After reading many articles on the case regarding Greg Haidl, I found one that was interesting to me. This is one of the very few articles that actually blames Haidl himself. Most of the articles mentioned are about his father, Don Haidl, who was the Orange County Assistant Sheriff and his role during the prosecution. However, in this article, there is a sense of sarcasm saying that Greg Haidl has "grown up". It was also mentioned that Don Haidl attempted to make it look like Greg was an innocent boy who could do no harm in this world. They attempted to portray the girl that was raped as a slut, and threatened her family. This trial ended up as a hung jury. To celebrate, Greg and his father decided to throw a party. This is where he met his second rape victim. Not only is Greg blamed in this article for his actions, but his father is as well. It is stated that Don Haidl planned to pay of the jurors of the next trial in order to keep his son out of prison. He has already been able to get Greg out of trouble with the law before from drunk driving incidences and marijuana possession. Supposedly, when a policeman caught Greg with marijuana, he shouted "Do you know who my father is?!" So the final question is: Is this rape entirely Greg Haidl's fault, or do you believe that he did it partly because he thought he would be able to get away with it because of the power his father held. Also, do you believe that Don Haidl is partly at fault in this situation?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Roman Polanski's Case
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/polanski-child-sex-victim-speaks/Story?id=125360&page=1
Through the article “Polanski Child Victim Speaks Out”, it is quite lucid that the media puts the blame primarily on Roman Polanski and accuses him of statutory rape. However, I feel that this opinion is a biased take on the case, especially when the case is analyzed through the lenses of age, gender and class. Firstly, the most significant issue behind this predicament is the big difference in age. If Samantha Geimer, the victim, had not been 13 years old at the time, then the case might not have been declared as a rape. It was certainly a case of wrong moral sense on Roman Polanski’s part, but not of a certain forced sexual intercourse. The reason why I feel quite strongly about this is that Samantha Geimer admitted a few things during the first trial which pointed out her involvement or lack of rejection in the sexual intercourse. Firstly, she took the Quaalude by her own choice with her knowledge of the substance and its effects. Secondly, she voluntarily took off her own dress before coming into the Jacuzzi, the main event which led to the intercourse. Furthermore, the fact that she was not a virgin at the time means that she would be aware from early on the signs of leading into sexual intercourse, and the only rejection she expressed was saying a meek “no”. These claims are based on the official transcript of the trial “The Shoot Gun”
Besides age, I feel that gender is an important issue in this case. Because Roman Polanski is a male, he is immediately deemed of wanting and forcing the sexual intercourse. Based on the evidence from the trial transcript described above I doubt that the sexual intercourse was not of mutual consent, and I blame the media for over publicizing otherwise. Thirdly, because Roman Polanski is of a significantly higher class than Samantha Geimer, the blame is immediately placed on the one with the higher social hierarchy. The one of lower class is often portrayed as the helpless and oppressed, even though class might not actually play a direct role in this issue. Therefore, in my opinion, the claims I made substantiated my belief that this article unjustly accuses Roman Polanski as the only party at fault.
Richmond HIgh School Rape
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_13669616?nclick_check=1
Rather than blaming the community of Richmond, or the boys who are responsible for the crime, the article addresses the blame of the heinous act on the American culture and its lack of respect for women. The author evidently is appalled by the bystanders who did not attempt to seek help during the event of the crime, and simply were laughing and taking pictures for two hours. She censures them as being “inhuman” and “twisted”, and attributes the cause for their callousness as the result of the tainted influence of the media. She argues that the disrespect for women is ingrained in the society, and the younger generation is especially heavily influenced by it. The article directly condemns movies and video games for incorporating violence, and corrupted portrayals of women as whores and men as warriors. The massive exposures to porn for boys influence their images of women as degraded sexual objects. The article serves validity to a certain extent, but her exaggerated and heavily biased arguments to denounce the younger generation as a whole as being naïve individuals who emulate everything they see in the media may provoke discontent among young readers. Personally, I think she effectively identified many good points, for which many people were unaware of.
