Torture, Torture-Lite, and the Predictability of Dick Cheney

When the news broke last week about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s release of the report on CIA torture of terror suspect detainees, outrage ensued. Politicians pounded their chests in indignation about how ‘this isn’t who we are as Americans.’ The words “American people” were uttered numerous times. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked pointed questions of the CIA’s then-counsel, John Rizzo, about the approval process for enhanced interrogation techniques like water-boarding. The New York Times reported that the report’s release put potential presidential candidates “in quiet mode”.  Others fretted about what this meant for American interests and citizens abroad, and whether there would be retaliation and imprisonment for those involved.

Watching CNN on the morning of the report’s release, I knew it would be a matter of time – a day or so – and then the reporting pendulum would swing the other way. Defenders of foreign policy, including CIA interrogation tactics and black sites, under then-President George Bush would surface. And sure enough, like clockwork, out came former Vice President Dick Cheney. The report was “full of crap”, Cheney told Fox News.  He called it “deeply flawed” and “a terrible piece of work” demonstrating how politicians – democrats – will get together to “throw the professionals under the bus.”

You gotta love Dick Cheney. And by “love” I mean marvel at the spectacularly unapologetic, non-introspective, non-self-doubting force of nature that is the former Vice President.

If you watched the Showtime documentary “The World According to Dick Cheney”, then none of this surprises you. When asked by “The World” filmmakers what he considered his main faults, Cheney paused for some seconds and then answered, “I don’t spend much time thinking about my faults.” Indeed, he is a man who would condone techniques from the CIA’s KUBARK manual and never lose a night’s sleep over it, if there were a chance that these practices could extract information useful to protecting the country.

Since the 9/11 attacks, issues like terrorism, torture and emergency preparedness have become more common in criminal justice curricula. When I teach Issues in Criminal Justice, I cover torture in a chapter by Andrew Moher and Elisa Massimino (“Does the United States have a right to torture suspected terrorists?”) that discusses the pros and cons of torturing. On the pro side, proponents argue that it’s a necessary evil (injuring and terrorizing individuals who play a role in killing Americans) that may prevent a greater evil (mass deaths of Americans). Former CIA investigator Jose Rodriguez notes that the techniques are designed to make the suspect uncomfortable, and that this is fair given their intentions and the need to keep the country safe from groups like Isis and Al-Qaeda. On the con side, torture is immoral and simply breeds more terrorists plotting against the U.S. Plus, it has been noted, people lie to make the pain stop. The utility of information obtained through the torture of suspects is currently a subject of debate.

If you saw “Zero Dark Thirty”, or even just the beginning of the movie, you have a sense of the nastiness of these techniques. Being stripped naked and chained up. Having loud music blasting constantly and bright lights shining at you so you can’t sleep. Given minimal food and drink. Being locked in a box in which you can neither sit, stand, or stretch out. The box was the one that got me. The box would make me crack.

Part of the problem is possibly that the definition of torture is actually a bit murky. Sure, it’s illegal under U.S. and international law, as per the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994), as well as the 8^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But what is it exactly? None of the techniques shown in “Zero Dark” will kill a suspect, and therein comes the distinction between torture vs. torture-lite. Traditional torture techniques like amputation and mutilation cause severe pain and possibly death. By contrast, torture-lite practices like sleep deprivation, moderate beatings, and exposing a person to extreme heat or cold will make them very uncomfortable, but not cause death or even (perhaps) severe pain. Thus, torture-lite could fall outside the realm of illegal practices. In other words, torture-lite practices exploit definitional ambiguities.

And then of course there is the practice of rendition, or shipping terror suspects to countries with looser policies on torture. The U.S. has shipped terror suspect detainees to countries known to torture, like Egypt and Pakistan. The benefit to the U.S. is that we can disavow knowledge of the terrible acts that occur in dungeon-like rooms, claim that our hands are clean, and still benefit from any knowledge that may be obtained.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated on National Public Radio that “the conduct described in this [torture] report is not America.” I’m not so sure he’s right. It’s not who we like to think we are. We’re willing to give up certain things – privacy, a strong sense of right vs. wrong vs. justifiable conduct – after a terrible attack like 9/11. From a violent crime perspective, the U.S. also has much higher homicide rates than similarly developed nations. The torture report’s release offers the nation a chance to do some soul-searching about its heart of darkness, long after it is out of news headlines. 

