By Guest Blogger Grace Starling
Rape isn’t a partisan issue.
No one ever considered rape victims when writing House Bill 51, and that is dangerous for every Georgia citizen. HB 51 — the campus rape cover-up bill — which passed the Georgia House of Representatives last week, is a clear example of egregiously biased and shoddy legislation. The bill requires a university to report all felonies that occur on a college campus or by a student enrolled in that institution to law enforcement.
To be clear, requiring a university to report a rape without the consent of the victim is a violation of a survivor’s autonomy and self-control. It further exposes them to a system that they may have never asked to be exposed to. This is unacceptable. Not only could this further traumatize victims, it may actually prevent people who have been raped from coming forward and seeking the necessary support system in place to allow them to complete their college education.
The campus rape cover-up bill would prevent students who have been raped from coming forward while create a haven for students who rape. According to the revised bill, the school may only take disciplinary action once there is a hearing affording due process to the accused student, but this bill was not created to ensure equal access to education for all Georgia students.
If this bill actually defined what “due process” means on college campuses, taking into account all parties who would be affected, I might believe that was well-intentioned, written with the intent to prevent rape on campus and prevent false accusations. But this bill does not do that, and it was never meant to help all parties.
When the sponsors argue that this is well-intentioned legislation, look at the first version of the bill. Notice that in the first version, every single employee on a college campus in Georgia was required to report a felony — even doctors, nurses or counselors – employees on campus who survivors should be able to confide in for their physical and mental safety.
When I met Rep. Earl Ehrhart, the sponsor of the bill and subcommittee chairman of Appropriations for Higher Education, before the first hearing, he told me that too many students’ professional lives are ruined because of false rape allegations. He told me, after I told him that I was raped in college, that he hadn’t considered that a survivor would not be able to talk to a counselor on campus or a doctor who may perform their exam without initiating a police investigation. He told me that he had never considered including code sections that would ensure compliance with federal laws like HIPAA. And let me tell you how a first-year law student had to continually fight the problematic language that the sponsors chose to use, including attorney Rep. Regina Quick.
More puzzling, Ehrhart said in Rules Committee that this bill was about “due process on our campuses and reallocating funds to sexual assault prevention.” The words or derivatives of the words “reallocating,” “funds,” or “sexual assault prevention” are found nowhere in the bill or in the budget for fiscal year 2018.
It makes little sense that a bill with no language about funding would be placed in the sub-committee that the lead sponsor of the bill chairs, instead of Judiciary committee, where it has been rightly placed in the Georgia Senate. In Ehrhart’s committee, supporters of the bill invited by him, told committee members that being raped and being accused of rape are equally as traumatic.
The same bill supporter also gave the blatantly false statistics that 40 percent of rape accusations are false when studies show that, at most, 8 percent of rape allegations are false. In that same meeting, Chairman Ehrhart reminded us that the Capitol is a “macro-aggressive environment” and that if survivors feel triggered, “go trigger somewhere else.” At that moment, I realized this bill was never written with rape survivors in mind, and no amount of slightly altered substitute bills could ever fix the damage that the campus rape cover-up bill was intended to cause, has already caused and will continue to cause.
Legislative intent matters here. We cannot forget that HB 51 was written to silence survivors. The sponsors’ actions must be considered as our legislators move forward on this. By creating legislation that causes very real damage to rape victims and then asking those very people to make the bill something they could “live with,” sponsors have shown a clear indication for which party they believe is the priority in crafting this bill. And let me say this – if you expect me to live with legislation that was always intended to silence me as a survivor after you’ve told me that I am not welcome in this Capitol if I am going to be triggered, then, honestly, you have sorely underestimated the strength behind this opposition – Georgia students and survivors. We all deserve better, and frankly, we demand it.
Ga. lawmakers: Do not make rape victims “live with” legislation that was written to protect those accused of rape.
Take action at bettergeorgia.org/campusrape.
I stand firmly behind my statements made to the committee. The psychological trauma of being falsely accused is not unlike that of being raped – there is post-traumatic stress disorder for a lot of these victims of false accusations, difficulties opening up and trusting someone enough to have a relationship, etc. I know these young men and their families, so I have seen this firsthand. I urge you to think of others’ feelings, not just your own.
