The Rolling Stone article that reported a gang rape at a fraternity at UVA is turning into a bigger and bigger mess hour by hour. Charles C. Johnson, a right wing blogger, has published the name of a woman who he claims was the person interviewed by reporter Sabrina Erdely. The more respectable media outlets are not publishing the name, but more sensationalist sites are and have dug up social media accounts that they claim to belong to the person in question. According to ABC she has hired an attorney. I'm not going to link to any of those stories. If found them by Googling.
The central criticism of Erdely and Rolling Stone is that they entered into an agreement with their source to publish her story "as told" without attempting to contact the people that she claimed were involved in the incident in an effort to get their response to the story. The Washington Post set out to do its own investigation and published material that was highly critical of Erdely and Rolling Stone. RS has now posted two fumbling response to this criticism. My personal reaction at this point is that I really don't know what the truth is about the reported incident in the present context of chaos.
I want to address a broader issue about the complexities of dealing with rape victims and their needs for protection and privacy and the demands that go with being a participant in a criminal investigation. They are problems that are often in conflict with each other. The central issue in a rape case is the matter of consent. Sexual intercourse that does not result in physical injury is not a crime when it takes place between mutually consenting adults. The woman who is raped is likely to be the only source of information as to whether she consented to intercourse or not. There is seldom any independent corroborating evidence. So, she is both victim and witness.
The National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the Dept. of Justice reports a consistent finding that about 60% of incidents of rape go unreported. For a variety of reasons a majority of women are reluctant to talk about the experience even to people that they are close to, much less go through the stress of a law enforcement investigation. This isn't particularly surprising given that our society still tends to shift the blame and responsibility for rape onto the victim.
People in general vary considerably in the way that they react to and deal with highly stressful situations. Some people deal with them in an active and assertive manner while others withdraw into a state of depression. A small percentage are driven to suicide. I have never seen an instance of a woman who said that she really didn't mind being raped. I would venture to say that it is almost universally experienced as something unpleasant and upsetting. Male claims to the contrary are pure fantasy. Some women actively seek a law enforcement investigation and criminal prosecution. Others want no part of it. There is a group in the middle who are anxious and ambivalent. Much of the efforts of women's advocates has focused on encouraging this middle group to file claims against their rapist and to make the process less stressful for them. The question I want to raise is just how much protection and privacy is realistically possible.
The agreement that Sabrina Erdely made with Jackie is a case in point. Jackie had never filed a complaint with the university or the police about her experience. Erdely is using a sense of concern for Jackie's privacy and sensibilities as a justification for accepting constraints that investigative journalists usually do not accept. There have been various changes to laws that provide some shielding for people making complaints of rape, but they don't come anywhere close to accepting their story without corroborating evidence. In any case that goes to criminal trial the rape victim as witness is going to face an attempt by the defense attorney to discredit her testimony. Much of that can hang on the kind of dependencies in details that have already come to light in this situation. The purpose of this effort is to plant "reasonable doubt" in the minds of jurors.
The US constitution provides protections for the rights of a defendant charged with a crime. For the purpose of the criminal trial, it creates a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption sets up a logical conflict between the accused and the complaining witness in a rape trial. To presume the accused innocent carries an implication that the accuser may not be telling the truth. The trial is an adversarial proceeding between these two points of view. I can't conceive of an approach under anything like out present legal system where this could be entirely avoided. Things can and have done to modify standards of admissible evidence. There is much discussion about adopting a standard of affirmative consent. California has actually done this for disciplinary proceedings in state colleges. But what remains as the basic reality is that the only way to avoid the conflicts and pressures of an investigation of a rape allegation is to not report the incident.
I am one of the people who believe that we have a culture which still places too much blame and responsibility on women for dealing with the problem of rape and sexual assault. I think that the system gives men a sense that they can commit rape and stand a good chance of getting by with it. I think that this culture had been and continues to be shifted by the efforts of advocates of women's rights. I am willing to call it a rape culture. However, I think it was a mistake for Rolling Stone to publish that story without having conducted a more through investigation. The managing editor of the magazine now takes that position. It is a mistake that may cause difficulties for the efforts to support the rights of rape victims.