Patrick Kane - Possible rape charge

[GhostofPotvin29]

This is largely directed at Chicago sports fans and I don't entirely believe it represents anybody posting here, but I still feel that this is very much worth reading:

Baffoe: Patrick Kane Is Not Your Friend

These sentences confuse me:

It?s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane?s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them.

So it's possible there was no wrongdoing, but if so it does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened?  I don't get what he's trying to say there.  It sounds as if he's saying "even if he's found innocent something bad still went on."

I try to stay out of these situations completely when it comes to commenting on them.  I understand that there is a SERIOUS issue with respect to reporting and convicting these types of crimes - but where is the line?  I can't assume because there's an accusation it's true, no more than any other crime.  Even if the percent of false accusations or incorrect accusations are low, that individual's life is still ruined or affected.  I don't know what the answer is.  It seems like as soon as there's any accusation you're not allowed to comment on it other than to decry rape culture in sports or else you're accused of defending the person as if you're defending a rapist - even if they're not convicted.  If you're accused of other crimes and not convicted you more or less can move on in the public's eye, but I think less so here.

There is definitely an issue and definitely something sports leagues need to do about it, at the very least step up their education, but there seems to be such a pitchfork mob mentality that I can't even discuss it with anyone online.

 

[bustaheims]

I try to stay out of these situations completely when it comes to commenting on them.  I understand that there is a SERIOUS issue with respect to reporting and convicting these types of crimes - but where is the line?  I can't assume because there's an accusation it's true, no more than any other crime.  Even if the percent of false accusations or incorrect accusations are low, that individual's life is still ruined or affected.  I don't know what the answer is.  It seems like as soon as there's any accusation you're not allowed to comment on it other than to decry rape culture in sports or else you're accused of defending the person as if you're defending a rapist - even if they're not convicted.  If you're accused of other crimes and not convicted you more or less can move on in the public's eye, but I think less so here.

There is definitely an issue and definitely something sports leagues need to do about it, at the very least step up their education, but there seems to be such a pitchfork mob mentality that I can't even discuss it with anyone online.

This is basically how I feel about things, as well. Just to be clear (not that I think I have to - I think most people here get it), I'm in no way defending Kane. If there's any truth to the accusations, he deserves to feel the full weight of the law. I'm just saying that, until there's more than an accusation, let's lay off demonizing him, as well as refraining from defending him.

 

[MetalRaven]

This is largely directed at Chicago sports fans and I don't entirely believe it represents anybody posting here, but I still feel that this is very much worth reading:

Baffoe: Patrick Kane Is Not Your Friend

These sentences confuse me:

It?s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane?s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them.

So it's possible there was no wrongdoing, but if so it does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened?  I don't get what he's trying to say there.  It sounds as if he's saying "even if he's found innocent something bad still went on."

I try to stay out of these situations completely when it comes to commenting on them.  I understand that there is a SERIOUS issue with respect to reporting and convicting these types of crimes - but where is the line?  I can't assume because there's an accusation it's true, no more than any other crime.  Even if the percent of false accusations or incorrect accusations are low, that individual's life is still ruined or affected.  I don't know what the answer is.  It seems like as soon as there's any accusation you're not allowed to comment on it other than to decry rape culture in sports or else you're accused of defending the person as if you're defending a rapist - even if they're not convicted.  If you're accused of other crimes and not convicted you more or less can move on in the public's eye, but I think less so here.

There is definitely an issue and definitely something sports leagues need to do about it, at the very least step up their education, but there seems to be such a pitchfork mob mentality that I can't even discuss it with anyone online.

Yeah that bolded sentence is pure BS. This man has come to a conclusion and seems upset that we aren't jumping to "accuse without proof or facts" because that makes more sense then sitting back and waiting for the investigation to come up with something...you know under the "guise" of Innocent until proven guilty. Nice to know this moron believes one of our fundamental rights, the presumption of innocence, is simply a disguise. Nothing but hiding the truth he has already decided, without a trial or you know any facts whatsoever. Im sorry if a fundamental right is interfering with your ability to rush to judgement. Better then that simply waiting according to this genius is helping to create a 'rape culture'. Last I checked non-rapists are extremely appalled by rapists. It is one of the most disgusting crimes you can commit, but you know if you don't jump to conclusions you are obviously a supporter. The heinous nature of the crime is the reason why people are hoping he didn't do it, not that he is able to find a loophole to get away with it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This is largely directed at Chicago sports fans and I don't entirely believe it represents anybody posting here, but I still feel that this is very much worth reading:

Baffoe: Patrick Kane Is Not Your Friend

These sentences confuse me:

It?s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane?s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them.

