Scott Bennett discussion thread

[CenturyDeprived]

It is absolutely incredible that this didn't make news earlier. I see it was technically listed online way back in December 2014, along with an original mug shot from the day of, as evidenced by this link:

http://www.regionalinquirer.com/news/oklahoma/man-jailed-on-multiple-counts/14650881.html

I just cannot imagine what this has been like, keeping it a secret internally and away from public eye while touring and such. The incident occurred apparently just days before the Las Vegas Soundstage performance on Dec 12, 2014, and on the night of what would have been Denny's 70th birthday oddly enough.

It is a truly tragic an awful situation. It honestly makes me physically sick to think about this entire thing. Lives ruined over a bafflingly terrible action.  I wish the very best for all involved, this whole thing is just nearly incomprehensible to me. Let's all try to have empathy for everyone affected.

[37!ws]

I'm still trying to come to grips with this. Especially that his lawyer insists he's innocent. Despite the video evidence and the DNA collected. All I can think of is this:

1) I'm guessing the video didn't have sound. I supposed one could always claim that it was consensual, especially as the victim didn't have any memory of that night at all,

and 2) given that Scott is married, even if it was 100% consensual and he's 100% innocent of *rape*, he's still an asshole.

And just to add to the creepiness...the woman was 4 years old when Scott started working with Brian.

[Jim V.]

Something's really been bothering me ever since this news broke, and it nagged at me enough to get up in the middle of the night and post about it.  I was reluctant to say anything because it could be so easily misconstrued as minimizing or excusing a terrible crime.  But I follow criminal cases from time to time and I also know a thing or two about how media shapes narrative - my background besides being a musician was working in newspapers, and in law offices.  And something's bugging me here.

First, I in no way condone the behavior and Scott was convicted in a court of law and that's that, at least pending appeal.  

But what's disturbing to me is how the damning the article seems to be, but when you read it very carefully (I did not catch on to this until the third reading), it's nearly entirely derived from police's and prosecuting attorneys' interpretation of what they're seeing on a video tape (the girl does not remember the encounter).  It's very carefully constructed to make Scott's behavior look as bad as possible.  Police said Scott "appear(ed) to be in complete control of his faculties" - but they can't know that, and it's a convenient assumption for them.  The video was characterized "very disturbing" - by the prosecuting attorney.  Scott dumped the girl "like a sack of trash" - again in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney.  Note also that the article counters the assertion that Scott had a sexual encounter with the girl in the room by saying that the woman's underwear was found in his room and DNA was found on her body.  It seems damning, but if you think about it, nothing about those facts actually make Scott a liar, since there's no question something happened in the hallway.  Just putting them together makes it sound like they do.

Now, look.  I've had many a drunken stupid debauched night on the road, so the 1 a.m. drunken return to the hotel room is all too easy to visualize - and what Scott did was unquestionably way over the line, stupid, and wrong.  So I am not in any way condoning the behavior or minimizing the trauma of rape or what the girl I'm sure felt the next day.  If you listen to my song "1 and 4" you'll know exactly how I feel about the topic.  But I also have strong feelings about how easily people can be ruined by a concerted media campaign and how quickly we all form opinions based on information that, when you look at it carefully, is designed to make us feel a certain way.

Scott without question showed spectacularly bad judgment and crossed lines he should have known better to cross even by the kindest reading of the facts at hand.  However, I'm very troubled as well by how the article comes across as totally damning when it's really just vary carefully constructed to give that impression.  To the extent Scott's side of the story is represented, it's by one quote from the attorney that sounds extremely flippant - but that's the one quote the reporter chose to put in the story.  I doubt that's all she said.

Scott may indeed be a monster and a total sexual predator.  I've never seen that side of him, myself, but everyone has a dark side, and the darker it is the better it's hidden.  However, I'm uncomfortable jumping to that conclusion based on this article, which is just very, very sneaky in how it portrays the case.  The fact that he was a visiting musician in a conservative part of the country means that he likely would get absolutely no sympathetic hearing at all if there were exculpatory factors in the case.  I'm sure some were presented at trial (or else why would they have gone to trail in the first place? If Scott was as dead to rights as portrayed here, one would have expected him to have pleaded out), but I'm not seeing them in this article.

What Scott has been convicted of is terrible.  I'm in no way trying to minimize it.  Just having followed various criminal stories and seeing how this kind of thing often plays out, and also having worked both inside the law and newspaper business, the set of facts that led to his arrest and conviction may not be quite as gross or clear-cut as they are made out to sound.  The way the article is written and the sources it favors give me serious pause.  Other than a couple of third hand things (which themselves may well have been spin on Scott's part), I don't know what Scott's side of the story is...but I'm tolerably sure it's not represented in this article.