This is how I intended to end this blog post, until I read two recent articles in www.nj.com by journalist Paul Mulshine: Two ex-CIA agents weigh in on 13 years of bad leadership under Bush and Obama and Don't believe waterboarding is torture? Watch this radio talker squeal. Mulshine is politically conservative, which made his opposition to torture surprising (to me). He and his ex-CIA acquaintances know more on the subject than I do - indeed, one of them has been tortured - so I'll defer to their wisdom. Among the points that Mulshine makes that are worth considering:

(1) True conservatives would never want to put that much power - to torture - in the hands of the government. Political conservatives favor less government, not more. To quote one of Mulshine's comments (to me), "if there was a justification for torture then Ronald Reagan would not have signed the anti-torture treaty." When I asked Mulshine what he thought of Alan Dershowitz's idea of a torture warrant to make torture legal and safe (relatively speaking), Mulshine referred to Dershowitz as "ultra-liberal". 

(2) When the CIA's torture/investigation program began, the CIA had little experience in conducting investigations. The FBI had much more experience. This opinion is from the two former CIA agents. 

(3) The torture program was designed by psychologists who didn't know much about the subject. Mulshine refers to the end result as a program of "staggering incompetence." 

Inexperienced operatives inflicting pain on captives to extract information. Winging it, essentially. Hoping it would work. Quite a different image than what we saw in "Zero Dark". 

How to Handle a Campus Rape Complaint

Note: a version of these suggestions were originally posted by me here:  http://chronicle.com/article/Study-Challenges-Notion-That/150817/

This is a suggested approach for colleges and universities handling rape accusations, when both the accuser and accused are students at the college or university.

(1) The default assumption should be that the victim is telling the truth and needs to be protected and handled with care.

(2) The police are the best ones to handle rape complaints. Police don't do everything perfectly, but they've had training in investigations in a way that college administrators, staff, and professors haven't.

(3) The 6th Amendment rights of the accused need to be protected. People are innocent until proven guilty. 

(4) Yes, some victims may not be entirely truthful, but that shouldn't be the starting assumption. 

(5) The university should do what it can to keep the accused and accuser physically separate on campus while the police conduct their investigation. Alternative class schedule arrangements should be made. The accuser could be offered the option of having a bodyguard of sorts accompany her around campus. 

(6) The accused should not be suspended or expelled from campus until convicted, or at the least indicted by a grand jury (meaning there's enough evidence to move forward with a case). Maybe suspended with an indictment, and expelled if convicted.

Rolling Stone magazine, Justice for Victims, and the 6th Amendment

As you may know by now, Rolling Stone (RS) magazine has apologized for, and then retracted, its story on a gang rape of "Jackie" (not her real name) at a University of Virginia fraternity after discrepancies in the woman's story surfaced. In case you haven't seen the original article - and the more recently added retraction - it's viewable here. Among the problems with the story as reported are that the journalist, at Jackie's request, never interviewed the alleged perpetrators. Also, no party occurred at the frat house on the night the attack reportedly happened. Jackie told the RS reporter that one of her attackers, "Drew" (not his real name), was a member of the fraternity where the attack occurred. It turns out he is a member of a different fraternity. There are a few other discrepancies as well. Even so, Jackie stands by her story. 

Here are some thoughts, in no particular order.

(1) Discrepancies or no, sexual assault on campus remains a nagging problem. 

(2) Circumstances surrounding campus rape can make prosecutors reluctant to pursue a case; if, for example, there was drinking involved by both the victim and perpetrator(s). A rape that occurs at a college fraternity party would likely involve drinking at the very least. It may have begun as a consensual encounter, then turned non-consensual and ugly. From a legal standpoint, the 'better' type of victim/witness for the prosecution didn't know her attacker(s) ahead of time, and at the time of the attack was only involved in wholesome activities like coming home from church. Any questions about the victim's behavior at the time of the attack can shift blame off of the perpetrator and onto the accuser. A good example of how rape victims can be mistreated by the justice system - by prosecutors, who are supposed to be on their side - is shown in this this video clip from the movie "The Accused".

(3) From a police and prosecution perspective, ideally rape victims would dial 911 immediately after an attack, not shower before heading (right away) to the hospital, and submit to a rape kit so that as much evidence can be collected as possible. In reality, this could very well be the last thing a victim wants to do. She may prefer to go home, shower, call a friend, crawl into bed, weep, and process what happened for weeks, months, or years before coming forward. Such is the case with Emma Sulkowicz, the young woman at Columbia University who is carrying a mattress around campus until her attacker is expelled from the school. This is part of her performance art senior thesis, entitled "Carry that Weight", and it refers to an assault that happened two years earlier when she was a sophomore. In waiting to report an assault, rape victims may contribute to their own inability to get justice. But this sounds like victim-blaming. Is it even fair to mention this? 

