April is Sexual Assault Awareness (and Prevention) Month.  This one’s for you, aimed first at girls going away to college. But it’s really applicable for anyone moving out-of-state.  Or who doesn’t know their state’s rape laws.

Laws around crime, in this case sexual assault, differ state by state.  Maybe you already knew that, but I’m surprised by how many of my students did not.

Rape laws vary across the country. Most law around crime is in a state’s domain, the federal government only claims an interest in specific and limited situations.

So if you’re moving — or will be attending school — out-of-state, you should educate yourself.  If you’re not off to college or moving, do you know something about the rape laws where you live?

I’ve been telling teens this in my Off to College classes for several years. It came to the top of my attention a couple of weeks ago thanks to this article in the Washington Post. A man’s conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Their ruling centered around state law that defined a victim as being “mentally incapacitated” due to too much alcohol or drugs ONLY if said alcohol or drugs were administered without her knowledge. In this particular case, the victim had drank a lot before, went to a “party” that really wasn’t, passed out, and woke up to find the “host” engaging in sex with her. She told him she didn’t want to have sex, but he insisted and continued, and she again lost consciousness.

The Supreme Court ruled that because the woman had drank beforehand, she was not “mentally incapacitated” according to the law’s definition. And, according to this article, most states in this country have similar laws.

This reminded me of another article I’d read a few years ago. In North Carolina there was this “right to finish,” where you could not change your mind about engaging in sex after you began, even if the other person began getting violent or abusive. Fortunately, it’s been changed — after being on the books for about 40 years.

Back to Minnesota. If the rape law is that clear, why was the defendant originally convicted, and the conviction upheld by an appeals court? I’m not an attorney, don’t play one on TV, and certainly not a law expert. However, I did find a very useful resource. RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) has a webpage that summarizes state sex crimes definitions and penalties. I looked up Minnesota. I have to restate that I know nothing about the case other than what I read in the article in WaPo. And there is another definition under third-degree criminal sexual conduct: physically helpless. One of the characteristics of physically helpless is being “not conscious.” Which, according to the article, this victim was.

I cannot say if the lower courts were relying on one definition in the law, and the Supreme Court chose a different definition to take priority. If so, that is an issue of power, of which ruling body has the power to take possibly contradictory sections of law and decide whose view prevails.

My advice to girls (and boys) off to college: get familiar with the law of that state (check on the RAINN site). And don’t count on it to be obvious.

Stay safe, live life.

Last night Kiro 7 News had a story of a 14 year old girl who fought off a potential rapist. She was walking from her bus stop when a guy grabbed her and tried to drag her off. She fought back, and she won!

Kiro 7 interviewed several people on the street for the version they broadcast last night. Most expressed concern and fear about the attack. Two of the comments are more noteworthy.

One was from a woman who stated she was glad the girl was able to fight off the assailant, BUT not everyone would be able to do that. She’s right. Not everyone can, BUT I’ll bet she’d be surprised how many women really can fight back with really simple techniques (BTW, several of my five week self-defense courses are just about to begin, if you want to learn those skills). It dismays me when women just write off the possibility.

The second noteworthy comment was the very last one. “What was a 14 year old girl doing out at 1:00 in the morning?” Indeed, that was often brought up by some of the online comments from viewers. That may be a good question for her parents, but it in no way, shape, or form lessens the responsibility of the attacker for his actions. Regardless of why she was out, the attacker should be brought to account for his misdeeds.

The report rape for sexual assault is already too low (somewhere between 15 and 30% are reported to law enforcement). Women and girls who are targeted are less likely to report if it includes getting scolded by the “well-meaning but clueless” brigade. So I wag my finger at Kiro 7 News for not only including that comment, but making it the very final statement on air.

Anne Munch has certainly seen her share of rape cases. A prosecutor for the state of Colorado, she  she spoke to a full auditorium at the University of Washington on October 19, 2012, about the all-too-often occurrence of victim blaming in sexual assault.

First she asked the men in the audience what they did on a daily or weekly basis to avoid rape – there was dead silence. “Nothing, right?” Same question to the women and answers popcorned out: go to parties with friends, carry pepper spray, don’t walk alone at night . . . Ms. Munch asked the guys, “Did you know women – your sisters – think like this?” You could almost hear jaws dropping.

Only a short while into her career as a prosecutor, Munch realized that in addition to the victim and the accused, there was always a 3rd party in any rape case, which she dubbed The Unnamed Conspirator.  It’s a petri dish for enabling predators, made up of societal attitudes towards rape victims and women in general. And it is these overall societal attitudes that guide police and prosecutors, judges and juries, in determining how to let the vast majority of rapists off the hook.

[Note: this concept has been around a long, long time. At least 3 or 4 decades. It’s generally called “rape culture.”]

Munch cited 2 cases from Colorado that she had worked on.  Both cases had incredible amounts of physical evidence and no indication whatsoever that the women had consented to sexual activity.

In the the first case, three out of 12 jurors would not vote to convict. The Unnamed Conspirator likes safety “rules”, and the victim had broken a biggie. One of these societal “rules” is that if you don’t go out alone at night you won’t get raped. This survivor had ventured out, all by herself, at 9 pm in a small resort town to get a slice of pizza. Uh-oh. The Unnamed Conspirator: “She should never have been walking alone at night.” Hence three women on the jury refused to vote guilty, even though the defendant’s culpability was clear.

Munch believes the way to negate The Unnamed Conspirator is through education, which is why she now travels around the world speaking, training, and consulting on sexual assault and domestic violence cases.  The two most pervasive and insidious myths she works to banish are:

  1. Sexual assault can be prevented by following a large and highly restricting list of “rules” (one of which was referred to above), and
  2. Men cannot control themselves (so women become responsible for some men’s actions).

Let’s return to the Real World, where neither of the above “rules” are true. Vulnerability by itself means nothing. It’s only significant when someone tries to take advantage of it. In other words, the only person responsible for a rape is the rapist.

In every self-defense class I teach, you will not be getting those “laundry lists” of people and places to avoid, activities to not engage in, or limiting dress codes.  Because they do not work — they do not keep you safer.

And the second Colorado case – it had a pile of evidence as high as the Rocky Mountains but never came to trial. The accused’s name was Kobe Bryant. Celebrities will rarely be held accountable for bad behavior (and that’s a whole ‘nuther blog post).