Georgia Republican Bobby Franklin: You say you’re a rape victim? Uh-uh — not so fast. Prove it!

Fuck these people. Seriously.

Fresh off the heels of the Republican effort to redefine rape, Georgia Republicans have begun their latest assault on women1: Representative Bobby Franklin (R-GA) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal and civil codes so that victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence can no longer be called “victims” but must be called “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted.

Let that sink in for a minute. If your brain hasn’t exploded already, proceed with caution. I make no guarantees about the intacted-ness of your grey matter upon reading the rest of this post.

The downgrading of “victim” to mere “accuser” applies only to rape, as far as I can tell. If you’ve been mugged, or robbed, or defrauded, you’re still a victim. (And poor you, by the way.) If some person has violated you sexually without your consent, however, you’re just an accuser: we don’t quite believe you yet; we need to know how much you had to drink; we need to determine whether you were wearing slutty boots, fuck me heels, or booty shorts; we also need to know whether or not you’re just saying you were raped because he didn’t call you the next day.

According to the language of the bill, its purpose is:

To amend Titles 16 and 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal law and criminal procedure, respectively, so as to change the term ‘victim’ to the term ‘accuser’ in the context of a number of statutes making reference to circumstances where there has not yet been a criminal conviction; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

The proposed bill screeches short of decriminalizing rape altogether:

“When evidence relating to an allegation of rape is collected in the course of a medical examination of the person who is the victim accuser of the alleged crime perpetrator, the law enforcement agency investigating the alleged crime shall be responsible for the cost of the medical examination to the extent that expense is incurred for the limited purpose of collecting evidence.”

So there you have it. Another offensive strike in the battle over the right of women to decide for themselves what may reside in their uterus, whether it be a baby or an unwanted penis. Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) don’t think women should be able to decide whether or not they should be forced to rent space in their body for nine months, whether they want to or not, and don’t have the wherewithal to determine whether or not they’ve been fucking raped. The proposed bill forces victims of rape to undergo the painful process of pursuing criminal conviction even though they may not want to just so they have the fucking RIGHT to be called a victim.

Should such a bill pass, it would be the most shameless form of publicly-sanctioned victim-blaming in recent history. It would also pave the way to further reduce women’s access to abortion, which is, in my view, the whole fucking point.

Let’s take another look at that stated purpose of the bill:

To amend Titles 16 and 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal law and criminal procedure, respectively, so as to change the term ‘victim’ to the term ‘accuser’ in the context of a number of statutes making reference to circumstances where there has not yet been a criminal conviction; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

I wonder what those “other purposes” are, hmm? Well, given the Republicans latest assault on abortion rights, and their attempt to redefine rape to include the term “forcible,” their goal must be to make sure that only Real Rape Victims have access to abortion.

“[A]nd for other purposes” must mean “for purposes of deciding who we deem worthy of the choice to decide whether or not to carry a baby to term.” If abortions are available only to rape victims (whether “rape rape” victims or “rapish” victims), and in order to be deemed a rape victim, one’s rapist must be convicted, then you might as well just go ahead and decide to have that rape baby right now because chasing that Rape Victim status is probably more fucking trouble than it’s worth.

Think about it — once you’ve been raped, it becomes a race again the clock! You gotta pick yourself up, shrug your shoulders — “Damn! Raped again!” — head over to the hospital to get checked out, talk to the police, help them find your rapist (er… “alleged perpetrator”), then keep the pressure on the police detectives and the D.A. to prosecute the motherfucker just so you can get your “I Got Raped And All I Got Was This Stupid Rape Certificate” certificate.

Only when you’ve accomplished all of these goals — chop chop! You only have three to four months because you don’t want to have to deal with a late-term abortion, do ya? — can you even think about getting an abortion. And what of the appeals process? Can you be a rape victim only after the “alleged perpetrator” has exhausted his appellate rights? What about a mistrial? A hung jury? Do any of these impediments to a final judgment delay your ability to achieve meritorious Rape Victim status?

What the fuck?

I hate people.

To send this asshole Bobby Franklin a hearty “fuck you!” visit his Facebook page.

1 I say women because most rape victims (at least reported victims) are women.

[via Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee]

[cross-posted here at Angry Black Lady Chronicles]

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






116 replies
  1. 1
    Brachiator says:

    I seriously wonder why conservative women are (so far) going along with this outrage.

    I also wonder where this bizarre attack on reproductive rights originated. Some right wing think tank somewhere considered this to be a move of tactical genius. It is sickening, but obviously part of an organized effort to change law.

  2. 2
    freelancer says:

    Mars doesn’t need women. Mars needs Republicans. All of them. Like, yesterday.

  3. 3
    Woodrowfan says:

    they seem to have disabled comments on his Facebook page..

  4. 4
    El Cid says:

    It’s the state which accuses a defendant of a serious crime against the law, not the (alleged) victim, right?

  5. 5
    freelancer says:

    The only way I could go along with this is if Sarah Palin (R) would be referred to by everyone as an accuser in that she whinges about media criticism.

  6. 6
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    Who didn’t see that coming like the WWII victory parade down Broadway?

  7. 7
    D. Mason says:

    Well this is disgusting. To the casual observer it could easily be described as a purely semantic change, which I suspect will be at the core of the push for passage.

  8. 8
    Lesley says:

    I suggest going viral with a Republicans For Rapists campaign on social media to drive the message home because this is what it is.

    “Somebody has to support America’s rapists and Republicans are stepping up to that shit plate!”