And speaking of expelling (alleged) perpetrators from their universities - 

(4) Colleges and universities face a thorny legal problem if they try to expel someone for breaking a law when he/she hasn't been convicted or even arrested. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is all about rights for the accused, including the right to confront witnesses against oneself, and to understand the nature of the alleged crime and the evidence pertaining to that crime. 

(5) It must be truly, unimaginably awful to be a rape victim and have to walk around campus still seeing one's attacker in the hallways, in the cafeteria, in class.

(6) It must also be awful to be accused of something, to wear the scarlet letter R (Rapist!), for something you didn't actually do. I don't think that the majority of rape accusations are false, but they happen. Remember the Duke University lacrosse team allege rape/fiasco? This blogger saw a biography of the accuser in that case, and she claims to have been gang-raped as a teenager by her boyfriend's friends (set up by him). She doesn't seem to have reported this to the police. Years later, she (apparently falsely) accused three men on Duke's lacrosse team of a gang assault. No justice is served by accusing the wrong people of a crime they didn't commit. (Note: I've previously written about the Duke University case.) 

(7) There's no easy solution for solving the problem of sexual assault on campus. Despite the amount of brain power on college campuses, university folk haven't come up with any perfect solutions. Ideas like California's "yes means yes" campaign are, in my humble opinion, silly and doomed to fail. In trying to balance victims' needs for justice and comfort with fairness to accused perpetrators, bad feelings will abound.

(8) I still stand by my sentiment expressed in an earlier blog post: let the police handle it. Not that the police do everything perfectly, but they've had more training in working with rape victims. It's a criminal matter; let the criminal justice folks do what they do. 

The Mighty but Vulnerable Female Outlaw

I'll admit it - watching the final episode of the new season of "Orange is the New Black" made me tear up. 

*Spoiler alert* If you haven't seen the season 2 ending yet but are planning to, look away!

Miss Rosa decides that she's not going to spend her final cancerous days dying behind bars, throws caution to the wind, steals the prison transport van and blasts through a locked gate, causing a gaggle of protesting nuns to jump out of the way. (That's another story.) She turns on the radio, and Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't fear the reaper is playing." The final scenes flash back to her as a much younger woman. Her younger self -- played by the dark-haired beauty Stephanie Andujar -- is shown laughing as she speeds away from what was likely a bank robbery. The sound of police sirens pursuing her is heard. She laughs. She's beautiful. She doesn't fear the reaper, or the police.  

Outlaw women are fascinating. France Winddance Twine touches on the gun molls of the 1930's in her 2013 book, Girls with Guns (Routledge). Remember Bonnie Parker of Bonnie & Clyde fame? Yup, she was one. There were others, too -- the romantic, sexual, criminal partners of outlaw men. More recently (1991), Thelma and Louise elected to drive their car off a cliff into the Grand Canyon rather than turn themselves in and face the consequences for shooting a man. (A rapist.) 

All the characters in "Orange" are outlaws in a way. They all broke the law, some more violently than others. What the series does is show these women's vulnerability as well as their misdeeds. They lived outside boundaries and hurt others, but they get hurt too. Miss Rosa is dying of cancer. Nicky is tough, but still feels the pull of her heroin addictions. Suzanne "Crazy Eyes" Warren beats up another inmate (Red) viciously, but as the audience and other characters clearly notice, she's badly manipulated by Vee. This is the paradox of the woman outlaw. Tough, but never beyond getting hurt. 
 

Maroon 5's Portrayal of Stalking in "Animals" Video is Inaccurate

The rock band Maroon 5 has been in the news lately for its depiction of stalking in the video for the song "Animals". Disturbing. Misogynistic. Sickening. Non-artistic and pandering for shock value. These are some of the negative comments that have been lobbed at the band for the video. Oh, and gross. All that fake blood. And raw meat. Did I mention gross?

If you haven't seen the video, you can find it easily enough on Youtube.

I'm a fan of the song, if not the video. It IS gross. My main quibble with the video for this blog post, however, is that the video gives a fictionalized portrayal of stalking. There's nothing sexy whatsoever about stalking. While celebrity stalkers make headlines on occasion, most stalking is by deranged individuals against former intimate partners. Most victims are female; nationally, about 1 in 12 women are stalked during their lifetime. About a third of women killed by a former intimate partner were stalked by that partner before their murder. 

Stalking victims have reason to be afraid for their lives, and/or that their stalker will harm them physically, emotionally and financially. Recommended safety tips for victims include reporting the crime, getting a restraining order, changing one's phone number to an unlisted number, changing locks to one's home, changing routes to work, moving out of town, keeping evidence and records of restraining order violations, and on and on and on. (Nothing sexy about completely upending one's life and living in constant fear, Maroon 5.) Sometimes even these measures don't help. One tragic example that comes to mind is the case of Peggy Klinke, who was stalked and ultimately murdered by her stalker. Peggy went underground, moving across country and - she thought - leaving no trace of her new wearabouts. Still, her stalker hired a private detective, found her, and ultimately murdered her while she was on the phone with 911. Peggy did everything right, and still the justice system couldn't protect her. Nothing sexy about that.

