Who Raped Whom?

It’s every guy’s worst nightmare. You hit it off with a girl at a party. Maybe you’ve both been drinking, maybe not. You end up in bed together and you’re thinking it was a really great night, or maybe more.

But the next day the police show up at your door and arrest you for rape. This is where things get really interesting.

Because of rape shield laws, the accuser’s identity is protected but yours, the accused, can be plastered absolutely everywhere. That’s really bad news for any guy in this position, but if you’re famous, or the case has captured the attention of the media, you will be tried, convicted, and vilified on a national stage.

Was this guy guilty? Does this seem fair?

Your life will be turned upside down while the “victim” remains anonymous. She gets to throw stones from behind a curtain, her identity completely shielded.

While looking around for images and statistics for this post, I found this:

 . . . and this chilling quote that is yet another sign of the times: "Anytime anyone Googles my name, rape is going to be right there beside it. My name is forever tarnished. What if I am applying for a job or whatever in the future?”

This guy got off because he filmed the entire incident. Say what you will about what kind of guy videotapes his conquests, but the only reason he's free and his name is cleared is that he was able to provide proof of his innocence.

I understand the point of the rape shield laws, and they mean well. But rape often comes down to flimsy evidence and testimony from a woman wracked with pain--or is it remorse? Shame? Anger? Embarrassment?

Let me be clear about two things here: First, I’m not saying or even implying that we should reveal the identities of rape victims--it’s already hard enough to get them to report rape, let alone stand up to their attackers. Second, I’m sure that in most cases, cries of rape are real. Men will never understand the emotional devastation of an attack like this and there should be severe penalties for anyone rightfully convicted of it.

But no one should ever have to go through what Dominique Strauss-Kahn or those young Lacrosse players at Duke (and, I’m sure countless others) went through based solely on the statements of two women who turned out to be lying. The people in this country were  ready to kill the men involved in both cases and in both cases all involved were almost certainly innocent.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that the identities of the men should remain hidden until after conviction. I get why the identities of the women are protected, but why are the men hung out to dry? Why is that okay? Innocent till proven guilty, right? Right?