Prisoners cannot legally give their consent to have sex with corrections officers. Regardless of gender. Legally speaking, the corrections officers raped these prisoners (and we really have no idea of the details of these relationships and how coercive they might have been). I really cannot believe a site so…

And this article only gives the state's side here, and of course the state will say the inmate was the aggressor (as they have in situations where female inmates have reported rape and pregnancies by male CO's). It's poor journalism, especially by a site that claims to be anti-rape (I guess only when it fits their…

I don't mind a little blame being placed on the female CO's. But I think it's interesting that no one (on Gawker or Jezebel anyway) is considering that the female CO's may have very well been the aggressors in this situation. After all, the female CO's were in the position of power here, not the inmates. They had…

Artists should be able to reference and celebrate culture. Why do devout religious people have ownership on cultural symbols that have been recycled and appreciated in different ways? Perhaps Ms. Gomez was referencing this beautiful celebration of sensuality.

There's a pattern though. When the accused person is poor and not white, the media is much more likely to presume guilt than when he is rich and powerful (e.g., DSK). I think there's a way to report on a case like this that is respectful to the humanity of the alleged victim and also doesn't brand the accused (who…

But this man hasn't even been charged yet. The tone of this article is crazy.

It is a presumption in Indian courts as well. You're right that it doesn't apply when some one accuses another of an attack, but it does apply when the state accuses that person of an attack. When we have so few facts (all of which are from the state), I think it's unethical for a journalist to presume guilt. I…

The AP article is not sensationalized. Doug Barry/Jezebel's article is sensational. His article uses inflammatory language and clearly assumes this man's guilt (implicitly of rape, for which he is not even charged). I'm not pretending that I was there. I'm just pointing out that there is a thing called the presumption…

This man has not been proven guilty of any crime (nor has he been accused of committing rape) and you are already discounting him as a "rapist." Why is that okay?

I didn't read her other posts, so thought you were responding to mine. Apologies. But it might help others follow the conversation better if you responded to her posts where she engaged in victim blaming, not in this one?

Assumption of innocence =/= victim blaming.

It's not that the case has been blown out of proportion. It's that this article assumes guilt. I'm not saying the police shouldn't investigate this case, but it is possible there might not be a case there, upon further investigation.

I'm saying that the author of this article and the readers are presuming guilt. I'm saying that an explanation for this might be that they are more comfortable presuming guilty where the accused is a brown-skinned man. This isn't a crazy conclusion when you look at studies of racial bias in various criminal justice…

Under the law in India, you cannot convict someone of a crime unless the state proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (same as in the U.K., U.S., etc.). This means if the jury can infer innocence from the facts presented, a jury cannot find a defendant guilty. I think it's odd that this article presumes guilt…

This article is rather sensationalized. According to the police report (which likely mirrors the victim's story), the hotel owner didn't enter the room, meaning that there is likely insufficient evidence to prove attempted sexual assault (or attempted burglary or assault or anything). Also, wake up calls at that…