  9. 9
    MikeJ says:

    Don’t you like that bit about how they don’t have to tell you when the person who has been stalking you is released from police custody if you don’t give them a landline number to call.

    Do people still have landlines?

  10. 10
    Violet says:

    The downgrading of “victim” to mere “accuser” applies only to rape, as far as I can tell. If you’ve been mugged, or robbed, or defrauded, you’re still a victim.

    I’m not familiar with law terminology. If someone is robbed, or says they’re robbed, they’re referred to as the “victim,” even though the case hasn’t yet gone to trial and the robber (accused robber) has not yet been convicted? Is that the correct terminology in law paperwork and in court?

    The “Duke Rape Case” (the one with the lacrosse team, where the charges were eventually dropped) still gets lots of play on wingnut radio shows. It’s brought up as an example of “prosecutor overreach” but the dogwhistle is “crazy black people who want to punish whites for anything and everything.” So it kind of doesn’t surprise me that rape is being treated this way with a stern “innocent until proven guilty.” That Duke Rape Case has stuck around among the wingnut crowd.

  11. 11
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I am not necessarily opposed to using the term accuser instead of victim. If, however, it is done done, it should be done for all alleged crimes. Of course, even as I say that, I will note that it is quite possible to have a crime and a crime victim without having a defendant who can, or will, be convicted.

  12. 12
    burnspbesq says:

    The “other purposes” are pretty apparent: to eliminate all prosecutions for sexual assault.

    If the police are responsible for the cost of the rape kit exam, then they are responsible for deciding whether to incur that cost. And budget-constrained police department will find “higher valued” uses for their scarce funds. Which means no evidence. Which, in turn, means no prosecutions. Nice.

  13. 13
    freelancer says:

    Next year on Comcast/NBC affiliates, Benson, Munch, and Stabler resign from “Law & Order: Special Accuser’s Unit”.

    And BD Wong lets his freak flag fly.

    Ratings Gold.

  14. 14
    Nicole says:

    @El Cid</ Yes, that is correct. The victim can press charges, but it is the Attorney General who files them on behalf of the state. Which makes this proposal not only mean-spirited, but moronic.

    Wow, ABL, you sure do know how to raise a girl’s blood pressure on a Friday night. Wow. Just fucking wow. Lesley, let me know when the Republicans for Rapists Tshirts and bumper stickers are available.

    Assholes. Horrible, awful assholes.

  15. 15
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    @MikeJ: Duh no. Even my boss a 60+ white male told me to disconnect his land line two years ago cause the only people who call him on it are “telemarketers and debt collecters” I however still have a landline cause it is my connection to my Mum and sister in the old country. Tis worth the money to be in contact with them.

  16. 16
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    For more Bobby Franklin batshittery, ankle on over to http://www.ginandtacos.com. Ed did a huge awesome post on Bobby yesterday (I think it was).

    And, you want victimz? I’ll show you victimz. Some of us live in Bobby Franklin’s Georgia.

    (Oops, sorry, of course I meant to say *accuserz*.)

  17. 17
    G Newman says:

    This is the same state senator who introduced a bill to eliminate drivers licenses — quote: “”Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people…”. And he is the same one who regularly introduced bills to require that all payments to and from state government be made in gold and silver, not cash or credit card.

    But this latest outrage by this knucklehead is more than just peak wingnut or garden-variety misogyny. It’s a marker for something dirty in his past. Predator, maybe? I think we’ll find out.

  18. 18
    Boudica says:

    @Woodrowfan: Looks like comments can be posted here maybe: bobby franklin comments
    ETA: or maybe not.

  19. 19
    Nicole says:

    @Nicole: Ah, FYWP. I was trying to put in a link to an article about who may file criminal charges. El Cid is correct. Here’s the link:

    Who Can File Criminal Charges

  20. 20
    burnspbesq says:

    @ Violet:

    “It’s brought up as an example of “prosecutor overreach” but the dogwhistle is ‘crazy black people who want to punish whites for anything and everything.'”

    That it is used as a dog-whistle doesn’t change the fact that it was an outrageous miscarriage of justice. And when Durham was ready to railroad Dave, Collin, and Reade, African-American Duke faculty were right at the front of the mob.

  21. 21
    Mr Stagger Lee says:

    To Rep. Franklin You and the rest of the He-man women haters club or properly known as the Republican Party, so what happens when it is your wife/daughter/granddaughter/sister/niece?

  22. 22
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    I would just like to say that this is possibly the best ABL rant I have ever seen. The minute I saw this on Huffpo I thought to myself, “I hope ABL does a rant on this” and I was not disappointed.

  23. 23

    The moral cowardice of these wankers bears noting. This is simply about being unwilling to bear a culture that is glacially making the proper place for rape — NONE.

    Yes, people get accused falsely, and that is horrible. Yet make no mistake, this sort of person thinks a false rape accusation is just as bad as being raped. That people accuse all the time, instead of the truth — often scared by people just like the Rep, and discouraged by our overall society, rape is horrifically underreported. And they know they can’t say that in polite company (we’re damned two-faced about rape in mainstream America, and THAT’S what the Duke case exploited), so they backdoor some shit.

    Like I said, cowards. Don’t give ’em even the inch of “I don’t see the difference in terms”, because I assure you they’d not do it if they didn’t see that difference, and think to exploit it down the road.

    Just like they think being called a racist is the worst thing that can happen to them, ever.

  24. 24
    gelfling545 says:

    @MikeJ: Not anyone I know — literally no one. And I’m old.