Stalking. Not sexy. The "Animals" video is gross, and wrong, wrong, wrong. 

Why Messing with Teacher Tenure Won't Magically Transform Education

This post isn't specifically related to criminal justice (CJ), but it's a topical issue right now. It's CJ-related in a roundabout way, in that I'm a CJ professor, and this pertains to the teaching profession more broadly. It's my blog, and I can blog if I want to... blog if I want to...

So I'm driving home from work recently, listening to NJ101.5 talk radio. The subject of November teacher convention week is being discussed, specifically how the DJ thinks it's outrageous that some school districts will shut school down for a full week so their teachers can (allegedly) attend the NJEA teacher convention. I'll admit that my knowledge of what happens at the annual convention is sketchy since I've never attended or looked into the details. When my daughter attended public elementary school, her school would shut down for two or three days so teachers could attend. I'm familiar with industry conferences in general, since there are a number of them in my field. (In fact, next week I head to the fall American Society of Criminology conference.) I always figured that teachers, if they went to the NJEA conference, would attend workshops on things like technology in the classroom (clickers! smart boards!) and new pedagogical approaches. I mainly thought about the NJEA conference in terms of how my husband and I would juggle childcare coverage and work during those days.

Anyhow, the predictable parade of callers chime in, including one fellow who said he was a teacher and that most of the teachers he knows don't go to the conference. Or if they go to the city where the conference is held (Atlantic City this year), they'll go to the beach, drink, hang out with friends, etc. 'We teachers have a pretty sweet gig. We get summers off, plenty of days off, after a short probationary period we get employment for life.' The DJ made affirmative noises. I could imagine his head nodding in agreement.

Oh, those bad, lazy teachers. That seems to be the vibe coming from courts and politicians - NJ Governor Christie - these days. Time Magazine recently ran the article, "The war on teacher tenure." In the article, a California school superintendent is quoted as explaining what would improve education in his district as "Give me control over my workforce." In other words, get rid of tenure so I can fire those bad apple, lazy teachers. Indeed, examples of bad teacher behavior are mentioned in the article: verbally abusing students, sleeping during class. 

I can speak to this issue - eliminating tenure - as both a tenured professor of higher education, and as a parent. My daughter, "M", is currently in 8th grade. After attending private preschool and kindergarten, she attended four years of public elementary school in our town, before switching to private school where she'll continue through high school. I'm a product of public education, as is my sister. My mother was moderately horrified when I initially told her we were thinking of switching her granddaughter to private school. In the end, it has worked out well.

So why did we switch? Did we have concerns about the quality of education our daughter got at public school? Yes. Did this have anything to do with the quality of teaching? No. 

At public school, M had 2 tenured teachers and 2 untenured (or tenure track) teachers. For the past four years, she's had year-to-year contract teachers since at private school (at least at hers), there is no tenure. (There may be tenure at other private schools. I suspect not, but haven't looked into it.) In my opinion, tenured/untenured/year-to-year contract teachers - there's no difference in the quality of education the teachers have delivered. Based on my experience as a parent, good teachers are good, regardless of their employment status. 

M has two teachers right now whom she really likes: her English and History teachers. Her English teacher is great because she has a terrific, upbeat personality and likes children. She brings great enthusiasm to the teaching of Shakespeare and other literature. She gives plenty of writing assignments and lots of prompt, detailed feedback on writing quality. Important but tedious things are also covered, like grammar. M has had this teacher for two years in English, and she'll be more well-read and a better writer for it. M's history teacher is a bit more like a drill sergeant, but she's also very funny. She has a no-nonsense approach to teaching, keeps the class in line with strict rules and good humor, and gives clear-cut assignments. She stresses note-taking. She grades tests quickly so the kids have early feedback on their progress. She also likes children. 

By contrast, another of M's teachers is less effective, in my opinion. I'll omit the subject matter, but M has also had him/her for two years. What makes this teacher not as good as the English and History teachers? S/he talks lectures too quickly, laughs at kids when they ask questions about something they don't understand, won't clarify points of confusion ('Maybe you'd understand better if you participated more' or 'Didn't you watch the video links I sent home?'), makes subject matter unnecessarily confusing, and plays favorites with kids. Other parents feel as I do. This teacher has an obnoxious personality. 

