No Easy Answer for Kobe Bryant: And That's The Way It Should Be
August 13, 2004
I believe that those who claim Kobe Bryant to be innocent are just as wrong as those who claim he is guilty. Those who believe in his innocence “believe” they are right. Those who believe in his guilt “believe” they are right. What are those of us who remain undecided to believe?
What the undecided should believe, as any reasonable and prudent person understands, is that not being able to “prove” in a court of law that Bryant is guilty does not mean that Bryant is innocent. Think O. J. Simpson here.
The decisions reached in our criminal justice system must be based on the evidence that Bryant is guilty beyond a doubt. People who shout that stance is far too liberal are the very same people who will change their mind the instant they become the “person of interest” in a criminal or civil justice case. And for those who find that concept of encountering the civil or criminal justice system difficult to grasp, simply think “speeding ticket.”
Accepting that tenant of being innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of our justice system and it should be. Any prudent and reasoned person, including fundamental feminist (FF’s), should understand that “proving” the guilt of Bryant is an improbable task for the prosecution. The prosecution has little to no “proof” circumstantial or otherwise. In criminal cases it is not the “preponderance of evidence” that accounts for guilt or innocence. In criminal cases guilt must be proven beyond a doubt. Lingering doubts in the minds of a jurist means they must vote not guilty.
The problem with the majority of rape cases is that most are “she said – he said.” The majority of rapes are committed behind closed doors and there are no witnesses. Before DNA evidence was introduced in rape cases those charged with rape would claim their innocence. Because of DNA that defense has now often become “the sex was consensual.”
While at first the introduction of DNA evidence seemed as if it would be a boon to prosecution of rape cases, it is most valid in “violent” or “stranger” rape cases. The “sex was consensual” defense is more difficult to overcome than “I wasn’t there – I didn’t do it.”
The prosecution has not claimed that Bryant beat or battered the women. The FF’s claim that should not be needed and they are right. The prosecution has produced no evidence that the woman was dragged kicking and screaming into Bryant’s hotel room against her will. FF’s claim that should not be needed and they are right. The prosecution has not claimed that Bryant “threatened” the woman or that that the sex was “because of fear or duress.” FF’s claim that should not be needed and they are right.
What the prosecution does claim is that the woman “believes” she was raped. The defense claims that Bryant “believes” the sex was consensual. What often turns a criminal case one way or the other, at least in the eyes of a jury, is the “motive” for the crime.
If the jury is to believe the “motive” for this crime is that Bryant “wanted to have sex” what makes them think that a multi million dollar NBA basketball player can’t have sex each when he wants to. Not to shock the sensibilities of the reader, but sex does come quite easily to these men and to the women who want to have it with them. If there is a single reader anywhere that thinks this is the first time Bryant has “strayed” I suggest they have never been in a hotel lobby where these professional athletes stay.
What should be disturbing to all the parents is that Bryant is guilty in the eyes of the FF’s because they believe the fact that a woman is simply willing to bring such charges before the court should document her innocence.
What is true is that data from every rape study documents that the majority of women who bring these charges are the real victims of a real rape. The numbers of those who have been proven to bring false charges are, in each and every study ever undertaken, in the minority.
If the FF’s want to claim that the “vast” majority of women who bring these claims are the real victims of rape, I’ll agree with that also. The problem is that even if it was true, and it is not, that only ½ of 1 percent of women bring false charges of rape, it is these women who have created the dilemma faced by the other 99 ½ percent.
What is truly troubling is why fundamental feminists, for the most part, do not want to defend that most honored and important tenant of the judicial system, “innocent until proven guilty.” That is of course, until the “person of interest” is a woman. FF’s fail to understand there should be no “gender” in the proposition that one is innocent until proven guilty.
The dilemma for women who are raped is that research studies document clearly that some women do bring false charges, regardless of what percentage FF’s will agree to. Even the most rapid and radical of fundamental feminist will not or can not deny this is true. Hence the argument between innocence and guilt can not be reduced to an agreed upon percentage or the willingness of a woman to come forward with the charges.
It is not the patriarchy, misogyny or the fact that the majority of judges are men that has created this dilemma. It is the fact that some women do bring false charges and the fact that we all, both men and women, agree that to be found guilty of any crime you must be “proven” guilty in a court of law, in front of your peers, of committing that particular crime. Why would anyone, including FF’s, want it any other way?
Is there a single person, other than a fundamental feminist, in the media, print or electronic, that believes “the percentages should demonstrate that [fill in your particular bias here] data documents you are guilty more often than not so, we are going to find you guilty by percentage. If fundamental feminists continue to ignore the advice of Strickland, welcome to the Gulag.
