One In Five

Wringing his hands,ⁱ yesterday the President declared that twelve percent of college women had been assaulted during their academic years. Since many such incidents go unreported the likelihood was that the percentage was higher, and he said that one in five had been assaulted. A few weeks earlier, with negative publicity mounting due to reports of sexual abuse in the service academies, he announced an initiative to deal with the high rate of rape in the entire military.ⁱⁱ For cynics it might appear that he was attempting to distract the electorate from considering other issues – ones in which they may have found him to be either on the wrong side, or on the right side but failing.ⁱⁱⁱ The number of assaults, however, is very troubling^iv and cannot be sloughed off. Some remedy must be found.

But before rushing ahead headlong with solutions, it would be prudent to get more information. For example, is the newly announced problem limited to schools? Is it in fact a recent situation? What are the numbers and how have they changed over the years? Are some schools – or types of schools – more likely to have a problem than others? Is the problem more generalized?^v

None of the answers to these questions can possibly lessen the enormity of the problem or mitigate against decisive action,^vi but delineation of the causes is the first step in designing a meaningful response. I choose to believe that the President raised the issue now because it is getting worse, and he mentioned the colleges because that is where it is most severe. I choose to believe it because it seems to me to have been inevitable.

Inevitable? That's a strong word, but a country like ours that has undergone a sexual revolution in the last half-century, (whose culture^vii illustrates – no, it celebrates – the joy of sex for everyone, mixed sex dormatories – first limiting the sexes by floor, then by room, and now opening all rooms to all takers, easy availability of pregnancy prevention methods – including abortion if all else fails, pornography, and the like) is conveying the message that we encourage sexual activity among the unmarried – not just tolerate it. Our “sexual mores” seem to boil down to “more sex.” We proclaim loudly that sex is great^viii and (almost) everyone wants it, so how can we turn around and just say “no.” Indeed, there are many who believe that when a woman says no she is just being coy. And even if she means it, she may not report a rape, and the desire of the moment overpowers any concern for the future, or for the woman. And we also glorify and legalize getting high on marijuana and alcohol, with more likely to come.

It would be nice to believe that we can educate society. Perhaps that should be the first step. Not to tell people that they won't enjoy sex – they'll laugh at whoever tries such an approach. But they may be more responsive to delineations of the physical and psychological results of unprotected sex. We're doing that now, however, and not accomplishing very much. And we tried prohibition of alcohol once – a glaring failure.

Another way to educate people is through a change in emphasis in the media and in entertainment. But many will view it as an intrusion on the First Amendment if we ask TV and film producers, and the other media as well, to remove, or at least deemphasize sex in what they feed our citizens. In addition to the legal questions related to such a move, however, it would be foolhardy to ignore the economic implications. Sex makes money. If antisocial behavior results from what they peddle, so be it. It's the economy, stupid.^ix

No. Those measures won't be effective. More Draconian penalties, though, might do the trick.^x Suppose rapists were sentenced to (for example) twenty years and those convicted of lesser offences to ten years.^xi No plea bargaining and no judicial discretion. These are not victimless crimes. Long sentences would also be useful since “[a]ssailants were often serial offenders … nearly two-thirds of them said they had done so [attempted or committed rape] multiple times – six on average.”^xii Prison is a good way to keep them off the streets. Advertising of these sentences may cut down on the offenses even more than the imposition of the penalties.

Of course convictions may be hard to come by for a variety of reasons. Among them is the possibility that the accused is innocent. Women, moreover, may be reluctant to press charges out of fear or a misguided concern for the perpetrator.^xiii Should she do so, however, even with a public that is conditioned to believe the accuser, the imposition of long sentences may not sit well with juries – especially men – and they'll look for ways to find the defendant not guilty.

