First I've heard of this...warning - gruesome

[serious crayons]

I would assume the reporters read the case files (when they are public) themselves.

Criminal files are always public. Reporters generally do read the files themselves if they are going to write about them. It's not always practical for reporters to go through every single criminal case that ever gets filed. So they depend, sometimes, on the police to tell them about newsworthy cases. But once that happens, the reporters read the file. And police don't normally try to hide newsworthy cases from the reporters.

I can't imagine either the police or the news media deliberately conspiring to hush up cases of male rape. Why would they? What would be the motive? If this were ever to happen, there'd be a Pulitzer in it for anybody who uncovered it.

The only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

[RouxB]

Criminal files are always public. Reporters generally do read the files themselves if they are going to write about them. It's not always practical for reporters to go through every single criminal case that ever gets filed. So they depend, sometimes, on the police to tell them about newsworthy cases. But once that happens, the reporters read the file. And police don't normally try to hide newsworthy cases from the reporters.

I can't imagine either the police or the news media deliberately conspiring to hush up cases of male rape. Why would they? What would be the motive? If this were ever to happen, there'd be a Pulitzer in it for anybody who uncovered it.

The only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

Only about 10% of rapes (of women) are reported to law enforcement so even if all reported cases hit the media (which they don't), it would still not be representative of the number of assaults that occur.

[serious crayons]

Only about 10% of rapes (of women) are reported to law enforcement so even if all reported cases hit the media (which they don't), it would still not be representative of the number of assaults that occur.

And if the figure for women is 10 percent, you can imagine for men it must be much, much lower.

[RouxB]

enja was saying burglars are burglars, you say that they need money is their single motif.  But I disagree, rapists can also rob.  Burglars can also murder.  They don't have a single motif.

I think I am being a bit broader than you are perhaps. Monika is correctly interpreting my meaning when I say burglars are burglers etc... Property crimes are motivated by the need for money. Breaking and entry/theft/conversion or property are all different counts but the basic crime is the burglary.

in 75% of cases, the rapist and the survivor are acquainted in some way and the majority of assaults happen in the survivors home. It is rape mythology that rapist and victim are unacquainted and that the assault is not planned. This is where the single crime figures in. The majority of rape cases do not involve any other crime non-assault related crime. I review rape stats on a quarterly basis from crisis centers all over the country. 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/index.html

[delalluvia]

I think I am being a bit broader than you are perhaps. Monika is correctly interpreting my meaning when I say burglars are burglers etc... Property crimes are motivated by the need for money. Breaking and entry/theft/conversion or property are all different counts but the basic crime is the burglary.

in 75% of cases, the rapist and the survivor are acquainted in some way and the majority of assaults happen in the survivors home. It is rape mythology that rapist and victim are unacquainted and that the assault is not planned. This is where the single crime figures in. The majority of rape cases do not involve any other crime non-assault related crime. I review rape stats on a quarterly basis from crisis centers all over the country. 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/index.html

I agree, but in the cases where they're not - serial killings, random killings and in the case that I started off this thread with - the couple was carjacked, robbed, raped and murdered.  Was this planned?  Or just random?  Did these guys need the money?  Obviously so, otherwise why are they carjacking and why did they rob the couple?  But that didn't stop them from continuing their violent activities.   What would you call this group of men?  Are they carjackers?  Are they thieves?  The couple did not know the people carjacking/assaulting them.  Serial killers and serial rapists don't know the women they attack.  These type of criminals can't be pigeonholed so easily.

he only explanations that make sense to me are 1) it doesn't happen that often 2) when it does happen, the victims, if they're living, often don't report it, 3) when they do report it, it doesn't get a lot of attention. Even rapes of women only get a lot of media attention when the case is already high profile because the victim mysteriously disappeared, or because the rapist is related to the Kennedys, or something like that.

I spoke w/ my friend the ex-newspaper reporter and she said that if men were raped and murdered, reporters likely wouldn't print the raped part because of the connotation of homosexuality implied might offend the victim's friends/family.  I was thinking reporting such a thing might also give some people negative ideas about the local gay community resulting in a witch hunt..

[serious crayons]

I spoke w/ my friend the ex-newspaper reporter and she said that if men were raped and murdered, reporters likely wouldn't print the raped part because of the connotation of homosexuality implied might offend the victim's friends/family.  I was thinking reporting such a thing might also give some people negative ideas about the local gay community resulting in a witch hunt..

As an ex-newspaper reporter myself, this is news to me. I've never heard of any decision made on the basis of political implications -- connotations of homosexuality, negative ideas about the local gay community, whatever. Nothing. Nohow. I'm not saying it's never happened, but in 15 years of working at small, medium and large daily papers, I never heard of it.

[ZK]

I didn't read the article but, yes, straight men are also raped. They rarely report because the stigma, bad enough for women, is far worse for me. I work for our local rape crisis center and we rarely get calls from men who are willing to report to police.

Hiya

IMO I would suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not a man is straight or gay that they would be less inclined to report it

Cheers

ZK

[injest]

interesting commentary on this issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/12/martin/index.html?iref=newssearch

CNN) -- When federal prosecutors in Virginia released details of the dogfighting charges against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, all hell broke loose.


Martin suggests the Vick case revealed the public and media care more about celebrity and animals than people.

 Folks were protesting, calling for him to be immediately kicked out of the league, and demanding long jail sentences for Vick and his co-defendants.

Many lawyers went on television and admitted that had Vick beat a girlfriend, shot or even murdered someone, he wouldn't have been slammed as hard as he was for the vicious acts committed against dogs.

I suppose those lawyers are right.

Just look at the case of Megan Williams. The 20-year-old West Virginia woman, Megan Williams, was kidnapped by six sadistic individuals and held in a mobile home.

They raped her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, made her drink from a toilet, stabbed her multiple times, and called the black woman a "nigger" every time they beat her.

Thank God she lived, and may be released from the hospital in a few days.  Watch the alleged victim's mother talk about hearing the news »

But it still raises the question: What causes such outrage and fervor in one case involving dogs and not another?

The same thing was said about the shocking details surrounding the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The two University of Tennessee students were on a date when they were carjacked by several men. They were taken to a house where they were held. Christopher was raped, doused with gasoline, shot and his body dumped on the side of a road.

Channon? She had a household cleaner poured down her throat and was later raped. She, too, was murdered.

Although the two were white and their alleged attackers black, police say race was not an element in this case.

These two cases are heinous and despicable. But why do we respond with speed to one case and not another? Is it celebrity? Or do we not have the same compassion for human beings as we do for dogs? Was the Vick case that more important?

Take, for example, the U.S. Senate floor speech of Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia.

Calling the allegations sadistic, Byrd thundered: "Barbaric! Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, across this broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

He later added: "I am confident the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."

So, Sen. Byrd, where is the floor speech for a woman from your own home state? Where is the outrage when a woman is viciously attacked?

This is when the media gets slammed. We've determined that Vick, Paris Hilton and the shenanigans of Lindsey Lohan are far more important than the viciousness of what took place in West Virginia and Tennessee.

But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

[

[injest]

and to save someone the trouble...

Roland Sebastian Martin[1], born November 14, 1968, is an African-American journalist and syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate, radio talk show host, and author of the Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America.[2][3] He frequently appears on Campbell Brown's No Bias, No Bull and Anderson Coopers, AC360 on CNN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_S._Martin

[Monika]

Hiya

IMO I would suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not a man is straight or gay that they would be less inclined to report it

Cheers

ZK

I hope you´re right, ZK