I've been loosely following the Jerry Sandusky rape and sexual abuse trial. Since I have not been obsessively following the coverage, I don't have a whole lot to say about how the prosecution is handling the case. I do, however, have an issue with how the mainstream media has been covering the trial.
It all started when I read this article at FoxNews from Reuters reporter Ian Simpson. (I don't know how I keep ending up at FoxNews; I blame Google News.) The first thing that struck me was how offensive the idea was that the defense would be introducing testimony claiming Sandusky's letters to his victims were the product of his histrionic personality disorder, not pedophilia. What bothers me about this is pretty obvious--just because he had a personality disorder does not excuse his abusive behavior toward minors.
What really struck me, though, was later in the short article. Simpson writes:
Prosecutors allege Sandusky had physical contact with the boys over a 15-year period that ranged from tickling and a "soap battle" in Pennsylvania State University football showers to oral and anal sex.Emphasis mine. Now, the defense attorneys are simply doing their jobs by digging up ridiculous excuses for the alleged sexual predator. Simpson, on the other hand, is not doing his job; he is misleading the public by not calling rape rape. The prosecutors are not alleging that Sandusky had sex with anyone: they are alleging that he raped and sexually assaulted minors. Assault and rape are not interchangeable with sex.
(So much more after the jump.)