Rather than blaming the community of Richmond, or the boys who are responsible for the crime, the article addresses the blame of the heinous act on the American culture and its lack of respect for women. The author evidently is appalled by the bystanders who did not attempt to seek help during the event of the crime, and simply were laughing and taking pictures for two hours. She censures them as being “inhuman” and “twisted”, and attributes the cause for their callousness as the result of the tainted influence of the media. She argues that the disrespect for women is ingrained in the society, and the younger generation is especially heavily influenced by it. The article directly condemns movies and video games for incorporating violence, and corrupted portrayals of women as whores and men as warriors. The massive exposures to porn for boys influence their images of women as degraded sexual objects. The article serves validity to a certain extent, but her exaggerated and heavily biased arguments to denounce the younger generation as a whole as being naïve individuals who emulate everything they see in the media may provoke discontent among young readers. Personally, I think she effectively identified many good points, for which many people were unaware of.
Roman Polanski Case
Change in Times?
The particular article that I retrieved online from the New York Times is explaining the role that the culture of the 1970’s played in Mr. Polanski’s prosecution. “But the soft deal was also in tune with the more permissive times, when sex with the under age was often winked at, especially among entertainment world sophisticates”. This quote taken from the article helps to point out the lack of boundaries within this particular time period; also showing how this activity was socially condoned. Even the authorities did not necessarily view Polanski as a sexual assailant; instead they viewed him as “ a normally responsible person who had shown terrible judgment by having sex with a very young, but sophisticated girl”. The article represents Polanski’s charge, as not being taken very seriously by the one’s who were involved in prosecuting him. A judge who was scolding Polanski was also sure to include how she looked older than her actual age and how she was in fact sexually experienced. Polanski’s probation officer seemed to show pity for Polanski as well by writing a 28-page report portraying his sympathy for him and his behavior. It was then signed by a deputy who agreed that Polanski did not deserve further jail time, “the present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant.” A finger was also pointed at the victim’s mother for allowing her daughter to spend time with Polanski. Believe it or not Geimer, the rape victim, was also blamed for this act. During her grand jury testimony she was questioned about her sexual history, even though she had explained that she did not wish to comply with Polanski to have sex with her and said no numerous times.
It seems as though the article is showing how the blame for Geimer’s rape has been doled out to everyone but Polanski. The article is showing that the time period of the 1970’s and its social structures and moral codes should be enough to excuse Polanski for the rape that he committed against Samantha Geimer. If the case was that of statutory rape where Samantha Geimer was compliant with Polanski than I may be able to see how the time period could possibly serve to distort Polanski’s decision on this sexual act, however that is not the case. Not only was Samantha Geimer drugged by Polanski, she said no multiple times. The article is failing to point that out. I feel that the article is one sided and does not portray the perspective of Samantha Geimer, which is hard to believe considering she is a thirteen year old rape victim.
Greg Haidl Case
The link to the article is: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/26/local/me-haidl26
After further research into the Greg Haidl case, I found one Los Angeles Times article in particular that struck my attention as to how the media portrayed Greg and his father. Although the title of the article is “Son of former O.C. assistant sheriff released from prison,” it does not focus on the punishment or wrong actions taken by Greg and his fellow abusers as one might expect, but rather why he was released early from his sentence for being a “model prisoner.” The article focuses more on Orange Count Sheriff Michael S. Carona’s loss of his position as sheriff because of federal corruption against Carona. The greater focus is not why Greg was released early from jail but rather the blame placed on his father who as a chief witness to Carona’s case. Carona is accused of allowing Don Haidl access to his office for tens of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts.
Rather than focusing on the correct punishment he deserves for his actions, Greg’s father claims his son was “a model prisoner” who took advantage of educational and vocational programs at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga. How does this excuse him? Just because he was “a good boy” in prison excuses him from fulfilling his sentence of 6 years in jail and is assumed to perform good behavior outside of jail too?
But furthermore, police know he does not have a good record outside of prison, in fact he has a criminal record and is considered a high-control parolee. One specific example of this was a marijuana case (one of many) where once again he was given preferential treatment by Jaramillo, Carona’s likely successor, who consequently ended up being sentenced to a year in jail himself for misusing department resources. This begs the question to me, does status and money in a community really allow a criminal this much lenience?