So it's possible there was no wrongdoing, but if so it does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened?  I don't get what he's trying to say there.  It sounds as if he's saying "even if he's found innocent something bad still went on."

I try to stay out of these situations completely when it comes to commenting on them.  I understand that there is a SERIOUS issue with respect to reporting and convicting these types of crimes - but where is the line?  I can't assume because there's an accusation it's true, no more than any other crime.  Even if the percent of false accusations or incorrect accusations are low, that individual's life is still ruined or affected.  I don't know what the answer is.  It seems like as soon as there's any accusation you're not allowed to comment on it other than to decry rape culture in sports or else you're accused of defending the person as if you're defending a rapist - even if they're not convicted.  If you're accused of other crimes and not convicted you more or less can move on in the public's eye, but I think less so here.

There is definitely an issue and definitely something sports leagues need to do about it, at the very least step up their education, but there seems to be such a pitchfork mob mentality that I can't even discuss it with anyone online.

Yeah that bolded sentence is pure BS. This man has come to a conclusion and seems upset that we aren't jumping to "accuse without proof or facts" because that makes more sense then sitting back and waiting for the investigation to come up with something...you know under the "guise" of Innocent until proven guilty. Nice to know this moron believes one of our fundamental rights, the presumption of innocence, is simply a disguise. Nothing but hiding the truth he has already decided, without a trial or you know any facts whatsoever. Im sorry if a fundamental right is interfering with your ability to rush to judgement. Better then that simply waiting according to this genius is helping to create a 'rape culture'. Last I checked non-rapists are extremely appalled by rapists. It is one of the most disgusting crimes you can commit, but you know if you don't jump to conclusions you are obviously a supporter. The heinous nature of the crime is the reason why people are hoping he didn't do it, not that he is able to find a loophole to get away with it.

Well I think the article as a whole is well written because especially in the sports world I think it's easy for a victim to not want to come forward and face the comments which will be made about them.  I just found that particular section odd and contradictory, but on the whole I think it's a very good article that CtB shared and very important.

 

[MetalRaven]

This is largely directed at Chicago sports fans and I don't entirely believe it represents anybody posting here, but I still feel that this is very much worth reading:

Baffoe: Patrick Kane Is Not Your Friend

These sentences confuse me:

It?s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane?s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them.

So it's possible there was no wrongdoing, but if so it does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened?  I don't get what he's trying to say there.  It sounds as if he's saying "even if he's found innocent something bad still went on."

I try to stay out of these situations completely when it comes to commenting on them.  I understand that there is a SERIOUS issue with respect to reporting and convicting these types of crimes - but where is the line?  I can't assume because there's an accusation it's true, no more than any other crime.  Even if the percent of false accusations or incorrect accusations are low, that individual's life is still ruined or affected.  I don't know what the answer is.  It seems like as soon as there's any accusation you're not allowed to comment on it other than to decry rape culture in sports or else you're accused of defending the person as if you're defending a rapist - even if they're not convicted.  If you're accused of other crimes and not convicted you more or less can move on in the public's eye, but I think less so here.

There is definitely an issue and definitely something sports leagues need to do about it, at the very least step up their education, but there seems to be such a pitchfork mob mentality that I can't even discuss it with anyone online.

Yeah that bolded sentence is pure BS. This man has come to a conclusion and seems upset that we aren't jumping to "accuse without proof or facts" because that makes more sense then sitting back and waiting for the investigation to come up with something...you know under the "guise" of Innocent until proven guilty. Nice to know this moron believes one of our fundamental rights, the presumption of innocence, is simply a disguise. Nothing but hiding the truth he has already decided, without a trial or you know any facts whatsoever. Im sorry if a fundamental right is interfering with your ability to rush to judgement. Better then that simply waiting according to this genius is helping to create a 'rape culture'. Last I checked non-rapists are extremely appalled by rapists. It is one of the most disgusting crimes you can commit, but you know if you don't jump to conclusions you are obviously a supporter. The heinous nature of the crime is the reason why people are hoping he didn't do it, not that he is able to find a loophole to get away with it.