  25. 25
    Raythe says:

    Long time lurker here who just had to respond to this post. I know that the Republicans (and obviously some Democrats) have gone off their respective gourds since Obama was elected (or it seems so), but this is actually starting to scare me a bit. As if the shootings and everything else shouldn’t have already …

  26. 26
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Brachiator:

    I seriously wonder why conservative women are (so far) going along with this outrage.

    Because they don’t think it will ever happen to them, so they don’t give a shit. Sadly, you usually can’t even argue “but what if it was your daughter?” with them because they don’t give a shit about that either — the little slut deserved it, QED. If it won’t harm them personally, they’ll ride along all the way to hell.

  27. 27
    minachica says:

    @burnspbesq:

    That it is used as a dog-whistle doesn’t change the fact that it was an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

    Umm, duh.

    And when Durham was ready to railroad Dave, Collin, and Reade, African-American Duke faculty were right at the front of the mob.

    And your point is…?

  28. 28
    wonkie says:

    IN Bangladesh a woman was stoned to death for getting raped by her cousin. A sharia courty ruled that she had comitted adultery. I thought Republicans were opposed to sharia law. Seems like this particlualr Republican isn’t.

  29. 29
    suzanne says:

    I am ashamed to say that I HATE these shitstains, but I do. I could not possibly have more loathing. If I saw one of the people who came up with this bullshit idea suffocating, I would give him CPR, just so he could be fully conscious to feel me punch him in the face.

    Though I will say that John’s (and other commenters’) indignantion when I called Ben Rapistburger, well, a RAPIST also pissed me off. I’m not sure if the vast majority of men know how much it hurts women to have even the power of language that accurately describes what happens to you taken away.

  30. 30
    ppcli says:

    @burnspbesq:
    You shouldn’t single out African-American faculty: there were faculty of all colours and sizes who were howling for a conviction, publishing “open letters” etc. In general, the behaviour of a large, visible and vocal segment of the Duke professoriate was indefensible. It was one of those occasions when I was embarrassed to be a professor.

  31. 31
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: I wonder if they actually think that there is anything wrong with rape, if perhaps they think along the lines of ” Well, he got a little rough, but boys will be be boys. Besides she probably enjoyed it/ was asking for it/etc.”

  32. 32
    gwangung says:

    @wonkie:

    IN Bangladesh a woman was stoned to death for getting raped by her cousin. A sharia courty ruled that she had comitted adultery. I thought Republicans were opposed to sharia law. Seems like this particlualr Republican isn’t.

    Folks should be making more of this.

    They’re not fighting sharia because it’s oppressive; they’re fighting it because they see it as a rival.

  33. 33
    Epicurus says:

    Apparently Representative Franklin is ignoring the fact that anyone charged with rape is “accused” in court by the People of the relevant jurisdiction. I just love this little semantic game, first with the “forcible’ bullshit (as in, when is rape not “forcible”? Please) and now this ridiculous bill. Unfortunately, expect much more of this insanity from the wingnuts elected last November. Also, too, I believe that the “other purposes” language is pretty standard legislative language. The main title is disgusting and demeaning enough on its own. I’m so glad I don’t live in Georgia any more.

  34. 34
    Stillwater says:

    @burnspbesq: And when Durham was ready to railroad Dave, Collin, and Reade, African-American Duke faculty were right at the front of the mob.

    You say that as if black people don’t have good cause for being suspicious of white justice.

  35. 35
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    @D. Mason: Changing semantics means changing meaning. There’s no such thing as “just a semantic change.”

  36. 36
    Stillwater says:

    @Raythe: It’s ok. You’re just now getting caught up to speed on the fear we live with daily.

  37. 37
    PeakVT says:

    They’re not fighting sharia because it’s oppressive; they’re fighting it because they see it as a rival.

    Bingo.

  38. 38
    General Stuck says:

    @Raythe:

    Yup, scary. It’s all about power and control, and white males in the south, and some elsewhere making a last stand to recapture it from liberal weineist usurpers with their collective notions of political correctness and all that equal rights mumbo jumbo, and foolishly taking serious that whole justice thingy in that rag constitution. With arbitrary definitions not approved by the powers that be, ie (Bobby Franklins of the world) and have always been. We are seeing it play out in very personal ways over control of sex and sexuality, and at the state V federal level over HCR and the states rights 10th amendment bullshit, like now in Idaho, and AZ.

    And Georgia, as Franklin’s new return to the status quo of the bygone Big Daddy era of the old south. I have no problem the state calling the unconvicted the accused. So long as you do it with every crime.

  39. 39
    ppcli says:

    Look, it’s clear we need to watch very carefully. It is no coincidence that there are these stealth efforts to redefine. The new playbook is evidently to eliminate the practical effect of the rape exception to abortion laws by semantic sleight of hand. In this case the tipoff is the insertion of the vague, and potentially explosive “and other purposes”. There is no question in my mind that the promoters of this bill have their eye on one specific “other purpose”, and that is some law or other that says abortion shall be available to “rape victims”. And voilà – it doesn’t make an exception for “rape accusers” does it?