Although he is scheduled to serve three years of parole, he could be released from supervision earlier if he stays out of trouble. Another exception? I think so. It seems as though he is finding the easy way out and many allowances are being made for him because of the status of his father. On the other hand, the other two accusers must remain for the entire term. This begs the question, should special privilege be given to Greg because of his fathers career? Why or why not?
The article goes on further to explain how because of Greg’s prosecution, the relationship between Carona and Don Haidl has been damaged and therefore Don lost his job. Should the blame be on Don and as a result the focus be on his loss of job and status in Orange County or are we really turning a blind-eye to what the real situation is here? The man is a rapist, why should be allowed preferential treatment?
Questions: Do you agree or disagree? Who do you think should be at blame? Why?
After further research into the Greg Haidl case, I found one Los Angeles Times article in particular that struck my attention as to how the media portrayed Greg and his father. Although the title of the article is “Son of former O.C. assistant sheriff released from prison,” it does not focus on the punishment or wrong actions taken by Greg and his fellow abusers as one might expect, but rather why he was released early from his sentence for being a “model prisoner.” The article focuses more on Orange Count Sheriff Michael S. Carona’s loss of his position as sheriff because of federal corruption against Carona. The greater focus is not why Greg was released early from jail but rather the blame placed on his father who as a chief witness to Carona’s case. Carona is accused of allowing Don Haidl access to his office for tens of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts.
Rather than focusing on the correct punishment he deserves for his actions, Greg’s father claims his son was “a model prisoner” who took advantage of educational and vocational programs at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga. How does this excuse him? Just because he was “a good boy” in prison excuses him from fulfilling his sentence of 6 years in jail and is assumed to perform good behavior outside of jail too?
But furthermore, police know he does not have a good record outside of prison, in fact he has a criminal record and is considered a high-control parolee. One specific example of this was a marijuana case (one of many) where once again he was given preferential treatment by Jaramillo, Carona’s likely successor, who consequently ended up being sentenced to a year in jail himself for misusing department resources. This begs the question to me, does status and money in a community really allow a criminal this much lenience?
Although he is scheduled to serve three years of parole, he could be released from supervision earlier if he stays out of trouble. Another exception? I think so. It seems as though he is finding the easy way out and many allowances are being made for him because of the status of his father. On the other hand, the other two accusers must remain for the entire term. This begs the question, should special privilege be given to Greg because of his fathers career? Why or why not?
The article goes on further to explain how because of Greg’s prosecution, the relationship between Carona and Don Haidl has been damaged and therefore Don lost his job. Should the blame be on Don and as a result the focus be on his loss of job and status in Orange County or are we really turning a blind-eye to what the real situation is here? The man is a rapist, why should be allowed preferential treatment?
Questions: Do you agree or disagree? Who do you think should be at blame? Why?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Erin Walker's article and response
MEAN GIRLS
UPDATED: Now Jane Does ex-friends say the rape victim was always a slut and a liar
Published on June 03, 2004
It's not, like, difficult to, like, totally know where to begin, like, this story: it begins naturally enough with Jenna Stroh, Melissa Matsumoto and Vanessa Obmann, the Rancho Cucamonga High School seniors who played with their earrings, stroked their hair, checked their lipstick, lost trains of thought and giggled on the witness stand, from which they shot smiles at accused gang rapist Greg Haidl, son of a multimillionaire assistant sheriff.
The three 18-year-olds arrived in Judge Francisco Briseño's Santa Ana courtroom on May 26 in black nightclub attire. They left no mystery about their navels or, for that matter, the purpose of their defense-sponsored visit. They were here to talk about teenage porn and rampant promiscuity and drug parties, of course. But mostly they were here to trash their former friend, the alleged rape victim, Jane Doe.
