(U-WIRE) - Last week in Colorado, Kobe Bryant's alleged rape victim was required to testify about her own previous sexual experiences.
Colorado law generally upholds rape shield laws to protect the victims and their reputations, but Bryant's defense team maintained that they needed to raise questions of character.
In this case, the judge agreed and ruled that the due process requirement demanded that the victim take the stand.
I tend to agree with the defense attorneys and the judge. While generally it is desirable to protect a victim's identity - she is, after all, a victim - in the present case, there seems to be concern that the victim might have framed Bryant. I won't even go into possible motives, but given the plethora of possibilities and the speculation surrounding the alleged force used, an examination of her character is, in fact, appropriate and fair.
But a major concern to me in this case has remained relatively unmentioned in the media throughout the saga. Everywhere this story has come up, the prevailing question is did Kobe Bryant do it? Did he force himself on his victim? So far, no clear answer has emerged - and society would seem to believe that should the answer be no, he didn't rape her, Bryant is in the clear.
I hope he didn't rape her, for her sake. It's hard to imagine a more heinous crime to endure than rape. But what if he didn't rape her? Is he really in the clear? Isn't he still married?
Why has society ignored this important issue? Why is it OK for Bryant to cheat on his wife as long as the affair was consensual? His wife has supportively stood by his side, and I commend her for that. No doubt extramarital affairs are one of the hardest issues to forgive in a marriage, and many marriages do not survive them. I'm not suggesting that the Bryants' marriage should be over, but few, if any, have expressed any objection to his behavior outside of the forcible rape issue.
It is a dangerous omen for society to allow our heroes to get away with such action without any responsibility. People claim that Bryant, and other public figures, are entitled to a private life. I disagree.
Along with publicity and fame - be it athletics, Hollywood or politics - comes a very publicized private life. Whatever happened to to whom much is given much is required? The Anglo-Saxons called it comitatus; the French call it noblesse oblige. Whatever label it wears, the principle has been around for centuries, attaching duty to privilege.
Bryant has been blessed with fortune that many in this world only dream about. Does no accountability come with that fortune?
Should Bryant be convicted, he will no longer be able to play in the NBA. Nor should he.
No, I'm not suggesting that the same punishment should necessarily come from his team if he's not convicted, but there should be some recognition from society of the immorality of his behavior.
So far, we have dropped the ball.
17 Archives
Emily Herring
