Think about it

I was listening to a panel discussion on an American radio programme the other evening, the focus of which was the charge of sexual assault brought by the police in Eagle, Colorado in the United States against the American superstar basketball player Kobe Bryant. He has been accused by a young woman of rape in a hotel room in an exclusive resort in the Colorado mountains where Bryant was staying.

One man suggested that Kobe Bryant would not be able to get a fair trial in the area of the alleged incident, because he was a black man who would be facing a panel of 12 white jurors. In the dock, would be a black man, the accused, and the alleged victim, a young white blonde woman. His point was that Eagle was a very conservative place, and far too steeped in its prejudices to see anything but a young innocent white woman, at the mercy of a big bully of a black man. It was the sort of response that was not totally unexpected, but what interested me more was the opinion of a panellist who, believe it or not was a woman and who was more concerned with whether or not the alleged victim should be identified. She argued that natural justice demanded that in a criminal matter once you identify the accused you must identify the accuser. She considered the absolute protection afforded the accuser to be anachronistic and in this day of sexual equality saw no justification for the veil of secrecy. Even when the matter is heard in court, her name cannot be published or broadcast whether the man is found innocent or guilty.

Is it fair, she asked, that a man's reputation could be ruined completely and the general public who do not have the time to be in court — do not know who his accuser is, even when the accused is found to be innocent of the charge? She was careful to distinguish between the rape of a minor or of a physically or mentally disabled person of whom advantage has obviously been taken and who has absolutely no means of defence. She argued that where — as apparently happened in the Kobe Bryant case, an off-duty worker in a hotel, goes up to a man's room in the middle of the night, she is not going just to change the sheets! The panellist allowed that a woman has a right to go to a man's room and then at the last minute change her mind about having sex with him and in such a case he must understand when she says NO, she means NO. But assuming he did not stop when she said stop, did she not put herself in danger in the first place? There are also reports, which no doubt Bryant's lawyers will use that the woman had afterwards been talking about this "encounter" with her friends and joking around about Kobe Bryant's anatomy. Of course Kobe Bryant was not just being unfaithful to his wife but was singularly stupid and no US$5M diamond gift ring can reverse the jeopardy of his predicament.

I have to say that I find some merit in the argument that if a woman goes to a man's room in the middle of the night and then accuses him of rape, she should be identified particularly when he claims it was consensual sex. She might indeed have been raped and if so the alleged rapist should pay the price. But shouldn't we know who she is? After all, it is not unknown for women to stalk superstars for all sorts of reasons and when things don't work out their way, shout rape. Now having said that, one must also go to the point that when a woman says stop to a man, he must understand that she means stop, and because she's gone to his room it does not mean that he is to absolutely and totally have his way with her if she at some point decides not to go any further. She's got to be allowed to leave. But once she decides to accuse him of rape we must know who she is. We should think about this because I am pretty certain that while there are beastly men who do in fact rape women, including their wives, there are many men who have been very wrongly accused of rape for all sorts of reasons. In our country the laws are rigid and the alleged victim can never be named. In the Untied States it is clear that as the Bryant trial goes on the identity of the woman is going to be made public. In fact one radio station has already identified the woman by name and address but the newspapers have been more cautious, choosing instead to challenge this issue in court. Rape is a terrible violation of a woman and this has to be borne in mind at all times. I do believe we must protect our children and other defenceless women who suffer such violation and abuse. But are there not instances where circumstance may decide that the accuser should be identified? We should think about it.
jstarr@newsday.co.tt