Last week, prosecutor Dan Hess finished presenting his case that Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann videotaped themselves assaulting Doe, then 16, after they'd given her beer, marijuana and a drug-laced glass of gin at Haidl's Newport Beach house on July 6, 2002. The confiscated video begins with Doe saying she felt "so fucked-up" and resisting Haidl's attempt to remove her top. The defense says the girl's outward defiance was in fact an act, the beginning of a coy consent for the gangbang that followed. Filming resumed eight minutes later with the defendants using Doe—now naked and unconscious—for sex on a garage sofa and pool table. Later on the video, they can be seen laughing, dancing and mugging for the camera as they penetrate the girl's vagina and anus with a Snapple bottle, juice can, lit cigarette and pool cue.
The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register have chastised District Attorney Tony Rackauckas for pursuing the case, even though defense sources privately acknowledge the video is damaging evidence; that's why they spent nearly two years trying to keep it out of court. Now that the jury has thrice watched the alleged crime, the worried defense has a new priority: destroy juror sympathy for Doe.
Enter the mean girls.
In police interviews immediately after the incident, Stroh, Matsumato and Obmann noted Doe's prodigious sexual appetite but, more important, supported her contention that she'd been unconscious during the gangbang. Stroh told investigators Doe "could not recall the events of the evening." Matsumoto said the girl "couldn't remember much." Obmann reported that Doe "did not recall what transpired that evening."
But the girls' stories changed dramatically after meetings with Haidl and the Haidl defense team, including lawyers Joseph G. Cavallo and Peter Scalisi. Last week, 21 months after they told police Doe was unconscious during the attack, the girls were positive Doe had been conscious. More than that, the girls—who were not present during the incident—also now suggest the encounter with the three defendants had been consensual.
The new stories offered by Doe's ex-friends match the tactical needs of the Haidl defense. Under California law, it's illegal to have sex with someone who cannot give consent or resist. Haidl lawyers are offering jurors two ways to ignore the law. First, they say Doe only pretended to be unconscious for dramatic effect in the filming of what the defense says was a porn-film production. Jurors watching the video will likely find that unbelievable, so they've been offered a second possibility: the assertion—already rejected by California courts—the sex was permissible because the defendants thought the girl would have consented if she'd been conscious.
Stroh—who twice broke down on the witness stand in stuttering confusion—now claims Doe told her, "I don't remember what I did, but I know I had sex with all three boys." Obmann now claims Doe told her, "If they did drug me, that's whack—meaning 'stupid'—because they didn't need to do that." Matsumoto now claims Doe told her, "I don't know why they drugged me because I would have done it anyway."
Defense attorney Scalisi asked each girl what she thought of Doe. "I believe she's dishonest," Obmann said.
Under cross-examination, Hess asked Obmann why she claimed Doe was dishonest. Because, Obmann said, Doe lied to her parents so she could attend parties. Noting that Obmann admitted she and her friends also lied to parents in order to attend parties, the deputy DA asked, "So you have the same opinion about your other friends?"
"No," said Obmann, reasoning that her current friends didn't lie as much as Doe. She later told a reporter the girls had taken a "moral" stand for the defendants.
After Obmann, Scalisi quickly called to the witness stand Nicole Maloney, another ex-friend of Doe's. Here's the exchange:
Scalisi: What's your opinion of Doe?
Maloney: She's dishonest.
Scalisi: She's a liar?
Maloney: Yes.
Scalisi: I have nothing further.
Hess is a mild-mannered veteran deputy DA, but his aggressive cross-examination of the girls—who blurted out the alleged victim's name more than a half-dozen times—proved illuminating. He got a reluctant Stroh to admit she originally told police Doe's story about the rape was "truthful"; that she'd originally told police Doe was "out of it" during the rape; and her assertion that Doe wanted to be a "porn star" had been taken out of context by the defense.
"She was, uh, really, like, a joking person," said Stroh, who glanced at the defendants and then added: "Joking, but in a serious way."
It's Obmann who might get the defense in the most trouble. She acknowledged that four days before testifying, she amended her written statement to dovetail with the defense.
"Yeah, I corrected it," she testified.
Hess asked her if she and the other girls had ever talked about what to say on the witness stand.
"No, never," said Obmann as she slowly chewed gum and swiveled happily in the witness chair.
Hess repeated the question firmly. Obmann stopped moving in her seat, stared at the prosecutor and after a pause said, "Yeah," there had been discussions.