I'm certain that if tenure were an option at M's current school, all three teachers - English, History, and Bad Teacher - would obtain it. As it is, they've survived the annual renewal process for a number of years. The school principal clearly feels like he has control over his workforce, and he keeps them on. 

So what makes the overall quality of education better, in my humble opinion, at M's private school? Class size, and better curricula. (Teacher personality -- good or bad -- is a constant at public and private schools.) In M's current English class, there are plenty of writing assignments about classic literature, lots of feedback and rewrites of writing assignments, and attention to grammar. What was the approach to writing at M's public elementary school? Her fourth grade teacher told me that the school principal told her, "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!" That's a curriculum?? Frenetic, panic-driven writing? Write about what? What about the issue of kids being at different levels of ability and literacy? What about kids for whom English is a second language, and the fact that there were 29 kids in the class? "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!" 

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me for public education in our town.

Those pushing to eliminate tenure may succeed in the long run, granting school principals and district superintendents much more control over their workforce. They can whip those lazy teachers into shape - or else! Afterwards, I suspect the innovators will still be left with the nagging question of how to improve public K-12 education. What will be done about class size? What will be done about curricula? What's the best way to teach math, anyways? (Why don't we know this yet?) What about kids living and attending school in really poor communities, whose lives at home are filled with lots of background noise and chaos? How can control be gained over that? 

Broken Windows Theory in the news

Criminological theory doesn't often pop up in the mainstream media, so I'll admit I had a little thrill this morning to see Drs. Wilson and Kelling's Broken Windows theory in the New York Times -- "Author of 'Broken Windows' policing defends his theory" (Sam Roberts, August 10, 2014). 

The Times coverage is actually pretty critical of the theory, now being linked to the recent choking death of a Staten Island man, Eric Garner. Case in point: "Critics denounce the theory as neoconservative pablum resulting in overpolicing and mass incarceration for relatively minor offenses...they say it was not derived from scientific evidence and its connection to the city’s drastic decline in major crime remains unproven. (Roberts, 2014). 

If you’re not familiar with Broken Windows theory, the basic idea is to have the police pay attention to little signs of disorder, like broken windows, litter, and graffiti. Minor quality-of-life offenses. Catch them while they’re small problems. If not, it’s like hanging out a sign to criminals that says ‘Hey! Come on in! You can get away with anything here and none of the residents or police will fuss.’

Some years ago, I drove through the upscale Summit NJ with, unbenowst to me, a broken tail light. While I was stopped at a stop light, a woman in a Mercedes pulled up next to me to inform me that my tail light was broken and I should get it fixed. I think of that as Broken Windows in action. Make a fuss about little ugly things – in this case, my car – before they become big, ugly and illegal things.

It’s one thing when residents point out things like litter, crumbled curbs, abandonned cars, and broken tail lights. When the police engage in it though, the downside is that they face being accused of disproportionately targeting the poor and people of color.

In response to the article’s point that Broken Windows’ impact on crime has been unproven, I went looking in the CJ literature to see what evaluations of the theory had been done, and what they found. I offer a few highlights below:

·        Yang (2012) found that physical and social disorder, and violence, are related in certain neighborhoods. But the relationship is described as “imperfect.” Some areas with disorder don’t experience violence.

·        Golub, Johnson, Taylor & Eterno (2003) – Based on interviews with 539 arrestees, the authors note that offenders are aware of heighened police presence through quality-of-life policing. Those offenders who committed disorder-type offenses cut back on doing so because of greater police presence.

·        Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) found that with the exception of robbery, there was no real relationship between crime and public disorder.

There are also a host of scholarly articles critical of the theory, for reasons touched on in the Times article. So the view of and evidence about Broken Windows and quality-of-life policing are mixed. (This isn't so different with other crime theories.) I don't think anyone could say that Broken Windows has been discredited, though. 

When Broken Windows went into effect in New York City in the 1990s, William Bratton was police commissioner under then-Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Now he’s police commissioner again, this time under far less hard-nosed Mayor Bill de Blasio. Whether Bratton will change his tune about quality-of-life policing will be revealed. As he recently stated, “We [the police] are not a racist organization – not at all.” (Hayes, 2014) So perhaps...

References:

Golub, A., Johnson, B.D., Taylor, A. & Eterno, J. (2003). Quality-of-life policing: Do offenders get the message? Policing, 26(4), 690-707.

Hayes, T. (2014). NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton: 'We are not a racist organization.' Huffington Post, August 9th. Viewable at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/bill-de-blasio-choke-hold_n_5664453.html. 

Roberts, S. (2014). Author of 'Broken Windows' defends his theory. New York Times, August 10th. Viewable at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/nyregion/author-of-broken-windows-policing-defends-his-theory.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0. 

