It's ALWAYS Her Fault

Uhm......I think you may be comparing apples and oranges on this one. (With regards to Vegas.) What the guy did in shooting the woman's lover was a classic case of a crime of passion, but I agree that it did not excuse him from what he did. However, her crying rape when in fact she was having an affair with the man HAS to be taken into account! There is simply no excuse for that. How many men have faced false prosecution by women that have claimed rape, when in fact, it was quite consensual? (If I am passionate about this, it is because I saw it happen to a friend. Thankfully, the woman confessed to lying.)

I would not have held her completely innocent for this man's death, if the facts as reported are true. I do however, feel that the husband should have been prosecuted. He could have chose a different option, though I understand his initial feelings.

Mr. Nighttime:

With all due respect, NO.

The husband was already firing before the wife said anything. Second, if it had been a rape, would it be OK for the husband to murder the lover? I personally don't think it would have.

Lying to cover up your own mistakes is wrong. But it doesn't make it OK for someone else to murder someone--unless you're in Texas, apparently.

The woman shouldn't have conducted the affair; she shouldn't have lied about the rape; but HE is who pulled the trigger. And the salient point here is not merely that she was prosecuted, but that he was NOT. All charges against him were dropped.

And it's part of a long history where men are forgiven for "crimes of passion," but women are not. I remember a case in the last decade or two where a man shot his wife and her lover after finding them in bed; he was convicted of murder, but the judge in charge of sentencing refused to give him any penalty, saying that his action was completely understandable. In other words, he got away with MURDER, though the judge lost his seat on the bench over it.

Women are prosecuted much more strenuously when they kill their husbands--even abusive husbands--than are men who kill their wives.

Furthermore, men's infidelity has historically been accepted while women's is condemned. Keep in mind that for CENTURIES a husband's infidelity was NOT grounds for divorce, but a wife's infidelity was. And in such a divorce, she lost EVERYTHING.

re: Vegas: Keep in mind that people claimed that the woman on stage appeared to return and enjoy the kiss. I am sure that people are also arguing that if she thought things were going wrong, it was her responsibility to stand up and leave the stage. In other words, it's her fault for not stopping things.

So I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges; I think I'm pointing out how patriarchy works in consistent ways to punish women more stringently and to exonerate even men who commit horrible crimes, if women or sex are involved in any way at all.

"he husband was already firing before the wife said anything."

This is not what was being suggested in the article. in fact, the paragraph that describes what happened reads as follows:

" He started shooting as a horrified Mrs. Roberson began saying she was raped. Arlington police charged Mr. Roberson with murder, and a detective testified that authorities never took out a warrant for Mrs. Roberson."

I would appear that he reacted as she said she was being raped, based on this description.

"Second, if it had been a rape, would it be OK for the husband to murder the lover? I personally don't think it would have."

I did not suggest, at any point, that it was ok. Please re-read what I wrote. I said quite plainly that the husband should have been prosecuted as well. Crime of passion or not, he should have chosen another action.

"The woman shouldn't have conducted the affair; she shouldn't have lied about the rape; but HE is who pulled the trigger. And the salient point here is not merely that she was prosecuted, but that he was NOT. All charges against him were dropped."

Again, I will reiterate what wrote. He should have been prosecuted, which would appear to have been originally what the detectives started out doing.

"Furthermore, men's infidelity has historically been accepted while women's is condemned. Keep in mind that for CENTURIES a husband's infidelity was NOT grounds for divorce, but a wife's infidelity was. And in such a divorce, she lost EVERYTHING."

I am quite familiar with all this. I just got finished acting in a staged reading of a screenplay, set in Iran, where a woman killed a man in self defense, when he was attempting to rape her and her sister. The woman in turn was prosecuted not just for murder, but for fornication, and a host of other crimes deemed as crimes against morality. This is typical in patriarchal religious societies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, but this is nothing new I am telling you. The screenplay was written by an Iranian-American woman named Ana Lilly Amirpour, and you can read about her here:

http://www.bluecatscreenplay.com/winner/2007_interview.php

"So I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges; I think I'm pointing out how patriarchy works in consistent ways to punish women more stringently and to exonerate even men who commit horrible crimes, if women or sex are involved in any way at all."

