Suppose that after much planning I went to an expensive party where I knew the host, flashed $50 bills and bragged about my generosity, got hammered and left minus $200.
Would you assume that I had been mugged? And if it turned out that I had voluntarily given the host my money and later regretted it, would it be a sad day for anyone other than me? I doubt it.
The editors are right when they said two weeks ago [“La Salle Disgrace,” Nov. 8] that rape victims are treated skeptically and that rapists sometimes walk free. But they need to do a better job of choosing their battles.
If a woman’s viewpoint is needed in rape cases, then you could not ask for a much more favorable set of circumstances than the girl who accused two La Salle basketball players had. Nine of the 12 jurors were women.
Even if the men had all decided that she was lying, they would be well short of a majority, let alone the unanimous decision required in any criminal case. But the jury still ruled that there was not enough evidence to convict the men of rape-not that the girl deserved what she got (which assumes the men are guilty before the trial even starts), as the editors repeatedly said.
While some women’s lives have been ruined because of acquittals in rape cases, the editors ignored the effect that a false accusation could have on the real victims. Mike Cleaves and Gary Neal are no longer enrolled at La Salle.
Neal might currently be mentioned as an All-America candidate and future NBA star if he was still in school. Both could be on the way to degrees.
But none of this seems particularly likely now. Yes, their actions ruined La Salle’s image and a girl’s reputation. But is protecting the rights of the accused worth sacrificing the futures of those who are not guilty? I doubt it.
– Daniel Leeds
Senior
Math and Greek, Hebew and Roman Classics
Be the first to comment