    A story – I’ve told it before here, so I hope I’m not getting boring, but this can’t be repeated often enough. When we had a referendum on gay marriage here in Michigan, the ballot proposal was oddly broad. There was a reference to not counting gay unions as a marriage “for any purpose” etc. People who observed that this could be read to preclude domestic partner benefits for city and public university employees were said to be engaging in “scare tactics”. The people who crafted the amendment put out commercials insisting “it’s about marriage, not about benefits”. The attorney general kept quiet. Then after it passed – and I mean *right* after it passed – within a couple of days, the attorney general, with the participation of the same groups, sued – ultimately successfully – to block domestic partner benefits. They acted so quickly that it was clear the briefs had been drafted well in advance of the proposition passing. This had been the plan all along. It was one of the most disgustingly dishonest displays I’ve seen. And I’m old enough to have seen some revolting political dishonesty.

    So I learned this lesson: Do not let right-wingers ever, ever, ever, *ever* get away with slipping broad language into a bill, because it’s not an accident: they absolutely are planning to use it, and you won’t like what they are planning to use it for. Furthermore, they are doing things this way because they know they would never succeed if they just came out and stated what they are up to.

  40. 40
    petorado says:

    So, according to Rep. Franklin, the burden of proof shall lie with the “accuser” to prove that they didn’t enjoy it. Utterly horrifying.

    This would seem to be the occasion when Republican efforts to piss off liberals winds up pissing off all of humanity. Come on Georgia, you have it in you.

  41. 41
    rikyrah says:

    thank you ABL.

  42. 42
    dziliak says:

    Jesus fucking Christ!

    My list of people who to kill would merely start with the perp himself and then go on to their enablers no matter what their gender.

    The simple Ka-Bar in the back or a .30-06 at 800 yards works wonders against those who would condemn my family to suffer from this kind of agony.

    Of course this is merely a hypothetical that should in no way be read to encourage the unstable among us to resort to vigilantism after an unpunished rape. :)

  43. 43
    serena1313 says:

    The person is still a victim of rape regardless of any label attached. But more importantly, calling the victim an “accuser” minimizes the act of violence perpetuated on that person and moreover it brings doubt about whether that person was even raped which is ludicrous in itself. As we all know, cases do not go to trial without evidence of a crime having been committed. Rape cases are no different — albeit sometimes harder to prove, but requires evidence of rape nonetheless.

    Therein it is the state’s responsibility to get a conviction. Sometimes alleged rapists have gotten off on a technicality or was wrongly accused or the prosecution was incompetent and failed to prove its case. That still does not change the fact that a rape occurred. And the person who was raped was victimized, period.

    So, the question that comes to mind, insofar as purpose, begs asking: is this an attempt by the state to make the “accuser” go after the rapist rather than the state (to save the state money or what)? Otherwise it makes no sense given that the “accused” are presumed innocent until found guilty.

    Thus I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. Whatever it is, there is absolutely no justification, none whatsoever, for labeling a rape victim an “accuser.” It will not change what happened.

    In addition to being raped, because the defense has to convince the court their client is innocent, the victims themselves generally end-up being put on trial, per se. The whole process is degrading and humiliating enough without adding salt to the wound.

    All I can say is, shame on Bobby Franklin.

  44. 44
    dziliak says:

    That said, homicide would of course have to be redefined in the legal code to excuse such killings, as otherwise the predators would have no reason to cease the predation.

  45. 45
    General Stuck says:

    I am not necessarily opposed to using the term accuser instead of victim. If, however, it is done done, it should be done for all alleged crimes.

    The way I look at this is someone makes a complaint of being a victim of a crime, and the first thing the cops should do is evaluate any evidence that indicates a crime was in fact committed. Once they do affirm a crime was committed, then that person is a victim, and is separate from any one accused of that particular crime. So it is not okay to rename a determination of “victim” based on any accusations of a particular perpetrator for that crime. This is what stinks from this leg proposal from Franklin. When there is someone charged, the trial should not be about “the victim” , but only the guilt or innocence of the accused for that crime. And I am aware that rape accusations are sometimes light of physical evidence, and a he said she said situation is mostly what is left. Those are the tough cases, I suspect, for a prosecutor to decide on.

  46. 46
    freelancer says:

    @dziliak:

    Yeah, there’s a reason that even the head-splody anger of ABL doesn’t lead her to intimate death threats. DIAF is rhetorical, but loaded with weapons, it becomes a distinct difference.

  47. 47
    dziliak says:

    @freelancer:

    True that, though while I’d like to think I’d be able to resist the temptation to plant a hollowpoint between the perp’s frontal lobes, I’m not sure I could.

    That said, I’d also have to be damned sure I was ‘doing the right thing’ in that guilt was 100% certain.

    If not, I’d like to think that I wouldn’t harm an innocent
    That said, if my niece/sister/cousin lied about it and didn’t admit to it until after I’d harmed an innocent, then I’d fully expect the maximum penalty of the law to be applied to me.

  48. 48

    @Nicole: It occurred to me after I had already published the post that whether or not an accuser achieves victim status is based on the prosecutor’s success at trial. If the prosecution can’t make its case, I guess the accuser can only achieve victim status by filing and winning a civil suit, which could take a very long time — well into the rape baby’s preschool years.

    Disgusting.

  49. 49
    fuckwit says:

    Seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with these people.

  50. 50
    Moonbatman says:

    Glad someone is standing up for the rights of Rape victims like Crystal Mangum and Danmell Ndonye.
    Peace Out The Power is Yours.

  51. 51
    Dennis G. says:

    What an amazing fuckstick this Bobby Franklin is–it would be fair to suspect that he has some secrets in his background that inform his desire to protect rapists.

  52. 52
    freelancer says:

    @fuckwit:

    They are all fuckwits now.

