|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
Current rating: 0 |
by John Hilty
Email: jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified!) |
10 Jul 2006
Modified: 03:39:41 PM |
|
The UCIMC has recently removed the name of the plaintiff from the postings of the Patrick Thompson case. I find this redaction objectionable for several reasons, which I discuss below. |
I don't think it is appropriate to remove the name of the plaintiff (accuser) in this case because it creates a double standard between the accuser and the defendant in a criminal trial. This is a public trial in which both accuser and the defendant are adults who should be held fully accountable for their actions before their fellow citizens.
When a public trial of this nature is being conducted on behalf of an adult accuser at the public's expense, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, except in the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g., if it seems likely that the accuser will become the target of organized crime or mob violence). However, defendants in criminal trials are vulnerable to the same problems should they be acquitted of their charges (e.g., friends, relatives, or gang members of the accuser can attack or harass the defendant).
By granting a cloak of invisibility to the accuser, but not defendant, in a criminal case, it seems to me that this provides the former with a strategic advantage over the latter. After all, anyone can conduct an internet search on the defendant's name, Patrick Thompson, and discover whatever legal problems he may have had in the past. This makes it easier for his enemies to portray him as just another "street predator" who should be locked away. Meanwhile, because his accuser's name has been hidden, it is more difficult for members of the public to examine the legal history or acquire other information about the accuser. This makes it easier for her supporters to portray her as this unblemished female who wouldn't harm anybody.
Unfortunately, this dichotomy plays into the public's racist stereotype of the African-American male as a dangerous street predator who is intent on attacking and deflowering the innocent white female, who must be protected from him at all costs. I find this double standard very objectionable and it is sure to have unhealthy consequences for our society.
Furthermore, when the name of the accuser remains hidden, while the name of the defendant is bandied about (and his photograph is even published in the local newspaper), this implies that the accuser is more deserving of "special protection" and "special treatment" than the defendant is. But why does the accuser deserve "special protection" by keeping her name hidden? Is this accuser an innocent little child? Obviously, she is not. And if the accuser is more deserving of this "special treatment" than the defendant is, doesn't this attach a "presumption of innocence" upon the accuser, while a "presumption of guilt" becomes attached to the less deserving defendant? I fail to see how this is likely to promote fair trials in the criminal courts of this county.
If someone is intent on filing criminal charges against a fellow citizen in a public trial at public expense, then it seems to me that this person should have the moral courage and fortitude to face his or her critics and the local press. As a matter of fact, I think this is one of the obligations of citizenship in an open and democratic society, and the press has the responsibility to make this personal obligation a reality, even when the accuser and state's attorney object. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
We would like to see the same vigorous energy put into actions as into words.
Look at the case of Officer Hjort, accused by a 25 years old woman of rape.
When the case was dropped by special prosecutor John Dedman, the accuser filed a civil suit. The News Gazette published the name of the accuser after the civil case was filed.
Where were folks when her name was widely publicized?
Indeed, independent media should have higher standards than the mainstream press.
As the author of the PT article, I support the decision to strike the name of PT's accuser from the web site.
Right now we are fighting like hell to make sure our man doesn't get put away for 6-30 years.
But we can't do it alone - we need your help.
We need CONCRETE COMMITTMENT NOT ABSTRACT SUPPORT.
We will be at the Po-po Review Board tonight.
And we meet Saturdays, 4pm at the IMC.
In solidarity, BD |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by David Gehrig
zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
I completely support the redaction of the name.
@%< |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
You will be asked to pay for the incarceration of someone and don't you want to know why?
One of the distressing parts of this case is the accuser has been portrayed as an "innocent victim". She is hardly that. The circuit clerk's criminal files are wide open for all to see as they should be.
She claims a violent stranger on stranger attack. Read the POLICE REPORT! READ HER TESTIMONY! If she what she claims is true, then do the citizens have the right to know why there is no physical evidence? Mary Schenk described the victim as a caucasion female in the News-Gazette. Patrick Thompson has appeared in the News-Gazette, two pictures even, without a problem for all concerned. In fact, the News-Gazette publishes what the police give them with names, ages, and addresses of people who are accused BEFORE they ever go to trial. Read the crime reports. Do you ever see the evidence that negates their guilt? What about those Crimestoppers blurbs? Wanted, so and so, and their picture. Please.