Sampson, R.J. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603-51.

Yang, S.M. (2012). “Assessing the spatial–temporal relationship between

disorder and violence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 139-163.

Handling Sexual Assault on Campus: Let the Police Handle It

The problem of rape on campus is not new, but it's receiving lots of attention lately thanks to renewed focus on Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. (See here.)  This provision of the federal law —  "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Assistance" — puts the spotlight on how colleges and universities investigate claims of rape by their students. 

Because of the stipulations of Title IX, students are given the option of either reporting the rape to the police or university officials. To quote an article in the New York Times, “The great majority... choose their school, because of the expectation of anonymity and the belief that administrators will offer the sort of support that the police will not.” (Bogdanich, 2014).

New York Times coverage of one rape incident, and the university's handling of it, is here. Particularly cringe-worthy is the description of the university committee assembled to talk with the victim in a hearing of sorts: “The chairwoman, Sandra E. Bissell, vice president of human resources, was joined by Brien Ashdown, an assistant professor of psychology, and Lucille Smart, director of the campus bookstore, who the school said had expressed an interest in serving.” (Bogdanich, 2014)

The campus bookstore director? Seriously??

Would this be the same procedure if it were a robbery or murder? A campus committee of university staff, maybe a student rep, and a professor trying to get tenure would meet — but only from October through June — to pose a bunch of intrusive questions to victims. Since they wouldn't meet in a police station or courtroom, then where? A classroom? Department conference room? Maybe one that doubles as the copy room so various people can wander in and out during the 'hearing'? For those students unfortunate enough to be assaulted in late spring, the committee might not convene again until the following fall, since most faculty don't do service work over the summer. The worst penalty the accused attacker might face, if found guilty, might be dismissal from school. Not a felony conviction and all the subsequent consequences that brings with it, such as registering with local police as a sex offender.... Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?

Not that the police always do everything perfectly, but rape investigations have come a long way over the years. Rape is a crime unlike other offenses in that it often comes down to he-said, she-said. (Or: she-said, he-said; or he-said, he-said. Not all victims are female, nor perpetrators male.) Yes, there's other evidence, but it can present problems. The presence of male fluids is evidence that sex occurred, not necessarily rape. Something like video evidence would be good, if it existed. That's not always the case. Rape victims may also delay reporting the assault, for a variety of reasons (e.g., being severely traumatized, fear of retaliation if they know the attacker). 

Historically, police and prosecutors treated rape complainants from the beginning as if they might be lying or stretching the truth. This was unlike the response for other crimes – robbery or burglary, for instance. A robbery victim could expect to file a complaint and be taken at face value, assumed to be telling the truth. By contrast, a rape victim would be assumed to not be telling the truth. Types of responses – from the police and the accused – were that it was a simple misunderstanding; that sex happened, but it was consensual; that it never happened and she made it up altogether. In the case of husbands raping wives, well… that can’t happen. Men are entitled to their wives bodies. (Wrong. Marital rape was first outlawed in South Dakota in the mid-1970s, and is now against the law in all states. Yes, ALL states.)

The result? Victims ended up feeling revictimized by the system that’s supposed to help and protect them, supposed to get them justice, supposed to get the rapist off the street before he attacks anyone else.

Things have improved over the years, largely because of the rise of the Victims Rights movement beginning in the 1970s. Rape has (mostly) come to be viewed for what it is – a crime of violence where the victim was stripped of their right to consent. It’s not passion gone awry. It causes injury and post-traumatic stress for the victim. Trouble sleeping, nightmares, suicidal thoughts, deep depression, terror at the thought of leaving the house – those are the after-effects of being raped, NOT having consensual sex.

Not that false accusations don’t happen. They do. But that shouldn’t be the default assumption when a victim reports being raped. The default response should be to believe them.

I teach a Crime Victims course at both the undergraduate and graduate level, and devote one to two classes to covering sexual assault. Even after all these years, it’s still the material that makes me the most nervous. Why? Because I assume that at least one or two (or more) students in the class have been sexually assaulted. Indeed, I’ve heard some very sad ‘confessions’ post-lecture (including about being gang-raped as a teenager).

I’ve also heard some rather dumb comments. As one student – who it seemed always liked to try and say something controversial – began, ‘So, if a man comes home after work and wants to have… you know, relations with his wife, but she’s too tired, can he—‘. At that point, I cut him off with the simple explanation that marital rape is against the law, like any other type of rape. Period. For the record, I’ve also been asked this question by a female student, although more generically. (‘What about between a husband and wife?’)

Getting back to my original point, while the police may not always do everything perfectly, they certainly have more training in handling rape victims than, say, the manager of a college bookstore so that the victim doesn’t end up feeling revictimized. Colleges should do what colleges do best: provide education. And they should let the police do what they do: investigate crime.