I trust that everyone will understand that I'm not shilling for Scott -- who I barely know -- or trying to be an apologist for rape.  Just out of basic fairness, I just don't think it's right to make Scott out as the next Jeffrey Dahmer.  There's a reason this is shocking - past a certain point this absolutely heinous behavior does not seem to track what we know of the man.  Based on a very careful reading of the article, there might well be a reason for that.

It's a tragedy.  That much is for sure.

I get what you are saying Adam and I think you are one of the most rational posters on this board. I always look forward to seeing what you post....

However, I think you gloss over or forget to mention a few things....like him blocking her from getting out of the elevator. Maybe maybe maybe the context is all screwed up and it was a playful thing and she really didn't wanna get out. But from what we've read it sure doesn't seem that way (whether the article was somewhat biased against him or not).

[Don Malcolm]

I thought it would be pertinent to look at the statistics concerning rape so as to try to put to rest that portion of this discussion. Please understand that the following does not intend to dismiss or condone or in any way minimize the heinous nature of such acts, in general or in the specific case of Scott Bennett.

Current statistics for the USA indicate that the reported ratio of rapes is 3 in 1,000. I believe that this figure is artificially low for two reasons: 1) underreporting; 2) an inappropriate application of population size: the 1,000 denominator should be cut roughly in half to reflect the number of women.

When we make that change, the figure becomes 6 in 1,000 or 0.6%. The most reliable figures for rape ratios on college campuses (not using studies that produced the "1 in 5" figure, which were tainted by several unscientific elements of introduced bias, including inducing responses by offering $10 Amazon gift cards) is roughly twice the overall USA level, or 1.2%.

If we use a common rule of thumb that 75-80% of rapes are not reported, that means that there are least four times as many incidents than what is represented by the reported cases. That would mean that in the college environment, the likely percentage of women who have suffered such an experience is around 5%.

And in the context of violent crime rates, that really is itself a shockingly high incidence. If one examines the recent literature about rape statistics, one finds that Sweden has the highest rate per 1,000 population--but this is a reflection of Sweden's massive effort to have all rapes reported and to widen the definition of rape to minimize the grey areas that are often involved. Given all of this context, we can assume that Sweden's 6.6% rate represents a kind of ceiling for this statistic.

Again, none of this is in any way meant to minimize the catastrophic efforts of this heinous and hateful crime. Nor, of course, does it bear any relevance to the specific charges that have been upheld in court against Scott Bennett. As for those, I can say only that any man must always take into account the ability of a woman to say "no" before either initiating or continuing any type of sexual overtures. While Adam's point about the article containing sensationalistic elements is clearly correct, Scott Bennett clearly did not do what any morally responsible man should do when faced with someone whose faculties were impaired--which is to back off.

[Gerry]

This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.

Michael Edward Love

There ya go

[Cyncie]

This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.

I don't see people taking sides so much as trying to sort through how they feel about this. This is a person we've taken a great deal of interest in and had a great deal of admiration for. People are trying to sort through their responses.

To compare this discussion to the Mike vs. Brian bickering is a bit unfair, I think; especially since, no matter how they feel,  everyone seems to actually be on one side: the victim's.

[Emily]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

[Emily]

OK. I will try to stop talking about this. I just get really angry about this sort of stuff.

No. Thank you very much for commenting.

[Emily]

I thought it would be pertinent to look at the statistics concerning rape so as to try to put to rest that portion of this discussion. Please understand that the following does not intend to dismiss or condone or in any way minimize the heinous nature of such acts, in general or in the specific case of Scott Bennett.

Current statistics for the USA indicate that the reported ratio of rapes is 3 in 1,000. I believe that this figure is artificially low for two reasons: 1) underreporting; 2) an inappropriate application of population size: the 1,000 denominator should be cut roughly in half to reflect the number of women.

When we make that change, the figure becomes 6 in 1,000 or 0.6%. The most reliable figures for rape ratios on college campuses (not using studies that produced the "1 in 5" figure, which were tainted by several unscientific elements of introduced bias, including inducing responses by offering $10 Amazon gift cards) is roughly twice the overall USA level, or 1.2%.

If we use a common rule of thumb that 75-80% of rapes are not reported, that means that there are least four times as many incidents than what is represented by the reported cases. That would mean that in the college environment, the likely percentage of women who have suffered such an experience is around 5%.

And in the context of violent crime rates, that really is itself a shockingly high incidence. If one examines the recent literature about rape statistics, one finds that Sweden has the highest rate per 1,000 population--but this is a reflection of Sweden's massive effort to have all rapes reported and to widen the definition of rape to minimize the grey areas that are often involved. Given all of this context, we can assume that Sweden's 6.6% rate represents a kind of ceiling for this statistic.