So what do you suggest? Do we automatically believe the woman's side of the story when a woman accuses a man of rape, infidelity, what-have-you, even if it is false, in order to maintain the balance of justice for past injustices? No, I think what is better is that justice demands that investigators be more vigilant in how they go about their business. It was quite clear that in this Texas case, they were not. There was blame to go around on both sides, and yes, the ultimate responsibility goes to the man who made the decision to pull the trigger.

As the article on the case clearly points out, the detectives did their job most thoroughly. It was one man, the judge, that overruled them and prosecuted the woman. Funny thing is, this is oh so similar to circumstances in Ms. Amirpour's screenplay, at least with regards to the power of judges to abuse their position.

"The husband was already firing before the wife said anything."

This is not what was being suggested in the article.

Yes it is. Read this:

Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

So what do you suggest? Do we automatically believe the woman's side of the story when a woman accuses a man of rape, infidelity, what-have-you, even if it is false, in order to maintain the balance of justice for past injustices?

Oh, good god, no. I definitely don't believe that two wrongs make a right. Instead, I am pointing out that the injustices of the past continue to be replicated by injustices in the present, rather than balanced by opposing sorts of injustices. It is WRONG that this woman has been convicted of a crime while her husband, who committed the worse crime, goes free. And as you are able to demonstrate that with the screenplay you mention, this is not a unique occurrence. Let me also stress that I am not talking about middle eastern societies when I mentioned the history of divorce; I'm talking about European society. OUR culture has historically meted out very different punishments for men's crimes and women's--and women's punishments are typically much more severe. I am pointing out that in this instance, there's no attempt to make up for past injustices; there's no attempt to change the pattern of past injustices.

I also have to disagree with Mr Nighttime's assessment of this situation. Being falsely accused of rape in a criminal or civil prosecution is not the same thing as what Tracy Roberson did. She cried out in a moment of evident fear and panic. I'm not even sure I could say that what she did was an error of judgement: who knows how we would have reacted at having an angry man pointing and shooting a 10mm gun at us? Would our judgement enter into it?

One of the remarkable aspects of this story is the way that what Tracy Roberson did under those circumstances was made into a crime. The article from the Dallas News that Holly links to quotes the prosecuting attorney as arguing:

"She will throw anyone under the bus," Mr. Colston said. "Imagine all the pain Tracy Roberson caused just because she wanted to do what Tracy Roberson wanted to do. She'll throw her husband under the bus. She'll throw [her daughter] under the bus. She'll throw Devin LaSalle under the bus."

In other words, in the view of the prosecution and, apparently, of the grand jury, Darrell Roberson is not a person; he's a bus. He's not an agent who makes choices and decisions, he's a machine that ought to have been avoided. The bus, lacking agency, cannot commit a crime; therefore, the crime must have been in getting in the way of the bullets it was spraying. It's an outrageous and dehumanizing claim made by the prosecution.

Which rather makes Holly's point about the double standard. The only place I kind of disagree with Holly is where you wrote: The woman shouldn't have conducted the affair; she shouldn't have lied about the rape. I don't know whether she should have lied about the rape. As I suggested above, I wouldn't want to try to make a judgement about her actions under these circumstances. Similarly, I don't think I would want to judge her on having an affair. Maybe this was a way to start to extricate herself from an evidently threatening relationship, I don't know. In any case, though, the only way the accusation of rape becomes a crime is because of the affair, which, however we might feel about it ethically, is not a crime. Tracy Roberson's affair, for which she may well go to prison now, becomes criminal only through the very injustices that Holly is pointing out here.

thank you, Spike, for that careful and insightful response. There's not a single thing for me to disagree with, really. Your statement that

The only place I kind of disagree with Holly is where you wrote: The woman shouldn't have conducted the affair; she shouldn't have lied about the rape. I don't know whether she should have lied about the rape. As I suggested above, I wouldn't want to try to make a judgement about her actions under these circumstances. Similarly, I don't think I would want to judge her on having an affair. Maybe this was a way to start to extricate herself from an evidently threatening relationship, I don't know.

is indeed a more generous and nuanced attempt to deal with the choices human beings make. I think I was writing with the benefit of hindsight: everything would have gone better had she not done those things, which I still believe pale in comparison with Mr. Roberson's pulling the trigger (which he also should not have done).

"She cried out in a moment of evident fear and panic."

Fear and panic? No doubt. Fear and panic at what though? Having been caught cheating, or fear of the gun being leveled at her and her lover? I suspect it is a combination of both.