Further, there is indeed a study that says that 40% of the allegations in that sample were false. You did not even ask me to cite the study, you were not at all interested in hearing the peer-reviewed science that I submitted, because it did not fit your agenda, your predetermined narrative that denies that anyone else has feelings and that anyone else has rights.
By the way, the citation is:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81(12). False rape allegations. Eugene J. Kanin.
And you complain when Mr. Ehrhart demanded order when you were being disruptive – not once, not twice, but three times? He was generous to you. If I had been the Chairman you would have been thrown out. I was quiet and respectful when it was your side’s turn to talk – I think that I should be entitled to the same courtesy. Your side said things I disagreed with, yet I was mature and able to keep my composure until it was my turn, and then say my side of it. This is called maturity.
I believe in the concept of due process for all. I do not believe that every accusation should automatically be believed, because that turns the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. Rather, as federal Judge Saylor observed, whether or not a person is a victim is something to be decided only after a fair due process hearing, not assumed beforehand.
I encourage all lawyers and future lawyers, and really everyone, to remember the words innocent until proven guilty. Remember the words due process. Remember that the true goal should be to get at the truth, not always just to get a conviction. Remember that others have feelings and have rights too.
I encourage anyone reading this comment to do the following. Read the study that’s cited by Mr. Jones. Read the studies that the Against side cites through organizations such as RAINN. And come to your own conclusions. There is a reason why most survivor programs who assist victims generally dispute 40% claim. Look at the “peers” who reviewed it. As someone who works in research, it’s no secret that data can be biased and tell a misleading story. Be sure to check that out. Don’t depend on me or anyone else. Go research it and see for yourself.
Be sure to view the incident that Mr. Jones talks about. See for yourself how courteous and respectful Rep. Ehrhart was when he told a room full of rape survivors to “trigger somewhere else”. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. See for yourself.
Lastly, look up the Board of Regents policy for yourself. Take a look. Is it written to “automatically assume” that all accused are guilty. I think that you’ll find that this policy, which by the way was written by Representative Ehrhart less than a year ago, has some fair provisions about due process already. Take a look for yourself. Don’t take my or anyone else’s word for it. Policy 4.1.7. http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/C327/
I do want to acknowledge in all fairness that the Board of Regents policy has come a long way from what it once was – particularly allowing attorneys, et cetera. But it still does not bring the hearing up to the level of due process that would be expected in the criminal justice system, NOR does it apply to private colleges that receive State funds.
For example, it still retains the “preponderance of the evidence” standard – meaning that a man can be expelled if it is just “more likely than not” that he did it. Second, it only allows cross-examination through an intermediary, who may decline to ask questions that he does not think are appropriate. Finally, it does not require use of the rules of evidence, such as rules against hearsay, best evidence rule, etc.
Charles. Both sides have feelings. False accusation and rape are both crimes with victims. HB51 is written to separate rape victims from false accusation. The Representatives have backed a bad bill and are trying to find a path forward that doesn’t improve the safety on campuses fir victims: false accusation or the rape victims.
There are better solutions than this bad law. If better due process is the goal than the law should help both sides including g the majority of rape victims. Rape is greatly undereported. Two party validation reporting solutions exist that dramatically reduce false accusations and increase Accurate rape reporting.
Rep Ehrhart and the commission have created a bad bill that pits false accusations against st rape victim due process. Although you feel strongly that HB51 helps with false accusations the point that it hurts rape victims by not helping them may be hard to see.
Regardless, HB51 is a poorly crafter, maybe well-I tw ruined bill. But as written it does not accomplish the goal for all – Accurate reporting, increased safety and due process for all parties. Writing this bill in the name of due process is misguided. This bill is harmful.
Come together and improve the lives of all victims. HB51 divides and harms much more than it helps. There are better solutions that work for all. HB51 needs to stop separating the world into good and bad, faslse accusation and rape victim. HN51 presents a false choice. The logic is bad and the result of passing HB51 is an unintended consequence. As hard as it may be to do in the hyperbolic world of politics, HB51 should be tabled and safety on our campuses addressed together as one.