  53. 53
    megamahan says:

    Looking further into this, I’m left with the impression that this law applies Titles 16 and 17 of the Georgia Code, which covers most criminal acts in general as opposed to just rape, stalking, etc. If that’s true, then it seems a bit less nefarious. Am I wrong on this?

  54. 54
    David Brooks (not that one) says:

    To #23 (the link-editing thing seems broken): Speaking a someone with, let’s say a close friend who was once falsely accused of rape: yes, she remains the accuser and my friend the victim. But he is not confused that the somewhat uncomfortable discussion with the police was anything like as bad as being raped. Nowhere close.

    And I know that’s not what this bill is about.

  55. 55
    Silver says:

    Bobby Franklin looks like the type of guy who would rape his niece.

    I’m not saying that Bobby Franklin actually did rape his niece, you understand. I’m just saying that Bobby Franklin, Republican from Georgia, looks like the kind of person who may have possibly raped his niece. Or his nephew, we should not discount the possibility that Bobby Franklin enjoys raping his nephew.

  56. 56
    David Brooks (not that one) says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt: One word: Vonage. Do it. A familiar domestic phone, free calls to most of Europe. And, best of all, for $5 a month you can get an international number tacked onto your “line” (I have a London number) so that family can call you at local rates, often free also.

    If you are still a captive of the phone company and have DSL, then you are using a phone to talk to a net connection that goes over a phone line to a net connection to the other end. Still worth it.

  57. 57
    PS says:

    I tried to put myself in the mindset of Obergruppenführer Franklin, and I just cannot. Has he no concept at all of how it would feel to be the “accuser” in a case of alleged rape? Has he ever gone to the goddamned hospital with someone suffering the aftereffects of such an assault? I can only assume that if he’s gone to a clinic at all it’s to see if the perp “accused” had his dick damaged.

    I’m upset, and partly because I cannot summon empathy with this weasel distinguished legislator. And, yeah, I was being unnecessarily rude to Germans, some of whom are very pleasant. Gawd save us all. BTW, ABL, thanks for alerting us.

  58. 58
    Tax Analyst says:

    Only when you’ve accomplished all of these goals—chop chop! You only have three to four months because you don’t want to have to deal with a late-term abortion, do ya?—can you even think about getting an abortion. And what of the appeals process? Can you be a rape victim only after the “alleged perpetrator” has exhausted his appellate rights? What about a mistrial? A hung jury? Do any of these impediments to a final judgment delay your ability to achieve meritorious Rape Victim status?

    And what if the “alleged perpetrator” pleads “Guilty” to a lesser crime?

    Because it would surely be wrong to abort a baby that resulted from a “lesser crime”, wouldn’t it?

    And if this “alleged” perp wasn’t really a rapist, but only guilty of some “lesser crime” that isn’t quite rape, but did involve putting his what-sis into her child-producing where-sis area, doesn’t he get to have some parental rights? Maybe he really wants to have a child of his own. Just because some “alleged” scumbag allegedly rapes a woman doesn’t mean he doesn’t have “fee fees” just like all the non scumbag types out there who don’t rape (or not quite rape) women, allegedly or otherwise.

    Boy, I’ll bet the people that elected Bobby Franklin are just so very proud of the important work he’s doing in protecting them and making Georgia a peachier place to live.

  59. 59
    Don K says:

    @Brachiator:

    Simple. Conservative women believe rape only happens to bad girls, which obviously doesn’t include any of them.

  60. 60

    @megamahan: Here’s a link to the text of the statute:

    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legisl.....108144.pdf

    It appears to apply the new language to certain crimes, and specifically enumerates sexual offenses, stalking, and family violence, and does not appear to apply to all criminal and civil offenses across the board.

  61. 61
    megamahan says:

    @Angry Black Lady: Wow, my mistake. I might not have had a problem with the idea if it had been applied to all crimes, but to single out only these crimes is truly fucked up. Thanks for correcting my dumb ass, ABL (and of course, for the original post; great rant)!

  62. 62
    burnspbesq says:

    Amazing. I figured Franklin would be from some rural enclave that hasn’t yet heard that Lee surrendered. But no … he represents part of Cobb County in the northern suburbs of Atlanta. Unreal.

  63. 63
  64. 64
    Gus diZerega says:

    I did a post on why these folks are so incredible insane in their attempt at ‘reasoning’. It might interest some of you.

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/apag.....rtion.html

  65. 65
    soonergrunt says:

    @burnspbesq: It was a large portion of the faculty, across racial gender lines who wanted in on that lynch mob.

  66. 66
    alwhite says:

    Seeing as so many of these assholes are bible believen pigs I wonder how long it will be before the define rape on where it took place. According to the OT if the rape took place in the city (where presumably people would hear the ‘accuser’s’ cries) it isn’t rape. But if the rape took place in the country then it is.

    God wrote & I believe it! And that is why I am a Pastafarian.

  67. 67
    soonergrunt says:

    @Stillwater:You say that as if it’s an excuse to commit a miscarriage of justice.

  68. 68
    soonergrunt says:

    @Angry Black Lady: And what about cases where no rape ever happened? Should the accuser continue to be called ‘victim’ as we do today?
    Because I have a bit a problem with the concept that we should continue that farce.
    I don’t think we should call the accusers in any crime the ‘victims’ until a crime can be proven, but that’s just bitter experience talking.

  69. 69
    freelancer says:

    @soonergrunt:

    Sooner, your link don’t work. Repost?