Hilty is quite correct. Public trials demand accountability. This snitch culture has got to go. If you make a true claim, what have you to hide?
And yet,.....we remain steadfast in believing because Mr. Thompson trafficked in drugs back in the early '90's, did hard time for 10 years, that his crime is not paid for, that he remains some super predator.
Consider what the State is asking you to believe: Patrick Thompson gets out of prison, starts a public non-for-profit organization called Visionaries Educating Youth and Adults in early 2004. Their goal: keep black youth out of the hands of the criminal justice system and encourage them to get their educations. Mr. Thompson ought to know.
He attends public forums like Prisons and Schools at the Levis Faculty Center sponsored by the Democracy in a Multi-Racial Society group in early February, his group even sponsors a forum for the black community and the police to hold a pow wow to iron out their differences.
He and Martel Miller write letters to all three police chiefs and two city governments that they will be videotaping their officers in action on the north end. They film the police amid some hostility from some of the officers, and the ominous presence of Assistant State's Attorney Elizabeth Dobson filming them filming. The camera is seized without arrest. On August 23, 2004 Martel Miller is summoned to court and charged with a Class 1 Felony of Eavesdropping much to all your outrage. Mr. Thompson breaks the story to the News-Gazette that day.
And then......the very next morning he wakes up early at 6:45a.m. and attempts to rape the neighbor white lady directly next door? And afterwards he goes to his classes at Parkland and saunters home to this next door apartment where police can find him that same day?
And there's no physical evidence? And the cops don't even bother to find any?
His bond is set at $250,000, and then upon election, Julia Rietz's staff let him walk out of jail for free? And over the next nearly 2 years he defends himself, gets a hung jury, showing up to court everytime it's required with his own handmade pre-trial motions, until hiring his own attorney as it became clear the case was getting more difficult.
And all that time, nearly 2 years he's been out free, not one incident of bizarre impulsive jumping of another has occured.
Stop me when the State's narrative starts to make sense to you. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by David Gehrig
zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Thompson's guilt or innocense is a completely different issue than whether or not UCIMC should expose the names of rape victims and alleged rape victims. Period.
@%< |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Celestial
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
It amazes me how short the memories are of "so-called americans". In all of my professional education, I have never read where a false accuser has been held accountable for the wrongful imprisonment of a Black man. We have seen a number of cases where this has not been the outcome. Where is the accountability? this society has been focused on "keeping Black people in check". The same lynching that was commonplace throughout Jim Crow south, has been reincarnated in James Crow north. Malcolm X warned us about the "liberal north". He said, "don't worry about the racist southerner because he lets you know exactly where he stands with regard to race, however, it's the liberal northern snake, that bites you when you least expect it." Let's get real, where are the commentaries regarding P.T. going to prison solely on the "word" of this white woman!
Racism is Alive and well in the "Liberal Movement" deal with it. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Aaron
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Emotions run high
focus and principle sleep
an accuser makes an accusation that is not substantiated
a defendant faces prison time
the accuser goes home
you don't want me to mention [name removed -- @%<] in my rhymes
but Patrick Thompson has to be listed as a sex offender until the end of time
hypocrites or just passionate about your position
I don't think any female should be raped or violated but how in the hell can we tell if she's lying?
this is my submission.
Q: should a man be listed as a sex offender for the rest of his life for something there's no evidence for? Should he go to hail unjustly? Are you all being emotional instead of principled? Why? this is what we all need to discuss, face to face. Be just. |
|
Letter to mailing lists explaining decision to redact accuser's name |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Many of us have been greatly concerned about the Patrick Thompson trial. There have been valid questions about the accusations, and it's quite possible that Patrick was convicted unfairly. There have also been legitimate questions raised about the motives and credibility of the accuser.
However, a number of people are also concerned about the IMC's decision to publicize the name of the alleged victim. They've made some valid points. Even if Thompson's accuser was lying, this kind of action could still have a chilling effect on other sexual assault victims. Reporting the attack and pressing charges would be extremely difficult; perhaps the idea of their name on a high traffic website could make it unthinkable.