And guilt is difficult to prove in a situation where there are no witnesses. There is often a question of whether the sexual activity is consensual, and the argument over that point is the dispute the jury faces. But that is no different from the existing dilemma, so the best we can hope to do is improve the odds. Multiple lie detector tests of both parties may help in the determination. It is clear that the tests are not perfect, but if done repeatedly^xiv and involving both the accuser and the accused, they may be helpful to the jury, especially if one of the parties always appears to be telling the truth and the other always appears to be lying. And it certainly adds to the “he said, she said” testimony that may be all the jury has.

Unfortunately, the “he said, she said” testimony could be a major stumbling block. Because juries are often biased towards the woman, sometimes accusations are made for spite, and may result in a man's unjustified conviction and long-term incarceration. One way to make a woman think twice about making false accusations “just to get even,” would be to automatically try the woman for making the accusation if the man is acquitted. Her conviction would not be automatic by any means, but if she is convicted her sentence should be what the man she accused would have received. This might minimize the problem.

And now to get back to the advertising. Ads emphasizing these penalties would make a rapist think twice about committing the act, and his victim about making a false accusation – especially if there were a few well publicized examples of both kinds of sentences being given. And if serial rapes can be avoided, others would benefit as well. Perhaps, following a few well publicized convictions, more women could even be convinced to come forward to stop the rapists and protect their sisters.

And finally, it would also help if mixed dormatories were phased out in favor of the single sex variety. After all, out of site, out of mind.

i       Figuratively.

ii      The President gave the military a year to demonstrate that it had cut down on the number or sexual assaults throughout its ranks. The Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Acadamies was issued in 2005 and the problem remains, so it is difficult to understand how significant progress throughout the military will come about in a year.

iii     The New York Times (Jackie Calmes, January 22, 2014) reports “Later, at a ceremony in the East Room, Mr. Obama signed a memorandum creating [a] task force … The issue is a priority of women's groups, which have been crucial to Mr. Obama's election victories.” A memorandum and a task force should do the trick nicely – especially when the President announces it to the press at a ceremony in the East Room.

iv      Any number is troubling. And Draconian measures are justified in eliminating all sexual assault from our society. Or at least limiting it, since there will always be disturbed individuals who can't (or won't) control themselves.

v       If so the problem may have different causes and may need to be addressed by other means.

vi      Even though governmental action may not solve the problem – especially if designed primarily for the positive press it may garner – it's worth trying. But bear in mind the following which appeared in the Times article cited above. “At [President Obama's] side was Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who 20 years ago won passage of the Violence Against Women Act ...” Twenty years ago and the problem hasn't been solved. Don't look for a quick fix unless your prepared to take strong steps and ignore the response they evoke.

vii     In books, magazines, movies, television, theater, and song. What have I left out?

viii    A point I don't dispute.

ix      In addition, though counterintuitive, the relationship between pornography and violence, and antisocial behavior is disputed. (Of course, even if proved it would be disputed, as would the remedies. Some view absolute freedom as trumping any other consideration. “Slippery slope” and all that sort of self-righteous drivel. It's more like reductio ad absurdum, and its proponents don't know how to draw lines.)

x        It is sometimes argued that with new laws and new penalties there is disproportionate penalizing of minorities. If the problem is primarily in colleges and, as many complain, minorities don't have the opportunity to attend college as often as others, it is those others who will be guilty and dispropotionately penalized.

xi      The numbers, of course, are just conversation starters and subject to change by our legislators. But a rapist convicted at the time the Violence Against Women Act was passed would just be getting out of prison now.

xii      New York Times, ibid.

xiii    Of course the opposite may happen – unfounded charges may be leveled as a form of revenge or for other reasons. But I'll deal with that shortly.

xiv     By different “experts” who have been certified by the state and work for it. If some of the tests are performed by someone later judged to be unreliable, there will be other testimony still existing. Similar multiple site DNA testing should take place when there is a denial of contact by the accused and another is blamed. The multiple site approach will improve accuracy and lessen the chances that a particular conviction is overturned because other test results in a specific site are questionable. The immediate costs may be greater, but the accuracy of the results and the conviction of a rapist before he has repeated himself will ultimately save the government money.