  70. 70
    soonergrunt says:

    @freelancer:
    Try here

  71. 71
    General Stuck says:

    @soonergrunt:

    When this topic comes up, I usually think of the nightmare you went through on the other side of this equation. In cases where physical evidence indicates a rape was committed, I don’t think lack of conviction should usurp the victim status, even though the accused was found not guilty of the crime. Cases where there is none, or very little physical evidence is a tougher call.

    edit – and of course, in cases like yours where the accuser recants, then not only is she not a victim, but is in fact a perpetrator.

  72. 72
    Jebediah says:

    I know there may be tactical advantages to letting these scumbags show everybody what they are really all about, but…fuck! Is it actually impossible to find something so low and depraved that there won’t be at least a couple of these troglodytes willing to go for it?
    I feel sick to my stomach.

  73. 73
    Allan says:

    In order to post anything at his Facebook page, you have to lie and “like” him. Even then, all you can do is comment on the photos his staffer uploaded last year. Don’t worry: when you’re done commenting, you can “unlike” him again.

    The pics of him posing with the Miss Cobb County beauty queen are especially fruitful comment threads to peruse…

  74. 74
    asiangrrlMN says:

    This shit is outrageous. Seriously. I think the batshitcrazy Republicans like this are overstepping (at least I hope they are). Really, if I lived in one of these counties, my mentality would be to kill any fucker before he raped me. No questions asked. Someone stalking me? Dead. Someone harassing me, escalating it, and won’t quit? Dead. And, I say this as someone who for a long time believed I would let someone kill me before I killed someone else. If the lawmakers decide to make it so the law is once again harming the people it’s supposed to help, then fuck them.

    @soonergrunt: Then the accuser should be tossed in jail for false accusations and whatnot. False rape accusations are shitty, but this is not what this asshole is trying to guard against.

    ETA: I have a landline, but I don’t understand why they insist on a landline.

  75. 75
    Allan says:

    @ppcli: Ditto on Prop 8 in California. Oh, no, they said, nothing about this law is retroactive, we have NO intention of going after marriage licenses already issued, election day, BANG to court. Somehow, they lost that case.

  76. 76
    soonergrunt says:

    @asiangrrlMN: I know that he’s trying to bootstrap the terminology so that he can restrict access to reproductive health care. It’s another fantasy of theirs– the rape victim should have a mark like some kind of fallen woman. They really are no different than the Taliban.

    As for the landline requirement, it probably has to do with the fact that mobile phones don’t show up in directories, and can’t be accessed through directory assistance either. It could also be bullshit.

  77. 77
    Wag says:

    I am not necessarily opposed to using the term accuser instead of victim. If, however, it is done done, it should be done for all alleged crimes. Of course, even as I say that, I will note that it is quite possible to have a crime and a crime victim without having a defendant who can, or will, be convicted.

    If we follow this to the (il)logical extreme then murder will no longer be against the law. No more murder victim, only a dead murder accusor! If there is no one to accuse the perpetrator then no crime! The obvious conclusion is there would be need for jails because there would be convictions. Think of the tax breaks that would result from the savings. The economy would roar back to life!

  78. 78
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @soonergrunt: They disgust me so much, I can’t think straight. I can’t fathom this way of thinking, and I’m not sure I want to get into a mine that ugly and grotesque.

    Mobile: OK. So they want to be able to double-check the number? Well, my landline number is unlisted, so what would that do to their scheme? I am so confused. And pissed off. I don’t like being this pissed off. Good thing I have tai chi class tomorrow.

    @Allan: Never trust them. Never. Ever.

    @Wag: OK. Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it. My head is all ‘asplodey.

  79. 79

    this Bobby Franklin person sounds like a good candidate for a raping. Someone should rape him, and then Bobby should have to prove he was raped.

    he wouldn’t have dick to say on the topic if someone he loved had been raped.

  80. 80
    freelancer says:

    @soonergrunt:

    Thank you. Words have power. They are not to be used casually. Your story is as infuriating as it is illuminating. I have known women (and men for that matter) with the moral constitution of your “Soldier A”. They are cheap, petty, and small human beings and I do my damnedest to avoid involvement with them at all costs. They, in their actions and attitude, belittle all those who actually fall prey to malicious crime, and are worthy of little more than contempt.

  81. 81
    Loneoak says:

    This makes me want to punch myself in the nuts just for being male.

  82. 82
    Ruckus says:

    @Loneoak:
    Would be far more useful to do that to Franklin and his ilk, using asiangrrlMN’s rusty pitchfork. A rusty chainsaw would be preferred but the suffering would not last long enough.
    But I get the idea and concur.

    What the hell ever happened to trying to be a better person? Was that just a perverse dream someone once had? I just have to ask what the fuck makes people think like this? What possible gain can they have? What the hell is in this for them?

  83. 83
    Allan says:

    Criminalize all abortion, redefine rape, what is wrong with the GOP?

    Oh, I see.

    Within five years, if the GOP retakes control of the government, all pureblood white blond females attaining the age of puberty will be used as breeding stock and kept constantly pregnant in order to stave off the coming brown majority.

  84. 84
    PS says:

    @soonergrunt: Thanks for having the guts to put that out there. I understand your concern about the language, and I do appreciate that you can see the other side anyway.

    I guess I see a kind of presumption of innocence going both ways: It’s a contradiction but a good human one. Taking it away from rape, the victim of a burglary is assumed to be a victim, though they could be an insurance scammer. The accused burglar is also (legally) presumed innocent. But everyone knows what role they are playing; and that occasionally the roles get reversed. Stuff evolved over centuries into usage that pretty much works … and then you run across assholes like Franklin trying to mess with it.

