Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, April 8,1983
i
opinion
Witness liability questioned
by Maxwell Glen
and Cody Shearer
America’s recent incidents of specta
tor rape have led some state legislators to
a seemingly logical conclusion: There
ought to be a law that makes witnesses at
least part culpable for sexual violence.
Yet proposals in the Massachusetts
and Rhode Island legislatures to fine or
imprison those who observe and then fail
to report a rape stumble on their simplic
ity. Simple solutions don’t necessarily
make for good law or effective deter
rents.
As with most Americans, the horrible
image of cheering rape-watchers at a
New Bedford, Mass., tavern is foremost
in the minds of Barbara Gray, a Mas
sachusetts state representative, and Glor
ia Kennedy Fleck, a Rhode Island state
senator. Gray and Fleck have sponsored
bills in their respective legislatures re
quiring witnesses of a rape to report it
within 24 hours or face one year in jail or
a fine of up to $1,000 ($500 in Rhode
Island). Gray’s bill would, in fact, cover
all violent crimes.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to have
nothing on the law books to address the
type of situation that allegedly took place
in New Bedford,” said Fleck, 33, who has
served in the Rhode Island legislature for
seven years.
Fleck modeled her proposal after a
two-year-old Rhode Island law that re
quires witnesses to report child abuse to
the police. Otherwise, models are few.
Some European countries, including
France and the Soviet Union, hold that
those who fail to assist someone in peril
can be imprisoned or fined. In this coun
try, only Vermont does and, according to
the state attorney general, it has never
even put its law to the test.
By contrast, Fleck said, the Rhode Is
land child abuse statute has led to two
convictions since its enactment. She adds
that her own conversations with law en
forcement officials, as a member of the
state senate’s judiciary committee, gave
her hope of obtaining more rape convic
tions and forestalling more New Bed
fords.
Yet the lack of precedent suggests the
difficulty of devising ways to round up
the witnesses. For one, different crimes
generally involve different circumst
ances. Child abuse prosecutions, for ex
ample, practically demand evidence of
harsh physical and emotional abuse over
an extended period of time. Rape is more
a crime of the moment. While the trans
gressions are equally egregious, they
place dissimilar demands on a witness’
judgement and sense of responsibility to
alert the authorities.
Moreover, some witnesses are better
observers than others. Witnesses who
come to the fore simply out of fear of
prosecutions won’t necessarily speed the
pursuit of justice. Those “who come for
ward due to some requirement of the law
don’t always make the best witnesses,” the
Essex County (Mass.) district attorney
told The Boston Globe. “We would pre
fer to have people who at the outset de
cide to be cooperative.”
Such practical problems may only add
up to a fundamental constitutional di
lemma in the Massachusetts and Rhode
Island bills. Does an individual have a
constitutional responsibility to report a
crime, or simply a moral one? If put to
the test, too many courts would say the
latter. Even when a criminal act can incite
a cheering crowd, the law should defer to
those whose obligations are less than
clear.
This isn’t a pleasing judgement to
those of us who see New Bedford as a
dangerously, and possibly contagiously,
bad example. Only two years ago, a Uni
versity of California survey disclosed that
35 percent of all men interviewed said
they might rape a woman if they were
confident of not being caught or
punished. In the face of such statistics,
our society hangs by a thread of social
propriety.
But the New Bedford incident and
others like it would best serve as shock
treatment for a nation that too often
shuffles its feet on sexual violence.
Letters: Gay genetics and abortion
Editor:
In my “Technology and Human
Values class,” we had a discussion recent
ly about homosexuality. Many students
argued that homosexuality was not nor
mal, nor moral. They used the same old
cliches that have been used over and over
again within the context of their argu
ments. It is funny to note that a few, not
all, of these students like to refer to the
Bible when they argue such moral issues.