This also has the potential to alienate many members of the Champaign-Urbana community. From the perspective of Thompson's supporters, the alleged victim is a serial accuser who may be sending an innocent man to prison. From the public's perspective, IMC members are bullying a rape victim.
If nobody objects, I would like to edit the entries on the website so that the accuser's name is removed. I'd also respectfully suggest that the IMC avoid publishing personal information about the accuser, because it's likely to backfire. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
BTW, some of the leaps of logic I've seen here are as bad as the ones in Michael Vujovich's arguments. According to the N-G, when he was discussing the lack of evidence and questionable police investigation, he said, "After the case, pick up the phone. Call the chief. Call the mayor. But don't take it out on (the woman). She had nothing to do with it other than as a citizen, to make a report." I thought, "Huh? The burden of proof in a criminal trial is supposed to be on the prosecution. No wonder you tried to keep the more rational people off the jury."
But some of the people here who've commented on the accuser aren't much more credible. Seriously, we're seeing these assertions that she might have made some sort of accusations related to some sort of sex crime against other men in the past. But there's really no evidence to back it up, not even more detailed information.
If you want to make a difference, present a case based on thorough research. Sloppy fact-checking combined with personal attacks on the accuser just make the IMC look bad. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by no one in particular
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
|
I am astonished and chagrined to see that our local community thinks it must choose between racial justice and gender justice. There is no excuse for violating a hard-fought and dearly-won principle -- i.e. that a woman who alleges sexual assault should have her identity protected and that her personal past should not be a factor in determining her crediblity -- is being casually thrown out the window in pursuit righting a racial injustice. What in the hell is going on here? Is it not possible -- indeed necessary -- to pursue the one without foresaking the other? And where in the world are the voices of women on this point? Racial justice -- yes! Justice for women -- yes! |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by just observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Anonymous accusing reports, when they are favorably considered, and demands or requests for punishments from these reports are satisfied, can easily transfer ANY state's system into the system of global imprisonment or 'gulag', whichever name you prefer. Yes, rape victims, assault victims, etc.. should step in with "open faces" , if the system tries to be just, especially in such cases, as Patrick Thompson case.
However, I still can't understand why this case is not dismissed yet, as its existence looks very shameful for the local legal government team. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Dear People,
I am a guy. I am an organizer.
Having said that, I want to know what women's rights are when it comes to this sort of trial. As I have gathered, the accuser was not accusing Patrick of rape, although it was a sexual crime. Do women have the right to not have their name disclosed? If so, what purpose does this right serve? Not being a woman, it is hard for me to understand.
The idea is void of logic to me. However, it has not been explained to me either. So my question is, why should women not have their identity disclosed when accusing another of a sexual crime. Furthermore, why should women not have their credibility questioned? Maybe not her criminal history, but the defendant should at least have the right to bring past false accusations to light.
A woman out there... any woman... please explain this to me.
Peace,
Dave |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Dave, here are some links to articles related to journalistic ethics and alleged sexual assault victims.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=36&aid=4010
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=46&aid=51806
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=36&aid=836 |
|
Miscellaneous Comments |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Gehrig: "I completely support the redaction of the name."
Gehrig: "Thompson's guilt or innocense is a completely different issue than whether or not UCIMC should expose the names of rape victims and alleged rape victims. Period."
I guarantee that if you were falsely accused of sexual assault or rape and found yourself in a dingy jail cell, you would not want your accuser's name hidden. Such special treatment or protection would seem completely ridiculous to you. You would want this liar or nutcase "outed" to members of the public.
wayward: "Even if Thompson's accuser was lying, this kind of action could still have a chilling effect on other sexual assault victims. Reporting the attack and pressing charges would be extremely difficult; perhaps the idea of their name on a high traffic website could make it unthinkable."
Censorship of the press is not an appropriate solution to the problem that you describe; nor is lowering the standards of justice to the point that the defendant is assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. In an attempt to solve a lesser problem, you introduce serious infringements of freedom of the press that has the potential to weaken due process of law in the handling of these types of criminal cases (by selectively manipulating the information that the public has access to).
