Our Threatened Freedom

When is Rape Not Rape

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Political Studies

Lesson: 128-169

Genre: Conversation

Track: 128

Dictation Name: Vol. J - Part 11 - When is Rape Not Rape

Location/Venue: Unknown

Year: 1980’s – 1990’s

[Dr. Rushdoony] When is rape not rape? This is R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.

The New York Magazine reported earlier this year on a case of truly blinded justice. I have debated whether or not I should discuss it for a few months, and finally have decided to report on it. Let me say first of all, that not all judges by any means are like this one, but enough are to make it necessary to comment on it.

A young woman, a bank teller, was robbed and raped by a hoodlum. She was held at knifepoint, her face covered by the rapist’s jacket, and raped. It is reported that the New York judge asked the young woman, 24 years old, a single question. Had she seen the rapist penetrate her? Since her face was covered, she said no. The criminal was acquitted of rape and first-degree robbery, but convicted only of non-violent robbery and sexual abuse, both of which carry much lighter penalties. Now when is robbery and rape at knife point non-violent? And where are we told that if the victim’s face is covered, rape becomes only sexual abuse? The prosecutor rightly argues in court that if actual vision of the rape were necessary, no one could be prosecuted for raping a blind woman. The judge did not reply to this argument. The district attorney’s office felt that future rape prosecutions were all threatened, stating, I’ve never heard of a woman watching penetration in a rape case. A source close to the judge said that the sexual abuse might have been with a dildo or hands. How often does that happen? And what is the difference? By positing hypothetical alternatives, almost any crime can be explained away.

All that can be said about such thinking is that surely our muggers, thieves and hoodlums are something to be afraid of, but so are many of our judges, right up to the very top. They seem to have as little knowledge of what justice is as many of our criminals, and even less touch with reality. They are tender about the rights of criminals, but not the rights of the victims.

Twice recently I heard about men who are robbed of considerable sums of money. In one case a man borrowed 20,000 dollars, and another owed 15,000, and in both cases refused to pay. In both cases they got away with it. When the two aggrieved parties looked into the legal cost plus the court situation they realized two things. First, it would cost them too much money and time to go to court. Second, even if they won, there was no assurance that they would be able to collect. In another case a man went to court over 25,000, 10 years ago, wanted judgment, and still has not been able to collect.

Justice and the law are parting company. And when they do, freedom is in trouble.

This has been R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.