References:

Bogdanich, W. (2014). "Reporting rape, and wishing she hadn't." New York Times, July 12. Downloadable from  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/us/how-one-college-handled-a-sexual-assault-complaint.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article.

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. Downloadable from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Gun Owners don't hate President Obama

When President Obama was elected and then re-elected, gun owners were likely among those who voted for him.

No, not kidding.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) makes no attempt to conceal its dislike of President Obama. The NRA and its members are strong advocates of gun ownership and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the right to bear and legally use firearms, such as for self-defense). The President likely initially incurred gun owners’ ire with his 2008 comment about how rural voters “cling to guns or religion” (Gabriel 2012). The botched 2010 gun walking operation – also known as Fast & Furious – directed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t help either (Jonsson 2011). The NRA continues to make fanatic statements about the President such as those found in its "Defeat Obama Fact Sheet". The “Fact Sheet” heading includes a sinister-looking photo of the President frowning. These facts include, “Obama will launch a regulatory war to shut down hunting and shooting” (fact #9) and “Obama will try to give the United Nations authority over your firearms” (fact #4). This anti-President Obama push is not limited to the Internet. At home I’ve been on the receiving end of membership drive phone calls from the NRA. The caller’s tone of voice had a marked urgency, essentially communicating the message, ‘Join now or all is lost! Your freedom will be taken from you!’ Yikes. To invoke famed comedian George Carlin, "Spooky language!" 

So what with all the vitriol and calls to action floating around, wouldn’t gun owners have wanted to steer clear of the President’s name on the ballot come Election Day? Not necessarily.

Study Methodology and Sample

In March-April of 2012, seven months before the President's re-election, 605 U.S. residents – participants registered with the Utica, NY-based StudyResponse Project – were randomly sampled to take part in an online survey about social media and the Second Amendment debate. Some of the findings from that survey – specifically voting behavior – are discussed in this blog post. Respondents were asked about whom they voted for in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, and who they were planning to vote for in the upcoming 2012 election. Granted, at the time the survey was administered the Republican nominee was not yet determined. (Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were still in the running.) However, some evidence on the lifetime stability of political ideology (Sears & Funk 1999) suggests that individuals that have decided who they will vote for are unlikely to change their minds.

            The 605 participants were spread out over a variety of states, including both strict- and not-strict gun law states.i These included Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The mean age was nearly 42 years old, with respondents ranging in age from 21 to 85 years old.

The sample was split between 52 percent males and 48 percent females. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that they were Caucasian. Additionally, six percent were African American, five percent were Hispanic, nine percent were Native American, and five percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The race/ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive. For instance, small percentages of respondents indicated that they were both Caucasian and African American, or both Caucasian and Hispanic. In terms of education, nine percent of respondents had only a high school education; 25 percent had some college or an associates degree; 40 percent were college graduates; and 25 percent had post-graduate study including having obtained a terminal degree (4.7%). Respondents listed a variety of occupations.

Gun Ownership and Voting

            More than half of the sample (56%) either currently owned a gun, had owned one in the past, or lived with a partner or spouse who owned a firearm but did not personally own a gun. Just under 42 percent of respondents said they did not presently own a firearm nor would they ever own one. Nearly 17 percent of respondents were currently or previously active in a pro-Second Amendment capacity such as being a member of the NRA or a local hunting or sportsmen’s club.

Table 1: Gun Ownership and Presidential Election Votingii

	Current or past firearm ownership, or live in a gun-owning household?
	No	Yes
Who voted for in 2008 Presidential election
-Obama	72.7% (n=133)	72.9% (n=167)
-McCain	27.3% (n=50)	27.1% (n=62)
Who will vote for in 2012 Presidential election
-Obama	39.1% (n=99)	37.5% (n=128)
-Romney or other earlier Republican	14.6% (n=37)	12.6% (n=43)
-Not sure	46.2% (n=117)	49.9% (n=170)

Table 1 above examines gun ownership/residing in a gun-owning household, by 2008 and intended 2012 voting. In 2008, nearly 73 percent of ‘pro’ gun individuals voted for President Obama rather than Republican candidate John McCain. The result was not significantly different from the voting preferences of non-‘pro’ gun individuals, 73 percent of whom also voted for Obama. As for the then-upcoming election, nearly 38 percent of current/past firearm owners (and those who cohabitate with gun owners) indicated that they would vote for President Obama in the 2012 election. This percentage is not far off from those who did not/would not own a firearm, who also indicated that they would vote for Obama (39%). This suggests that voting preference is not primarily driven by one’s personal connection to firearms.