Examples of appropriate strategies in dealing with the "chilling effect" that you describe include public education, social outreach, counseling services, and assertiveness training. This is fundamentally a psychosocial problem that shouldn't be allowed to influence the coverage of the press. The press cannot function as someone's psychotherapist.
The majority of crimes that occur in the United States are never reported to the police or prosecuted in court. The crime victim often doesn't want to bothered with the inconveniences of the legal system. This is particularly true for the less serious crimes. While it is true than many sexual assault and rape cases are never reported, this is also true of many other kinds of crimes. This kind of problem is not unique to females who have been victimized by sexual assault or rape.
Perhaps the biggest problem about your reasoning on this issue is its one-sidedness. You always adopt the perspective of the female who has been victimized by sexual assault or rape. But what about the male who has been victimized by a false accusation of sexual assault or rape by a woman? Such women are rarely punished for their crimes. By promising a veil of secrecy to such women in the press, you only encourage further acts of aggression against men. Thus, the risk of convicting innocent people within our court system correspondingly increases. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
I guarantee that if you were falsely accused of sexual assault or rape and found yourself in a dingy jail cell, you would not want your accuser's name hidden. Such special treatment or protection would seem completely ridiculous to you. You would want this liar or nutcase "outed" to members of the public.
Actually, I think I'd want people to do whatever maximized my chances of getting out of the "dingy jail cell," and brainless attention whoring probably wouldn't be it.
At this point, Patrick's supporters have gathered evidence supporting the position that he was wrongly accused. This is commendable, and I would like to see justice served. However, just throwing the accuser's name around before you can let anyone else see this evidence is stupid. The accuser isn't really well-known in C-U, so her name wouldn't mean much to most readers. But repeatedly posting her name on the website makes the IMC look vindictive. It does nothing to get Patrick out of jail, and it's likely to alienate a number of progressives in the community who would have otherwise been supportive.
As I've said in face-to-face meetings, I'd recommend first putting together the case that the alleged victim lied, and then deciding whether her name should be included in that report. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Dear Wayward,
Well, I typed some things, and then erased them...
I do not think that the IMC should push women's rights aside for a second. I do think the redaction of her name was justifiable. However, I also hope that if anyone wants the plaintiff's name, the IMC would see no error in releasing it to that individual. Otherwise, those who want to research the facts will be left without.
Peace,
Dave |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
wayward: "Actually, I think I'd want people to do whatever maximized my chances of getting out of the 'dingy jail cell,' and brainless attention whoring probably wouldn't be it."
If someone has the habit of lying to the police about people who are innocent of any crime, then it is in the public's interest to know who that person is so that other innocent people are less likely to be victimized in the same way. In other words, you have a moral obligation to warn other people of the danger. This is not 'brainless attention whoring," but revelation of the truth in the pursuit of social justice.
wayward: ". . . and it's likely to alienate a number of progressives in the community who would have otherwise been supportive."
If you look over the responses to my commentary, it is clear that members of the progressive community are divided on this issue. Some support the redaction, while others don't. Thus, your alienation argument is a 2-edged sword that can cut both ways. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
John Hilty wrote, in part: "But what about the male who has been victimized by a false accusation of sexual assault or rape by a woman? Such women are rarely punished for their crimes. By promising a veil of secrecy to such women in the press, you only encourage further acts of aggression against men."
You're wrong to say that the press that protects women who falsely (or, for that matter, truthfully) accuse men of sexual assault. You're also wrong to say that there's rarely punishment for accusing a man of rape (falsely or truthfully).
There is no "veil of secrecy" for rape victims in the media. Although many mainstream media outlets don't identify rape victims by name, they do seek and publish information about victims and the sex crimes committed against them (date, time, location, injuries, witnesses, etc.). Even without a name, publication of this information subjects victims to scrutiny and often allows third parties uninvolved in the case to identify the victim, especially in small communities. As time passes, additional information about victims usually gets disseminated in high-profile cases, including: leaked information about evidence that may or may not exist; speculation about the mental health of victims; gossip about victims' alleged sexual practices, partners, and preferences; victims' employment, school, medical, and social histories; speculation about victims' motivations, especially if the victim is poor and the accused is not; and, of course, interviews with victims' "close friends" and "knowledgeable sources"; etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, unless the victim is a minor, his or her name and other information almost always will be publicly available through court records (while sometimes are available online). As a consequence, journalists, "journalists," and persons with an interest in the case often take it upon themselves to compile victim dossiers that they publish on the Internet. In short, victims' lives are not only scrutinized, they are exploited for public consumption by various traditional and alternative media seeking to maintain or increase their audiences. To give recent examples, do you really think the media protected the victim in the Kobe Bryant case with a "veil of secrecy"? What about the alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse team case? I really think it's safe to say that persons who report being raped aren't prompted to do so because they anticipate getting a group hug from the media and/or being protected by polices against publication of their names in the papers.