Again, none of this is in any way meant to minimize the catastrophic efforts of this heinous and hateful crime. Nor, of course, does it bear any relevance to the specific charges that have been upheld in court against Scott Bennett. As for those, I can say only that any man must always take into account the ability of a woman to say "no" before either initiating or continuing any type of sexual overtures. While Adam's point about the article containing sensationalistic elements is clearly correct, Scott Bennett clearly did not do what any morally responsible man should do when faced with someone whose faculties were impaired--which is to back off.

The 1/5 statistic is about sexual assault, not rape. The debunking attempts always twist it to rape in order to falsely claim it's incorrect.
The United States does not have a uniform definition of rape nor a central agency that collects statistics so there is no way of knowing how many 'rapes' are reported. Where did you get your statistics?

[VanDykeParksAndRec]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

Trump has run for president before.

[Angua]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid. 

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.

 

[Angua]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

Trump has run for president before.

Hands up - you got me there.  I know virtually nothing about Trump and want to know less. :-)

[adamghost]

There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

[Cool Cool Water]

There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

Well said.

[Ang Jones]

There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

Well said.

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

[barsone]

Curious, was it the hotel security staff who called the police department ?  I imagine in a hotel this size, the security staff is monitoring a multitude of hotel  camera's just as they are also looking at the gaming tables.  Article mentions them in the elevator at 1am the morning of 12/5/14.  Then it mentions the police speaking with both Scott and the unnamed lady the next morning.  All just so sad on so many levels for all concerned.

Who knows where this goes in the hell lawsuits and lawyers.  Sad yes this couldn't be stopped real time by security.  Because the young lady doesn't recall the incident, I'm thankful that in 2014 we have this stuff is real time and apparently (though its unclear to me) the hotel called the local authorities.  Yes they did their job.....I'm just glad for her sake, they made the call.

[Cool Cool Water]

I wonder how Taylor Mills feels about this event, as herself and Scott were not only band mates but close friends. She must be disgusted I would imagine.

[mojoman3061]

I've just read this entire thread in one gulp.

This is awful.  Whoever said there are only losers in this situation is spot on.  I applaud Brian's remark about it and respect him for it.

I can't think of anything more to say that hasn't been said.  I'm glad we're all trying to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

[adamghost]

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

[Ang Jones]

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

Yes, of course I realised what you meant. It is awful to think of someone who is innocent of the charge suffering these consequences. I'm not suggesting full innocence because obviously there is no way this was a good way to behave.

[Don Malcolm]

Here is one of the more recent sources, Emily:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

I think a heated issue of this type, which quickly draws social and political battlelines, is something that can easily be swayed by definitional parsing. Clearly the incidence of inappropriate sexual advances is much higher than outright rape. Getting a precse handle on those figures is quite a bit murkier, however, because there is some unavoidable interpretive grey area in that terminology. The CDC's study, as noted in many media articles, is not definitive due to reasons already stated and there are massive problems in getting definitive data.

What I think is clear is that there is a still a lack of synthesis  between feminist critique and the dangerous social pressures placed on young women at virtually all college campuses around the USA. Reading Peggy Orenstein's GIRLS AND SEX will make that abundantly and harrowingly clear. That is why it's undeniable that rape/assault figures are much higher there than anywhere else, because so many triggering factors simply get slammed together. Whether it's actually as high as 1 in 5 is not an incontrovertible fact, but what's important for people to know is that even if it is 1 in 7 or 1 in 10, it is still a shocking statistic and needs more resources applied to the problem so that it can be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

I think Adam made an excellent point that those people who are convicted of these crimes are (quite justifiably) shamed for the rest of their lives. Our best bet for the future is to try to deal with these difficult issues prior to sending boys to college without a thorough grounding in proper conduct with regard to the opposite sex.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html

Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?

I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott was never part of the Pet Sounds 50 tour.  So I think they probably knew and let him go quietly.  It might be for a different reason but if not, it seems pretty convenient.  If the press got a hold of this while he was part of the tour, it would reflect on the whole band and on Brian and that's not something anybody would want, including Scott probably.

[adamghost]

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

Yes, of course I realised what you meant. It is awful to think of someone who is innocent of the charge suffering these consequences. I'm not suggesting full innocence because obviously there is no way this was a good way to behave.

Exactly.  Thanks Ang.  Not everybody might get it, I appreciate that you did.  So easy (almost a given) to be misconstrued on a topic this sensitive.  Signing off now.

[Emily]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid. 

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.

 

In Oklahoma, the definition of rape includes a sex act with a person who is not of sound mind, whether temporary or permanent, including due to intoxication.
The description of what happened in the hall alone is, by definition, rape. One needs no more information than that.