Obmann also confessed that the defense lawyers had, in violation of the judge's instructions, supplied Doe's testimony in preparation for their appearances; that she's close to the defendants (her boyfriend is Spann's best friend); and that she'd given her exclusive story to CBS's 48 Hours, the only news outlet with regular, friendly access to the often-angry Haidl clan.
Obmann's hourlong testimony even has a 48 Hours cliff-hanger: she has visited Cavallo's Irvine office at least three times, and Hess asked her if the defense lawyer had promised her an internship after the trial. Cavallo objected to the question, but Briseño overruled him. "No," said Obmann.
Minutes later, Hess further infuriated Cavallo when he returned to the subject. Haidl's lead attorney demanded a meeting in the judge's chamber; following that meeting, Hess continued to drill down into the subject of a possible quid pro quo. Despite Obmann's denials, Hess' confidence in this line of questioning suggests he'll call a witness to contradict her.
Although Briseño ordered Obmann "not to talk about the case with any of the other witnesses," she hurried from the courtroom and down the hallway to Stroh, Matsumoto, Maloney and defense investigator John Warren. Far from the dignity and composure Doe exhibited during more than 16 grueling hours on the witness stand, Obmann played the diva. She put her hand on her hip, cocked her head, shook her finger and bitched about prosecutor Hess. Cavallo walked up behind her, squeezed her shoulder, looked back at this reporter and smiled.
For updates on the Haidl gang-rape case, please see ocweekly.com.
My analysis:
The article immediately serves to encourage the reader to have a negative outlook on the friends of the rape victim, Jane Doe. The author describes the girls to be ditzy, unintelligent, and simply mean. By describing these girls to be promiscuous, among other things, the author aims to put Jane Doe in this same category and prove her to be responsible for the rape. Throughout the article, the author continually makes remarks that demean the girls and consequently demean Jane Doe and attribute the rape to her irresponsible and promiscuous traits. This article supports the idea that Jane Doe was basically asking for sex by the way she acted. The author emphasizes her promiscuity and the fact that her friends testified against her in order to convey that it really was her fault.
This article equates Jane Doe’s (and her friends’) ditzy, promiscuous, and irresponsible behavior to giving consent to have sex. The media falsely portrays Jane Doe as at fault for the rape. California state law says that the person who is raped (if he/she is forced to have sex and does not give consent) is never responsible. Furthermore, the law states that a person cannot give consent if he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Ultimately this article presents a very biased review that contradicts reality/the law.
Greg Haidl Case
Here is an article reflecting upon the corruption of Don Haidl (Greg Haidl's father), who is also an Assistant Sheriff:
http://www.twistedbadge.com/story_articles/id_297/
This article talks about various examples of the corruptive nature of Don Haidl as an Assistant Sheriff. Being a multi-millionaire, Don Haidl is "all about money." For example, he gained his position as the Assistant Sheriff by bribing Sheriff Carona with jewelry, cash, and a black Corvette. Then, he abused his power as the Assistant Sheriff several times to get his son out of trouble. Because of his rich and powerful father, Greg Haidl's lifestyle had no limits whether it be sex or drugs. After he and his friends videotaped having sex with a girl at Don Haidl's home, he bragged about it because he wasn't worried that he would face prison time due to his father's power in the department. Media portrays Don Haidl's corruptiveness as a catalyst of Greg's wrongdoings. Also, he is portrayed responsible because he was in the house letting his son throw a party and ultimately letting this gang-rape happen. Because Don Haidl was so lenient with his son's illegal activities for many years instead of being restrictive, Greg did not feel like he was committing a crime and was unafraid of the consequences. We have learned in our lecture that family is a social organization that affects us the most; if Don Haidl raised Greg differently, do you think this could have been prevented? To what extent is Don Haidl responsible for what happened?