As for punishment, abusers and alleged abusers themselves retaliate against victims who report being raped falsely (or, again, truthfully). This punishment happens through formal systems, e.g. civil lawsuits, criminal complaints (cross-charges and other; this is easy to do in those jurisdictions where private persons may file criminal complaints), and through informal systems, e.g. smear campaigns, harassment, and "street justice".
In addition, the criminal justice system in Champaign County and elsewhere in Illinois punishes women for making false reports of sexual assault. Such a case was heard last week in Champaign County, and the case was resolved by a plea agreement. Despite the fact that the defendant in this case was a white woman with no prior convictions, her felony conviction was a type of punishment. Furthermore, if you browse through the online records and physical files of the Champaign County Circuit Court, you will see that the filing of false report charges is rather common in Champaign County. Finally, you should know that a summary of this case was published in the News-Gazette, and the article included the defendant's name and other identifying information about her.
Now, before embracing the aforementioned conviction as an example of the criminal justice system at last doing its job correctly, I hope you'll consider there are reasons why victims who have in fact been raped β adults and children, males and females β fail to make reports, stop cooperating with law enforcement/prosecutors, and sometimes even recant their reports of sexual assault or abuse.
First, victims have legitimate safety concerns and fears of suffering further violence. That broken criminal justice system? It not only has a history of incarcerating innocents, it also has a history of failing to protect innocents, especially those who are marginalized members of society because of race, gender, legal status, sexual orientation, class, disability, and/or poverty. Assailants often tell their victims that they or their kids/parents/siblings/pets/friends will be hurt or killed if they cooperate with law enforcement/prosecutors. If you've been marginalized your whole life - or even if you haven't, but you've had to wait for minutes or hours for a response to your call for help - which you more likely to believe: the assailant's threats or the implied promise that the police can and will keep you safe from harm? (BTW, a good example of failure to protect that you can learn more about via Google is the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.)
Threats and/or harassment also may be coming from someone in the victim's own home β e.g. a parent or a partner who doesn't or doesn't want to believe the victim. This is common in cases of domestic violence, where the abusive partner says that the rape was the victim's fault/that the victim must have really wanted it or it wouldn't have happened/that the victim was just having an affair/that the victim is really a crack whore/prostitute, etc. It's also common in cases where a child or teen discloses the abuse and names a family, household, or respected community member (e.g. priest) as the abuser. In the 2001 film "Small Justice," the filmmaker asked an eminent psychologist known for his work in child custody cases what a mother should do if her child discloses sexual abuse by the child's father. The psychologist's response? Something to the effect of "Don't say that about your father. If you say that again, I'll beat you." In May of this year, the Chicago Tribune covered the story of Daryl Bujak, a pastor who was supposed to counsel a 12 year-old girl who had been brought to meet with him after reporting to her skeptical parents that she had been sexually abused. Bujak's response? Over the course of two months, he beat her with a three-foot strip of wood for lying. As of May, five counts of predatory criminal sexual assault had been filed against the alleged rapist; misdemeanor battery charges had been filed against the pastor.
After days, weeks, months, or more of threatening messages, pressure from family and/or friends, hang-up calls, visits from supporters of the accused, stalking, beatings with sticks, and even worse, it may appear safer to a victim to say that an assault never happened if that's what it takes to make the case, and thus the threats and harassment, go away.