"I'm not even sure I could say that what she did was an error of judgement: who knows how we would have reacted at having an angry man pointing and shooting a 10mm gun at us? Would our judgement enter into it?"

Well, as someone who has had a gun put to his face, (quite literally) I think I can speak to that.

You have one of several options, or at least I did. Taking a crap in your pants and hoping for the best, talking your way out of the situation, or attempting to defend yourself by disarming the person, as it might be the only option left.

What did I do? I was able to talk my way out of the situation, before my paramedic partner got the better of the guy and we were able to wrestle him to the ground. Personally, in the heat of the moment at that time, I was ready to shoot the son of a bitch with his own gun, but I made the choice not to.

"In other words, in the view of the prosecution and, apparently, of the grand jury, Darrell Roberson is not a person; he's a bus. He's not an agent who makes choices and decisions, he's a machine that ought to have been avoided. The bus, lacking agency, cannot commit a crime; therefore, the crime must have been in getting in the way of the bullets it was spraying. It's an outrageous and dehumanizing claim made by the prosecution."

I'm sorry but this argument holds no water. Instead of "under the bus," what if we used the metaphor "threw him to the wolves?" Would that be better? What if the prosecutor had said "She would throw anyone to the wolves?" Would Darrell have then been a wolf, a ravenous beast intent on killing? He then is no longer a machine, but a mindless animal, acting on instinct, but at least he's organic. You see what I am saying here? It is not the metaphor that the prosecution is using that matters. They were doing what they are being paid to do, make a case against someone that has been charged with a crime. What is the real crime is that the DA's office actually went forward with it. They could have simply dropped the charges against her, or at the very least, never brought it to the grand jury.

How many ways must I put this before someone gets it through their skull? WHAT HER HUSBAND DID WAS WRONG! HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED! HE MADE A POOR CHOICE! IT WAS THE JUDGE THAT MADE THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE HIM, BUT HER!

("But a Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict Mr. Roberson and indicted his wife instead, though police never presented grand jurors with evidence against the church volunteer and mother of three.")

She, however, also made a choice, like her husband, in the heat of the moment. It too was a poor choice. She chose to, by all accounts, (at least according to the press.) save herself, or at least try to by crying rape, and it played a role in costing a man his life. You can't simply toss it off with the argument that it is just another example of the system's bias against women. Had the judge not intervened, the system would have worked in her favor.

She needed to be held to account, but at the end of the day, I don't think that she should have had the same degree of culpability that the person pulling the trigger. Irrespective of whether or not the system is biased against women, at the end of the day, a guilty person has gone free.....The guy who killed Devin LaSalle.

.......and I screwed up, my bad, I wrote that wrong, I meant the grand jury........

I've also had someone wave a gun in my face. Fortunately it was not fired, but as I was female and alone, there's no way I could have wrestled the guy waving it to the ground and taken it from him; afterwards, I simply cried and hid.

How many ways must I put this before someone gets it through their skull? WHAT HER HUSBAND DID WAS WRONG! HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED! HE MADE A POOR CHOICE! IT WAS THE JUDGE THAT MADE THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE HIM, BUT HER!

First of all, judges do not make decisions on whom to prosecute; prosecuting attorneys make the initial decision, which in some cases must be approved by a grand jury. Judges can decide to throw out charges, but they cannot bring them. And judges cannot determine innocence or guilt in a murder trial; juries do that. So attributing this decision to a judge is not appropriate; the entire legal system of Texas is involved.

As to your question about "How many ways must I put this before someone gets it through their skull?" First of all, please don't come onto my blog and insult my intelligence if you want to remain welcome here; that's not part of being a good guest. I've tried not to insult you while disagreeing with you.

Secondly, all of us involved in this discussion get it, Mr. Nighttime, we all get it: you, me, Spike. But what Spike and I are pointing out is that although the three of us see that, the legal system in Texas did not. It decided that the husband was not culpable for a crime he committed; that instead the wife was criminally culpable; it has punished her and not him; and that this situation follows a long-standing pattern of injustice.

.......and I screwed up, my bad, I wrote that wrong, I meant the grand jury........

Your comment was posted while I was writing mine, so I didn't see it before I posted my comment about who does what in bringing charges. But I want to reiterate that there's an entire system in play here: grand juries aren't convened unless someone with authority asks for one; and grand juries don't convict.