    On the other hand, we run into people like most of those on this board. So there’s that.

  85. 85
    Lesley says:

    Bobby Franklin also wants to eliminate drivers licenses.

    Why do people vote for crazy people?

  86. 86
    El Cid says:

    Via Nicole’s link, here is a general description of what a serious crime actually is, and how the victim is not the accuser in the sense of charging a defendant.

    The (alleged) victim does not even have to be in favor of prosecuting or testifying.

    Criminal Charges
    __
    A criminal charge is the formal declaration from the state that a person is suspected of committing a crime. Charges are filed only when a prosecutor believes he has a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
    __
    Prosecutorial Discretion
    __
    Only the prosecutor has final say on filing charges. The prosecutor has unfettered discretion when determining whether to file changes and what kind should be filed.
    __
    Victim’s Rights
    __
    Contrary to popular belief, victims do not have right to file charges. By pressing charges, a victim is letting the prosecutor know that she wants the charges filed and is willing to proceed with the case, but the decision still rests with the prosecutor.
    __
    Prosecutors can file in cases where the victim wants charges dropped, and can refuse to file in cases where the victim wants to proceed.
    __
    Who is the Victim?
    __
    Under the American criminal justice system, the “victim” is actually the state. The prosecutor is representing the entire citizenry, and ultimately must make the decision as to what is best for everyone, not just the individual victim.

    The government is the “accuser”, charging the accused with a crime against public order, law, and safety.

    The (alleged) victim is not the “accuser”, but could be the person who contacts law enforcement to report an allegation of a crime by another person or persons, and could be willing to state that she (or he) wishes the state to press charges, and could be willing (or unwilling) to testify.

    Correct?

    And don’t newspapers and broadcasters already (as done above) take extra care to use terms like “alleged” or “presumed” or some such so as not to be making accusations or the like themselves?

    So this is just pointless other than being mean and repressive and demeaning to victims of sexual assault and rape. And by extension, pretty much of any crime.

  87. 87
    Allan says:

    @Ruckus: Tertiary syphilis?

  88. 88
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    It’s pretty clear from the way the bill title is constructed, that “and for other purposes” refers back to the initial “To amend Titles 16 and 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal law and criminal procedure, respectively, so as to… .”

    This looks like drafting boilerplate, meant to describe various smaller or unrelated changes made by the bill, and appears in lots of other Georgia bills, if not most of them.

    There’s nothing to be served in reading something into it that isn’t there.

  89. 89
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    Correction: “An act to amend Titles 16 and 17, etc…”

    Here’s a link to the bill.

  90. 90
    Flugelhorn says:

    Ahh yes. Everyone who is accused of rape should be guilty until proven innocent, Miss Lawyer.

  91. 91
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Flugelhorn:
    Yes. You got it exactly right. Now go away.

  92. 92
    Emma says:

    Brachiator: Rich Republican women will take themselves or their daughters to a discrete clinic outside the US. Poor Republican women have been sold on the “but it’s a baaaaybbbeeee” and that’s all they see. Until it’s their daughter, in which case they will sneak her into the Planned Parenthood clinic through the back door, because, you know, it’s only “those” women who don’t deserve a chance.

    I don’t know what they will do when there are no more options for middle class and poor women. They don’t think ahead. They don’t think.

  93. 93
    Brendon says:

    In my experience law enforcement and prosecutors are trained to always use the term “victim” in court because it helps to create the assumption in the mind of the panel that there was a crime and that the accused did it. At the same time, defense counsel will frequently use terms such as “accusatrix” to create the opposite effect. I’ve always simply used the person’s name when I’ve been in court (i.e. “SrA Smith will testify that…” or “SSgt Bob knew A1C Sara was intoxicated…”). Failing that I simply prefer the term “complaining witness” as its fairly neutral and fairly captures persons role in the trial.

    As an aside, defense counsel will often file pre-trial motions specifically to prevent the use of the term “victim” in court until there has been a guilty finding.

    This proposed law is stupid of a wealth of reasons.

  94. 94
    Jamey says:

    @Silver: When you put it that way, this bill makes perfect sense.

    He must also be a really crappy driver, too.

  95. 95
    Jack the Second says:

    @soonergrunt

    The problem with removing the status of ‘victim’ is that it implicitly assumes that the victim is guilty of false accusation until proven innocent of that crime. You aren’t turning people from “victims” into “accusers”, you’re turing them from “victims” into “alleged false rape accusers”, and they have to then prove that they are not guilty of false rape accusation.

    Just because the accused in the crime may be innocent — may even be statistically likely to be found innocent — does not mean that the victim is a false accuser or that no crime took place.

    The only way for a civilized legal system to work is for everyone, everywhere to be assumed to be innocent and acting with sincere intentions. (And the only way for a civilized legal system to work well is for most people to actually be innocent and acting with sincere intentions.)

  96. 96
    Shalimar says:

    @Flugelhorn: Brilliant reading comprehension and grasp of logic you have there. You wouldn’t make it through one semester of law school.

  97. 97
    Joey Maloney says:

    @Silver: Given the rumors that I have seen in many places on the internet, I find it very disturbing that Bobby Franklin has never denied raping his niece and nephew.

  98. 98
    WereBear says:

    @ppcli: Furthermore, they are doing things this way because they know they would never succeed if they just came out and stated what they are up to.

