of rape from an ex and vilified for it even though he is not guilty. Is the benefit of punishing the guilty worth the risk of the damage it can cause the innocent? That's a question to which their really is no answer because the raped girl would believe it is worth it while innocent accused boy would say its not. Given the law supports the innocent till proven guilty argument, my title of the argument would be on Don's side because I think protecting the innocent should always be the top priority.

On the other hand, I really disagree with Don's moral diatribe about believing rape victims vs not believing them. Don wasn't being asked to be a jurist and making a decision based on law. He was being asked whether he morally has the belief in the victim based upon his experience with the accused and the accuser. Given that he essentially does feel that Mary is more trustworthy, why does he have the moral imperative to act like a jurist and not base his feelings just on just his observations. I think that's the point that is really going to rub people the wrong way.

It's similar to my position on capital punishment - the idea of an innocent person being permanently and irretrievably damaged chills me to the bone, to the point where I would say the shut the website down.


Don says it himself, there is no way that that site will not at some point be used immorally. That's not a slight against the girl or the victims or victims of rape in general, it's just a fact. It wouldn't even have to be a girl to do it - anybody could post it about anyone. And that is scary.

That's why there needs to be systems with rules... and it's awful that those systems are failing rape victims. It's horrible. But the alternative isn't to allow innocent people to have those lives ruined.

I am sure there is a happy medium - legitimate victims finding public outlets without every person and their dog to spout out whatever.

Apathy on the rise, no one cares

SEAL412,

The basis of our criminal justice system (as well as other countries) is when Ben Franklin quoted Blackstone's Formulation. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" is what Ben Franklin said. Also, one of my favorite things from American history that I like to point out that a lot of people don't know is that John Adams was the defense counsel for the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre. He successfully defended them too.

We have an elaborate criminal justice system and courts system in this country based on English Common Law (except for Louisiana). Sure it is not always perfect but what would be peoples' alternative instead? Kangaroo courts like North Korea? The BS we saw in Italy with the Amanda Know trial? Or the Internet where nothing is fact checked, vetted, there is no chain of custody, etc. That is what the show was getting at in this episode with the app and unverified "news." Also, an earlier episode during the Boston Marathon bombing, fools on Reddit tried to be amateur detectives and drug an innocent kid's name through the mud that he was one of the terrorists. When this happened in real life I actually looked the kid up online.

People really need to remember their history just in this country. Don't forget we had a period in our country where people where just accused with no evidence. In 1692, we hanged innocent people. The book about this, The Crucible, is really an allegory for another time in our history when he just randomly accused people without trial, the 1950's Red Scare. We need to remember these things and not repeat them.

As someone above pointed out, this episode comes at a perfect time. The University of Virginia Rolling Stone article was just completely discredited. The "rape victim" made it up. Now a university, a fraternity, and many others have been drug through the mud for no reason. All because of shotty journalism. Which again was what this episode was about.

I read that article and I have seen many other interviews with rape victims at universities. This has reminded me of just more yellow journalism. I actually saw an interview where girls said that EVERY SINGLE MALE that attends colleges around the country is a rapist. Really? I went to a major state university. I did not rape anyone. Neither did my friends. I further have a Criminology degree and have worked in the courts and system. I would like to see the empirical statistics on how many rape cases that are reported immediately go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. Waiting years, as in the case of the Rolling Stone article, because you are worried about your social standing at school is preposterous and does not help your case for prosecution. Law Enforcement can only do so much. Not helping yourself out and expecting the system to magically arrest and convict people is dumb.

Instead of going around and fear mongering to college women these advocacy groups need to be teaching them safety and how not to be an easy victim. That is another criminological theory. Also they need to pound it in their heads to report crimes immediately. Like I said above our system needs vetted evidence so we are not imprisoning innocent people.

To quote another Aaron Sorkin movie, America is advanced citizenship. It is not easy. Is it perfect? No. But I still think we are better than most out there. And to throw that all away and those safeguards because someone didn't get the outcome they wanted is dangerous.