Something else: determining culpability rather than a actual guilt is really want murder trials are for. My father was a lawyer who worked as a public defender for many years before becoming a judge. I remember him telling me once that the purpose of murder trials was rarely to decide whether or not the person on trial had killed the victim, as in the OJ case. Rather, it's usually pretty obvious who did the killing, as in this case, or the Matthew Shepard case. The purpose of the trial was therefore to determine criminal culpability, which was the basis on which punishment would be meted out.

Everyone knows who actually shot Devin LaSalle, but the one who did the shooting is not the one who is punished. We can agree ad nauseam about the fact that Darrell Roberson actually killed Devin LaSalle, because no one is disputing that. What becomes important, then, is who was ultimately determined to be culpable, and how that determination follows long-standing patterns in our history. And the fact is, that in crimes involving sex in any way, women are usually punished more than men. Prostitutes are punished more than johns or pimps; madams are punished more than pimps; women's infidelity is punished more than men's; and men who kills their adulterous wives are exonerated and excused in ways that a woman who did the same thing would NEVER be.

And I think one way to understand what's really important here is to imagine how things might play out if the genders were switched. Imagine, for instance, that Tracy Roberson had long-standing suspicions about her husband's fidelity and came home to find Darrell Roberson having sex in a truck. Imagine that when Tracy started firing her gun, Darrell Roberson had cried that he was being raped, that he'd been drugged and dragged out to the vehicle. Imagine that that Tracy had then put her gun to his lover's head and shot her.

Can you really imagine that he would have been put on trial instead of her? I admit that it's possible--but I nonetheless seriously doubt it, because that's not the way our system works.

Holly, re: grand juries:

Why did the grand jury even indict her, if there was no evidence brought against her? I have sat on a grand jury, and from my experience, there is no way we could have indicted a person for whom no evidence was presented, or even considered.

Texas is a strange state..................

Apologies, I should not have used the phrase "getting it through people's skulls." I do get very passionate about things sometimes and write what is at the top of my head first. I also get frustrated when I try to make a point, and it appears, at least to me, as being glossed over or ignored. (i.e. that it was the husband that is ultimately responsible.)

You point out correctly that more often then not, when it comes to cases such as prostitution, there is a disproportionate onus of responsibility placed upon the woman, rather than the john or pimp. Yes it is unfair.

"Can you really imagine that he would have been put on trial instead of her? I admit that it's possible--but I nonetheless seriously doubt it, because that's not the way our system works."

I think a lot of it depends on how things would be presented to the grand jury, which is why I am just dumbstruck as to how the grand jury in this case, when not presented with any evidence by the police with regards to his wife, chose to indict her over him. It makes zero sense to me. You may indeed be right, that a man may not be prosecuted with the same vigor as the woman was in this case, in almost identical circumstances. I hate to say this, but, the only way we're going to find out is if a situation like this does arise, and we can only hope that it doesn't.

AS for Matthew Sheppard, I acted in "The Laramie Project" back in 2000. Aside from a stunning piece of work, it offers insights into what happened during the trial. Without a doubt, the most difficult character I had to portray was Matthew Sheppard's dad, with the monologue I did directly lifted from his speech to the court at the sentencing of Matthew's killers. Indeed, there was no doubt as to who did the killing in that case, but what everyone seemed to be watching at the time was whether or not his killers would receive the same punishment for killing a gay man as opposed to the killing of a straight one. This was an issue that reared its head during the trial.

re: grand juries:

Why did the grand jury even indict her, if there was no evidence brought against her? I have sat on a grand jury, and from my experience, there is no way we could have indicted a person for whom no evidence was presented, or even considered.

I can't possibly answer that. It's incomprehensible to me as well.

I hate to say this, but, the only way we're going to find out is if a situation like this does arise, and we can only hope that it doesn't.

a possible comparison is Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafouco. He helped her enter prostitution and was happy to conduct the affair that led her to shoot his wife in the face. Fisher didn't even succeed in killing Mary Jo Buttafuoco--just paralyzed her and ruined her life--but she was still sentenced to 5-15 years in prison. Joey got six months for statutory rape; nothing about being an accessory to attempted murder.

R: Matthew Shepard--I picked that case because A) it's well-known and B) as you say, there was concern about whether or not the death of a gay man mattered as much as the death of a straight man. I think it's obvious that to the Mormon church, at least, it didn't: as you'll know from the Laramie Project, at least one of Matthew's killers was Mormon, and continued to receive visits from church members until they were convicted. I wrote something of my own on learning that; you can read it here.