    That’s the key to getting a stranglehold on the media, too. Because when you do explain what the wingers are up to… everyone with a brain is horrified.

  99. 99
    Jenny Mae says:

    Wow, from the vitriolic remarks on this post sounds like conservatives, Christians and Republicans are pretty much the victims of this post/rant….

  100. 100
    Stillwater says:

    @soonergrunt: ‘Miscarriage of justice’ is surely a broad enough concept to include both the institutional as well as individual varieties.

  101. 101
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Epicurus:

    I’m so glad I don’t live in Georgia any more.

    What sucks is, as a nurse, there are so many great jobs available in Atlanta, but I’d NEVER live as state with the kind of political morons in it they have. The same reason that “The List of places I won’t be moving to regardless of the awesome career opportunities” is getting longer every day…Florida, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Virginia…

  102. 102

    @megamahan: Hey, that was a good question. Not dumb at all.

    soonergrunt- man, I’m so sorry that happened to you. There’s no excuse for what that woman did to you.

  103. 103
    Ruckus says:

    @Allan:
    None for me thanks.

    Oh you mean it’s possible that Franklin has it. That would explain a lot. But not why anyone voted for him.

    @Jenny Mae:
    If you are snarking, good one.
    If you are serious, conservatives, christians and republicans deserve this and so much more. I’d only ask one question, why can’t those christians, conservatives and republicans mind their own fucking business and stay the hell out of everyone elses?

  104. 104
    delosgatos says:

    This.

    Thanks General. You said exactly what I was thinking.

  105. 105
    aelphaba says:

    While you cannot comment on his Facebook page you can flag it for abuse under gender. I think that everyone should to send a message.

  106. 106
    Gian says:

    late to the game, but above the question was asked “when is rape not forcible”

    rape by use of intoxicants is one way, but for the GOPers, who have a hstory of attacking abortion with “parental notice” I think the kind of rape he’s aiming to make go away is “statutory rape” where the girl legally can’t consent, because she’s a girl, and not an adult.

    So when someone gets your 15 year old kid drunk, and has sex, and she gets PG, there’s no “rape” issue for abortion purposes.

    It strikes me as an attempt to repeal stat rape laws to push the abortion front.

  107. 107
    Ruckus says:

    @Gian:
    “When is rape not forcible?”
    When the female is not assaulted and penetrated. It does not matter if she is drunk or not, if she can not and/or does not consent, then it is rape. And rape is a forcible act. Period. I use the female here as male rape seems to be pretty rare outside of say, prison or war. And I know that there is sometimes a question of say two 15 yr olds having consensual sex, if in fact that is rape. The age of consent is in my mind another question, but there is always a matter of consent. Always.
    If I have simplified the definition too much or have not gone far enough please let me know, I would welcome that.
    ETA and yes I think most of us see this as a backdoor way to stop all abortions.

  108. 108
    Destroyer says:

    @Mr Stagger Lee:

    What happens when your son is accused of rape? Name forever tarnished because that woman was labeled victim. If he is convicted, live with the consequences, if he is not convicted, he still will live with the consequences and fear that having sex with a woman consensually can tarnish his name and bankrupt him in trial.

  109. 109
    Sparkles says:

    Comment on this wankers photos!

  110. 110
    soonergrunt says:

    @Jack the Second: Do you realize that your third paragraph contradicts your first?

    Calling someone an accuser doesn’t remove their status as a victim. See, sometimes, the accuser is not a victim of anything. But calling that person the victim means causes the accused to be associated as the victimizer.

    Not all accused are guilty, and not all accusers are victims.
    For example, my accuser wasn’t a victim of anything. Not even after she was shown to be a liar. I was the victim there, but I don’t think I’ve ever been called that.

  111. 111
    Mo Hanson says:

    I hope this isn’t a repeat, but what about those who don’t know their rapist – a stranger. There are 1000s of rape kits that have never been processed as there was no alleged rapist to prosecute. I guess these “accusers” would also be left out in the cold.

  112. 112
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Mo Hanson:

    We’re talking about legal terminology here, when there actually is a prosecution, or at least an arrest.

  113. 113
    Gian says:

    @Ruckus:

    I was looking at legal definitions, the concept of rape vis force/fear overcoming the lack of consent, versus other situations where consent is deemed impossible, hence the rape of a child below age of consent/ intoxicated person or even the rape of the mentally infirm.

    all of those may be accomplished without the use of force or fear to overcome the lack of consent.

    it doesn’t make them not rape, it puts them in the “non force” part of this jerk’s attempt to change the law.

  114. 114
    grendelkhan says:

    the right of women to decide for themselves what may reside in their uterus, whether it be a baby or an unwanted penis

    Unless we’re using hentai anatomy, penises don’t reside in, or even directly visit, uteruses.

  115. 115
    Cait says:

    @Lesley: Do you mind if I start/help with that?

    I’m all over tshirts and bumper stickers and mugs with witty slogans against this and the other laws that seem to be made by the GOPs “war on women’s health”. (Such as the one that will “allow hospitals to turn away a woman seeking an abortion, even if she’ll die without it” and the whole “redefining rape” nonsense.)

  116. 116

    […] bit of news, and one that falls into political language, is how Republicans have been attempting to redefine rape. Georgia Republican State Representative Bobby Franklin proposed a bill which does the following: […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] bit of news, and one that falls into political language, is how Republicans have been attempting to redefine rape. Georgia Republican State Representative Bobby Franklin proposed a bill which does the following: […]

Comments are closed.