Of all the reams of material I’ve read about the Duke rape case, the raw news, the feminist, race, and class analysis, the anti-feminist rhetoric, the information on DNA testing, the meta-news about how the news is reporting the story, of all of it, the thing that resonates most clearly for me is the car theft analogy.
-
Sometimes people who report their cars stolen are lying, for their own reasons, be it fraud, malice, attention-seeking, or whatever.
-
Sometimes, a person consents to loan his car, and then accuses the borrower of theft. Such a case is ‘one person’s word against the other.’
-
Physical evidence of damage to the car isn’t proof of theft. It might merely prove vandalism. If I break your car window, and then someone else comes along and jacks the stereo, I am not a thief, am I? I’m just a vandal! Nonetheless, such evidence is considered significant.
-
Although there are numerous authorities advising you on how to avoid getting your car stolen, your lapses in following that advise aren’t all that pertinent to the theft investigation. If you left a package visible in the car, or if you parked on a dark side-street, your right to file a theft report would not be questioned.
-
Some car thiefs are joy-riding youngsters, often alcohol-fueld, and with no criminal background. This doesn’t prevent the theft from being treated as a crime, nor does it shift blame onto the victim.