As a noncomitted person to the issue
of homosexuality, I was wondering if
somebody could answer this question for
me:
It has been pointed out that most “sci
entists” do not know if homosexuality is
genetic or psychological. If in four years,
or so, some “scientists” discover it to be a
genetic situation; and within the next 10
years, or so, (that would be approximate
ly six years after the first discovery) some
“scientists” found a way to test the genetic
structure of a six-week-old fetus and that
fetus was found to have the genetic struc
ture of a homosexual — male or female
— would it then be all right for the
mother to have an abortion?
Stephen Weiss ’84
Sex discrimination
Editor:
The only fault I can find regarding
Ephraim Seidman’s letter in Thursday’s
edition is that he apparently does not
know that this is one of those parts of the
world where attempts to limit expression
are acceptable, at least to some.
I hope he got a chance to see Ronald
Claiborne’s letter at the bottom of the
same page in which tha author demons
trated his great tolerance for divergent
opinion by suggesting that if one desires
to attend a “great” university which (oh,
horrors!) has women (gasp!) in the band,
then that person ought to avail him/her
self of the only viable option existing —
skip town for good. It is reassuring to
know that people of Mr. Claiborne’s cali
ber are looking out for our interests. You
know, I guess sex discrimination is fun
ny, especially when it permeates tradi
tional structures. Rest easy, Mr. Seidman.
There are good Ags watching over you.
Lain Ellis
306 Francis
Yankee thanks
Editor:
I had the pleasure of visiting your
campus last week and wanted to tell you
how impressed I was with the people.
Everyone was so nice, friendly and made
this “Connecticut Yankee” feel right at
home.
I would like to particularly thank my
good friend Warren “Spider” Simpson
and the members of the Department of
Health and Physical Education who
made my stay even more enjoyable and
rewarding. If ever any of you all drift into
New Haven, please feel free to give me a
call.
Thank you.
Ned Burt,
President of Burt, Simpson,
Brachocki & Kaiser
Ads elsewhere
Editor:
In my opinion, the letters to the editor
should be addressed to pertinent issues
that relate to Aggie students and faculty.
I believe that it is inappropriate to in
clude lost and found ads in this section. If
the lost and found column in the classi
fieds seems insufficient, perhaps a lar
ger, more noticeable column would be
more effective.
Mary Ann Wiley ’86
Berry s World
\NHeTn6F. O' IS NOgUgf?.
1b SOffCK Tag. SnrA<2rS
A^P AK^OWS OP OUT"
RAseous TAxes, or.
:o
Reagan: Loyalty
to all appointees
by Helen Thomas
United Press International
WASHINGTON — President Reagan is
known as a “loyalist” to his appointees.
He sticks with them until the die is cast and
he can no longer lend his support to a losing
cause. But even then he has yet to admit a
mistake in his appointments. And he often
finds another government sinecure for those
who fall by the wayside.
In the case of his predecessor, Jimmy Car
ter, all allegations, right or wrong, seemed to
rub off on his White House. His aides were a
closely knit group. They had made the long
march with him from Georgia and they were a
family.
But then they could be counted on one
hand: chief of staff Hamilton Jordan, press
secretary Jody Powell, and before he was
forced to resign, budget director Bert Lance.
Allegations against Lance for his banking
practices, Billy Carter’s personal problems
and Libyan connections, and the troubles of
Dr. Peter Bourne, his drug abuse expert,
added to Carter’s woes.
Throughout his presidency, Carter had to
contend with one shoe falling after another
under the relentless spotlight and publicity
attending the allegations.
The bad luck followed him in his close re
lationships with family and staffers.
Not so for Reagan, who manages to escape
any taint when the activities of some of his
appointees come into question. And yet many
more of them have had troubles in public
service.
Although the Reagan White House laid
down the controversial policies for the En
vironmental Protection Agency — particular
ly in terms of dealing with business with a
lighter hand on matters of pollution and toxic
wastes — the president has not been faulted
for the fate that has befallen former EPA
Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, and
several other top-level assistants.
One of them, Rita Lavelle, director of the
toxic wastes division, was fired under a cloud
of allegations.