Second, victims have what I loosely describe as "social fears." Here are a just few:
* If the victim and the assailant both are part of the same social circles, e.g. immigrant communities, marginalized populations, high schools, college campuses, fraternities, sororities, and even activist organizations, the victim may face enormous pressure not to report, to "drop the case", or to "just get over it". Even when the community is aware that the assailant has in fact committed a crime (or crimes), there may be a strong sense that it's NOT acceptable to involve the criminal justice system because doing so exposes the community member (and thus the community itself) to criticism, shame, and punishment.
* Women with children fear that they might lose their kids if DCFS gets called, e.g. because the kids were in the home during the assault (see federal civil rights cases out of New York City, In re Nicholson, and the subsequent Nicholson v. Scoppetta).
* Women fear being labeled "that girl who was raped" and having no other identity beyond that (see Alice Sebold's autobiography, "Lucky".)
* Straight or closeted male victims fear others will say that they were raped because, secretly, they were gay and "asking for it" by having sex with men on the side. They also fear that people believe that once a man has been raped, that makes him become gay.
* Children fear losing a parent or loved one, even when the parent/loved one is the offender (see Lundy Bancroft's chapter on incest in the book "The Batterer as Parent").
* Victims fear losing their jobs (see legislative history of the Illinois's Victim's Economic Safety and Security Act, or the background materials published by IL Dept. of Labor, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, or the Chicago Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law), their housing (esp if in Section 8 or other sponsored/subsidized housing), or their opportunity to pursue an education.
* Victims fear losing their privacy. They don't want people in their business or reading about it in the papers, in a blog, on a web site, or elsewhere. Furthermore, imagine that every time you go out in public, or take the kids to school, or go to work, or hand a sales clerk a credit card, people around you do a "double take" and stare at you with a look that says, "You're that person who 'cried rape'"!
Sorry this is so lengthy and even arguably off topic. But since so many contributors here seem to have the mistaken idea that the experience of reporting a rape and/or self-identifying as a rape or sexual abuse victim is inherently rewarding, a different perspective seemed to be in order. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Irwin M. Fletch
Irwin M. Fletch (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
Thanks for the tips distressed.
I understand your list of social fears.
But can we also fathom that an accuser would pin charges on a Black political activist at the provocation of the police?
-To keep DCFS from taking her children?
We are all victims of police corruption. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by AS
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2006
|
Can someone tell me about Community Court Watch? I once picked up a flyer about the Thompson case and this organizations name was on it. Who should I contact to find more about this organization?
Thank you. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by BD
briandolinar (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jul 2006
|
Hello AS.
Community Court Watch meets every Saturday at 4pm at the Independent Media Center, Broadway and Elm in the old Urbana post office.
Drop me an email for any more info.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jul 2006
|
Response to the Lengthy Post of Distressed:
In the bulk of your post, you discuss many of the same issues that were raised earlier by wayward: the psychosocial problems that plaintiffs in sexual assault or rape cases sometimes experience as a result of the ignorance or biases of other members of society, as well as the shortcomings in their own cultural upbringing. As significant as these problems are, they are dwarfed by the severe discrimination that criminal defendants typically experience as a result of such court cases. Therefore, the bulk of your argument fails because of its fundamental one-sideness, and the redaction of the plaintiff's name cannot be logically justified on this basis.
Another problem with the bulk of your argument consists of the following: it assumes censorship is the appropriate remedy to the psychosocial problems that you describe. Clearly, this is not the case. The only real remedy to the problems that you describe consists of social services like public education, counseling, elimination of poverty among women, etc. Attempting to solve a social problem by censorship is a little bit like sweeping dirt underneath the rug -- in the long run, the problem doesn't go away, instead it becomes bigger and bigger until the underlying causes of the original problem are addressed.
I would also point out that a heavier burden of proof falls on the shoulders of anyone advocating the censorship of content that other people post to this website -- those of us who think that the redaction does not have sufficient justification, in contrast, are proposing to leave all posts on this topic unedited and uncensored. Thus, no one is planning to force you to disclose the identity of the plaintiff in any of your posts. If any of the critics of redaction DID propose to make identity of the plaintiff unhidden in all of the posts at this website, then a heavier burden of proof would fall on their shoulders as well. However, no one is advocating this. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jul 2006
|
|
John, I imagine that you want to get back to the original topic of the thread, but I actually was responding to two assertions that you made in your posts that I believe are incorrect: that the media protects women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault and that there's rarely punishment for falsely accusing a man of rape. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jul 2006
|
Very well, I will attempt to respond to the two issues that you have raised:
Issue #1: Does the media protect women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault or rape?