Well I think the article as a whole is well written because especially in the sports world I think it's easy for a victim to not want to come forward and face the comments which will be made about them.  I just found that particular section odd and contradictory, but on the whole I think it's a very good article that CtB shared and very important.

It was well written and does add some things to the discussion, mainly that jumping to his defense without facts is just as foolish...but people choosing not to side either way because of "Presumption of innocence" aren't suddenly ignoring the victim or stating that shes a liar...simply leaving room for the possibility that this may or may not have happened. Nor are we contributing to the rape culture by not immediately assuming the victim is telling the truth. Most people are doing the sensible thing and waiting for evidence. Anything else is jump[ing to conclusions that could be damaging to either party.

(Nothing at you CTB That was good to link and always nice to read others opinions.)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The problem with standing behind all of this "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" stuff is that by doing so you're basically admitting that you have no idea how badly the courts have failed rape victims. I'm like 95% certain that Kane won't get charged or convicted of any crime here. I'm a lot less certain that if someone is actually accusing Kane of rape or sexual assault that he's actually innocent. It's insanely difficulty to prosecute an alleged rapist and all to easy to defend one.

 

[Kin]

While I wouldn't be surprised if there's legitimacy to the speculation, I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if there could be false accusations.

If a young rich guy is accused of, say, assault, I'd be relatively comfortable at the very least in assuming he got into a physical confrontation one way or another, whether's he's ultimately guilty of anything or not.  If a young rich guy is accused of sexual assault, I'm not very comfortable in assuming much of anything about him or the situation.

I think it's pretty important though to draw a distinction between a "false" accusation and something that simply doesn't get brought to trial because of a lack of evidence. I can't off-hand think of any accusation like this leveled at a professional athlete that's been proven to be false or fabricated in recent years and in similar high profile cases like Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger or Jameis Winston a lot of people try to present the fact that criminal charges were never brought or convictions never won as proof that the accusations were false which, to me anyway, shows a bit of a lack of understanding about how badly the justice system does with allegations of sexual assault.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't know how much more I'll end up saying on this topic, but I do want to say this: I don't think anyone who disagrees with what I've been saying is a terrible person or anything like that. And it won't effect how we discuss hockey going forward. At the very worst I think you may be naive or unaware of what the actual issues here are. Reporting a rape isn't like reporting that your car was stolen or even that somebody beat you up. And proving your allegations is an entirely different story. You can't treat the crimes the same way.

If anybody's interested I thought that this was a good article on the experiences of some woman who had to defend their allegations in court: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court. I thinking knowing and understanding what these people have to go through is necessary in engaging in these conversations.

 

[Kin]

These sentences confuse me:

It?s entirely possible no wrongdoing on Kane?s part went on, but innocent until proven guilty applies to this particular celebrity avoiding jail time. It does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened between them.

So it's possible there was no wrongdoing, but if so it does not exonerate him from what he and his accuser know happened?  I don't get what he's trying to say there.  It sounds as if he's saying "even if he's found innocent something bad still went on."

I think what's being said has a lot to do with the part you didn't bold. It's basically saying that the presumption of innocence doesn't exonerate Kane, even if he's found not guilty.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think what's being said has a lot to do with the part you didn't bold. It's basically saying that the presumption of innocence doesn't exonerate Kane, even if he's found not guilty.

I feel like if you changed that first comma to a period and the period to a comma that section would make more sense.

 

[Kin]

It was well written and does add some things to the discussion, mainly that jumping to his defense without facts is just as foolish...but people choosing not to side either way because of "Presumption of innocence" aren't suddenly ignoring the victim or stating that shes a liar...simply leaving room for the possibility that this may or may not have happened. Nor are we contributing to the rape culture by not immediately assuming the victim is telling the truth. Most people are doing the sensible thing and waiting for evidence. Anything else is jump[ing to conclusions that could be damaging to either party.

