Don't let objectivity overshadow sympathy
Babu Kaza
Law student
I might ask why Todd Mobley felt the need to submit his April 19 letter ("View rape discussion fairly") considering his point was already adequately stated by Memo Tijerna: that people should be "innocent until proven guilty." A valid point, although somewhat obvious. Yes, there is a presumption of innocence in this country. However, it is unfortunate that it did not occur to either writer that Erin Kennedy's April 16 letter was a letter of sympathy and support and not necessarily an objective argument.
Suppose you have a child who may have an incurable disease, and you have to wait 3 weeks for the test results to prove whether or not your child has it. Is that the time for a friend to say, "Well, I have to reserve judgment on your kid's future until after the test results?" Or is that when the friend should say, "Don't worry, I believe everything will be OK, your kid is going to be fine?" Even if the chances of the child being fine are 30 percent, that is not what the parent needs to hear from a friend, no matter how logical such a statement may be (though they may need to hear it from a doctor). There is a time for support, and there is a time for debate. I took Erin Kennedy's letter to be one of public support, not a call to remove the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence is important in our legal system, but it has limited applications in everyday existence. Suppose your roommate comes back from Heartland one night and says that he was mugged, and as a result he is really shaken up. Do you tell him that since you don't know the facts you can't really say anything supportive? Do you instead say that because of the presumption of innocence you have to assume that he made up the whole story? (But, of course, as soon as you get the facts then you'll make your conclusion and tell him how sorry you are that he was mugged.)
An abstract legal standard shouldn't prevent people from showing each other compassion or trust, neither of which need to be or should be defended logically. Doesn't saying that you trust someone necessarily mean that you support them in the absence of full knowledge of a situation?
There is a time and a place for everything. In a court of law or hearing it is a time for standards of law and debate, in everyday life it is a time for compassion and support. Saying that you believe someone and trust them when they are going through a difficult time is invaluable. Even if this were all an incredible fabrication, it would still be heartless to say that the alleged victim doesn't deserve any public compassion. In the latter instance she would still be going through a difficult time period, as would the accused.
Finally, I might address Todd Mobley's assertion that if any student "quickly draws a conclusion" in this case, then that would be "nearly as damaging as the supposed incident itself." Thus, according to Mobley, if I were to draw a quick conclusion in this case, then the damage I cause would be comparable to the damage someone experiences when they are gang raped.
It is most unfortunate that Mobley so casually trivializes the long-lasting emotional, psychological and physical trauma of rape, let alone an alleged gang rape. I will assume that in his exuberance to write a letter to the editor he wasn't thinking properly when he proposed that an intellectual "conclusion" someone may make is "nearly as damaging" as a brutal physical violation. Otherwise, I would have to say that his statement skirts the border somewhere between asinine and gutless.
Babu Kaza
Law student
April 21, 2002
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, April 23, 2002