First let me say that this is primarily an empirical issue, rather than a philosophical one. Because I watch very little television and pay less attention to the mainstream media than most people, I am not a good person to address this question to.
Secondly, I dislike how this question has been posed because it contains a fundamental ambiguity: It doesn't make clear which person is the plaintiff and which person is the defendant in a given criminal case. The most typical cases for heterosexual interactions consist of the following two possibilities:
1) A female plaintiff accuses a male defendant of sexual assault or rape. The male defendant is arrested by the police and placed on trial for sexual assault or rape. (more common)
2) A male plaintiff accuses a female defendant of falsely accusing him of sexual assault or rape. The female defendant is arrested by the police and placed on trial for falsely accusing someone else of sexual assault or rape. (less common)
In #1 above, I think the media DOES protect women to a greater extent than men, and this is the more common of the two possibilities. In cases like this, the media typically hides the identity of the woman from members of the public, the specific street address of her place of residence is not described, and there are no photographs of the female plaintiff that are published. In sharp contrast, the name of the male defendant is always revealed, his current or former address is also revealed, and photographs of the male defendant are often published. Clearly there is a double standard here, where the female plaintiff is accorded special protection and treatment that is not granted to the male defendant. Many of these observations are derived from articles that thave appeared in the News-Gazette through the years, which I believe is a fairly typical example of a mainstream media outlet.
Personally, I am unable to recall any cases of #2 above that have been presented by the media. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that I pay little to the mainstream media, however I also believe that such cases are less common than #1 above. I suspect that the same rules apply to #2 as I have already described for #1 above, specifically: The identity of the male plaintiff is hidden from the public, the specfic street address of the plaintiff is not revealed, and no photographs of the plaintiff are published. In contrast, it seems likely that the identity of the female defendant would be disclosed, the specific street address of her place of residence would be revealed, and that a photograph of her would often be published.
If this theory of media treatment between these two types of cases corresponds two what actually occurs in the real world (and I believe that it does), then it follows that the critical factor governing protective treatment by the media is the status of a person as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a criminal case. In contrast, the gender of a person is probably less important in determining whether protective treatment occurs.
And if you re-examine my earlier comments on this issue, you will see that my complaint consists of the double standard in the treatment of plaintiffs and defendants in criminal cases by the media -- I don't consider this to be a gender-related issue to any significant degree.
And now I will consider the second issue that you have raised.
Issue #2: How often are women punished for falsely accusing a man of sexual assault or rape?
When I stated that women are rarely punished for falsely accusing a man of sexual assault or rape, I was thinking of those criminal cases where the woman is the plaintiff and the man is the defendant. In my opinion, if a woman is lying or mistaken about her accusation in this type of case, she is rarely punished because of it, even when it is discovered later (sometimes MUCH LATER) that the defendant is actually innocent. In many cases like this, it is impossible to prove that the female plaintiff is lying or grossly mistaken because the evidence in court often boils down to one person's word versus another's.
Consider, as an example, the many defendants in Illinois who were later discovered to be innocent of the crimes that they were convicted by the law professor and his students at Northwestern University. Were any of the eyewitnesses who provided false information in court ever punished for sending these men to death row? In addition to these death penalty cases, there have also been cases in this state of male defendants who were convicted of rape by a woman's testimony, only to be exonerated by DNA testing at a later date. Were any of these female plaintiffs ever punished for providing false testimony in court against these male defendants? If this ever happens, I'm inclined to think that it is extremely rare.