I think that's misrepresenting what was written though. The article doesn't say "immediately come to a certain conclusion" but rather it's directed at the very real and very loud segment of the population who are going to immediately leap to Kane's defense and not because of some sort judicial impartiality but the very sad truth that A) victims of sexual assault are probably given less credence than victims of any other crime B) some people are the kind of idiots who think they "know" Patrick Kane and will defend based on what they think they know of a player on their favourite hockey team and C) some people are such tunnel-visioned morons that they're primarily bummed about what this potentially means for the Blackhawks. All of that does contribute to the culture being referred to.

The presumption of innocence is a legal concept. It doesn't bind our brains or our thoughts. I don't have to wait for a court to convict, say, a famous Comedian of sexual assault when literally dozens of women are accusing him of it before I can think "yeah, that probably happened". If I see someone commit a crime that person still has the presumption of innocence if brought to trial but I'm under no obligation to afford it to them.

 

[Frank E]

The problem with standing behind all of this "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" stuff is that by doing so you're basically admitting that you have no idea how badly the courts have failed rape victims. I'm like 95% certain that Kane won't get charged or convicted of any crime here. I'm a lot less certain that if someone is actually accusing Kane of rape or sexual assault that he's actually innocent. It's insanely difficulty to prosecute an alleged rapist and all to easy to defend one.

I can comfortably say that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with whatever the failure rate of convictions may be.  They are two separate issues entirely. 

Yes, rape can be a very difficult thing to prove.  No, that doesn't mean that we stop suggesting that those accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Is the issue really the courts failing, or is it more about the lack of evidence to convict? 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think what's being said has a lot to do with the part you didn't bold. It's basically saying that the presumption of innocence doesn't exonerate Kane, even if he's found not guilty.

I feel like if you changed that first comma to a period and the period to a comma that section would make more sense.

Yeah I think you're both right on the money there.  It makes more sense read that way.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

The problem with standing behind all of this "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" stuff is that by doing so you're basically admitting that you have no idea how badly the courts have failed rape victims. I'm like 95% certain that Kane won't get charged or convicted of any crime here. I'm a lot less certain that if someone is actually accusing Kane of rape or sexual assault that he's actually innocent. It's insanely difficulty to prosecute an alleged rapist and all to easy to defend one.

I can comfortably say that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with whatever the failure rate of convictions may be.  They are two separate issues entirely. 

Yes, rape can be a very difficult thing to prove.  No, that doesn't mean that we stop suggesting that those accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Is the issue really the courts failing, or is it more about the lack of evidence to convict?

Apparently in Kane's case, the Buffalo News was reporting the victim went to the hospital and a rape kit was performed. Three police cars were also at his residence on Sunday taking pictures and collecting evidence, apparently. So, if the evidence is there I suppose the police should be able to make a case.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

The problem with standing behind all of this "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" stuff is that by doing so you're basically admitting that you have no idea how badly the courts have failed rape victims. I'm like 95% certain that Kane won't get charged or convicted of any crime here. I'm a lot less certain that if someone is actually accusing Kane of rape or sexual assault that he's actually innocent. It's insanely difficulty to prosecute an alleged rapist and all to easy to defend one.

I think you summed it up really well here. I remembered reading an article a while ago I thought was really interesting. It's a NY Time Op Ed piece, but the guy who wrote it is a professor of criminal law at Yale, so he likely knows his stuff. It's about rape on college campuses, and how poorly it's prosecuted. But like you said CTB, if you were actually raped it would be really tough to come forward knowing that you're going to be humiliated, raked over the coals for months/years, and likely never see a conviction for all of your efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/mishandling-rape.html

"OUR strategy for dealing with rape on college campuses has failed abysmally. Female students are raped in appalling numbers, and their rapists almost invariably go free. Forced by the federal government, colleges have now gotten into the business of conducting rape trials, but they are not competent to handle this job. They are simultaneously failing to punish rapists adequately and branding students sexual assailants when no sexual assault occurred.

We have to transform our approach to campus rape to get at the root problems, which the new college processes ignore and arguably even exacerbate.

How many rapes occur on our campuses is disputed. The best, most carefully controlled study was conducted for the Department of Justice in 2007; it found that about one in 10 undergraduate women had been raped at college.

But because of low arrest and conviction rates, lack of confidentiality, and fear they won?t be believed, only a minuscule percentage of college women who are raped ? perhaps only 5 percent or less ? report the assault to the police."

