I'm the only one

[TennesseeJet]

I blame Bill Cosby for this.

 

[Boca Vol]

Just out of curiousity, how would this be made into something the federal courts would hear?

Because this is about UT football, man! It's a really big deal.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

Who knew that Vol Nation had so many Amnesty International members?

I am impressed.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

God forbid somebody miss a football game while things get sorted out.

Suspension equals criminal prosecution for a number of posters it seems.

What no one wants to consider is if Johnson and Williams are convicted.

How does the football program look if they let convicted sex offenders play out the season?

It's an ugly situation all the way around.

Hart and Jones have no choice in the matter from a perception standpoint than to suspend them.

If the charges are dropped, it doesn't matter. The reputations of the players are already tarnished.

If the charges stick, then the players committed unforgiveable crimes against women who will be just as tarnished emotionally.

 

[bamawriter]

I think if AJ is innocent, he should be able to sue the accused for damages to his reputation and his career.

If he's innocent, he has the right to do just that.

 

[biggestvols]

That is a very valid statement except for this...are you the one accused? The accused has the right to confront and cross examine the accuser; not a group of rabid football fans. None of us have the right to know any of the details concerning this or any other criminal case that doesn't directly involve us. I will agree, however, that all parties should remain anonymous during an investigation. I hope that AJ and Mike Williams are innocent, but that is not my "right" to decide.

I am sorry sir but that is incorrect. We have a RIGHT to sit in that Courtroom and listen to every single word of testimony. We have a RIGHT to have the press sit in the courtroom and listen to every word of testimony. That right can only be infringed upon in very limited and specific circumstances. In America we don't convict people based on secret testimony. They tried that in England, it did not go well.

...we were not offsides.

 

[volbrawler]

I am sorry sir but that is incorrect. We have a RIGHT to sit in that Courtroom and listen to every single word of testimony. We have a RIGHT to have the press sit in the courtroom and listen to every word of testimony. That right can only be infringed upon in very limited and specific circumstances. In America we don't convict people based on secret testimony. They tried that in England, it did not go well.

...we were not offsides.

True. Why do these guys you think courtrooms have so many seats? So the plaintiff and defendant can handpick who they want to watch the trial?

 

[daj2576]

Because this is about UT football, man! It's a really big deal.

Lol

As David Keith said "It's the most important, unimportant thing in the world."

Or something like that.

 

[TreeGreen]

The reason we have rape shield laws is because of threads like this. Too many people on here would just love to get the young lady's name and then pretend that her past sexual activities are somehow relevant to whether or not you can claim rape.

Lawmakers realized victims of sexual assault and rape were routinely humiliated and embarrassed leading to most people never even bothering to report the crime. Victims continue to not bother reporting rape/sexual assault even with the shield law because unlike the victim of any other crime in existence, rape victims have their credibility questioned almost immediately.

So, you can sit around and pretend it's not fair, or whatever the argument is, but the character, morality, and sexual history of a victim is largely irrelevant to a sex crime trial. Often times that argument is presented because men feel the law is somehow prejudiced, but considering a male rape victim gets the same protection no court sees it that way.

*Edit: It's also a bit of a stretch to think the reputations of the players are in harm if evidence of the complainant's bias or an alternative motive to fabricate the charge of rape comes out.

 

[daj2576]

The reason we have rape shield laws is because of threads like this. Too many people on here would just love to get the young lady's name and then pretend that her past sexual activities are somehow relevant to whether or not you can claim rape.

Lawmakers realized victims of sexual assault and rape were routinely humiliated and embarrassed leading to most people never even bothering to report the crime. Victims continue to not bother reporting rape/sexual assault even with the shield law because unlike the victim of any other crime in existence, rape victims have their credibility questioned almost immediately.

So, you can sit around and pretend it's not fair, or whatever the argument is, but the character, morality, and sexual history of a victim is largely irrelevant to a sex crime trial. Often times that argument is presented because men feel the law is somehow prejudiced, but considering a male rape victim gets the same protection no court sees it that way.

*Edit: It's also a bit of a stretch to think the reputations of the players are in harm if evidence of the complainant's bias or an alternative motive to fabricate the charge of rape comes out.

Do you have an issue with allowing the defendant in rape cases the same sort of protection from media and public scrutiny that are allowed the victim?

 

[oregonvol]

You know, I've always had a tendency to roll my eyes whenever a feminist goes on and on about "rape culture" and how folks seek to excuse sexual assaults or attempt to persecute the victim or otherwise intimidate them from coming forward. And then I come here, and I see that they have a point.

Some of you guys need to put down the internet and take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourselves if this is really the person you want to be.

 

[TreeGreen]

Do you have an issue with allowing the defendant in rape cases the same sort of protection from media and public scrutiny that are allowed the victim?

Defendants don't get the luxury when they allegedly commit other crimes so not sure why they'd get it here. No one bats an eye when a person is named as a baby abuser, pedophile, or murderer. Regardless of their innocence.

It'd also make the job of the police that much more difficult because it would interfere with the investigation in various ways. For example, they wouldn't be able to solicit other complainants to come forward. Or, to let people know that a potentially dangerous rapist was on the loose. Shield laws are used to encourage complainants to use the courts, and that clearly has no application to defendants.

In any event, like I said in my edit. The public tends to immediately absolve someone of rape/sexual assault the second the accuser drops charges or evidence proves their innocence. The first is kind of problematic because withdrawing charges is pretty common. Not because the person was falsely accused, but because it is fairly evident that the deck is stacked against the complainant.