http://www.twistedbadge.com/story_articles/id_297/
This article talks about various examples of the corruptive nature of Don Haidl as an Assistant Sheriff. Being a multi-millionaire, Don Haidl is "all about money." For example, he gained his position as the Assistant Sheriff by bribing Sheriff Carona with jewelry, cash, and a black Corvette. Then, he abused his power as the Assistant Sheriff several times to get his son out of trouble. Because of his rich and powerful father, Greg Haidl's lifestyle had no limits whether it be sex or drugs. After he and his friends videotaped having sex with a girl at Don Haidl's home, he bragged about it because he wasn't worried that he would face prison time due to his father's power in the department. Media portrays Don Haidl's corruptiveness as a catalyst of Greg's wrongdoings. Also, he is portrayed responsible because he was in the house letting his son throw a party and ultimately letting this gang-rape happen. Because Don Haidl was so lenient with his son's illegal activities for many years instead of being restrictive, Greg did not feel like he was committing a crime and was unafraid of the consequences. We have learned in our lecture that family is a social organization that affects us the most; if Don Haidl raised Greg differently, do you think this could have been prevented? To what extent is Don Haidl responsible for what happened?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Richmond High School rape
can we blame the watchers?
On the other side of the 'whos to blame' argument are the spectators of the event. According to a CBS article on the 30th, the California Child Protection Act may not apply to the people who stood by and watched a 15-year-old get raped, but they are not completely blameless. Some think that those who stood by watching, pointing, laughing, or recording and taking pictures should definitely be charged with aiding and abetting, though whether that has any relevance to the case at hand against the 15 to 21-year-olds charged to rape is not clear. The article also discusses "Genevese syndrome", or "bystander effect", when people stand by not moving for help and watching a crime occur. Of course, having this name, this event has been observed in more than a few cases, and the coining of this term by law enforcement indicates the extent to which it occurs. If it is so blatantly obvious that some kind of emergency is occurring, why did no one do anything about it? Rather than watching a girl get raped for more than 2 hours, why could no one call the police to stop it?
Instead of blaming the school, the community, the victim or her attackers, why can't we blame the people who actually, in the moment, let this happen?
On the other side of the 'whos to blame' argument are the spectators of the event. According to a CBS article on the 30th, the California Child Protection Act may not apply to the people who stood by and watched a 15-year-old get raped, but they are not completely blameless. Some think that those who stood by watching, pointing, laughing, or recording and taking pictures should definitely be charged with aiding and abetting, though whether that has any relevance to the case at hand against the 15 to 21-year-olds charged to rape is not clear. The article also discusses "Genevese syndrome", or "bystander effect", when people stand by not moving for help and watching a crime occur. Of course, having this name, this event has been observed in more than a few cases, and the coining of this term by law enforcement indicates the extent to which it occurs. If it is so blatantly obvious that some kind of emergency is occurring, why did no one do anything about it? Rather than watching a girl get raped for more than 2 hours, why could no one call the police to stop it?
Instead of blaming the school, the community, the victim or her attackers, why can't we blame the people who actually, in the moment, let this happen?
Richmond High School Rape Case
Richmond High School Rape Case
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/california.rape.victim.friend/index.html
This source shows a video of the victim’s friend, Kami Baker, expressing her anger about the events that occurred the night of their homecoming dance. Baker believes that the lack of police protection at Richmond High School inevitably led to the rape of her friend, which occurred right outside the gym where the dance was being held. She concludes that this absence of security is due to the fact that “RHS is ostracized by the district”, and adding that because the majority of the population is Hispanic or African American (Caucasians and Asians are the minority in Richmond), officials do not patrol the area as often or as effectively. Baker is whole-heartedly attributing the rape of her friend to race.
Though CNN published this video, their subsequent article fails to mention anything about race, the primary factor Baker brings up that led to the rape of her friend. Instead they float upon the surface of the issue, concentrating on the lack of supervision and police officials at the scene. CNN purposefully avoids the topic or race, probably to avoid implying anything “politically incorrect” and thus, remain a credible source. This example of media coverage on the Richmond High rape wants the viewer to know some things about how race was involved in the crime by showing the video clip. However, because race is such a touchy subject in society, implying that Baker was correct in her assumptions – that the Hispanic / African American majority led to the lack of attentive and patrolling police officers at the dance – would have probably made CNN look insensitive and racist (biased against Hispanics and African Americans). By trying to remain neutral, but providing the means with which the audience can draw their own conclusions, CNN has avoided a biased outlook on the rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