At least two of the EPA assistantswto
forced to resign their positions in the)
moved over to the Energy Departmem
they were given jobs as consultants.(k I'Thc
described the department as a “duiijtoges
ground” for EPA staffers who hadbetMlworl
out.
Among the several appointees win
been subjected to public scrutiny art
recently Thomas C. Reed, who heldtk
of assistant for national security:
although he allegedly profited front
information on a stock trade.
Among others forced out of the
House was former national securityal
Richard V. Allen for accepting a$l,0()(
a Japanese magazine that had beengt
an interview with Nancy Reagan. Alltt
added to the Foreign IntelligenceAdnI
panel, and he has become the foreignpl
expert on the Republican National(f
mittee.
Publicity has also focused on Will
Casey for failing to disclose his holdiitjt
comply with other financial regulatios
fore he became CIA director.
Former Reagan aide Dennis E. LtHI
who earns $58,500 a year as directoro!
National Telecommunications Offices.
Commerce Department, still accompaae
president on his trips to his mounni
ranch near Santa Barbara, Calif., to
Reagan chop wood and clear brush.
In most cases, Reagan has
against the critics and has stronglydefe
his appointees as victims.
He told Mrs. Burford thatshecould
with her “head high,” and since thenhii
he never would have asked her tote
agency. He also blamed environment)!
tremists” for the upheaval at EPAandj
ped that they would like to turn thet
House into a “bird’s nest.”
In short, Reagan fights backandisloil
drop anyone until his top White Housot
tell him the handwriting is on the wallaf
has to cut his losses.
In such cases, his aloofness and del
style of governing serves him in
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
,. Member ot
Texas Press Association ,
Southwest Journalism Conference
Editor Diana Sultenfuss
Managing Editor Gary Barker
Associate Editor Denise Richter
City Editor Hope E. Paasch
Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton
Sports Editor John Wagner
Assistant Sports Editor John Lopez
Entertainment Editor Colette Hutchings
Assistant Entertainment Editor. . . . Diane Yount
News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer,
Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom,
Shelley Hoekstra, JohnaJo Maurer,
Jan Werner, Rebeca Zimmermann
Staff Writers
Melissa Adair, Maureen Carmody,
Frank Christlieb, Connie Edelmon,
Scott Griffin, Patrice Koranek, Robert
McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim
Schmidt, Karen Schrimsher, Patti
Schwierzke, Kelley Smith, Angel
Stokes, Joe Tindel, Kathy Wiesepape
Copyeditor JanSwaner
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artists Pam Starasinic
Sergio Galvez Thompson, Fernando
Andrade
Photographers David Fisher, Guy Hood,
Eric Lee, Irene Mees,
Barry Papke, William Schulz
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community service to Te0 , l
University and Bryan-College Station. Opiiw# 1
pressed in The Battalion arc those ol the editor
author, and do trot necessarily represent thcopirix 1
Texas AXrM University administrators 01 fecuM
Ircrs, or of the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratorynetifi
for students in reporting, editing and photograph'
ses within the Department of Communications.
Questions or comments concerning am tS 1
matter should be directed to the editor.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300"
length, and are subject to being cut if they are
The editorial stall reserves the right toeditleUe 1 *
style and length, but will make every effort to nii [lS
the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed'
show the address and phone number of the
Columns anti guest editorials are also welcome 1
are not subject to the same length constraints as It* 1
Address all inquiries and correspondence to:
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas AIWI'
versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (7131^
2611.
The Battalion is published daily during Texas
fall and spring semesters, except for holiday ande*
nation periods. Mail subscriptions are J16.75perse 91
ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Ad 1 '
tising rates furnished on tequest.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed
Building, Texas A&M University, College Stalior
77843.
United Press International is entitled exdusi't!'
the use for reproduction of all news dispatcheserfdt
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter Im®
reserved.
Second class postage paid at College Station, 1
77843.