home > archive > 2007 > this article


Search this site Search WWW

Federally mandated lynching: The lacrosse rape case

By Bruce Walker
web posted January 22, 2007

In considering the ethical obscenity of the Duke Lacrosse Rape-Lynching, it is important not only to consider the crimes of Mike Nifong, both moral and legal, but also the crimes, both moral and legal, of the federal government in its notorious "advocacy" role. The 1994 Crime Bill under Bill Clinton included the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.)  This program was always flawed.  Funds provided under the program, for example, could not be used to help male victims of violent crime – in spite of the fact that the majority of victims of violent crime are male.

But this sort of consistent, petty bigotry against men has proven to be just the tip of the iceberg.  This "advocacy" program began putting in conditions that were calculated to prevent serious investigation about whether or not rape actually occurred.  The operative language is found in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-8(b), which provides that in order for a state to be eligible for VAWA funds – and no state has yet declined these funds – that "the refusal of a victim to submit to a polygraph or truth telling examination shall not prevent the investigation, charging, or prosecution of an alleged sex offense by a state, Indian tribal government, territorial government, or unit of local government."

Mike NifongSo, according to federal law, Mike Nifong could not have asked the promiscuous and intoxicated stripper to submit to a polygraph test to see if she might be lying because North Carolina had accepted VAWA funds. Forget about whether she passed such a test or not:   Nifong could not even ask her to submit to a polygraph test. 

The federal requirements are even worse.  Not only can a North Carolina prosecutor not ask a promiscuous, intoxicated stripper who accuses some man of rape to submit to a polygraph test, but the prosecutor cannot even ask her to submit to a "truth telling examination."  Should not prosecutors, as part of their ethical duty to seek justice, always submit an alleged victim to some sort of "truth telling examination"?    How is the prosecutor supposed to determine whether a rape victim is lying or not without a "truth telling examination"?

But wait, it gets better…or worse.  This prohibition does not simply apply to prosecutors.  It applies to any "law enforcement officer, prosecuting officer or other government official."  That means that the police can not ask a woman who accuses a man of raping her to take a polygraph test.  The police cannot even ask her to submit to a "truth telling examination."  In order to make sure that everyone is covered, the law includes any "government official."  No watchdog in government is allowed to prevent the very abuses that Nifong has committed.

In other words, if a woman says that she is raped or has been a victim of sexual assault, the police, the prosecutor and everyone else – judges included – cannot make her take a polygraph or any other "truth telling examination."  Given the fact that consent is the heart of nearly every sex crimes and given the fact that about the only way to know whether an alleged victim gave consent or not is a "truth telling examination" of some sort, it is difficult to imagine any federal law more calculated to cause innocent men to be charged with crimes and convicted of crimes.

Moreover, by January 9, 2009, states must amend their laws to accommodate what is now a condition for states to receive federal VAWA funds.  States are being compelled to force police and prosecutors into committing more travesties like the Duke Lacrosse Rape-Lynching. 

An Innocent Man by John Grissom is a best seller – the horrifyingly true story of a man accused or a terrible crime who was completely innocent. How many innocent sons languish in prison today?  We may never know.  What we can know is this:  when the federal government begins to mandate that people by virtue of race or gender be presumed guilty or creates deliberate obstacles to innocent people being treating fairly, then we are not far from having the Ku Klux Klan reincarnated by federal mandate.

What can be done?  How about this:  some morally serious federal legislator introduction a bill to amend the "Violence Against Women Act" into the "Violence Against People Act;" provide even more funds for the serious investigation and prosecution of sex crimes, but make the finding of truth and justice paramount in this; provide the resources to catch and convict as many genuine sex offenders as possible, but also provide resources to punish those women who make false allegations of rape.  Do all we can to see that real justice is done – the guilty punished and the innocent left alone – but the only "advocacy" should be individual justice, not collective guilt. ESR

Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990.  He is a contributing editor to Enter Stage Right and a regular contributor to Conservative Truth, American Daily, Intellectual Conservative, Web Commentary, NewsByUs and Men's News Daily. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie by Outskirts Press was published in January 2006.

 

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

 

Home


 

Home

Site Map

E-mail ESR

Musings - ESR's blog

Submit to Digg



Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story



Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 

 

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.