Table 2: Stability of ‘Pro’-Gun Respondents’ Voting, 2008 to 2012iii

	Who voted for in 2008
	Obama	McCain
Who will vote for in 2012
- Obama	68.3% (n=114)	4.8% (n=3)
-Not Obama	31.7% (n=53)	95.2% (n=59)

Chi square: 72.79, df=1, p=.00

As seen above in Table 2, 68 percent of ‘pro’-gun respondents who voted for President Obama in 2008 planned to vote for him again in 2012; and 95 percent of ‘pro’-gun individuals who voted for Senator McCain in 2008 indicated that they would not vote for President Obama in the 2012 election. In other words, respondents’ voting preferences remained stable, and more than two-thirds of ‘pro’-gun individuals liked and continue to like President Obama.

Why should gun owners approve of President Obama? As suggested by some of their open-ended comments describing the President’s position on the Second Amendment, ‘pro’-gun respondents offered a variety of remarks, a number of which were positive or neutral in tone: “a good president”; “a great president”; “fair and partial”; “clever”; “fairly neutral… he has other far more pressing priorities”; “he agrees with the right to bear arms”; “he believes people have the right to bear arms, but that there should be tighter controls on the process of buying firearms”; “flexible”; “friendly”; “he supports it”; and “he is in favor of gun ownership, but with some restrictions.” As one respondent wrote, it’s “hard to say in an election year. He has generally ignored gun legislation during his first term; if/when he enters a second term and has nothing to lose he might be more open to gun control bills. He’s certainly the least anti-gun Democratic president in recent memory.”

‘Pro’-gun respondents also wrote a number of anti-Obama comments with regards to his Second Amendment stance: “against but pretending to be weakly for”; “he is anti-Second Amendment”; “he’s against it”; “he doesn’t want regular citizens to own guns”; and “he gives it lip service to maintain some votes in pro-gun states but he would abolish the amendment if he could.”

Conclusion

            So what’s the bottom line? Data from this study show that gun owners appear to favor President Obama as much as non-gun owners do. The NRA was perhaps wasting its effort by trying to scare members into voting for Mitt Romney. As one respondent (and gun owner) wrote, there are more important things to worry about.

References

Defeat obama fact sheet: Ten things every gun owner must know about barack obama. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gunbanobama.com/media/9506581/pvf_204_obamafactsheet_insert.pdf.  

Gabriel, T.  (2012). Obama and Romney Do Not Change Course Over Outcry on Gun Violence. New York Times, July 23^rd. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/politics/obama-and-romney-dont-heed-new-call-for-gun-laws.html?_r=0.

Jonsson, P. (2011). How Mexican killers got US guns from 'Fast and Furious' operation. The Christian Science Monitor, July 26^th.  Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0726/How-Mexican-killers-got-US-guns-from-Fast-and-Furious-operation

Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long term persistence of adults' political predispositions. The Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1-28.

i Initially, the sampling plan was for one hundred (100) participants each to be randomly sampled by StudyResponse from three (3) stricter gun-law states (i.e., New York, New Jersey, and California); and from three (3) non-strict gun-law states (i.e., Florida, Colorado, and Virginia), for a total sample size of approximately 600 individuals. Target states to sample were selected by the Investigator based on ratings from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which scores states on various factors like gun dealer regulations, limits on bulk purchases, crime gun ID, reporting of lost or stolen guns, universal background checks, permit required to purchase, assault weapon bans, closed gun show loopholes, and large capacity magazine restrictions. Higher scores = stricter state gun laws. New Jersey scores a 72 out of 100, NY a 62 out of 100, and California an 80 out of 100. By comparison, Virginia scores a 16 out of 100, Colorado scores a 15, and Florida scores a 5.

ii Notes about Table 1: The total sample size for the 2008 data is n=412 respondents.  The 2008 data were filtered for those individuals who voted for either Obama or McCain in 2008. Non-voters in 2008 were excluded (n=173), as were 12 individuals who voted for a candidate other than Obama or McCain. Also, 11 individuals who did not answer the survey question about their current or past gun ownership were filtered out.  The total sample size for the 2012 data is 594. The 11 individuals who did not answer the survey question about their current or past firearm ownership were excluded from the analyses of the 2012 data. The chi square statistics for both years were non-statistically significant, indicating no difference in voting behavior by gun ownership status.

iii Notes about Table 2: The sample size for this analysis is n=229. The data were filtered for individuals with current or past gun ownership, or who live in a gun-owning household; as well as or those individuals who voted for either Obama or McCain in 2008.  Non-voters in 2008 were excluded (n=173), as were 12 individuals who voted for a candidate other than Obama or McCain in 2008.