Bad bill. Bad consequences.
With all due respect, the source you cited for false rape allegations had n=109, which is incredibly small when studying cultural phenomenon.
The FBI crime index puts the “false or baseless” report of rape at around 8%.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
You are correct. In reviewing the matter I tend to believe that the 40% number is a little high, for various reasons. I actually really like this article, which criticizes both the 40% number, the 2% nonsense (that Mrs. Starling – Grace’s mother – claimed to me personally after the first subcommittee hearing), and the 8% number from the FBI: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false
The real figure is probably somewhere in the middle. For example, Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project estimates about 20%, of kits that were analyzed by the FBI. Even so, the justice system is meant to protect the one. We would never allow a prosecutor to say to a jury “Only x% of the armed robbery reports in this state are false, so you should therefore convict the defendant of armed robbery.” In a real justice system, the rights of everyone – no matter how small a minority – are protected.
I believe I quoted 2-8 percent. You however quoted 40 percent of sexual assaults were false with tremendous confidence and conviction. So I believe you really believe it.
I believe I quoted 2-8 percent. You however quoted 40 percent of sexual assaults were false with tremendous confidence and conviction. I am glad you now believe it is probably about half of what you quoted at the committee meeting. Your false testimony was what caused the room to react by coughing and laughing.
Hello Mrs. Starling, nice to hear from you again! I understand that you disagreed with my statement. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable. Disruption is not. Mature people (keeping in mind that age does not necessarily equal maturity though there may be some correlation) can disagree and discuss things instead of jeering and laughing and behaving like infants.
If you disagree with what I say, the following is only one of countless examples of how a mature conversation about it might go:
FS: “Hi Charles, how are you?”
Me: “Fine, thank you, how are you?”
FS: “Well, I respectfully disagreed with your statement about 40% of the allegations being false. Would you mind sharing with me where you got that?”
Me: “Certainly! That number comes from the Kanin study, cited here. Admittedly it is an old study, and there are some others that criticize it. But I certainly think that false accusations are more common than the 2% you cited a few weeks ago.”
FS: “Why is that?”
Me: “Well, the 2% number was not really researched – it was a comment made by one judge in one area of New York. Really, I see that as more of an anecdote, not research. The Kanin study was actually peer-reviewed.”
(etc etc etc)
See, that is an example of a mature conversation that doesn’t involve accusing the other side, or ridiculing, or booing or jeering or disrupting or anything. Just two people who don’t agree talking it out.
Hi Charles! I believe we met briefly at the hearing. It’s always great to hear alternate views because it creates interesting discourse that sometimes forces people to look outside of their respective echo chambers. However, during the hearing, I was shaken by your comments about sexual assault allegations being worse for the accused rather than the victim. That is the equivalent of saying “I know this person got stabbed but the person who did the stabbing saw so much blood and that was like, really traumatizing for them. Protect all stabbers’ feelings 2017”
Now let me take a look at your study which you cited, it has constantly been criticized for its small sample size and lack of scrutiny over the police processes (such as their use of the lie detector?). If I read understand your source correctly, thank you for actually listing it this time, any drop of claims was recorded as a false accusation even if there was no evidence as such. Seems to be jumping the shark am I right? It also states that “typically responsible for unfounded declarations are victim’s late reporting to the police, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of cooperation by the victim etc”. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Rape kits or how the science behind them works but I’ll explain it anyway. Biological evidence wrought in or on the body dissolves over an extremely short period of time. DNA evidence must be collected within 72 hours in order to get a viable kit done. The victim may not shower, change clothing or urinate because the evidence is *that* delicate. If you are violently raped this is typically not the first thing on your mind. When I was assaulted I spent an entire day in my dorm room shower. I later got new sheets because the color made me physically sick to look at. When I became an advocate I learned that even if I wanted a kit done I would have had to drive an hour and a half from my college town to gain access to a SANE (rape kit capable) trained nurse. I was so shaken that my 72 hours went by so quickly that I would not have stood a chance in any kind of courtroom. Here’s a Times article about how invasive this process is http://time.com/3001467/heres-what-happens-when-you-get-a-rape-kit-exam/
Furthermore, I appreciate your concern with due process in the state of Georgia but this bill doesn’t address how we would even the playing field for survivors of sexual assault in a courtroom. Instead it, like you, relies on a report that lumps false reporting into the same category as people who do not want to go forward with their case because they realize that they can’t get justice because all of the cards are stacked against them. Telling a shellshocked survivor who is usually suffering from PTSD (which is a common thing to happen to survivors as well as suicidal tendencies, here’s a source that talks about the emotional trauma http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.936.9223&rep=rep1&type=pdf ) that they must recount their assault multiple times to different strangers. How absolutely stressful and grueling that process is.