 

[L K]

The problem with standing behind all of this "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" stuff is that by doing so you're basically admitting that you have no idea how badly the courts have failed rape victims. I'm like 95% certain that Kane won't get charged or convicted of any crime here. I'm a lot less certain that if someone is actually accusing Kane of rape or sexual assault that he's actually innocent. It's insanely difficulty to prosecute an alleged rapist and all to easy to defend one.

I can comfortably say that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with whatever the failure rate of convictions may be.  They are two separate issues entirely. 

Yes, rape can be a very difficult thing to prove.  No, that doesn't mean that we stop suggesting that those accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Is the issue really the courts failing, or is it more about the lack of evidence to convict?

Apparently in Kane's case, the Buffalo News was reporting the victim went to the hospital and a rape kit was performed. Three police cars were also at his residence on Sunday taking pictures and collecting evidence, apparently. So, if the evidence is there I suppose the police should be able to make a case.

Here's the problem with a situation like this.  If someone has sex, regrets the decision and then goes to a hospital/clinic and reports a sexual assault, all of that protocol happens.  If someone is legitimately part of a sexual assault and goes to that same hospital/clinic all of that protocol happens.  The difficulty is that most cases of rape aren't cases of a random attacker getting into a violent forced intercourse scenario so a lot of the physical evidence is really hard to pull apart from consensual sex.

I don't have extensive experience handling sexual assault cases (a small handful) but it's a pretty much automated program when it comes to protocol and evidence gathering. 

Where I have a problem with these situations is that Patrick Kane's name is splattered all over the media right now as an accused rapist prior to any charges.  Meanwhile the accuser remains anonymous and if things don't get past the accusation point and no charges ever get laid, the accuser will remain anonymous.  I'm certainly not trying to advocate for disclosure of potential rape victims, but I really struggle with the notion that we will forever label Kane as a suspected rapist for the rest of his life irregardless of what actually happened.  Names should be confidential until at minimum formal charges have been lain if not a conviction.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Apparently in Kane's case, the Buffalo News was reporting the victim went to the hospital and a rape kit was performed. Three police cars were also at his residence on Sunday taking pictures and collecting evidence, apparently. So, if the evidence is there I suppose the police should be able to make a case.

But here's the thing about these cases, all this evidence will say is that they had intercourse. It can't really tell you whether it was consensual or not. There's only two people that can, and often it's the one who says it wasn't that a) has to prove that they're right and b) isn't usually believed.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I can comfortably say that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with whatever the failure rate of convictions may be.  They are two separate issues entirely. 

Yes, rape can be a very difficult thing to prove.  No, that doesn't mean that we stop suggesting that those accused are innocent until proven guilty.

But how do you say something like "I can't pass any judgement on this person until the court makes a ruling" and at the same time say "I understand that the court has proven to be terrible at making these rulings"?

Is the issue really the courts failing, or is it more about the lack of evidence to convict?

Both of those are issues at hand, but the actual issue in this whole conversation is just the way society treats accused rapists (particularly when they're rich and famous) and potential rape victims. Like, why is it perfectly fine for you to call an accused rapist innocent until proven guilty but I can't call a potential rape victim truthful until proven dishonest?

 

[Kin]

Where I have a problem with these situations is that Patrick Kane's name is splattered all over the media right now as an accused rapist prior to any charges.  Meanwhile the accuser remains anonymous and if things don't get past the accusation point and no charges ever get laid, the accuser will remain anonymous.  I'm certainly not trying to advocate for disclosure of potential rape victims, but I really struggle with the notion that we will forever label Kane as a suspected rapist for the rest of his life irregardless of what actually happened.  Names should be confidential until at minimum formal charges have been lain if not a conviction.

I think you're overestimating the way an accusation really dogs guys around if there's no conviction or, at any rate, the consequences of it. Has it really hurt Kobe or Roethlisberger? Jameis Winston still was the #1 pick in the draft. "We" might be aware of it but it's not like it's hurt either guy's ability to be generally beloved multi-millionaires so as a general rule I'm less concerned with that than I am with the fact that the accuser in the Winston case was met with:

A) A police force and University that seemed entirely uninterested in a thorough investigation
B) Legions of fans online calling her every kind of crude name under the sun
C) Her identity being publicly released by Winston's lawyer

 

[Bates]

Just wanted to say that there are some great posts here on  a very difficult situation.  Well done by all of you.