The kinds of cases that you are thinking of, Distressed, fall into category #2 above, where the male has never been a defendant as a result of the female's accusation because the police and the prosecutor never believed her in the first place. This could happen, for example, if a woman accused a man of raping her in her apartment in Champaign-Urbana, when he was actually attending a conference in the Bahamas and had solid evidence to prove it. Furthermore, she would be even more likely to be prosecuted if she had a history of making malicious accusations against other people. Such cases occur, but they are less common than those cases involving a man as the defendant for alleged sexual assault or rape. I'm inclined to think that women who fall into category #2 are more likely to be punished because they have already reached the stage of being defendants in a criminal trial. However, women in category #1, it seems to me, are less likely to become defendents, even when their testimony has been proven to be false. Perhaps this is because prosecutors dislike the embarassment of prosecuting former plaintiffs because this makes the criminal justice system look bad in the eyes of the public, or perhaps prosecutors are afraid that this will make women more difficult to recruit as plaintiffs in these types cases if such women become fearful of being prosecuted should it be discovered later that their testimony is actually false. |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2006
|
For anybody keeping record, the News-Gazette ran Hjort's accuser's name again. It finally broke the story that the civil suit against Hjort et al was settled.
Another $100,000 that could be used for social services. This money could have funded a police review board for several years.
In the News Gazette:
Urbana to pay $100,000 as part of settlement
By Mike Monson
Friday July 21, 2006
URBANA β The city will pay $100,000 from its liability fund to help settle a federal lawsuit brought by an Urbana woman who says she was raped by an on-duty Urbana police officer.
The out-of-court settlement was reached and the case dismissed April 12 in U.S. District Court in Peoria. The settlement includes a confidentiality agreement that city officials say precludes them from releasing exactly how much money will be paid to Amber Grohall, who brought the suit.
Urbana City Comptroller Ron Eldridge confirmed that the agreement would exceed the city's deductible of $100,000 on liability cases, meaning that the city's insurer, St. Paul Insurance Co., will contribute to the settlement.
"We know we're going to have to eat $100,000 of that," Eldridge said. "We have $4 million set aside for claims. That's where the money is coming from."
Grohall, who is in her mid-20s, filed a suit Oct. 6 alleging deprivation of her civil rights by a police officer in U.S. District Court in Urbana. She asked for $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The suit was transferred to the court's Peoria division.
The suit contended that Grohall was raped by former Urbana police Officer Kurt Hjort on July 22, 2005, at her apartment while he was on duty.
According to the lawsuit's account, Grohall had met Hjort on her first day on the job as a clerk at Bigfoot, 1809 N. Cunningham Ave., U. After finishing her shift, she went back to her Urbana residence and was sitting on her apartment's front stairs when Hjort pulled up in an Urbana squad car and attempted to start a conversation.
The suit said Grohall didn't want to talk to Hjort, went up the stairs to her apartment and was followed in by Hjort without invitation. He then allegedly grabbed her by her hair, began kissing her and demanded sex. The suit said she complied.
Grohall told police she was too intimidated to resist but sought medical treatment as soon as he left. Hospital officials contacted police.
The suit also alleged that Hjort had committed at least three prior incidents of sexual misconduct while on the job and that former Urbana Police Chief Eddie Adair knew about those incidents.
Adair and Hjort were also defendants in the lawsuit. The settlement, which includes no admission of guilt, dropped claims against both men as well as the city, said Champaign attorney Howard Small, who represented the city.
Hjort resigned from the police force on Sept. 21.
Small said the confidentiality agreement was agreed to by both sides.
"We saw no point in sensationalizing this," he said.
Urbana attorney Jim Dedman was appointed as a special prosecutor to review the case for potential criminal charges. A special prosecutor was named because Champaign County State's Attorney Julia Rietz is married to Al Johnston, a veteran Urbana police officer and a friend of Hjort.
Dedman decided in October not to bring charges against Hjort, saying the case for aggravated criminal sexual assault and official misconduct could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Grohall doesn't have a listed telephone number and could not be reached for comment. Her attorney, Ralph Davis of Peoria, was out of town and also could not be reached for comment.
Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing said she was glad a settlement was reached.
"It's one individual officer," she said. "I don't think people should jump to conclusions we don't have a good department. We do have an excellent police department. It's very unfortunate for everyone involved."
BD |
|
Re: Complaint Against the Redaction of the Plaintiff's Name in the Patrick Thompson Case |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2006
|
News-Gazette: "The suit also alleged that Hjort had committed at least three prior incidents of sexual misconduct while on the job and that former Urbana Police Chief Eddie Adair knew about those incidents."
This is another reason why we need a Police Review Board in Urbana. |
|