P.S. Posting knowingly false claims online about someone that would cause them harm is libel. Slander is the spoken word version of this. Any web site like that was talked about in this episode would immediately turn in libel central. The Internet is the Wild West and people think they can get away with anything. For example, I am sure someone will curse me out for what I wrote above. However, they would be scared to say anything to my face in person.

I believe that Don was right in the matter. However, you can't deny Mary's feelings and aim to help women who could be victimized. The problem with her website is that, as Don says, there is too high a possibility that someone could use it to gain revenge on a man. If the website were to gain fame, that man would instantly be condemned for actions he may or may not have committed. The issue is lack of due process and fairness.

I think the only option to help both claims is to create more laws enforcing a larger investigation on rape. This does not mean the investigation or trial should be made public, but rather they carefully inspect both sides of the argument, as well as facts and evidentiary support. I'm not a professional on the matter, so that is the best solution I could think of.

Overall, I think it is impossible to find a middle ground between the two. In both extremes, both women and men get unfair treatment. Mary says she is weighing the "cost benefit". That simply is not constitutional and is grounds to make her argument invalid.

Of course Don was right! The problem isn't really accountability, but credibility. And yes, that's a problem with it in a court of law as well. But the power of misuse is just incredible. No one wants a victim of rape not to have justice, but the problem is who determines if it was a real crime or not? Even if 99 women used that website who really truly was raped, it only takes ONE liar or fabricator to question the website and most of the women even if they are being honest.

I really don't think most women would ever cry rape and usually when a woman says they were, I tend to believe her basically all the time, which sadly goes to the other part of the problem. And I dont decide whose guilty or innocent either, a court does. And I just don't see the idea of putting men faces up without one piece of evidence as a good thing. Especially on the internet. If at the VERY least there was a way to vet what they're saying, maybe, but yeah if could vet what they're saying in the first place most likely they will get a court date. I get how difficult it is, especially for victims.

The internet is just still too wild wild west. We all know this. Its TOO easy to ruin peoples lives here already. And how does the guy get to defend himself? Can he at least tell his side of the story on the website if he so chooses? I'm guessing not and it will just create more chaos. People on IMDB can go 100 rounds talking about if a character sucks on a TV show, I can only imagine the barn burner it will be if the accussed can give his side on the internet for the public to weigh in. But same time if the accussed can't even give his side like an actual court room does then he's basically prosecuted on the internet without being able to even put in a plea. That just seems wrong to me.

But yes, we know the victim just wants to warn others and give her story. Clearly that's a good thing. But this shouldnt be the avenue. I'm sorry for anyone out there who has been raped and their case never being heard. After the Bill Cosby craziness last few weeks, it teaches us probably more people get away with it then don't, but that's not the solution either IMO.

12 Years a Slave Best Picture Of The Year!!!!!!

Don was right. She took the law in her own hands, because the law didn't work as she expected.

Edit: I haven't read the posts, but the scene was very good. She admits to taking a lot of inhibitors, and remembers that they took her clothes off and took turns. What other evidence would the cops need to arrest. There must not have been any defensive wounds to support her. But I find it hard it wouldn't go to court. She was drugged so how could she give consent.

Edit: she will get her day in court, when the website explodes and she is sued. She will tell her story then.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

A website like that would never work. Once it became popular enough to efficiently function as a warning to all potential victims it would very quickly be spammed with so many false accusations it would become a joke.

The false accusations would outweigh the true ones as soon as that website picked up good traffic and generated a lot of interest. At that point nobody would trust the site is telling the truth unless the editors of the site somehow vet the accusations.

In the novel (and probably the movie) Speak, a rape victim finds that people started writing on the bathroom wall at her school, about guys who had raped them. To me, this seemed reasonable because it warned girls about guys WITH WHOM THEY MIGHT REASONABLY COME INTO CONTACT who could be dangerous. The Internet is different because it is telling the whole world about somebody in an irrevocable way. Of course, that was the theme of the episode, that one can do so much widespread damage with the Internet, without really having to do much or think about it at all.