Subject: Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.
List archive
- From:
- To:
- Subject: Re: SAPC Digest, Vol 1206, Issue 1
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:33:35 -0400
- List-archive: <https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/private/sapc>
- List-id: "Discussion List for sexual assault educators and counselors on campus." <sapc.list.mail.virginia.edu>
A few thoughts -
No real surprise that a university official would describe rape between
nonstrangers as not "real" rape - as it allows him to discount, not count and
even ignore the majority of sexual violence on campus - but i agree it is
also likely a continuation of cultural biases.? The strange thing is that we
think of universities as having MORE and BETTER understanding of social
issues - so it is especially frustrating to see academics acting like
neanderthals.? I had a similar eye-opening experience when Larry Summers said
"Title IX has nothing to do with rape".? He actually believed this was true -
and never apologized even after he learned otherwise from OCR - and now he's
in the White House.?
The stranger/intimate partner rape dilemma is age-old - and sticks like glue
in our cultural software because it serves the interests of the powerful to
ensure that rape between intimates is protected/not criminalized as this
preserves male sexual entitlement.? That said - we could do a better job as
advocates being proactive and not playing defense all the time. For example -
instead of responding to things - we could proactively disseminate and teach
the literature that shows victims of nonstranger rape actually suffer MORE
harm over the lifespan than victims of a one-time stranger attack.? "Betrayal
Trauma" is a wonderful book to uses as a primer on this idea - by Jennifer
Freyd - as she explains why the betrayal causes so much damage.? It should be
taught alongside David Lisak's work on the predatory nature of the "good guy"
rapists who offend again and again simply because they can - and they choose
their situations perfectly to ensure nonprosecution.? (drunk victim - da
tes - etc)
On the polygraph issue - please check out my book - And Justice For Some -
where I have a whole chapter called "Claiming a Suspect 'Passed' A
Polygraph".? It debunks the idea that "passing" a polygraph has value on the
issue of guilt.? In short - it is exceedingly easy to falsely pass a
polygraph.? One needn't be a sociopath to pass - though it is one factor to
consider and it does help certain types.? The real issue is that when a
suspect takes a polygraph on his own - he gets to hire the "expert" and
construct the conditions under which the test takes place.? Things like -
what questions are asked - how was the suspect prepared - was he under the
influence of drugs at the time of the test - how did the examiner set up the
conditions to make sure the suspect would be subjected to reliable
conditions?? When a suspect hires his own expert, it is essentially
guaranteed he will pass - and the expert will almost never give up the raw
data.? He or she will simply announce that the
suspect "passed".? It is important to reject this type of conclusory
"testing" and insist that the suspect be subjected to a law enforcement
polygraph, instead.?
I write about some of the obvious problems with most testing done by
suspects' own "experts" - such as - the expert who examined John and Patsy
Ramsey and claimed they "passed".? So silly - because none of the raw data or
specs about the test have been released - and more importantly - the
questions were long and used state of mind words like "intentionally" - which
is exactly the wrong way to conduct a test.? Instead of "did you kill
JonBenet" - they were asked wordy things like:? "did you intentionally, on
the night in question, cause the death of your child - ".? Any legitimate
expert will tell you that this type of question is completely improper.
There's more to this topic than I can put in an email - but the short story
is - most claims that the test proved someone's "innocence" are wrong - (the
reverse is not true.? That is - tests that claim to find someone was lying
tend to be true - though there can be problems - they have far fewer problems
than when an actually guilty person claims to have been proved innocent
because of a polygraph.
Wendy Murphy
- Re: SAPC Digest, Vol 1206, Issue 1, wmurphylaw, 06/04/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.