On page B-1 of today's Post (carried over to page B-2) is an article entitled "Comments on Rape Law Elicit Outrage". A long term Maryland delegate from Prince George's County, Joseph F. Vallario, Jr. , quoted a 17th century English jurist, Sir Matthew Hale, saying in effect that women who were not raped could claim that they were. The context was the discussion of proposed legislation denying parental rights to rapist fathers.
Outrage resulted. Someone googled Hale and discovered the presumed exact quote: "Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused". Although no one seems to be calling Vallario evil, many were appaled by the reference.
I am always concerned about the requirements of political correctness, particularly since the quotation does not seem out of line to me; rather, it appears to state a truism.
The article had another surprising reference: in 1987 Virginia apparently passed a law, according to the article, "prohibiting judges from instructing juries to be "skeptical of rape claims". That in itself seems a little weird.
So, OK, no one is in favor of rape, and I think it makes sense that a rapist should not have paternity rights. But (particularly where there has been no criminal conviction) how do you know if a rape occurred.
In fact, on the same page, there was an article (by chance it seems) about a Naval Academy midshipman accused of raping a fellow student. The midshipman's defense is that the sex was consensual. The case is ongoing. Was there a rape? Without some overriding physical evidence, how would you ever know?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment