There have been a lot cases in the news lately about sexual assault & the men who have faced charges because of it. According to government research, it is estimated that one in five women will be raped at some point in their lives, 1 in 5 women on college campuses have been sexually assaulted during their time in school and in eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the person who sexually assaulted them. Rape costs the U.S. more than any other crime at $127 billion per year, making it a heavy financial burden for everyone.
With such alarming statistics & the high costs of this particular crime, it is understandable how stressful this experience can be for these women. But like with any other crime (and sometimes even civil), criminal cases are public record. And public records are exactly that – PUBLIC! So if a criminal case is public record, shouldn’t the victim’s information be made public? In many of these cases, the rape victim is allowed to remain anonymous but is that really fair? Should a women’s name be withheld when she is making a public case against a man? Why should it be kept private when the name of the accused is oftentimes dragged thru the mud (even if he’s later found not-guilty)? Should things be made easy for rape accusers or be made fair?
Read the article below from Yahoo & let me know what you think –
The woman who filed the civil complaint alleging that former NBA Most Valuable Player Derrick Rose and two of his friends drugged her, broke into her apartment and gang-raped her while she was unconscious in August 2013 spoke publicly this week for the first time, granting multiple interviews in an attempt to present her side of the story less than three weeks before the scheduled start of the civil trial on Oct. 4.
The woman previously identified in court documents only as “Jane Doe” is a 30-year-old college student who told Janie McCauley of The Associated Press that her family doesn’t know anything about her relationship to the former Chicago Bulls and current New York Knicks point guard, with whom she had what both sides acknowledge was a non-exclusive sexual relationship from late 2011 until July 2013, or the lawsuit, in which she is seeking $21.5 million in damages.
“They have a sense something’s wrong, but there’s no way I can express to them or explain to them how I feel or what I’m going through,” Doe told the AP. “Having to think of alternative ways to communicate that pain is very stressful and it takes a lot out of you.”
Doe’s anonymity has been a central element in what has become an increasingly contentious legal battle.
In May, Rose filed a motion calling for Jane Doe’s parents to be deposed so that his attorneys could “question the plaintiff’s parents about her ‘traditional, religious upbringing,’” and asking the court “to force Doe to reveal her identity,” claiming “she has waived her privacy rights by putting her emotional condition at issue.” Rose’s attorneys have also argued Doe’s “use of Twitter and other forms of social media” — including Instagram, where they say she posts photos “that are sexual in nature [where she is] dressed in provocative nature, is in sexually suggestive poses, and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time” — “belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”
A judge found no compelling reason to publicly release the woman’s real name, meaning Rose’s defense will not be able to use her social media as evidence of her ‘sexual’ nature at trial, but did “allow the disclosure of her name within the realm of the discovery, or fact-finding, process” of the trial. Even so, the judge chastised Rose’s lawyers for the logic of the social-media claim:
Defendant Rose appears to suggest that women who publicly portray themselves as “sexual” are less likely to experience embarrassment, humiliation, and harassment associated with gang rape. Such rhetoric has no place in this Court. No matter how Plaintiff chooses to depict her sexuality on social media, her allegations of rape entitle her to the protections of anonymity.
In June, Rose’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, seeking its dismissal. A judge denied that motion in July due to substantial disagreements on the most important facts of the case between the versions forwarded by Doe and by Rose and his fellow defendants, Ryan Allen and Randall Hampton, who have repeatedly maintained their innocence during the pre-trial process.
“The record presents a genuine dispute of material fact as to the central issue in this action: whether Plaintiff consented to sexual intercourse with Defendants in early morning of August 27, 2013,” U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald wrote in his judgment. “Because the jury and not the Court must resolve this central issue, summary judgment is improper.”
[The plaintiff and defendants] don’t agree on much, but they do agree that Rose and the alleged victim met in 2011, dated for a couple of years, and officially broke up in the summer of 2013 after (but not necessarily because) the alleged victim refused to have group sex with Rose. Then on August 26, 2013, she reached out to Rose and he invited her to a party at his house. She arrived for said party with a friend around 9:00 p.m. in a car that Rose provided, and left in a taxi around midnight.
The two sides disagree whether she was drugged at his house, whether she had sex with Rose’s friends at his house, whether or not she let Rose and his friends into her apartment later that night, and whether or not she consented to have sex with all three of them.
Long before NFL quarterback #Colin Kaepernick parked on his rump during a preseason NFL game, sparking a nationwide debate surrounding the right of a black man to sit during the National Anthem, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been silently standing and declining to pledge their allegiance to any flag, nation or country. But unlike the San Francisco QB, the actions of the Witnesses don’t spark jersey sales, media coverage, CBS polls or support from music’s biggest artists.
In a move to protest racial inequality, police brutality and fatal shootings leading to the formation of the Black Lives Matter movement, Kaepernick opted to sit down during the singing of the National Anthem. The 49ers organization and the NFL both released statements essentially saying the same thing – we wished he would have stood, but we respect his right not to.
In the final preseason game, Kaepernick split the difference, electing to get on one knee in a traditional will-you-marry-me pose. Since then, he has been the recipient of both public backlash and support while he continues to kneel before games. He’s become a figurehead for a swelling movement that seeks to highlight social injustices and First Amendment rights, but he’s hardly the first.…
Its been over seven decades since the Supreme Court ruled that children in schools cannot be mandated to pledge their allegiance to the American flag or be forced to participate in patriotic demonstrations. Long before that, Jehovah’s Witness children have been standing respectfully – their hands at their side – during the morning pledge while their student counterparts mindlessly mouth the words with hands over hearts. At sporting events, Jehovah’s Witnesses may choose to sit while the anthem is played.
The Pledge of Allegiance asks young ones to swear their loyalty to flag and country – “one nation under God.” As if God favors one group of people, one nation, one tribe, one kingdom over another. Many who say the pledge do not even believe that God exists; those who do have widely differing opinions on who or what he is. Ironically, you won’t find a better citizen than a Jehovah’s Witness. They are a peaceful, law-abiding group. They pay their taxes, keep out of trouble and follow the laws of the land – except when they conflict with God’s laws.
In that way, they follow the example of the First Century Christians. Historical records show that followers of Jesus Christ did not get involved in politics or take up military service. Even Christ withdrew from a crowd that was seeking to make him king. Like Jesus, they gave exclusive worship to God and God alone.
Jehovah’s Witnesses worship God, whose name is Jehovah. As their name suggests, they are “witnesses” to him and his sovereignty – and no nation, flag, piece of cloth or NFL quarterback can take away their determination to remain politically neutral. #News #Jehovahs Witnesses
*Article originally published on Blasting News.