If you were truly interested in due process I would suggest that you invest your time and energy into expanding what is considered rape in the state of Georgia (it can technically only happen when a penis enters a vagina) or drafting legislation that might allow precincts more funding to have better access to resources (like SANE trained nurses) and trainings for investigators that know how to investigate assaults.
Again about your source, proper scientific studies are usually done on a larger scale and with more vigourous checkings of process. If you’re interested in reading more about how to conduct a proper sociological study I suggest you look at this. It breaks it down quite simply and includes the basics of the scientific process.
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter2-sociological-research/
If you’re interested in expanding your viewpoint on this issue I urge you to look into David Lisak’s study “Violence Against Women” I have attached a link as it breaks down why people do not move forward with reporting and why victims do not feel like their case will break any ground.
http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf
For fun here’s a study that debased the viability in relying on lie detectors https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/1 and I know this is a lot of reading so here’s a more skimmable article http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work and if you’re completely worn out after reading all of the sources I’ve listed above please refer to this Adam Ruins Everything Video on Youtube about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDMoGjKvNk
Hi Liz! It was great to meet you at the hearing and thank you for your thoughtful comment! But respectfully I have to correct a few things. It really does seem that in discussions like this people hear what they want to hear – or rather, what they don’t want to hear so that they can demonize the other side for “saying” it.
First, I did not say that the falsely accused suffer “worse” trauma than rape victims. I said that the psychological trauma suffered by the falsely accused, who suddenly find themselves guilty until proven innocent with no way to prove themselves innocent, is “not unlike” the trauma suffered by rape victims. And I detailed some of it in my initial comment here – PTSD, etc.
Secondly, I think your analogy regarding the stabbing is not on point because you assume that it deals with “the person who did the stabbing.” I, on the other hand, am concerned about the victims of false allegations – someone who did NOT commit rape or sexual assault but was accused. I think, therefore, that the more apt analogy would be to someone who was accused or convicted of a crime and then later exonerated. Such as Reade Seligmann of Duke Lacrosse, whose testimony at the disbarment hearing of disgraced former District Attorney Michael Nifong can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeTM1g3xsjo Or Brian Banks, or that guy from Making A Murderer whose name I cannot recall at this time.
Our justice system – the real justice system that is, not the campus kangaroo courts – is supposed to be difficult to get a conviction. That’s the way it should be. Because in this country we believe in innocent until proven guilty. That’s why we have “thorough and sifting cross-examination,” to attack the accuser’s credibility and determine if she is telling the truth or not. That’s why we don’t punish someone unless the evidence establishes “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they did it. We have set it up this way not because we lawyers enjoy tormenting people, it’s because that’s how we get at the truth. Without these systems in place, the title of the Duke Lacrosse coach’s book says it exactly: “It’s Not About The Truth.”
I still think it should be about the truth. Not about just believing an accuser, to score political points or keep the federal dollars flowing in. It should be about the truth. And in the campus court setting, it’s not.
Further, it is important to understand that the difficulties of the criminal justice process – having to tell and retell the story, having to be cross examined, etc., are what ALL crime accusers go through. Someone who has been mugged, or beaten up, or whatever. The deck is not stacked against rape accusers, they are just treated like everyone else – who has to PROVE that they are telling the truth. Not just be believed because they say so.